Thread: Brief note on Cyril of Alexandria

Originally Posted by P. F. Pugh

The dividing line between heresy and orthodoxy is this: is Christ fully God and fully human in one person (prosopon/hypostasis)? If that is what you hold, I maintain that you are, at least, not in serious error about the incarnation or its ramifications for the atonement. We can argue about the details of how that works, exactly, but it's an in-family dispute.

And that, dear brother, is precisely the problem. So long as your definition of Christological orthodoxy is so broad, vague and all-inclusive, what Pastors King and Winzer have been patiently explaining for all of us will inevitably continue to be wholly lost. It is only an "in-family dispute" if one rejects what the very conciliar definitions in question define the "family" to be.

I suppose then, that I just disagree over how we define a heretic. I agree with the substance of Chalcedon--I just don't agree that all who take issue with it are categorically heretical. I take most councils to have the same authority--thus, I don't place the declarations of Chalcedon above those of Dordt.

I don't think anyone here believes or is advocating anything other than Chalcedonian Christology.

[Moderator]
I think enough information has probably been delivered in this thread by now for it to be profitable. If someone feels that there is something further which very much needs to be said, it can be re-opened.

For now, it stands thus: catholic Christianity receives and affirms Chalcedon. We hold that which disagrees with its formula to be opposed to scriptural teaching.
[/Moderator]

John, what *has* been clearly articulated, however, is that one can stand opposed to Chalcedon and maintain orthodoxy.