ABSTRACT
The Council of Chalcedon did not end the Christological argument. The Alexandrians were dissatisfied. Their grievances were the omission of the formula "one incarnate nature of the divine Logos" and of the "hypostatic union" and of the confession "out of Two". The inclusion of the phrase "in two natures" after the union confirmed them in their worst suspicions. The more extreme opponents of Chalcedon were called Monophysites, because of their insistence upon one nature. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was called by Justinian, who wanted the theological issue settled. The Council did not intend to repudiate Chalcedon, but rather to interpret it in such a way as to relieve some of the objections. The anathemas very well summarized its action. It found the formula "one incarnate nature of the divine Logos" implied in Chalcedonian definition. The Council made possible an Alexandrian interpretation of Chalcedon, but it did not reject the Chalcedonian definition.
