Talk:Council of Chalcedon

message: When becoming ordained in the Anglican Communion, the ordinate must take a vow subscribing to the first 7 ecumenical councils, which would include the Chalcedonian Council of 451.  It is, therefore, also accepted by the Anglican Communion.
:My impression, via the Thirty Nine Articles, was that generally only the first four (1st Nicaea to Chalcedon) were recognized as Ecumenical Councils. Could you cite your source on the claim that ordinates vow subscribing to the Seven Ecumenical Councils? Deusveritasest (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican's relationship to Chalcedon 

message: Article XXI
Of the authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. 
From the above, the authority of this and other Councils is subordinated to the Holy Scriptures. Hence, there are parts of the Council of Chalcedon that may be accepted by Anglicans, and other parts, e.g., "Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him," from a letter by Pope Leo to Flavian, read in Session 2 of the Council) that cannot be confirmed from Holy Scripture.  
Lojahw (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican 39 Articles of Religion

message: Nestorianism did not end at Chalcedon, but continued for many centuries in Mongolia, Tibet and China. The section on Nestorianism is therefore  not WP:NPOV. m.e. 07:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is clearly eurocentric on this matter. Too many descriptions of church history forget that there were plenty of Christians living outside of the Roman Empire. The ecumenical councils were only authoratative within the Empire. Antiochian christology continued to develop within the Church of the East, and Nestorius was honoured. — Gareth Hughes 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You're saying that the Georgian Church has never been part of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Communion? Or that it has never been a part of the (Non-Chalcedonian) Oriental Orthodox Communion? Deusveritasest (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nestorianism 

message: One is needed to show that the Church of Georgia was at one time part of the Oriental Orthodox Church. Next, a citation is needed to show that "a part of the Armenian Church was a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church". Deusveritasest (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a little over two weeks since I noted that a citation was needed, and as such will remove the statements about the Georgian and Armenian churches. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Citations Needed 

message: A citation is needed to prove that Saint Cyril, in a dogmatic form, stated that it is incorrect to speak of two natures after the union. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That anathema only addresses my concern if nature is asserted as certainly meaning the same thing as hypostasis or if "two natures after the union" is proven to be inherently divisive to the Incarnate hypostasis. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Saint Cyril's Christology 

message: Isn't the very first statement of the article "The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council." a violation of NPOV? I know that some Oriental Orthodox would identify the Second Council of Ephesus as the fourth Ecumenical Council, whereas most of them as well as all of the Assyrian Church of the East would claim that there never was a fourth Ecumenical Council. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth Ecumenical Council 

message: Why is the Old Catholic Church referenced in the second line of the article? This church did not emerge until the 1870s, according to the hyperlinked Wikipedia article. Should the reference be removed, or does it perhaps make reference to some other branch of Catholicism?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Yak (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Catholic Church

message: There's a problem with the last paragraph...
:After the passage of the Canon 28, Rome filed a protest against the reduction of honor given to Antioch and Alexandria. However, growing concerns that withholding Rome's approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 he confirmed the council’s canons with a protest against the 28th.
"Rome filed a protest" but "he confirmed the council's canons"
Who does "he" refer to? 
Also "growing concerns that...".  This phrasing is awkward.  It should be "amid growing concerns..." or "because of growing concerns...."
--Richard (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Constantinople 

message: A "citation needed" was added to the claim about Oriental Orthodox agreeing in faith with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I know both of these statements to actually be of a certain amount of substance and not pulled out of thin air. I will cite a few sources in this post and wait for people to respond before I add them to the article. Here is a website with the list of agreed statements in the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Joint Commission: Orthodox Unity. The next is a common declaration between Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III and Roman Pope Paul VI: Coptic and Roman. Finally, here is a selection of various agreed statements of Oriental and Roman from the Syriac Orthodox Church: Syriac Orthodox w/ Roman.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusveritasest (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement in Faith 

message: I get the distinct impression that the people who ultimately rejected the council, did, indeed attend it, but it got rejected for whatever reasons after they got back home. There is a story in Non-Chalcedonian about minority this majority that. Which seems like weasel words BTW but that is their story and they are sticking to it. Shouldn't the record show here that non-Chalcedonians attended and a summary of the non-chalcedonian article? (Then remove from "see also" where I just put it). Student7 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement about the Non-Chalcedonians attending Chalcedon and later rejecting it is untrue for not one but two classes of Non-Chalcedonians. For one, your impression that all of the bishops present at Chalcedon accepted the findings is simply false. As a matter of fact, the last canon of the council indicates that the Egyptian bishops refused to ratify the findings of the council en masse in the midst of the council itself. The only reason that the Oriental Orthodox can claim any sort of unbroken continuation to their tradition is because there was always a group of believers even up to the episcopal level who never accepted the Council of Chalcedon. Further, there were pockets of the church that had not direct involvement in the council who later rejected it on the basis of comparison to their own previous traditions. The Armenians are a great example. So yes, the record certainly does show that there were some who attended who did not accept the council. As a matter of fact, one of the most famous among them, Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria, was one of the primary focuses of the council itself. (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that there has been any council that was accepted by 100% of the people who actually attended. This is why for large groups, "consensus" is not defined as 100%. That doesn't mean that the council did not take place for the people who didn't care for the outcome. Or who repudiated it after they got home and discovered that it wasn't popular. The latter is a non-council issue, however, not council ones.Student7 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-chalcedonian

