{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024186046511627906, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.366863905325443, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Significance of Constantinople II’s Alteration of Chalcedon’s Formula About Christ’s Natures ‘Coinciding In One Prosôpon’

The Fathers at the Council of Chalcedon declared in their dogmatic formula that Christ’s two natures ‘coincide in one prosôpon and one hypostasis.’ The Fathers at the Second Council of Constantinople interpreted this differently to mean the existence of only one hypostasis or prosôpon in Christ. The question then to be answered: Is there any real theological significance in the substitution of ‘or’ for ‘and’ in the Chalcedonian’s formula? In other words, do the Fathers at Chalcedon and Constantinople actually mean the same thing when they speak differently about how hypostasis and prosôpon ought to be linked? More to the point, did the Fathers at Chalcedon intend to introduce an Antiochene christological phrase into their dogmatic formula when they chose to include ‘one prosôpon’ there? If so, did the inclusion of this phrase support the non-Chalcedonian charge that the Fathers at Chalcedon had been infected with the Nestorian heresy?