44618271

Chalcedon and Contemporary Christology: A NEW DIRECTION FOR AN ANCIENT
CHRISTOLOGY
Author(s): John R. Morris
Source: Angelicum, Vol. 75, No. 1 (1998), pp. 3-46
Published by: Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a Sancto Thomas Aquinate in Urbe
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44618271
Accessed: 06-02-2020 00:22 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a Sancto Thomas Aquinate in Urbe is collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Angelicum
This content downloaded from 189.213.129.12 on Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:22:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Chalcedon and Contemporary
Christology
A NEW DIRECTION FOR AN ANCIENT CHRISTOLOGY
SUMMARY
This article examines what the contemporary christological enterpris

might look like when it is governed, not by an understanding of God
derived from philosophy, which was the case at the Council of Chalcedon,
but by one derived from the teaching and praxis of Jesus himself, with
a more conscious effort to account for the full humanity of Jesus as
expressed in Scripture .
I. - THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
The Formulation of the dogma of the Council of Chalced

was the culmination of a long and arduous process of theologic
argumentation. This accomplishment, a compromise betwee
several diverse parties to the controversy Q, was more har
nious than might at first be imagined, both in terms of its con
and its fidelity to long standing traditions.
The results of the Council of Chalcedon can be summarized
briefly as follows. The Introductory portion of the declaration
of the Council of Chalcedon gave place of honor to the Nicean
Creed, treating it first and affirming that it shall remain in-
0) It reflected several diverse traditions: Antioch, Alexandria, Cons-

tantinople and Rome. See Kelly, J. N. D., Christ in Christian Tradition ,
5th edition, (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1977), 341; Pelikan, Jaroslav,
The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), vol. 1 of The Christian
Tradition, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1971), 264; Studer, Basil,
Trinity and Incarnation, (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press,
1993), 200, 213, 215.
4 John R. Morris, O.P.
violate as the faith of the Church. In a similar fashion, the

declarations of the Council of Constantinople were also re-
affirmed. Following these declarations both Nestorianism and
Eutychianism were denounced (2). Two of Cyril's dogmatic let-
ters, his second letter to Nestorius (Obloquuntur) , and his letter
to John of Antioch ( Laetentur coeli ) were accepted as authen-
tically expressing the faith of the Church. The first of the
letters is a rejection of the Nestorian doctrine and is considered
an authentic interpretation of the Creed of Nicea. Besides these
two letters, the Council accepted Leo's Tomus ad Flavianum
as authentically reflecting the teaching of the Church. Finally,
the formal definition was proposed. It is given below in its
entirety for convenience.
«Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice

teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is
one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same
perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consist-
ing] of a rational soul and a body; homoousios with the Father
as to his Godhead, and the Same homoousios with us as to his
manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten
of the Father before ages as to his Godhead, and in the last
days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin
Theotokos as to his manhood;
One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made
known in two natures (3) [which exist] without confusion, with-
out change, without division, without separation; the difference
of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of
the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved,
and [both] concurring into one Person ( prosopon ) and one
hypostasis - not parted or divided into two persons (prosopa),
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos,
the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have
spoken] concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself
(2) These two heresies are explicitly denounced twice in the Definition,
and again in the section containing the anathemas.
(3) « In two natures », en duo physesein, is a change from Flavian s
Confession which was read just before the condemnation of Eutyches.
His preferred expression was ek duo physeon. This change eliminated
the notion that there were two natures prior to union.
Chalcedon and Contemporary Chris tology 5
has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered
to us » (4).
The formal Definition is divided into two parts: the first

part affirms the doctrine of the unity of the person of Jesus
Christ; the second affirms the reality of his two natures (5). This
teaching is fundamental to Alexandria, Antioch and the West (6).
The Council made a positive declaration of its belief in asserting
that Jesus Christ is « one and the same », identifying him etern-
ally with the Father 0- It also made a positive declaration
in affirming the reality of the two natures in Christ, each with
its own characteristics. In short, the formal definition of Chal-
cedon was not merely negative or prescriptive but it asserted
positive truths regarding the faith (8). Sellers makes the point
that what was affirmed was nothing more than that which was
taught from the earliest days of Christianity.
Thus we can claim that in establishing the principle of « re-
cognizing» in Jesus Christ, the Logos made man, both Godhead
and manhood, the Chalcedonian Fathers were accepting, and
giving conciliar authority to, what had had its distinct place in
the Church's Christological thought from earliest days (*).
He further states that the affirmation that the Son was

made known in two natures « the one divine, the other human
(4) Taken from Sellers, R. V., The Council of Chalcedon , (London:

SPCK, 1953), 210-11. Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Doctrines , 5th edition,
33940 substantially agrees in the translation. See also Grillmeier, Aloys,
Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 2nd revised edition, (Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1975), 544. See Denzinger, 301-302.
(5) Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon , 211.
(*) Ibid., 211.
Ç) Ibid., 212.
(8) Ibid., 214, 215. See Kasper, Walter, Jesus the Christ, (New York:
Paulist Press, 1976), 238, who seems to indicate otherwise. He speaks of
the results of Chalcedon in terms of a christologia negativa, that is, that
it does no more than set limits upon the doctrine. In Kasper's opinion,
« The Council was content to mark the limits of faith against errors to
the left and to the right ».
(9) Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, 217. See also page 198, foot-
note 3. This is also affirmed by Grillmeier and Studer.
- each with its own properties » in

gnized and taught implicitly by a h
whom he lists Ignatius, Irenaeus,
sius, Apollinarius and Cyril (10).
Thus, the formal confession of faith contains several im-
portant features. First, it reaffirms the Council of Nicea as
being primary and authoritative. Second, it rejects Nestorianism
and Eutychianism. This is a negative or limiting exposition
heightened in the anathemas, thus indicating the limits as to
what does or does not belong to the faith. Finally, it expresses
in à positive way the union of Jesus Christ in person, as well
as the distinction in nature. Furthermore, this is no mere
theological argument, but a positive expression of the traditional
faith.
Having arrived at the christological formulations of the
Council of Chalcedon, we need to objectively evaluate the results.
In doing so we should keep in mind that the statements of
Chalcedon were in the first place grounded upon Scripture and
the earliest Creeds. Keep in mind also the earliest liturgical
hymns and practices which give strong indication of the pré-
existence of Christ (n).
A. Chalcedon: Fundamentally an articulation

OF THE PRIMITIVE KERYGMA
Chalcedon gives expression to the Christian faith in

clarifying terms. There is no attempt at a theological d
of the terms, for this does not come about until much
(10) Ibid., 218. See page 198, footnote 3.

(») The following hymns, Phil 2:6-11, Col 1:15-20, and John 1:1-18,
indicate a high christology and are often understood as referring to the
préexistent One, although there are some critics who give another inter-
pretation. It was the worship of the community, and not speculation,
that affirmed the understanding of préexistence associated with Christ.
In this regard, the more primitive kerygma of the Church does not seem
so useful. Although it stresses the notion of salvation in Jesus Christ,
it does so from the perspective of a low christology.
Chalcedon and Contemporary Christology 7
The foundation for this formal definition is in the basic af-

firmation of the lived faith of the Church as found in its wit-
ness to Jesus Christ.
The faith of the primitive community as expressed in the
Scriptures and early baptismal formularies addresses a funda-
mental conviction: that salvation is found in Jesus Christ. « For
of all the names in the world given to men, this (Jesus Christ
the Nazarene) is the only one by which we can be saved »
(Acts 4:12). This primitive kerygma is an expression of the
historical revelation that salvation from God is found in Jesus
Christ. It is a confession that the crucified Jesus is the Messiah
- that « God has made (this Jesus) Lord and Christ » (Acts
2:36; see Romans 10:9). Salvation is from God through him.
The question which naturally and logically occupied later re-
flection became: What is the relationship between this Jesus
of Nazareth and the God who grants salvation through him? (13).
Grillmeier has argued that the high christology of the syn-
opitc tradition was not merely a creation of the early Church
but rather finds its basis in the impression Jesus made on his
disciples (14). Schillebeeckx has noted the very solid connection
between the Jesus of history and the community remembrance
of him. Jesus was the kind of person who could evoke an im-
pression which would lead to a high christology (15). This pre-
(12) Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2nd ed., 545, 551.

