Английская Википедия:Dyophysitism

Содержание

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Текст

Файл:CHRIST PANTOCRATOR-SINAI(6th Century).jpg

Icon of Christ the Pantocrator. The Icon represents the dual nature of Christ, illustrating traits of both man and God.

Dyophysitism (Шаблон:IPAc-en; from Greek: δυοφυσιτισμός "two natures") is the Christological position that Jesus Christ is one person of one substance and one hypostasis, with two distinct, inseparable natures, divine and human. It is related to the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

History

Файл:Composite christ pantocrator.png

Mirrored composites of left and right sides of image.

Development of dyophysite Christology was gradual; dyophysite tradition and its complex terminology were finally formulated as a result of the long Christological debates that were constant during the 4th and 5th centuries.

Dyophysitism as a position stands in opposition to the views of monophysitism, the doctrine of Jesus having one divine nature, and miaphysitism, the doctrine that Christ is both divine and human but in one nature. Dyophysites (Шаблон:IPAc-en) believe that the two natures are completely and perfectly united in the one person and hypostasis of Jesus Christ, in union with each other and co-existing without mixture, confusion or change. The importance of dyophysitism was often emphasized by prominent representatives of the Antiochene School.Шаблон:Sfn

The miaphysites upheld the idea of one nature in Christ based on their understanding of Cyril of Alexandria's teachings, including his Twelve Anathemas, namely number 4 which states:

Dyophysitism was articulated in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which produced the Chalcedonian Definition, that states:

Nature (ousia) in the Chalcedonian sense can be understood to be referring to a set of "powers and qualities which constitute a being" whereas person (prosopon) refers to "a concrete individual acting as subject in its own right."

For adherents, the hypostatic union is the center of Jesus's unity (his divinity and humanity being described as natures) whereas those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon saw his nature itself as the point of unity.

Dyophisitism has also been used to describe some aspects of Nestorianism, the doctrines ascribed to Nestorius of Constantinople. It is now generally agreed that some of his ideas were not far from those that eventually emerged as orthodox, but the orthodoxy of his formulation of the doctrine of Christ is still controversial among churches.Шаблон:Sfn

Acceptance

After many debates and several councils, dyophysitism gained its official dogmatic form at the Council of ChalcedonШаблон:Sfn and the Second Council of Constantinopleof 553, which are accepted in the present day by a majority of Christian churches, including the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, the Anglican Church, and the Old Catholic Church, as well as Reformed, Lutheran, and various other Christian denominations. Apart from that, the ancient Church of the East has preserved dyophysite Christology and other traditions of the Antiochene School.Шаблон:Sfn

There remain churches which hold to the miaphysite positions, such as the Oriental Orthodox Church

See also

• First Council of Ephesus
• Miaphysitism
• Monophysitism
• Nestorianism
• Oriental Orthodoxy
• Second Council of Constantinople

References

Sources

• Шаблон:Cite journal
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book
• Шаблон:Cite book