Talk:Council of Chalcedon

Anglican's relationship to Chalcedon
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)

Anglican 39 Articles of Religion
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)lojahw

Nestorianism
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)

I believe the article references Nestorianism within the Eastern Orthidox Church's official stated beliefs, rather than the beliefs of the world as a whole, or members within the church. I came upon this page by chance, so I am not versed on the history of the Eastern Orthidox Church, but by the wording and what I know of general Christian history this would seem to be the case. The Catholic Church also had periods similar to what you describe, where the church's official stated beliefs differed from segments of it's membership, ultimatly leading to the Protestant Revolution--Scorpion451 19:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

the Goeorgian Orthodox Church has never been part of the Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox communion


 * 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)

2 Citations Needed
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)


 * 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)

On Saint Cyril's Christology
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)

This is a bit hard to nail down to a single quote but perhaps a sufficient citation would be to anathema 3. "If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ..." There is an easily accessible translation of the Anathemas at NewAdvent. Does anyone think another or more citations would be needed/helpful? Neotertullian (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Fourth Ecumenical Council
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)

Old Catholic Church
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) Oops. Never mind. On rereading, I understand the reference. Doc Yak (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Status of Constantinople
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)

Agreement in Faith
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)

Chalcedonian POV
This article is clearly of a Chalcedonian POV. The first line reads "The Council of Chalcedon was an ecumenical council of the Christian Church". This is a claim of those of the Chalcedonian traditions, such as Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is not universally recognized, it never has been. Both those of the Oriental Orthodox and East Assyrian traditions do not recognize such a claim. I don't know why the wording was changed in the first place. I originally had it reading "The Council of Chalcedon was believed to have been the Fourth Ecumenical Council by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox...". I intend to restore this article to NPOV, but I will wait a few days in case anyone wishes to object. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that this is not recognized by several Christian groups. The word "believe" sounded tentative. For the participants, this was the fourth council. For the Orientals, etc. it was not recognized at all.


 * Maybe we should just stop counting councils? Would that make more sense? My problem is that I thought the church did not divide until 800 or so. You are pointing out that it occurred before then. In other words, I thought all Christians accepted all history up until 800.


 * And, yes, I am familiar with the term "non-Chalcedonians". I shoulda known I suppose. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there is more than one tradition which does not recognize the Council of Chalcedon. The Oriental Orthodox are one of them. They accepted Cyril of Alexandria's Council of Ephesus, but then thought that Chalcedon was inconsistent with the former. There is, on the other hand, the Assyrian Church of the East. They never accepted Cyril's council and they harbored Nestorians. They never had any participation in Chalcedon.


 * What do you mean "believe" sounded tentative? Isn't this all that we can say? The Chalcedonians may have confidently thought that Chalcedon was the Fourth Ecumenical Council. But we can't simply but ourselves in their perspective according to NPOV. This isn't a Chalcedonian website. So we can't say anything that would side with the Chalcedonian truth claims over those of the Non-Chalcedonians. If you still don't like "believe", then what else could satisfy? Deusveritasest (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything. I don't know what I was reading. It sounds okay to me. Student7 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it sounded okay to me before.  :) I guess what I was getting at - this is not the same as believing that John Doe has been reincarnated as a fish. It is not a matter of spiritual, but concrete action. It is recognized by blah-blah churches as the fourth. It is not recognized at all by (non-Chalcedonians) which is fine. But word "belief" shouldn't be in there. The group which called itself a council actually met in Chalcedon. If people don't recognize it's scope that is fine, but this group did meet there.


 * Otherwise, it seems to me, we would have so many "beliefs" in religious articles that not only wouldn't people want to read them, we wouldn't want to edit them! Student7 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Belief is entirely appropriate to refer to the status of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Yes, it is true that a council met at Chalcedon in 451. This is not disputed by anyone. "Belief" is often concerned with truth claims. For example, a woman aborts her third trimester fetus. One person say that "I believe that that was murder". How is it not appropriate to say that? They may or may not be right about the assertion. But the fact that it is simply a belief that interprets the meaning and nature of an indisputed and concrete event still stands. This is likewise. The Council of Chalcedon really happened. Some say "we believe that that was an Ecumenical Council of the Church of Christ". Others say "we believe that was not an Ecumenical Council, or perhaps it was not even a council of the Church of Christ". Considering something to be an "Ecumenical Council" is not a concrete action, but rather a theoretical property applied by some as a belief. Thus your objection here doesn't really apply. Deusveritasest (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't deny good faith on your part and we don't seem to have attracted anyone else who is interested, so I believe this will be my last word on the subject. This belief, however, applies to the future and I am notoriously wrong when predicting future events! :)


 * I realize that all analogies fall apart eventually, but to take the one about the death of the trimester fetus, I can "know" (assuming I have some close relation with the case!) that the fetus is dead, regardless of my beliefs in the matter of murder.