(13) Schillebeeckx speaks of Jesus as both revealing and concealing
God in as much as he is a contingent, limited historical being. See his
On Christian Faith, (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 15. Also, see Jesus:
An Experiment in Christology, (New York: Seabury Press, 1979), 573-625.
Schillebeeckx makes the point that Jesus is wholly of God and wholly
of man. He refers to two poles: the one in which Jesus unveils the true
face of God; the other in which he discloses the true being of man.
Schillebeeckx' effort is to articulate how universal significance can be
found in this particular, historical, contingent event.
(14) Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2nd ed., 325.
(15) Schillebeeckx, On Christian Faith, 15. Jesus must have been a
very impressive and persuasive man. About this there can be little doubt.
This notion is also reflected by Richardson, Alan, Creeds in the Making,
(London: SCM Press, 1935), 16; and Macquarrie, John, Jesus Christ in
Modern Thought, (Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990).
supposition grounds the validity of t

on the person of Jesus Christ. The
tainly identified him with God (16).
ed that,
the oldest non-biblical documents relating to Christianity testified
to the belief of the early Christians that Jesus Christ was God.
The oldest surviving sermon after the New Testament; the oldest
surviving account of the death of a martyr; the oldest surviving
pagan report about the Church; the oldest surviving liturgical
prayer addressed to Christ; all clearly teach that the Church
believed « God » was an appropriate title for Jesus Christ (17).
The baptismal faith of the primitive community, which is

reflected in Matthew 28:19-20; Romans 8:14, always remained the
core of the Church's teaching. The primitive kerygma and the
creeds which express the baptismal faith all speak of salvation
in Jesus Christ. The central tenet of these sources is that the
union of the Christian with God is through Christ in the Ho
Spirit.
This primitive faith was interpreted at various times for
the believing community and the notion of the salvation of God
through the name of Jesus was always visible in its differing
expressions. In the course of time, this expression became more
ontological - referring to Christ's préexistence and his eternal
relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit. On the other
hand, the discussion centered on the true humanity of Christ
as a presupposition of his death and resurrection, a prerequisite
for salvation (I8). Thus it has become clear that the entire
christological discussion is in fact driven by the notion of so-
teriology which gave rise to the often invoked soteriological
(16) See Brown, Raymond E., Jesus: God and Man, (Milwaukee: Bruce
Publishing Co., 1967), 1-38. Contemporary biblical exegesis has identified
three very clear references in the New Testament which affirm God of
Jesus. Several others are identified as very probable affirmations. Still
othrs present a problem in identifying the proper meaning because of
textual or grammatical reasons.
(17) Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 173.
(18) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 240.
principle(19). Studer points out that this development

the primitive baptismal faith took place in a manner o
turation into differing social and political environments. It
was a new interpretation which gave rise to universality and
clarity but it was in no way a corruption of the original. As
he puts it, there was neither a decadence nor a continually
expanding advance C20). Nor was the sense of mystery ever
lost. The Fathers were keenly aware of this in their search for
clarity. There was always an attempt to remain faithful, to
demarcate limits, to gain new insights and perspectives.
B. The Council's Legacy f1)
Chalcedon brought the christological debate which centered

on the relationship between the divine and human in Christ to
a close even though this peace was short lived Í22). It did, how-
ever, raise theological concerns which have lasting interest for
Christianity. As its predecessors had done, the Council con-
cerned itself with the mystery of God as revealed in the Scrip-
tures. In connection with this mystery it dealt with the sal-
vation which God had promised through Jesus Christ. The
approach to this mystery was more metaphysical than historical.
Yet even in this hellenic, metaphysical rather than historical,
understanding of the baptismal faith, its basic idea, that God
through Christ in the Holy Spirit wrought salvation was not
neglected. It was perhaps no longer thought of as the establish-
ment of God's kingdom, nor as the pouring out of the Spirit in
the fullness of time, but rather as deification, union with God
in the Spirit of Christ. But even this essentially meant nothing
else than what Christians had from the beginning confessed in
their baptismal faith Í23).
(19) Quod non est assumptum, non est sanatum. If this principle was
not enunciated explicitly it can usually be identified implicitly in the
argumentation.
P) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 245.
(21) Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, 254ff.
i22) Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 266ff.; Studer,
Trinity and Incarnation, 224ff.
Í23) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 240.
Within this mystery, the Counc

the préexistence of the Son of Go
Son to Father and Spirit (24); and f
to the Council's major concerns, it gave its response to the
question of the relationship of God to the humanity of Jesus.
And, as was noted above, it was inspired more by pastoral mo-
tives than is immediately apparent from the results of the
Council Í25).
At the core of the Chalcedonian formulae is the notion
that salvation is to be found in the very being of Jesus Ch
it is not found merely in his teachings and miracles and o
activities of his ministry. This fact should not be minimi
Christianity is not simply an ethical system nor is it constit
simply in doctrines proposed for our belief. Jesus Chris
more than the eschatological prophet. It is in an attachme
to the person of Jesus Christ that the Christian finds h
salvation.
Much of the formulation of Chalcedon is negative. It sets
limits to the expressions of faith. In so doing, it used the
categories and thought patterns of its time. Though normative
for the Church, the definition took place within a particular
anthropological, cultural, linguistic and philosophical perspective.
Furthermore, while the language is Hellenic, metaphysical and
perhaps even technical, the meaning of the pivotal terminology
is never truly explained or defined. That task is left up to the
speculative theology of the future.
One cannot demand of the Council more than it intended
in its limited goal of settling a particular christological dispu
It did not answer questions which were not asked. For examp
the inner constituency of Christ was not explored. The noti
of one will or two in Christ, the monothelite question, was still
(24) The earlier theological efforts to express the mystery of Trinity

had been pursued in economic terms.
i25) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation , 239; Grillmeier sees the expres-
sions of Chalcedon as « more intuitive than speculative ». Christ in
Christian Tradition, 2nd ed., 545.
far in the future. The same goes for the monenergist co

versy regarding the principle of activity in Christ.
If the Council did not answer questions not at issue, it
also left out of consideration much that the ordinary Christian
in his daily relationship with Christ would find important. It
never considered Jesus in his historical revelation, that is, in
his message and his praxis. It never considered how the king-
dom of God might actually be concretized in history. This im-
portant part of Jesus' preaching seems to have given way to
a discussion on préexistence. The Council never considered
the practical ramifications for "salvation in Jesus" in the life
of the Christian. For all of its power in articulating the es-
sential structure of the relationship between Christ's humanity
and divinity much of the power of the simplicity of the Gospel
story seemed to withdraw to the background.
C. The contemporary discussion regarding Chalcedon
The contemporary discussion on the dogmatic form

the Council of Chalcedon begins, for all practical purposes,
in 1951 on the 1500th anniversary of the Council. Karl Rahner
published his pivotal essay in that year Í26). Schoonenberg wrote
his book shortly after, although the English translation was not
published until 1971 C27). Many other authors have followed.
These theologians generally recognized that Chalcedon had
successfully responded to the theological problems raised in its
day. The current question is: How adequate is that response
for today? In what way has this earlier response benefited
Christianity? What are the limitations associated with it? Lim-
Í26) Rahner, Karl, « Current Problems in Christology ». Theological

Investigations , vol. I, (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1961), 149-200. This
article was written on the 1500th Anniversary of Chalcedon. Included
among the better known theologians who have critiqued Chalcedon are:
P. Smulders, Piet Schoonenberg, P. Sesboue, Bernard Welte, F. Malmberg,
Edward Schillebeeckx and of course K. Rahner.
P) Schoonenberg, Piet, The Christ : A Study of the God-Man Relation
ship in the Whole of Creation and in Jesus Christ , (New York: Herder
and Herder, 1971).
itations it does have and this ought

for this in no way detracts from it
Limitations are simply part of the
constructed document.
The critique of the Chalcedonian formulae has governed
much of the theological speculation in christology in recent
times. Presently, contemporary christology has dealt with this
critique by choosing largely to ignore it with benign neglect or
permitting it to drift into the background. This has occurred
for several very good reasons; many of these are rooted in the
new approach to Scripture, but there are other reasons as well.
II. - THE ACCEPTANCE OF CHALCEDON: POSITIVE VIEW
Roman Catholic theologians accept the formulati

a legitimate affirmation of Christian faith, and al
tive for faith. The doctrinal statement is recogniz
real authoritative value. But this acceptance is ofte
some moderate qualifications.
A. Chalcedon: Development and inculturation
1. Hellenization as inculturation
Chalcedon was a milestone in the interpretation of the baptismal

faith, perhaps second only to Nicea. The christological contro-
versies which arose in conjunction with Nestorius and Eutyches
demanded a clarification; however, as one might come to expect,
that clarification was clothed in the philosophy or thought pat-
terns of the fifth century. Studer situates this interpretation
within the perspective of inculturation, that is, « the reception
of the Gospel of Christ by the various cultures of mankind » C28).
What were these cultural conditions? Several fairly obvious
transitions were experienced following the advent of the pri-
mitive kerygma. Most notable were the linguistic transitions
i28) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation , 241.
The most primitive kerygma in all likelihood began in Aramaic,

and early on found expression in Greek, later in Syriac and
Latin. It is clear that various languages produce different images
and forms of expression29. The most prominent examples of
this transition can be found in the honorific titles applied to
Christ, found first in a Jewish environment, later in a Hellenistic
one; and much after this, in the more technical terms used in
the articulation of the first councils i30).
Besides the linguistic shift, there are two other shifts of
note. First, Christianity moved from a religion of the common
person to one embraced as well by the intelligentsia (31). The
primitive kerygma found a home not only with its original
adherents but even among those better educated. The need for
catechesis required more sophisticated forms of expression. The
arguments surrounding the debate that preceded and followed
Chalcedon were most sophisticated, at times perhaps too so-
phisticated even for the majority of bishops gathered there.
(») See Fuller, Reginald, The Foundations of New Testament Christo-

logy, (New York: Scribner's & Sons, 1965). Fuller traces the shift in
linguistic expression, especially that which was used to express the
honorific titles applied to Christ. The development began first in Pales-
tinian Judaism and moved to a Hellenistic Gentile environment.
(3°) Ousia, hypostasis, physis and persona are not Scriptural terms;
however, their use is justified on the basis that they convey the same
essential content as the original concepts cast in the original language.
This is not merely a verbal or nominal identification. Aquinas argues
that we must always stay close to the original terms in which revelation
was given, but he also argues that if we were not at liberty to use such
terms as did the Council, then we would have to teach, pray, etc. ex-
clusively in the original biblical languages: « Were we bound to say of
God what the holy Scripture says in so many words, it would follow that
no one could ever speak of God in any language other than that in which
the Old and the New Testaments were delivered. We have to look for
new words about God which express the old faith because we have to
argue with heretics ». Summa Theologiae, Part I, q. 29, a. 3, ad 1. This
responds to the accusation of hellenization understood as a falsification
of the primitive kerygma. But what some understood by hellenization
is in fact what Catholics would refer to as development of doctrine.
Conceptual development can not only be theoretically justified, it can
even be welcomed.
(31) Studer, Trinity and Christology, 241.
Grillmeier observes that the Council Fathers themselves were

