Talk:Chalcedonian Christianity

Question

What does "Dyophysitic" mean under "Chalcedonian" entry?

Seems to refer to the dual nature of Christ, fully divine and fully human.

Import of this page

This article seems, to me, to largely serve as a support article to the Council of Chalcedon, hypostatic union, and monophysitism. As such, I tried to provide all the pertinent information, without duplicating everything on those pages. I see no reason to "re-invent the wheel," and have directed links to where more in-depth info can be found for those who are interested. 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just added one tilde too many. -- Pastordavid 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Chalcedonian?

Are the majority of churches Chalcedonian? In my experience the majority of Protestant churches (which would also be the majority of overall churches, even if not the majority of Christians) don't recognize any of the great councils. Being "Chalcedonian" would seem to infer that one recognizes the Council of 451. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.184.155 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the majority of mainline protestant churches do accept the decrees of the first four ecumenical councils. Add up Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist (I'm probably missing some in there), and you have the vast majority of the world's Christians. Pastordavid 13:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that many Protestants will not admit to allegiance to the Council of Chalcedon, it is the reality that the vast almost ALL Christians who did not break from the main body of the Church before the Council of Chalcedon will subscribe precisely to the Christology promoted at the Council. The only two major bodies who have traditionally not held entirely to Chalcedonian theology are the Assyrian Church of the East (which [rejecting even the Council of Ephesus] wavers on the side of emphasizing the twoness of Christ more than Chalcedon) and the Oriental Orthodox Church (which wavers on the side of emphasizing the oneness of Christ more than Chalcedon). Deusveritasest (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Chalcedonianism"

I just did a search for "Chalcedonianism" and found that there wasn't even an article under that name. I think it would be helpful to create an article by that name and simply have it redirect to this article. Does anyone here agree? Deusveritasest (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Chalcedonian?

Does a person qualify as a Chalcedonian merely if they accept the Definition of the Faith offered at Chalcedon or must a person accept the Council wholesale, including the Tome of Leo, the deposition of Dioscorus, and finally the restoration of Theodoret of Cyrrus and Ibas of Edessa? Deusveritasest (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypostatic union

This statement: "Those who held to the non-Chalcedonian Christologies called the doctrine of the hypostatic union dyophysite." at the end of the article is highly erroneous. The doctrine of the hypostatic union was really formulated by Cyril of Alexandria and confirmed at the Council of Ephesus, 20 years before Chalcedon. If anything, the Non-Chalcedonians viewed the doctrine of the hypostatic union as inherently Miaphysite and condemned the Chalcedonians for perverting that very doctrine. Thus to say that the Oriental Orthodox called the hypostatic union dyophysite is absurd and is showing a grievous misunderstanding of what the doctrine of the hypostatic union actually is. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcedonian → Chalcedonian Christianity — "Chalcedonian" is an adjective, and according to our naming conventions, adjectives should redirect to nouns. Jafeluv (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — note that the lead is going to need some copy editing, as well. If you read the wole thing it's clear that this name change is a good idea, and part of the reason why is that the first part of the lead is (currently) written to support the dicdef style of the (current) article title.
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chalcedonian Christianity