 * More currently, the UN Security Council met to eventually send troops to combat North Koreans invasion of the South in 1950. USSR had unwisely walked out for the duration and could not veto their decision, which he surely would have done had he been there. The decision was, nevertheless taken. It was not the United States belief that the UN Security Council took that step, it really happened. The USSR did not recognize the step as valid (I suppose. Nobody listened to them at that point!), but the Council meeting still happened. It was real. North Korea was not a member and most certainly did not recognize it. I don't know how to reword that in terms of belief.


 * Are you from New England or the UK? Maybe the word "belief" has a stronger meaning for you. In most of the US, it has a weak meaning. Student7 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, I am from California.


 * I don't see how the debate we are having actually lines up with your analogy, though. Yes, the death of the fetus is an objective reality. Yes, the UN Security council actually took this step. But does this really correspond to what we are discussing. To me, it seems clear that the real objective reality that compares to what you are speaking of is the fact that a church council met in the city of Chalcedon in 451. Is its status as "The Fourth Ecumenical Council", likewise a real objective reality? No, it is simply a theoretical attribute used to describe the Council of Chalcedon, an attribute that may very well be an erroneous attribution. It seems clear to me that whether or not the Council of Chalcedon was the Fourth Ecumenical Council is most clearly comparable to whether or not abortion is murder.


 * You keep trying to speak of objective realities and happenings. How can this be the case with giving attributes to something that happened? Yes, to be more objective we could say that the RC and EO truly did call the Council of Chalcedon the Fourth Ecumenical Council. But we simply cannot go so far as to say that it objectively was the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as that idea is up for debate and is POV. Deusveritasest (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me try another approach. Just looked up the Council of Trent. There is no count of the number of this council. The other question: why do we have to count councils through Chalcedon?


 * The word "belief" doesn't occur anyplace. It does not say, the "Catholic church believes that the council of Trent was held..." It just says it was.


 * So why can't we just say the council was held, don't number it, and say who recognized it? The key question here, is when do councils that someone somewhere doesn't recognize cause the article to slop over from "disbelief" to reality? Trent was actual although only accepted by the Catholic Church. I find this relaxing. The other churches really don't care. I agree with their position. Why should they care? If Trent came up with the most outrageous findings (and I'm sure they weren't very polite about Protestants), it does not seem to provoke the "disbelief" that this fairly obscure council did way back when. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is qualified with "of the Roman Catholic Church", however. On top of that, "Nineteenth Ecumenical Council" does redirect to the Council of Trent. But why should we judge what we should do in this article on the basis of what is said in that article? How does that show to say that whether or not the Council of Chalcedon was an Ecumenical Council is a matter of belief is wrong?


 * You're on the wrong track when you bring up the numbering. That is not what was significant. If we said that "the Council of Chalcedon was an Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church", similar to how it was previously phrased except without numbering, I would still object. The point is that the status of Chalcedon as Ecumenical is questionable. It is not recognized by the Oriental Orthodox Church or the Assyrian Church of the East. The 2nd most important church in Christianity at the time, that of Alexandria, never subscribed to Chalcedon until Chalcedon itself deposed the Pope of Alexandria, which it didn't even do for a matter of wrong belief. How is that Ecumenical then? Now, I'm not here to make my POV that Chalcedon was not Ecumenical to be what is said in the Wiki article. But I sure am not going to allow the opposite POV to reign either.


 * I really don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. You keep harping on the point that Trent was actual and that nobody questioned the fact that they said X, Y, an Z. But I never denied that. And that's not the point I'm making. I'm making the point that the status of Chalcedon as Ecumenical is not actual. Chalcedon itself is actual. It actually claimed to be Ecumenical. That doesn't mean it was actually Ecumenical. Deusveritasest (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-chalcedonian
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Who convened the council?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Box at top of article
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Anglicanism & Protestantism
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, 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)
 * 1) "[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);
 * 2) "Having both Catholic and Protestant features, the Anglican Church ..."(New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, art. England, Church of;
 * 3) 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).)

Anglicans and Lutherans
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)

Church?
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)


 * 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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links 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)

Minor language question/neutrality
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)


 * 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)

Lead
, 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

The second paragraph ("The Copts...") is unclear, overlong, not neutral, and not clearly related to what comes immediately before and after it. Maybe a comprehensible version of it should be in the "Theological Background" section. 87.122.104.233 (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

Non-neutral language
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)

Elephant in the room?
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)

Lead section not adequate
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)

Miracle of Euphemia
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)


 * It’s not mentioned because the earliest mention of the miracle was in an 11th century Constantinople Synaxarium. It is easily dismissed by scholars as a legendary tale attached to saint. More evidence for this is the fact that the story of the miracle claims that the “tome of the monophysites” was found at her feet, but there is was never such a thing as the tome of monophysite, unless it is referring to the second letter of Cyril to succencus, which would have been the closest to thing to a tome, but a letter that was also dogmatized at Ephesus, which would make this legend extremely problematic. Something else to consider is why this legend was not mentioned in the several recorded debates between monophysites (miaphysites) and chalcedonians. Surely if this miracle was witnessed, it would be quite a strong argument against the monophysites? But again, no mention is made. 142.181.90.182 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The principal purpose?
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)