unlikely to have been able to give an adequate definition of
the terminology used (32). Nor did they even attempt a philo-
sophical definition of the terms or a speculative analysis of
them. Though the situation which brought about the Council
was more pastoral than speculative in nature, the resulting state-
ments were dogmatic, both in form and intent. It would take
later theologians to offer a more precise meaning to that which
had been defined. The principal intention of the Council was
to faithfully express the accepted tradition of the Church and
to heal division within Christianity.
Second, in another major transition following the Peace
of Constantine in 313, the Church moved out from the ghetto
into a more prominent place in public life. The community
of Christians not only gained relief from the occasional perse-
cutions inflicted upon it but enjoyed favored status within the
public domain. This new social context provided both poli-
tical and juridical categories from which much of theological
terminology was fashioned.
Most significantly, with regard to the ultimate outcome at
Chalcedon, a major shift occurred from the initial framing of
the primitive kerygma in Jewish categories to the eventual em-
ployment of Hellenistic categories. This transition, as has been
pointed out, occurred quite early, within the New Testament
itself. But with the changing social and cultural contexts in
which it needed to be expressed, the kerygma found itself ever
more Hellenized. This should have been expected and it is an
excellent example of the Church adjusting and adapting itself
to the concrete situation in which it found itself; in short,
being inculturated. What is commonly understood as helleni-
zation is in fact a form of inculturation.
This changing cultural context brought with it two important
developments, both having arisen from the philosophical cli-
mate: the first was new technical expressions (33); the other was
(32) Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition , 2nd ed., 545.

Í33) Note the shift in technical terms between Nicea and Chalcedon.
new anthropological models. From a non-philosophical, biblica

perspective, the Christians moved to the utilization of categories
which were, in the main, Stoic and Platonic.
2. Dogmatic formulae of Chalcedon

The dogmatic formulae of Chalcedon, as well as those of
other Councils, are normative for Catholics, and these statements
hold a privileged place as authoritative interpretations of the
primitive kerygma. As such, they deserve special consideration.
Both Nicea and Chalcedon are especially good models for under-
standing the nature of dogmatic formulae.
First, dogmatic statements are at best a partial statement
of a great Mystery. And in that regard, the sense of mystery
always remains C34). The motive which leads to the formulation
of a dogmatic statement is usually quite limited and there is
no intention to resolve all possible difficulties C5). The proble-
matic is usually to determine the limits of the dogmatic content.
It comes as no surprise, then, that many mysteries of faith, the
mystery of God, of the Incarnation, of the mystery of salvation
in Christ were not addressed by the Chalcedonian decrees.
Studer points out that there were numerous mysteries of faith
that were entirely left out of consideration.
How many mysteries there are which the Fathers were not
able to fathom, and did not even want to fathom: the mystery
of Jesus' resurrection, in which God confirmed the mission of
his anointed one, and in which the resurrection of all mankind
has already commenced; the mystery of the Father, who from
eternity is not without the Son, and of God, who 'has done
something' without himself 'having become something new'; the
mystery of Jesus, who, because he is Son of God, has accepted

i35) Realistically, we ought not to expect more to be affirmed than
originally intended. As mentioned above, two significant questions which
Chalcedon did not take up but were resolved in later centuries: the first
was the question of wills in Christ - were there one or two?; the second
question addressed the principle of activity in Christ - was there one
or were there two?
in full human freedom the will of his Fathe

the cross, in which the love of God has been
all-destroying death; the mystery of Christ th
earthly existence, included in himself the wh
and who now from heaven replenishes his believers with the
Holy Spirit; the mystery of the Church, which after the pattern
of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the grace of the Holy Spirit
and in the darkness of faith travels towards eternal perfection i36).
It is this very large residue of mysteries which were not

« fathomed », that exercise contemporary theology.
Second, much of the formulation of Chalcedon is fixed in
negative terms. The anathemas for the most part form a ca-
talog of errors whose purpose is to delineate the boundaries
within which the mysteries under consideration may be ad-
dressed. They frame the limits within which Christian life
and devotion take place.
Third, the formulae themselves which do express something
positive regarding the Christ event, are of their nature inade-
quate expressions subject to reformulation. Studer suggests
that even in their own time these dogmatic expressions were
not so hard and fast as is often thought. Their intent was to
find a common way of satisfying the needs for expressions of
a common faith - but not the only way to express it. That
is to say, the linguistic expression of the dogma communicated
the mystery of faith inadequately, and could be reinterpreted
or reformulated. He points out that even after the Council of
Chalcedon, there was yet a willingness to compromise, to find
more satisfactory expressions which would satisfy all parties
involved (37). There was a valid attempt to be conciliatory and
reformulate in an orthodox and intelligible manner prior ex-
pressions which had won favor over a long period and were
a part of a legitimate tradition.

(37) Ibid., 222. Studer points out earlier that the compromise for-
mulation also brought with it separation, being acceptable neither to the
monophysite nor to the Nestorian Churches. 216.
Finally, it should be recalled that dogma is in essence a

reinterpretation of the (baptismal) faith. Dogma is an advance
a gain, inasmuch as greater clarity is enunciated. The reformu
lation enables the baptismal faith to be received in a new cul-
tural context. But dogma loses something of the original fresh
ness which is contained in the Scriptural writings (38). The move
to clarity often leaves behind the poetry, the metaphor, whic
was originally contained in the kerygma(39). Still, just as th
scriptural data is subject to interpretation ever anew, so also
is the interpretation of dogma subject to further interpretation.
Studer points out:
At any rate, it is possible today continually to gain new insights

into the mystery of Christ from the inexhaustible riches of the
patristic interpretation of the baptismal faith. Such an enrich-
ment is subject to one condition: one must take account of the
way in which the Fathers appropriated ever anew the gospel Í40).
3. Development as a result of this inculturation

The inculturation of the primitive kerygma brought about
a development. This is neither the time nor place to engage
in theories of, or justification for, the development of doctrine.
It seems clear enough that the formulae expressing the primitive
faith were more than verbal or nominal changes. Given the
history of the Council and the argumentation that ensued one
could hardly consider the result to be merely a change in the
verbalization of the kerygma. The questions which were strongly
debated addressed the fundamental meaning of the Christian
mystery. Indeed, we are forced to conclude that there was a
P») Ibid., 245.

(39) The Council of Chalcedon did indeed achieve clarity but as Ja-
roslav Pelikan has observed, it « ...achieved its conceptual clarity and its
evangelical simplicity by ignoring the deeper issues of biblical exegesis
as well as of christological speculation; but this very quality was its
strength as a compromise formula uniting the partisans of opposing
theories and as a basis for continuing development ». The Emergence of
the Catholic Tradition, 256.
C40) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation , 245.
conceptual development, that is, an exp

implicit in the primitive kerygma whic
with the original (41).
This conceptual development took pla
ment of Scripture itself. The original E
interpreted in Old Testament expression
porary Judaic expressions. Later, Chris
original experience and chose their own
so doing, the Fathers of the Council ba
received tradition. They were listening to
of the Christian faith » (42) . They were
formed tradition, and their goal was t
with it. It was the same mystery expr
fashion.
Such a continuity is in the final analysis based on the unique

nature of the gospel itself. For it is so inexhaustibly rich that
it can present to all people at all times something new. It is
granted to every believer to make for himself or herself their
own idea of Christ, without thereby abandoning the message,
entrusted to the one catholic and apostolic church, of the im-
measurable love of God, revealed in Christ through the Holy
Spirit. 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for
ever' (Heb 13:8) (43).
This understanding is especially important in governing the

manner in which contemporary Christians approach the autho-
ritative statements proposed for faith.
(41) Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition , 2nd ed., 545. Some argue
that hellenization was nothing more than a wholesale alienation of the
kerygma. They argue that the changes in expression from the primitive
kerygma to the Council formulae was transformist in nature, losing its
original identity. But this supposed loss of the original content does not
automatically follow, and indeed is not accepted as an authentic under-
standing of the dynamics at play in dogmatic development.
(42) Ibid., 545.
(43) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation , 247.
B. Critique of the formula « in se »
The positive contribution of Chalcedon has already been

noted and in no way should it be minimized. However, many
contemporary theologians, who unequivocally accept the results
of the Council of Chalcedon as normative for the Christian faith,
have pointed out that as formulated, there are significant draw-
backs to the present intelligibility of the dogma.
There is a further concern expressed regarding Chalcedon's
effect on later theology. Both the formulation of Chalcedon,
as well as the theology influenced by it, are controlled by the
notion of préexistence C4). They operate out of a God-man
perspective which some find far removed from the biblical ex-
pression of the Son. Even though continuity in development
has been argued for above, nevertheless, the Scriptural expres-
sions and Conciliar definitions seem to be in tension. Has
systematic theology offered an adequate explanation for
differences in conceptualization? It is questioned wheth
have done for our age what the Fathers did for theirs (45).
For many, the Chalcedonian dogma appears to be in n
of reformulation 06). It no longer addresses us with th
force or intelligibility that it had in the past and in tha
it has become inadequate. The following are several of the
more common criticisms directed toward the formulation as it
now stands. Not all theologians accept these criticisms as
enjoying the same force or validity, but their cumulative effect
would seem to point in the direction of a call for some revision
or further development.
Í44) Schoonenberg, The Christ, 65. Schoonenberg's hope « is to com-

plement and correct the current Chris tological pattern ». He is trying
to preserve the divinity of Christ. Some, including Walter Kasper, believe
he has failed in his efforts. Nevertheless, Schoonenberg's critique of
Chalcedon is important and helpful in evaluating it.
(45) Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2nd ed., 556.
Í46) Rahner raises particularly good areas to critique. Among the
principal ones he lists: the impassibility of God; the understanding of
human nature, which in Christ appears incomplete; the nature of kenosis;
and soteriology. He adds to this list a suggestion that a new understand-
ing of union is required.
1. The presupposition of God's impassib