The vast majority of systems of thought within Christianity do not take this form of "(adjective) Christianity" but rather take the form "(adjective)ism" or sometimes "(adjective) Church". Why should this article be the exception? I personally suggest that this article be moved to "Chalcedonianism". Deusveritasest (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Reasons to doubt the neutrality of specific sentences are given in the hidden text. In general, the recent and highly debatable "discovery" that the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian division is basically meaningless is aggressively promoted as fact, despite the many centuries of struggles along these divisions. No source is cited for the claim that this opinion is prevalent in academia. See, on the other hand, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, 1971, pp. 133-143 for evidence of very real doctrinal differences, as an Indian Miaphysite theologian considers the Chalcedonian wording to be unacceptably evocative of Nestorianism, andthe 6th council to have practically heretical implications.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Opposed, page not moved Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcedonian Christianity → Chalcedonianism — All other articles about a system of Christian thought appear to be in the latter format: "Catholicism", "Eutychianism", "Nestorianism", "Apollinarianism", "Pelagianism", "Unitarianism", "Non-Chalcedonianism", etc. I cannot really think of any others that take the form of "______ Christianity" except for "Orthodox Christianity", and that is obviously done for the purpose of distinguishing from Orthodox Judaism. —Deusveritasest (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The noun-form simply does not appear to be in common use - compare 600 gbookhits vs 1900 for the adjective [1], and most of these are for "neo-C" and "anti-C". There is no church, denomination or heresy usually so called, unlike the examples given above. Note the move discussion only last September. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am appealing simply to the practice of Wikipedia. And I showed evidence that it is the case that many like articles are listed in the form of "______ism". So why isn't that reason enough to change, simply for the sake of intra-Wiki conformity? Deusveritasest (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readers don't really care about intra-wiki conformity. What they care about is that articles are found under recognizable titles. That's why we're supposed to use the the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. Jafeluv (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not encyclopedic

An encyclopedia article must, by definition, be readable by literate people who have no prior expertise in the subject they are looking up. This article, on the other hand, is gibberish to anyone who is not already a well-read scholar on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.145 (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chalcedonian Christianity. 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/20080619122112/http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php to http://www.britishorthodox.org/113e.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcedonian Christianity → Chalcedonianism – This artical was under "Chalcedonian" from its inception until "Chalcedonian Christianity" from 2009 until now. A proposal for "Chalcedonianism" in 2010 was opposed. However, I'm making a renewed proposal now. It could merit a reconsideration. First of all, the original "Chalcedonian" title would more strictly pertain to "Chalcedonianism" with today's article title standards. WP:CONCISE: It is shorter. WP:PRECISE: It pertains mainly to a subject of Christology, and not widely accepted as a coherent religion per se, which precurrent title almost seems to indicate. A relief of the superflouous suffix would permit it to more readily deal with disputes along axises of both theology and ecclesiology. Furthermore, per WP:CONSISTENCY with Non-Chalcedonianism - arguably both articles should follow the same title formula, and the hypothetical "Non-Chalcedonian Christianity" indicates the absurdity of applying that congruent formula to both. Notably, the proposal would also be in consistency with wiktionary:Chalcedonianism, as well as French Wikipedia: fr:Chalcédonisme. To complicate the matter, Chalcedonianism is defined by the Chalcedonian Definition, why perhaps the latter should after all be split with part merge here and part merge into Council of Chalcedon. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not seeing the need - no ngram produced. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hate to break the rhyme with Nicene Christianity. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disaster page

I unfortunately had to remove the majority of this page as it was almost entirely historical misinformation espoused by no one, not even the biased parties involved in the ongoing dispute about Chalcedon. I provided reasons in the edit summaries for each section I removed and if anyone has any questions as to why I removed a section, or desires that I prove that removal of such was appropriate, I ask that it be discussed here before blatant fiction is restored to what is meant to be an encyclopedic entry. A quick read-over of any credible source on the Council of Chalcedon and the results thereof will demonstrate that everything I changed and removed was not only justified but necessary, and I will be happy to demonstrate this with a multitude of unbiased resources should anyone seek to re-expand what has unfortunately by necessity become a stub article with the same misinformation I removed. Ysys9 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for deletion or complete rewrite of page

I would like to suggest that a more experienced editor than myself take a look at my edits, see that they were appropriate, and consider removing this page and making it a redirect to a page that covers the Council of Chalcedon. If deletion of the article is deemed inappropriate, please let me know via this talk page or on my own, and I will gladly rewrite the article.

However, as it currently stands, this page is not very useful after the removal of the disinformation. It is merely a stub without much substance.

I am not sure if re-writing or deletion is appropriate, which is why I appeal to more experienced editors than myself. Ysys9 (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a proper definition of Chalcedonian doctrine in place of a removed erroneous one as a potential first step towards the rework of this article Ysys9 (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]