message: The present version represents a Roman or ultra-Romanist perspective, possibly taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia, by that claiming the council was convened by a pope. The account generally accepted by secular historians is that it was convened (like each of the first seven oecumenical councils) by the Byzantine emperor. In this case the emperor, Marcian, acted under the influence of his wife, the Augusta Pulcheria, sister of the previous emperor Theodosius II, who had favored the other (monophysite) side. There are very full accounts in Gibbon (whose discussion in the Decline and Fall is particular memorable), Bury, Vasiliev, and others.173.61.149.232 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And? The article does say that the Council was convened by the emperor: "Leo had pressed for it to take place in Italy, but Emperor Marcian instead called for it to convene at Nicaea. Hunnish invasions forced it to move at the last moment to Chalcedon". Another sentence ("The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, [...]") seems to say that it was the Patriarch of Constantinople who asked the emperor to convene the Council. Are there any other problems? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is almost heartwarming how someone can speculate about an article being based on the Catholic Encyclopedia and cry foul and then go on and suggest we look to Gibbon, a pre-critical book from the 18th century. Fact is that there is no neat and tidy way such Councils are convoked. It was a collaboration of Emperor, Pope and Patriarch. Str1977 (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who convened the council? 

message: The box at the top of the article as of 1/23/12 goes far beyond any consensus that I can see.  The article does have substantial room for improvement, but I don't think it is true that "the whole piece needs to be replaced by a new entry" and most of the editors on the talk page don't seem to think so either.  I will leave the box in place for the moment pending comments, but if no one can provide a good justification for it then I will remove it. Kevin Nelson (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one else has made any comments on this issue, I have removed the rewrite box.  Since it does raise some potentially serious issues, I am preserving the content of that box by pasting it here:
Kevin Nelson (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text: My two cents: An article about a religious meeeting occuring a millenia ago, based on an article a century old, is not, by that statement, proved to be obsolete. Definitely in physics and computer science, maybe in mathematics, but not clearly in theology or history! Thanks for removing box! Student7 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Box at top of article

message: The IP 216.165.1.67 has edited several articles without explanation including this one but the purpose of the edits seems clear: to include Anglicanism within Protestantism.  So far as describing religious movements is concerned, the basic guideline in Wikipedia seems to be that their own self-understanding should be respected, hence the description of "Christian" applied to the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses despite the recurring objections of editors who would restrict the adjective to groups which, among other doctrines, hold to Nicene trinitarianism and Chalcedonian christology. In the case of Anglicanism it is almost a commonplace that it is some form of half-way house between Catholicism and Protestantism.  For example,
# "[Anglicanism claims to] possess a religious outlook distinguishable from that of other Christian bodies both Catholic and Protestant"(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 1974, art. Anglicanism);
# "Having both Catholic and Protestant features, the Anglican Church ..."(New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, art. England, Church of;
# About forty or fifty years ago, the "Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America" authorised the practice of omitting the adjective "protestant" from its name in general use. (See Episcopal Church (United States)#Official names.)
Many more quotations along the same lines could be found but I hope these are sufficient. I have therefore reverted the changes here and will try to do so elsewhere. Jpacobb (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglicanism & Protestantism 

message: I restored the mention of these two denominations for the following reasons. (1) Ever since the Oxford Movement which began in in 1833, an increasing number of Anglicans have been unhappy about classing Anglicanism as a protestant denomination, the standard formula today would seem to be "both Catholic and Protestant" and in this particular field where some sort of self-understanding is clearly stated it takes precedence over other view points  [The obvious cases here are the claims of Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses to be classed as "Christian" which are accepted on Wiki but which many "mainstream" thinkers would question or deny.]  (2) There are a number of different understandings of the word "Protestant".  To some people it is virtually synonymous of fundamentalist or evangelical: German-speaking Lutherans prefer "evangelische" which is by no means a synonym of the English "evangelical". Jpacobb (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglicans and Lutherans 

message: The article states:
"The judgements and definitions of divine nature issued by the council marked a significant turning point in the Christological debates that led to the separate establishment of the church in the Western Roman Empire during the 5th century"
What denomination is "the church" that is mentioned there? That should be clarified. - KitchM (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks it too obvious to clutter the text with, but since you don't, go ahead and edit it in. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church? 