The first assumption which influenc
of the formula is that God is immuta
assuming human nature the Word rem
it is affirmed that « The Word became m
but it takes place entirely on the side
Christ. But how are these assumption
term became would indicate, or at lea
the side of God? « To assume » implies
and an end. There is an apparent diffic
assumptions.
There are other actions which would
For example, God wept or God died on
this sort of puzzle vexed Nestorius as w
has to be honest and admit that these e
the face of it, appear to affirm immut
the presuppositions above be explained
intelligible to a contemporary audience
The Fathers were certainly not unaw
The impassibility of God was a presup
In predicating what appears to be chan
mutable subject appeal was made to the
nicatio idiomatum. In fact we mentally
that God does not suffer in His divine
subject of the union.
One can understand something of the
when we remind ourselves of the relat
ween God and any created existence. T
passibility led Arius to propose that th
By doing so, he thought that it would
the Word suffered and died. He also th
make it easier to explain the union bet
(47) Rahner, Theological Studies , vol. 1, 175. See Van Buren, Secular
Meaning of the Gospel, (London: SCM Press, 1965); Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae, Part I, q. 13, a. 7; q. 45, a. 3.
But Union between the Word considered as a creature with

another created existence, namely the flesh assumed, still
sents other serious metaphysical problems.
The problem of God's impassibility vis-a-vis the Incarnatio
the suffering of the Word, is fundamentally the same in stru
which exists in explaining God's grace or his relationship
created existence in general. Aquinas resolves the problem
terms of relation Í48). Union is principally a relation whic
two-sided: real on one side, rational on the other.
Studer suggests another consideration (49). The Council did
not address the notion of God as it is actually found in the
New Testament. It did not ask what was the God of Jesus like.
It operated out of a wholly other context. Was the Council's
way of speaking of God as unchangeable naive? C50). Pelikan
seems to agree with Studer. He says,
If in a phrase that Irenaeus quoted from an even earlier

source, « the Son is the measure of the Father, » one would
expect that the Christian definition of the deity of God would
be regulated by the content of the divine as revealed in Christ.
In fact, however, the early Christians' picture of God was con-
trolled by the self-evident axiom, accepted by all, of the absolute-
ness and the impassibility of the divine nature (51).
2. The humanity of Jesus

Chalcedon, as well as the Council of Ephesus, placed its
emphasis on the divinity of Christ, not on how he was human;
on how Christ relates to the Father, not on how he relates
to humanity. These later concerns, namely Jesus as human, and
Í48) See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , Part III, q. 2, a. 7;

Part I, q. 28, a. 2, ad 3.
(49) Studer gives a good critique in Trinity and Incarnation, 224ff.
C50) Process theology attempts to resolve this dilemma by positing
a changing, mutable God. The problem which it raises is allied with
several other more traditional problems, most significantly God's fore-
knowledge and our psychological difficulty dealing with such a situation.
However, this particular effort at a solution has not proven totally satis-
factory either.
(51) Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 229.
Jesus as he relates to humanity, hav

portant in contemporary christology.
According to the definition of Cha
have a human existence as we usually consider it in other
human beings. Jesus does not have a human hypostasis, a
human personhood. Thus, it is suggested, the Chalcedonian
pattern leads to doubts about the integrity of the humanity of
Jesus (52). Contemporary reflection often sees the lack of hypo-
stasis to be a defect. In fairness to the tradition, this absence
of a human hypostasis was the basis for the solution of union.
Aquinas would understand this as occurring by way of an ad-
dition, not by way of defect. Nothing belonging to human
nature is missing, something is added. This perfection is the
divine hypostasis. Nevertheless, in spite of Aquinas' brilliance
in terms of a theological resolution, the Chalcedon formula does
present problems for contemporary understanding. Is it the
best expression? Is it even adequate to the proper understand-
ing of humanity? Contemporary theology asks: What sort of
man is this?
Furthermore, what can be said of the divine Sonship of
Jesus as man? In spite of our overt denials, is Jesus' personality
absorbed into the Word? For many, it would appear so. And
as a man, can we speak of him as adopted? There is a sense
in which, as a graced individual, Jesus could be spoken of as
being related to God by adoption, as is the case with any other
graced human. Is there any validity to the statements of Scrip-
ture which refer to Jesus in an adopted sense? Or have they,
in spite of their inspired character, simply been superseded
by later, fuller christological statements of Scripture?
What is Jesus' uniqueness in relation to God and human-
kind, his special role as mediator? How is this arrived at,
especially when Jesus, in his humanity is a contingent, limited
being? (53). We understand Jesus to be revealer of both the
(52) Schillebeeckx attempts to address this question in a contemporary

vein. See Jesus, 650ff.
(53) Ibid., Part IV.
true nature of God as well as authentic humanity but in

sense does he mediate these two poles? Walter Kasper has
erved that,
...between emphasis on the unity or on the distinction between
Godhead and humanity, there lies a still unsolved and perhaps
insoluble problem, that of mediation between God and man Í54).
The Council of Chalcedon did not speak of the personal,

inner life of Jesus. It simply was not a part of its concern.
In the debates which surrounded the Council, the question of
Jesus' knowledge was touched upon only peripherally. Nothing
of his self-awareness was inquired of. In contemporary christ-
ology, it is almost universally admitted that the Scriptural
texts do not provide us with anything of Jesus' psychology.
But it readily raises the question concerning what can be di-
scovered regarding Jesus' intentions as a human. What can we
learn about his personal self-understanding? The Scriptural
texts do support this line of inquiry. This approaches Jesus of
Nazareth from an anthropological perspective considerably dif-
ferent from that of Chalcedon.
3. The problem of kenosis (55)

The classic reference to kenosis, to the self-emptying of
Jesus Christ, is contained in the hymn which Paul quotes in
his letter to the Philippians (2:6-11),
« His (Jesus Christ) state was divine,

yet he did not cling
to his equality with God
but emptied himself
to assume the condition of a slave,
and became as men are.» (2:6-7)
i54) Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 240. Kasper devotes an entire chapter
to the question of Jesus Christ - Mediator between God and Man, 230-268.
It is well worth reading, but his conclusion simply reinforces the im-
plication of the quote given above.
(5Ś) The problem of kenosis is actually a theological problem more
than a problem raised at Chalcedon.
As the notes in the Jerusalem Bibl

understood as referring not to the f
rather to the manner in which the Incarnation occurred. Jesus
Christ did not give up his divine nature, but he freely gave up
the glory which he was entitled to in the divine nature, the
glory that belonged to him prior to the Incarnation i56). The
present theological question is: Where is the kenosis if the Word
remained in plenitude? What can this kenosis actually mean?
Karl Rahner points out that, according to the traditional way
of speaking, God wept, God died on the cross. But even this
traditional form of expression goes beyond the notion that th
Word gave up its glory. In what way can we say that God
emptied himself in the Incarnation?
Beyond this consideration, most contemporary authors are
even more concerned with postulating a human Jesus who pos-
sesses defects, who is closer to us in our broken human nature
than the Jesus to whom all perfections are attributed. In
this regard, Aquinas' principle of kenosis attributes to Jesus'
humanity all defects which are not inconsistent with perfect
grace and perfect knowledge and which are the consequence
of original sin. Rahner is critical of this as still being too
perfect. What sort of kenosis is this that attributes the beatific
vision to Christ in via? This appears to remove too much
human freedom. What sort of kenosis is it that reserves to
itself perfect grace and perfect knowledge? The Word still se
to have all of its prerogatives. As for the humanity, where
normal human growth be found? What form of kenosis ex
if there is an absence of the need for faith? All this perfec
seems to be belied by the apparent fact that, at least to a comm
reading of the Gospels, Jesus seemed to need to adjust his
cation, to give it a different direction. His apparent experi
of abandonment on the Cross seems to belie perfect know-
i56) The note in the Jerusalem Bible refers to the disciples' experience
at the transfiguration as seeing something of this glory. Confer Mt 17:
1-13 and parallels.
ledge C57). Does all of this perfection detract from his

humanity?
4. The chalcedonian pattern: the saving events, soteriology

Even though soteriology was a prime consideration in ar-
riving at the chalcedonian formulation, in its final form this
issue fades from view. The Council did not address the so-
teriological implications of the doctrine of the One Lord
Christ (58). Too little is addressed to the notion that it was «
us men and for our salvation ». God is the subject of Jesus'
saving activity. What does this say about Jesus' freedom or his
activity on our behalf? The formula represents Christ as an
object of knowledge, not as a saving event. This detaches
christology from soteriology (59). But if the essence of Christ
is under discussion, then it does not refer either to our sal-
vation or to our own existence (®).
The calcedonian pattern says nothing of Jesus' place in the
history of salvation. The New Testament is the record of the
life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. It distinguishes Jesus'
earthly life from his glorified life. This distinction is missing
in Chalcedon. Jesus Christ is confessed as the Son of God
but he is also affirmed as the prophet who brought sal
to the world.
While Chalcedon, because of its very nature and intention,
is limited, the later theological tradition is not totally devoid
of addressing the issues just referred to above. These « ob-
servations » ought to be understood, not so much as a complete
Í57) Brown, Raymond, Jesus: God and Man, (Milwaukee: Bruce Publish-
ing Co., 1967), 39-102. Brown points out that the Scriptures seem to
support two positions, one that Jesus' knowledge is limited, the other
that it was unlimited. It seems likely that he accepts the former position
given the way he concludes his essay.
i58) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 218.
(59) Schoonenberg, The Christ, 63. This is a common complaint among
contemporary thinkers. Their effort is to recover the soteriology contained
in the events of Jesus' life.
(«) Ibid., 62.
lack of interest on the part of past

