<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In debates over the Christological doctrine proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, two different Christological stances took shape that in fact carried not only significant theological consequences, but also profound philosophical ones. In the present paper, I shall reflect upon the philosophical premises and arguments employed by both the defenders of Chalcedon and their adversaries. As I shall seek to show, both sides differed, among other things, in regard to their understanding of the individual entity as such. The Miaphysite adversaries of the Chalcedonian Horos adopted what was, from a philosophical point of view, a quite traditional elucidation of individual entities in terms of particular essence. On the other hand, the Neo-Chalcedonian defenders of the Horos developed an original interpretation of the individual entity as explicable in terms of its existence.</p></abstract>

In debates over the Christological doctrine proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, two different Christological stances took shape that in fact carried not only significant theological consequences, but also profound philosophical ones. In the present paper, I shall reflect upon the philosophical premises and arguments employed by both the defenders of Chalcedon and their adversaries. As I shall seek to show, both sides differed, among other things, in regard to their understanding of the individual entity as such. The Miaphysite adversaries of the Chalcedonian Horos adopted what was, from a philosophical point of view, a quite traditional elucidation of individual entities in terms of particular essence. On the other hand, the Neo-Chalcedonian defenders of the Horos developed an original interpretation of the individual entity as explicable in terms of its existence.

The Miaphysite and Neo-Chalcedonian Approaches to Understanding the Nature of the Individual Entity: Particular Essence vs. En-Hypostasized Essence

Review of Ecumenical Studies Sibiu

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

In debates over the Christological doctrine proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon, two different Christological stances took shape that in fact carried not...

The Miaphysite and Neo-Chalcedonian Approaches to Understanding the Nature of the Individual Entity: Particular Essence vs. En-Hypostasized Essence

Publié en ligne: 21 janv. 2020

Pages: 342 - 362

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ress-2019-0026

Mots clés
John Philoponus, John Grammarian, Leontius of Byzantium, Neo-Chalcedonism, Miaphysitism, particular nature, enhypostaton, particular essence, enhypostasized essence

© 2019 Anna Zhyrkova, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

The Miaphysite and Neo-Chalcedonian Approaches to Understanding the Nature of the Individual Entity: Particular Essence vs. En-Hypostasized Essence

Publié en ligne: 21 janv. 2020

Pages: 342 - 362

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ress-2019-0026

Mots clésJohn Philoponus, John Grammarian, Leontius of Byzantium, Neo-Chalcedonism, Miaphysitism, particular nature, enhypostaton, particular essence, enhypostasized essence

© 2019 Anna Zhyrkova, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Mots clés
John Philoponus, John Grammarian, Leontius of Byzantium, Neo-Chalcedonism, Miaphysitism, particular nature, enhypostaton, particular essence, enhypostasized essence