message: Substituted at 12:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Council of Chalcedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613053629/http://cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp46.htm to http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp46.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130110112941/http://www.aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/ to http://www.aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me the line 'A minority of Christians do not agree with the council's teachings' could be improved, particularly as it is in the lead. From my perspective, the language minimizes those who does Christians who do not agree with the council. Maybe a better statement might be "While the majority of Christians follow the council's teachings, those that disagreed would become the Oriental Orthodox churches." Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see anything wrong with that line. It is objectively true. Those who disagree with Chalcedon are indeed a minority. This fact does not in any way disparage the Oriental Orthodox. Minorities can be correct. Majorities can be wrong. Referring to a minority as a minority does not imply that its theological stance is incorrect. Ohff (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor language question/neutrality 

message: , I am confused as to the purpose of your recent reverts. For one, the purpose of the lead is to provide a general overview of the subject at hand. It should give the reader the general idea without getting into too much detail. As long as my edits are true (you haven't said that they aren't), you shouldn't revert them simply because they don't cover all the details you want. If my edits have left something out that you feel is important to have in the lead but are still true in fact, either leave it alone or add the few extra words yourself. A novel concept. Right now, the lead contains no details on what the council actually defined aside from linking to another article. That is a big problem. Either go with what I wrote or add a few words or sentences if you think there's something missing.
Also, the dogma of the Son being consubstantial to the Father was developed centuries earlier by Tertullian and codified at Nicaea. I'm not sure why we need to say it here. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for more detail in the lead. That's why we have blue links. To re-state the entire Definition in the lead would undermine the rationale for a separate article for the Definition. Do you propose to merge the two articles? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't propose merging. Per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." There's no summary taking place if we totally ignore what the Council actually did. The entire purpose of the lead is undermined if we refuse to provide even a brief summary lasting no more than a sentence or two of what the Council taught. I'm not proposing to restate "the entire Definition." That's what we have the longer article for, and to a lesser extent the body of this one. But a sentence or two isn't too much to ask. BTW, I suppose we can include the consubstantial part, as that was part of the Definition. Display name 99 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Consubstantial is covered in "and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis". And yes it's an important part of the Definition otherwise it would be open to the charge of Sabellianism. The Definition cannot be selectively quoted. Quote it in its entirety or don't quote it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Council of Chalcedon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230235329/http://www.anastasis.org.uk/holy_fathers.htm to http://www.anastasis.org.uk/holy_fathers.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I appreciate the efforts of editor "84.83.56.208" to provide an Oriental Orthodox counterpoint to the prevailing understanding of the Council of Chalcedon. However, given that their edits added six major paragraphs with blatantly non-neutral language, and their minority viewpoint now dominates the lede paragraph and the rest of the article, I don't think the current article reflects Wikipedia policy.
I am reverting the edits, though I hope that the added content can be salvaged with more neutral language and organization.
--PublicolaMinor (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral language 

message: I read the Council of Chalcedon Wikipedia entry, and unsurprisingly noted that it contained the usual text and resources on the subject. I have found it important that in this particular subject, to add the point of view from the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. It is important to note that The See of Alexandria, being one of the pioneering Churches during that time (pioneer in context of Theology, thoughts, spiritual writings, and framing up discussions in the Early Councils), was not a minority - and including writings from this Church is extremely important to offer a proper assessment of the events that may have taken place. Having sources not from the non-Chalcedonian Churches risks missing out on a major participant and a key party in the Early Church. I am reverting the changes again. If you have any specific inquiries on specific sections, kindly raise these, and I am happy to discuss or provide evidence to the material.  Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbisada (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephant in the room? 

message: I notice that the lead section of this article fails to give a summary of the council itself and instead focuses on details of the content in sections 2, 'Acceptance' and 3, 'Theological background'. I suggest that the lead section be shortened and made more representative of the article as a whole, so that it "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents" (MOS:LEAD). I also think the material in the lead section may give an unbalanced summary of the controversies covered in the article, but that is secondary to the main problem, in my opinion. I am also, as a member of the EOC, declaring a conflict of interest here. Maximilian Aigner (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section not adequate 

message: Why is the miracle of Euphemia not mentioned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemia#Miracle_during_the_Council_of_Chalcedon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.77.35 (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracle of Euphemia 

message: In the introduction, this is stated:
"The principal purpose of the council was to re-assert the teachings of the ecumenical Council of Ephesus against the teachings of Eutyches and Nestorius."
I think this is a serious misreading of the mentioned source (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm). The ecumenical Council of Ephesus (Ephesus I, 431 AD), was not against Eutychus, but against Nestorius.
The principal purpose of Chalcedon is therefore not to reaffirm Ephesus I, but it is against Eutychus and the monophysites. 81.82.254.20 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The principal purpose?