« wish list » of theological themes tha
addressed and should be given fuller
5. The Language Problem

The language of Chalcedon is largely not understood today.
Its particular conceptual framework appears foreign, empty and
abstract in comparison to the riches of Sacred Scripture. Has
it adequately accounted for the historical and christological
account of Jesus in the Scriptures?
In particular, the term « nature » is objected to. There is
a new understanding in our contemporary usage of it. In con-
temporary usage nature is that which is below culture. Similar,
and perhaps even more pertinent, is the difficulty presented by
the terms « hypostasis », « person » and « personalitas » (the
latter a scholastic term). These terms are largely not under-
stood or have taken on new meanings. The language of Chal-
cedon, a language from an entirely different social and cul-
tural situation than that in which we find ourselves, has given
way to categories that are more personalistic, existentialist or
historical. To exacerbate the problem, metaphysics has been
largely abandoned or ignored by our contemporaries. This would
seem to make it incumbent upon us to find new ways to express
these sacred truths so central to the Christian understanding
of Christ.
III. - CHALCEDON AND CONTEMPORARY CHRISTOLOGY
There has been a dramatic change in both the pas

intellectual life of the Church since the Second Vatican Council.
During the time of this most recent Council one could have
observed that the great influences were Sacred Scripture, the
Liturgy, and the Greek Fathers. Barely a century earlier, the
great influences at Vatican Council I would have come from
Canon Law, Papal Authority, and Thomas Aquinas. During
Vatican Council II the Declaration on Religious Liberty was
promulgated (61) while a little more than a century earli

Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX was promulgated (62). In hinds
one can only marvel at these remarkable, even breathtak
shifts. What a difference a century has made. This rather
dramatic change in the life of the Church has been felt equally
strongly in the manner in which theology and most especially
christology is currently exercised.
Chalcedon's impact on christology has deservedly been great.
It virtually controlled its direction. At the present time great
changes are taking place. John Macquarrie, an Anglican who
has shown a keen interest in Catholic theology, has made the
following observation.
There have been many Roman Catholic writings on christology
since the Enlightenment, but we have passed them over since,
in the main, they were variations on the Chalcedonian theme.
Even as late as 1954, Karl Adam's excellent book, The Christ
of Faith still reflected the traditional christology, though one
must add that it showed the continuing strength of that christo-
logy. However, as Karl Rahner was to point out a few years
later, textbooks of Catholic dogma published in 1950 were
hardly distinguishable from textbooks of 1750, in spite of all the
shattering events that had taken place in the two centuries be-
tween them. But certainly such a complaint could not be made
after Vatican II. Roman Catholic theologians have produced
a great body of new theology that is lively and interesting.
Some of it, admittedly, has proved to be superficial and epheme-
ral, but, as I remarked at the beginning of this chapter, the
leadership in theology today belongs to Roman Catholic writers.
To some extent they have incorporated into their own tradition
insights derived from Protestant thought and from secular
philosophies, but they have been more concerned than were
Protestant theologians to reconcile the new theological thinking
with the traditional teaching of the Church (63).
Catholic theology attempts to account for the entire tradi-
(61) Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae, 7 December 1965.

(62) Quanta cura or Syllabus of errors , December 8, 1864. See Den-
zinger 2901-2980.
(63) John Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought , (Philadelphia:
Trinity Press International, 1990), 303-04.
tion. What makes this task so difficult for the Catholic theo-
logian today is that he must also account for numerous develop-
ments in biblical exegesis which have taken place since the
promulgation of Divino afflante spiritu.
A. Christology until approximately 1950
1. The notion of préexistence governed christology

Chalcedon served as the point of departure for Cath
christology until approximately 1950. The connection be
the results of Chalcedon and scholastic christology is qu
clear. Just as Chalcedon was ruled by the notion of pré
ence, so one can say the same for scholastic christology
Its predetermined goal was to account speculatively for E
and Chalcedon C65). This was its specific concentration.
The Council of Chalcedon maintained the balance between
the duality and unity in the christological affirmations. Scholast
christology by and large followed this pattern. It did so by
adopting the language of the Councils, and in this concentration
it removed itself from the biblical language and patterns.
2. The ( scholastic ) tradition accounts for only a limited numbe

of biblical texts
Classical theology does not account for the whole of the
biblical data. It deals principally with the identity between
Son and Father; Jesus and God (*). The first question and the
(M) Christology which is not ruled by préexistence : Adoption Christo-

logy, which emphasizes Jesus being man, putting stress on his human
nature; Incarnation Christology which emphasizes that Jesus is from
God (not from here) and this form of christology stresses grace.
i65) The patterns were generally of two kinds. The one, the Logos -
anthropos (Antioch), which Nestorius followed, stressed duality or dis-
tinction between the Father and Christ. The other pattern, the Logos -
sarx (Alexandrian) was the model followed by Cyril and Eutyches and
it stressed unity.
Í66) This statement may be too extreme. At least Aquinas attempted
one which dominated scholastic christology was: How is Chris

divine? Scholastic theology (like Chalcedon) is principally
concerned with how the Son relates to the Father. But it
does not deal with Jesus' relationship to the Father in t
of conscious experience: Jesus knows the Father, does h
listens to him, is obedient. It does not inquire after his
understanding or what it might mean to be truly huma
The humanity of Jesus is dealt with by and large as the re
to the question: How would this particular human be if he
were hypostatically united with the Word? Thus, we get a
discussion on Christ's grace and knowledge based upon his
unique relationship. It does not deal so much on how Jesus
relates to humanity in a larger way, except in so far as it deals
specifically with his humanity as the cause of salvation.
3. The pattern of two natures

The older christology tended to exploit the honorific titles
applied to Christ which are found in the Scriptures. These
titles are an attempt by the primitive community to express
its understanding of the reality of Christ. Schoonenberg warns
us that these titles are useful, but dangerous i68). These titles
attempt to give the relation between Jesus, God, and fellow man.
They are like patterns or models (69).
Thus we should state at the outset that we shall here have
to answer first the question of how much the pattern of the
two natures in Christ brings us closer to his reality, of how it
may estrange us from the person of Jesus Christ C70).
to cover the life of Christ in his christology, although his treatment would
look vastly different from a contemporary effort largely, I think, because
of the differences in biblical exegesis.
(67) See Gaudium et Spes, no. 22.
C68) Schoonenberg, The Christ, 52.
(69) See the wonderful book by McIntyre, John, The Shape of Christo-
logy, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966) which uses this concept of pat-
terns or models to explore the chris tological declarations of the Councils.
It is a very helpful way of looking at the Conciliar formulations.
C70) Schoonenberg, The Christ, 52.
Furthermore, the language or categorie

ology are largely essentialist in nature.
way with Christ as an object of knowledge. It is clear that
contemporary christology has other options at its disposal. It
has a new understanding of nature. Its anthropology is by and
large not that of Aristotle. Contemporary philosophical cate-
gories are far removed from the common language of scholastic
theology.
One final observation. Although Chalcedon did not concern
itself with all of the mysteries of Christ (and it should not be
expected to since there was a limited range of questions raised)
so also, scholastic christology has also not answered questions
it has not asked. Although scholastic christology did engage
itself in exploring a broader panoply of mysteries not addressed
in Chalcedon, we can safely assume that the full depth of these
mysteries has yet to be explored.
B. Biblical exegesis: The contemporary problematic
The Scriptures are the inexhaustible source of the

about Christ. Biblical theology is an attempt to get at th
standing of the biblical authors. On the other hand,
which expresses something of the primitive kerygma
in the Scriptures, is always a limited, albeit authorita
pression of the faith. It has a specific focus. It is nev
quate to the entire biblical teaching (71). The dogma o
cedon is not a condensation or a summary of everyth
hear in Scripture about Jesus Christ, the Son of Go
Son of Man.
A major source of the present chris tological interest arose
with Biblical Theology. It gives another understanding of the
events of Scripture which was not available during either the
Patristic or the Medieval period C72).
C71) Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 1, 154.

Ç12) The beginning of this change came about with the advent of
historical criticism which itself has experienced major developments in
recent years.
1. Levels of christology in the New Testament

There is a multiplicity of christologies found in the New
Testament, whose origins are to be located in the particular
context and theological interest of the final redactor. Beside
this multiplicity, a christological development occurs within th
text of the Bible itself C3). The earliest level of affirmations abo
Christ in the Scriptures is adoptionist. These early reflection
focused upon Christ's earthly life and his imminent return. Thi
primitive stage was quickly followed by the articulation of
Christ's préexistence with the Father. Only with time and r
flection did the fullness of Christ's préexistence become a po
session of the Church C74)-
From a christological perspective, Rahner asks whether
these early adoptionist assertions are simply a first stage for-
mulation which has become obsolete or whether there is some-
thing beneficial to Christian faith in these affirmations. Rahner 's
question implies that they do have value and theology ought t
exploit their deeper meaning. Given the various stages of christ-
ological development, are we only to accept the latest? Or is
there something important about every level of affirmation re-
garding the Christ? Biblical exegetes would affirm that there
is nothing in Scripture which is without its own significance
The affirmations of Christ as a grace-filled man, one who is fa-
vored by God, ought to have a significance for us which we have
not as yet fully appreciated.
The point of departure of the most primitive kerygma which
was preached by Peter and Paul is a christology from below C75).
C73) See Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology.

Fuller proposes that the development occurred in three stages and in
three environments. Even though his conclusions would presently require
adjustment in light of a better understanding of the hellenization which
seemed to exist in the Pales tine- judaic stage, nevertheless, his general
conclusion concerning the development of christology in the New Testa-
ment is sound.
C4) For example, in the earliest stages Jesus is said to have become
Lord in the course of his life, death and resurrection. This is largely a
Synoptic picture. The later stage is quite clear about his préexistence.
C75) Christology from below, or low christology, as opposed to the
It is firmly anchored in the Jesus of histo

earthly, human Jesus, not the préexisten
more apparent than in the Acts of the A
human experience of the disciples of Jes
does it say something to us which is benef
classical christology? C77).
2. The Jesus of history as point-of-depar

The failure of the Quest For The Historical Jesus movement
to obtain any credible results gave rise to a period of skepticism
vis-a-vis recovering anything of value of the history of Jesus.
Bultmann dismissed the idea of the recovery of anything of the
historical Jesus with the statement that the Christ of faith
only tangentially touches history. Bultmann's project was n
to search in vain (in his mind) for the Jesus of history but
rather to interpret what he referred to as the mythologi
which expresses that which is important of Jesus for faith. T
was seriously challenged by Ernst Kasemann and the Post-B
mannians in their New Quest For The Historical Jesus C8)- We
might include in this effort Wolfhart Pannenberg. History once
again became a valid category. This effort, however, yielded
moderate results. At present, there is a much more optimistic
attitude that it is indeed possible to attain something of the
significance of the Jesus of history from the texts of Scripture C79)-
Chalcedonian approach or later scholastic christology which was christo-

logy from above, or high christology.
(76) Acts 2:21-36; 3:12-26; 4:8-12,27; 5:29-32; 7:56; 9:22; 10:34-43; 13:28-
41; 17:31; 18:28.
(J7) Rahner, Theological Investigations , vol. 1, 155.
(78) See the article by Ernst Kasemann, « The Problem of the Histo-
rical Jesus », in Essays in New Testament Themes, (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1982), 15-47. With this article Kasemann became instrumental in
giving an entirely new direction to the search for the historical Jesus.
C9) « Jesus of History » is the preferred expression. The « historical
Jesus » still rings of the conflict surrounding the earlier expressions which
distinguished the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith. Among those
who have made a serious attempt to recover something of the Jesus of
history are: E. P. Sanders, J. P. Meier, J. D. Crossan and Geza Vermeils.
The first two authors referred to have been the most successful in my
judgment.
The life of Jesus movement is much more sanguine about

the recovery of a respectable amount of the pre-Easter Jesus
And contemporary christology seems to have welcomed this new
enthusiasm. The life of Jesus movement indicates a great intere
in the Jewishness of Jesus, that is, it searches to identify t
Jesus of history in his cultural milieu as a Jewish peasant, to se
him not against but within his culture and to determine wha
social, cultural and religious forces shaped his (human) thinking
There is a renewed interest and emphasis in the miraculous whi
is found in the earliest (and every) stratum of Scripture as w
as being multiply attested to on every level. This is a significan
departure from the New Quest.
Contemporary christology inquires about the historical Jesu
not an abstract but a concrete consideration of him i80). It re-
quires a more temporal view of the human history of this Son
of God (81).
A focus on the Jesus of history inevitably raises questions
about his role as mediator as well as his redemptive activity.
In this regard, the formula of Chalcedon seems significantly
silent. The full human activity of Jesus, as either mediator
or savior, is not in any sense revealed in the formula.
There is a need to understand more fully the mediation of
Christ in his humanity. When the divinity or préexistence be-
comes the principal focus, redemption is perceived as God's
act among us and the notion of mediatorship recedes to the
background. If human nature is seen as a pure instrument of
divinity, without serious consideration given its proper role in
salvation, it is no longer a mediator.
Christology must account for the mediation of Christ. In
(m) Schillebeeckx realizes that all revelation comes through human

experience, in contingent history. He raises the challenging question as
to how it is possible for us to see the uniqueness and universality in Jesus
who is human and existent in a limited historical context. Liberation
theology looks to the Jesus of history as the embodiment of the king
of heaven. It focuses, as does Schillebeeckkx, on his praxis, how he made
the kingdom present and real.
(81) Schoonenberg, The Christ , 65.
his humanity Christ is not simply a

It is possible to understand manifestation in such a manner
so as to destroy mediatorship. Mediation is a consequence of
the Incarnation. It requires the humanity of Jesus. Without a
true humanity, there is no mediation, therefore, the genuineness
of Christ's humanity must be maintained. Thus, there is a real
value to incarnational christology in contradistinction to a christ-
ology which begins with préexistence.
When there is an overstress on the divine nature, christology
faces the danger of appearing docetic in its conclusions. There-
fore, there is a need to account for the full participation of the
humanity of Christ in Redemption. We must consider the em-
pirical subject « Jesus » who stands before our eyes, who par-
ticipated in redemption, who acted as man, made decisions,
overcame temptations to his ministry, obeyed the will of his
Father, and so on. Full participation of Jesus' humanity in the
salvific work of redemption is another way of approaching Jesus'
consciousness C83). Contemporary christology has turned its at-
tention toward the humanity of Jesus and his self-understanding
of his mission (M).
3. Jesus' human relationship to God

Jesus' relationship to the Father has become the center-
piece for his human activity relative to salvation i85). Jesus'
ministry was rooted in his understanding of the Father. He
(82) Christ is referred to in terms of Epiphany - God revealing him-

self. There is another dimension to Jesus which is a manifestation of
true humanity.
(83) Contemporary theologians speak of Christ's self-understanding.
For example: Did he know who he was? Did he know that his work was
salvific? Was he conscious that his mission has universal significance?
C84) The self-understanding of Jesus should not be confused with his
psychological consciousness. This latter is not recoverable from the bib-
lical text. Contemporary christology speaks of Jesus' self-understanding
in a personal way considerably different from that of Chalcedon. It
seeks to discover whether Jesus' self-understanding developed vis-a-vis
his ministry, etc.
(85) It leads to the identification of him as one with the Father.
knew the Father's will because of his intimate experience of

him. Christians are capable of experiencing Jesus as the reve
lation of God because he himself first experienced God. Chris
in his humanity, forms a unique locus for our true understandin
of God, although since it is limited, his humanity can in no
way exhaust this understanding i86). It both reveals and conceal
4. The need for new categories for christology C87)

The need for new categories has been alluded to above. It
is possible, even necessary, to expand the conceptual apparatu
of scientific theology. There can be new ways of expressin
these truths other than the concepts of the Scholastics whic
were worked out from Greek philosophy. In fact, contemporary
christology has long since abandoned the categories of scholastic
theology and continually searches for newer, more appropria
forms of expression.
Christ is the fullness of time and is involved in the whole
of human history. First articulated by Irenaeus, this notion
has been found to be a useful category in understanding Chris
and universal salvation O8). Newer categories of history, a deeper
understanding of it, would seem to better capture the meanin
of salvation than the ontological categories of scholastic christ
ology.
The categories of classical christology do not account for
the whole Christ, especially his human history. These philoso-
phical categories of formal ontology are perceived as static, abs-
tract, and metaphysical C9). On the other hand, biblical ca-
C86) He also reflects the fullness or perfection of human nature. See

Gaudium et Spes, no. 22.
Í87) Rahner, Theological Investigations , vol. 1, 166.
Í88) Irenaeus expressed this in his well-known Principle of Recapitula-
tion. Schillebeeckx, among several contemporary theologians, has again
laid claim to this felicitous construct.
Í89) Note the discussion of language in Assmann, Hugo, Theology for
a Nomad Church, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1975). Assmann
is very negative toward abstract language, very positive toward the
concrete. He is not the only one. Even Studer speaks of the Chalce-
donian language as « too Greek and abstract ». See Trinity and Incarna-
tion, 218.
tegories are perceived of as dynamic

closer to the context of Jesus' minis
an attempt to get at a deeper understanding of the biblical
authors, as opposed to the understanding of those who con-
structed the formulae of the Councils C90). There is an attempt
to recover biblical categories, to return to the dynamic cate-
gories of the Hebrew religion.
All of this moves against the classical formulae of Chal-
cedon as a point-of-departure for christology. We now have
better tools at our disposal, among which are history, sociology,
process and personalist philosophies, cultural anthropology and
many other thought patterns which fit the contemporary situa-
tion more adequately.
C. The need to re-examine the fundamental problem
The Church Fathers were confronted with several difficult

problems concerning the nature of Christ and his relationship
to God. From their faith conviction which was grounded in
Scripture, the kerygma, and the baptismal creeds, they fashioned
a solution that was intended both to be faithful to the tradition
and to resolve these theological conflicts. Their responses were
addressed to particular, specific questions, and fashioned in
the language of their time. One can only marvel at the long-
standing success of their accomplishment.
Scholastic christology built upon this foundation, and in-
corporated into its synthesis these conciliar developments. It
exploited the language and intent of the councils and adequately
applied the thought categories, the metaphysics and anthropology
of its day. It fashioned a systematic christology the likes of
which is unlikely to be repeated again and which had force
until only recent times. This effort was truly a « faith seeking
understanding ».
The task for contemporary christology is to do likewise.
Í90) This would include not only Chalcedon but also the other im-
portant councils as well: Nicea, Ephesus and III Constantinople.
Just as its predecessors had done, it attempts to answer its own

specific set of questions in contemporary language in fidelity
to the primitive kerygma, accounting for both the Scriptura
data and the Tradition. It is bent upon the recovery of the
meaning of the Tradition for the present age.
What direction, then, should contemporary christology take?
There are several specific areas which need special consideration.
First, the language used to frame the results of research wil
of necessity be different from that of the past; it should be
the language understood by contemporary men and women.
Second, special consideration should be given to the research
of the Jesus of history. The Jesus of history is an important
correction preventing one from misinterpreting the Gospel por-
trait of Jesus. Third, emphasis ought to be placed on recover-
ing the God of Jesus Christ, that is, his personal understanding
of God which is reflected both in his teaching and in his praxis.
This is imperative for a contemporary reformulation of our idea
of God. And fourth, there should be a search for a deeper
understanding of the fullness of humanity as it is reflected in
the humanity of Jesus (91). These particular areas of research
would seem to be an appropriate program, at least a partial
program, for contemporary christology. Answers to these pro-
blems would add immensely to the treasure already received
from the past.
1. The categories of christology

All of this moves against the classical formulae of Chalcedon.
Chalcedon no longer satisfies, it no longer adequately responds
to contemporary understanding. It is almost a commonplace to
hear the criticism of the philosophical categories in which the
Conciliar statements are framed, which are largely derived from
Greek philosophy. They are rejected as static, abstract and me-
taphysical. The results of the Fathers of Chalcedon and the
subsequent christology seem far removed from the language
(91) Schillebeeckx has suggested as much in his Jesus , Part IV, 603.
of the Bible. Those rejecting these categ

the hope that theology will recover the categ
language, a language which is often descri
concrete.
There is, understandably, a certain bias in pitting con

versus abstract, the dynamic versus the static. This does
entirely resolve the truth of the matter nor the usefuln
either form of category. Did the Fathers and medieval th
gians think that they were impoverishing the biblical m
by the philosophy they used? Undoubtedly, the answer i
But there is certainly some justification in the critique.
as the Fathers used the categories current in their day, we
have little choice but to use those of our own if we wish to
make the primitive kerygma intelligible to a contemporary
audience. We now have other (not necessarily better) tools
our disposal. The categories of a more personalist nature,
history, of anthropology, and of sociology have all shown t
ability to attract serious attention; this is said without pre
judice to categories of the past. We need to remind ourse
that it is the concept that expresses the reality, and not so m
the expression or linguistic garb chosen. Even so, the expressi
is not unimportant since it can give a false impression of t
reality in question or it can disguise the concept making it
unintelligible.
2. The Jesus of history

Schoonenberg has suggested a more temporal view of the
man who is God's Son, as well as the need for more of the human
history of this Son of God. His hope is to complement and
correct the current (Chalcedonian) christological pattern, and
in so doing to preserve the divinity of Christ C'2).
Schoonenberg's suggestion now seems more promising to
fulfill than ever before. "Taking history seriously" has only be-
come possible in recent times. After the failed Quest for the
i92) Schoonenberg, The Christ, 65.
Historical Jesus, and the limited results of the New Quest,

recent efforts in historical research give promise of yielding
considerably more of the Jesus of history than had previously
been thought possible (93). History has become not only a valid
but a useful and promising category to recover the Jesus of
history.
In this regard, it might be added that a better understand-
ing of the pre-Easter Jesus would be good both for avoiding a
docetic image of Christ, and preventing the use of Scripture as
a cipher into which we read our own preconceived ideas of
who and what Christ is C94). It considers seriously that Christian-
ity is a historical religion with an historical founder. It also
provides christology with a hermeneutical key to understand
more fully the christology of the New Testament and its de-
velopment.
3. A reformulated idea about God

Jesus is, for the believing Christian, the unique revelation
of God. In what way, then, does his life manifest the truth
of God? Christology needs to explore what sort of God is
manifest in Jesus' life, his preaching and his praxis. What can
we discover about the « hypostatic union » in an examination
of Jesus' personal relationship to the father? (9S).
It is becoming increasingly clear as to the importance of
Jesus' understanding of God, his Abba. It is a key to the
correct understanding of his ministry as well as his idea of the
Kingdom. Jesus' experience of the Father was the ground for
(93) The reader is directed to the work of E. P. Sanders, John Dominic

Crossan, John P. Meier and a host of others. The results are mixed but
promising.
Í94) See Meier, John J., A Marginal Jew, vol. 1, (New York: Double-
day, 1991), 196-200. Liberation christology and christology from a critical
feminist perspective, valuable as they are, need to reflect on this particular
point, otherwise they suffer the possibility of doing an eisegesis.
(95) Regarding the problem of union, see Schillebeeckx's interesting
reflection in Jesus, Part IV, 652ff.
his authority. Christology has the t

intelligible picture of the God of Jesus
Contemporary christology is very m
God of Jesus Christ, that is, how Jesus
His personal relationship to God was such that the earliest
disciples saw God in him. Undoubtedly this was the basis for
the identity between Jesus and God which they affirmed later
on under their experience of the risen Lord C7).
4. A deeper understanding of the fullness of humanity

It has become a commonplace that Jesus is not only a
window through which we attain access to understanding some-
thing about the reality of God, but also, Jesus represents what
it means to be an authentic human being (98). This latter idea
has been articulated in Gaudium et Spes.
In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh

that the mystery of man truly becomes clear. For Adam, the
first man, was a type of him who was to come, Christ the Lord,
Christ the new Adam, in the very revelation of the mystery of
the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and
brings to light his most high calling (").
This intriguing statement suggests that the humanity of

Jesus reflects an authentic anthropology well worth exploring
more deeply. Past reflection into Jesus' humanity revealed im-
(%) See Schillebeeckx, Edward, God Among Us, (New York: Cross-
road, 1983), 113. Walter Kasper has published an important volume
entitled The God of Jesus Christ, (London: SCM Press, 1984). The title
is misleading, however. The work does address the God question, but
not as it might be discovered in the thought of Jesus Christ as the title
implies.
Í97) This point seems indispensable in tracing out the development
which led to the affirmation of a high christology in the New Testament.
(98) Schillebeeckx is fond of referring to Jesus as the human face
of God.
(") Gaudium et Spes, no. 22. Translation from Flannery, Austin,
O.P., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,
(Northport, New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1975).
portant insights. Both Aquinas and Macquarrie have asserted

that sin has no part in the integrity of humanity. Jesus in hi
sinlessness is no mere model for human behavior, but in its
deepest indicates the true nature of humanity. Gaudium et Spe
supports these earlier insights and calls for further theologica
investigation.
V. - CONCLUSION
The Christological issues raised in the fifth century

more than an historical interest for us, for the results of C
cedon stand as normative for the Catholic faith. We need to
understand how the Church Fathers, these early theologian
the Church, arrived at their conclusions. It is a significant
of the Catholic tradition, and its study still has a relevance
the words of Alloys Grillmeier,
There has often been a feeling of deep suspicion towards the

ancient Christology, and it has been said to have no value for
our age because it made use of a technical language and a Hel-
lenistic presentation, both of which must be rejected. But if
we are to proclaim the Mysterium Christi in the language of
our time, we must first have understood what the Fathers
wanted to say in the language of their time (10°).
An examination of the theological conflicts that led to the

Council of Chalcedon has verified that it was a concern to be
faithful to the primitive kerygma, it was biblical and soteriolog
concerns, it was a concern to account for the liturgical life
the Church which moved the discussion toward its ultimate
resolution. In this perspective, the original concerns of the fi
four or five centuries are not far removed from those expres
today. What marks the difference between this present era
the early period of Church history are major changes in cultu
(ioo) Grillmeier, Aloys, Christ in Christian Tradition , 1st ed., (Atlanta

John Knox Press, 1965), xxiii.
and social structures; major differen

and most importantly, a different wa
the Scriptures (101).
We need to take into account the cultural and social at-
mosphere in which this early development took place, as w
as the manner in which Scripture was read. Nevertheless,
accomplishment of Chalcedon could well serve as a model f
our own labors. Having said that, we can make the followi
observations.
1. Chalcedon as a point-of -departure for contemporary christ-

ology
The formula of Chalcedon is normative and therefore a
part of the Tradition which must be accounted for. In a ve
positive fashion, Rahner observes that it is an opportunity
an obstacle, for further profitable reflection upon the myste
of Christ. In an oft quoted passage referring to the form
of Chalcedon, he states,
Yet while this formula is an end, an acquisition and a victory,

which allows us to enjoy clarity and security as well as ease
in instruction, if this victory is to be a true one the end must
also be a beginning.... Thus we have not only the right but the
duty to look at it as end and as beginning (102).
Chalcedon is a good first word; it is not the last word. In

a genuine sense, it is unfinished business (103). If we recognize
(101) The typological, allegorical and literal methods of reading the

Scriptures are far from the form criticism, redaction criticism, and histo-
rical-critical method, to mention just a few methods, used in contemporary
biblical exegesis. It is no longer possible or legitimate to avoid these
newer methods. See Fitzmyer, Joseph, Scripture & Christology : A State-
ment of the Biblical Commission with a Commentary, (London: Geoffrey
Chapman, 1985).
(102) Rahner. « Current Problems in Christology », Theological In-
vestigations, vol. 1, 150. See the Epilogue in Grillmeier, Christ in Christian
Tradition, 2nd edition, 555-57. Grillmeier concurs with Rahner that Chal-
cedon is a beginning and not an end.
(i°3) Even in its own day it was unfinished business. Note that the
doctrinal statements as normative, we should also recognize th

they are not exhaustive. Nor should we consider the philo
phoumen, the philosophical garb in which the definition
fashioned, as a part of that definition. Definitions can be
formulated and indeed it may serve a useful purpose to do
so (104).
2. Scripture as a point-of-departure for contemporary christ-

ology
If Chalcedon is a reflection of the primitive kerygma and

the baptismal faith of the primitive community, all the more
so is the New Testament the normative expression of the Christ-
ian faith. The richness of Scripture is an inexhaustible source
of Christian life and theological reflection. It deserves pride
of place which in fact it receives. We owe a debt of gratitude
for the accomplishment of Catholic biblical scholars since the
publication of their Magna Charta, Divino afflante spiritu . As
of yet, contemporary theology has not assimilated this treasure.
Many of the mysteries contained in Scripture which were not
dealt with by the early councils need to be, and are being,
examined. These have been referred to above.
3. Suggestions to improve the christological picture

Some individuals have suggested a program by which the
present state of christology could be rendered more relevant (105
discussion of the two wills of Christ, and the discussion of the operativ
principles in Christ took several more centuries to complete.
(104) Although it may prove useful to reformulate, it is absolutely
necessary to approach the dogmatic statements with an appropriate her-
meneutic. Note Schillebeeckx' remarks in The Eucharist , (London: Sheed
& Ward, 1968), 25. « What theologians openly apply to Scripture, which
is inspired, they must just as openly venture to apply to Conciliar state-
ments. What is remarkable, however, is that some Christians show more
reverence for these statements than they do for the Bible. Nevertheless
we must persevere in putting thsi method into practice if we are to be
faithful to God's revealing word ».
(ios) For example, Schoonen berg's hope is to complement and correct
the current christological pattern, and to preserve the divinity of Christ.
It is beyond our intention to propos

direction for future action may sug
The Fathers and Chalcedon may
model for contemporary christolo
accomplishment for us to do for o
did for theirs. We share with them
the need to inculturate, to use new
intelligibility of the faith, the need
as well as soteriological concerns.
Tradition is of course a basic shared concern.
The first task for the present generation of theologians
the assimilation of biblical research. Most of the older theol-
ogians have not had the benefit of this newer research in th
basic education. One can refer to the splendid effort Edwar
Schillebeeckx made in reeducating himself in contemporary
biblical exegesis (1Cf7).
The second task is to trust the validity of new forms o
thought which will assist in making the primitive kerygma m
intelligible to a contemporary audience far removed from t
culture and social setting as well as the thought patterns o
the early Church. Already several disciplines have shown pr
mise: sociology, anthropology, and history have been well em
ployed, to name but a few. Perceiving Jesus within the Judaism
of his day has also cast light on his life and ministry (108).
A christology which begins from on high, one dependen
upon the notion of the préexistent Christ as its organizing
principle has produced its vision of christology, one which
are most conversant with. But a christology which is govern
by the Jesus of history, one that accounts for the full human
(106) The history which led to the conciliar decrees ought to serve as
an example for us. The search to clarify the faith was very irregular,
but during this search, until the dogma had been defined, there was great
liberty of expression. The present age should be appreciated in a similar
manner. « Heretic » is an inappropriate label to hurl at those who attempt
to give clarity to the faith of the Church.
(107) Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 36ff.
C1^) See especially the « Life of Jesus » researchers.
of Jesus, will yield quite another set of results. But can these
two efforts, one ancient, the other modern, really be contradict
ory? Both depend on the kerygma as found in the Scriptures
and the Tradition; both are governed by soteriological consi-
derations; each has its own pastoral concerns. We can easily
predict that the results of each effort will be different, but
should we not expect them to be complementary rather than
contradictory, even if they follow different paths? How well
they will be integrated can only be seen when the more recen
program is carried out to its happy conclusion.
At this point we can only wonder what the results of the
christological enterprise will look like should it follow the sug
gestion of being governed, not by an understanding of the pré-
existence of Christ, and not by an understanding of God derived
from philosophy but one derived from the teaching and praxi
of Jesus himself, with a more conscious effort to account for
the full humanity of Jesus.
John R. Morris, O.P.
ABSTRACT
The Council of Chalcedon was a response to questions raised about

the salvation of God offered through Jesus of Nazareth . A careful exami-
nation of the formulae reveals that it is a faithful interpretation of the
primitive kerygma. Its affirmation that Jesus Christ is both true God
and true man was a gain in clarity and is normative for Christian faith.
The results of Chalcedon , while normative , nevertheless are limited.
Many mysteries of faith, and many aspects of the full biblical picture of
Christ, are not treated in the teaching of Chalcedon.
The recovery of the richness of Scripture has had significant impact
on contemporary christology. The focus is no longer on the préexistence
but on the humanity of Christ. The search is for a more human, more
temporal Jesus. What is the role of Jesus, in his humanity, in salvation
history, in the salvation of humankind ? Contemporary christology is
beginning to reformulate its understanding of God, no longer based on
the philosophical presuppositions employed at Chalcedon, but rather
upon the God of Jesus Christ reflected in Jesus' own teaching and praxis.
There is also a deeper understanding of the fullness and integrity of
human nature as it is found in the person of Jesus. Contemporary
christology, dissatisfied with the metaphysical language of Chalcedon has
begun to search for new categories of expression derived from other
fields such as history, sociology, modern anthropology.
The search for the Jesus of history should serve as a complement to

Chalcedon, and as a further aid in overcoming the docetic tendency which
still influences the Christian imagination . Chalcedon is normative and
must always be accounted for, but we should also admit that it is un-
finished business . It is up to the present age, equipped with modern
biblical exegesis and new linguistic and philosophical tools, to do what
Chalcedon had done for its own age, namely, to find a way to incarnate
the primitive kerygma in a contemporary culture and social context .

44618271

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

44618271

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chalcedon and Contemporary Christology: A NEW DIRECTION FOR AN ANCIENT

Pontificia Studiorum Universitas a Sancto Thomas Aquinate in Urbe is collaborating with

This article examines what the contemporary christological enterpris

I. - THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

The Formulation of the dogma of the Council of Chalced

0) It reflected several diverse traditions: Antioch, Alexandria, Cons-

violate as the faith of the Church. In a similar fashion, the

«Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice

The formal Definition is divided into two parts: the first

He further states that the affirmation that the Son was

(4) Taken from Sellers, R. V., The Council of Chalcedon , (London:

- each with its own properties » in

A. Chalcedon: Fundamentally an articulation

Chalcedon gives expression to the Christian faith in

(10) Ibid., 218. See page 198, footnote 3.

The foundation for this formal definition is in the basic af-

(12) Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2nd ed., 545, 551.

supposition grounds the validity of t

The baptismal faith of the primitive community, which is

principle(19). Studer points out that this development

B. The Council's Legacy f1)

Chalcedon brought the christological debate which centered

Within this mystery, the Counc

(24) The earlier theological efforts to express the mystery of Trinity

far in the future. The same goes for the monenergist co

C. The contemporary discussion regarding Chalcedon

The contemporary discussion on the dogmatic form

Í26) Rahner, Karl, « Current Problems in Christology ». Theological

itations it does have and this ought

II. - THE ACCEPTANCE OF CHALCEDON: POSITIVE VIEW

Roman Catholic theologians accept the formulati

A. Chalcedon: Development and inculturation

Chalcedon was a milestone in the interpretation of the baptismal

i28) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation , 241.

The most primitive kerygma in all likelihood began in Aramaic,

(») See Fuller, Reginald, The Foundations of New Testament Christo-

Grillmeier observes that the Council Fathers themselves were

(32) Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition , 2nd ed., 545.

new anthropological models. From a non-philosophical, biblica

2. Dogmatic formulae of Chalcedon

Í34) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 244.

in full human freedom the will of his Fathe

It is this very large residue of mysteries which were not

Í36) Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 244.

Finally, it should be recalled that dogma is in essence a

At any rate, it is possible today continually to gain new insights

3. Development as a result of this inculturation

P») Ibid., 245.

conceptual development, that is, an exp

Such a continuity is in the final analysis based on the unique

This understanding is especially important in governing the

B. Critique of the formula « in se »

The positive contribution of Chalcedon has already been

Í44) Schoonenberg, The Christ, 65. Schoonenberg's hope « is to com-

1. The presupposition of God's impassib

But Union between the Word considered as a creature with

If in a phrase that Irenaeus quoted from an even earlier

2. The humanity of Jesus

Í48) See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , Part III, q. 2, a. 7;

Jesus as he relates to humanity, hav

(52) Schillebeeckx attempts to address this question in a contemporary

true nature of God as well as authentic humanity but in

The Council of Chalcedon did not speak of the personal,

3. The problem of kenosis (55)