Wendlik, Krzysztof2025-07-212025-07-212013Teologia w Polsce, 2013, Tom 7, nr 1, s. 109-118.2956-63551732-4572https://theo-logos.pl/handle/123456789/33911One of the essential problems after the Council of Chalcedon was an issue of reception of a dogma of hypostatic union of Jesus Christ. This process, although very dramatic, with numerous connotations, especially political, did not overshadow strictly doctrinal debate. One of the participants of this debate in the circle of the Latin language was Vigilius, the bishop of Tapsus in North Africa. In his work Contra Eutychetem, written probably between year 460 and 480, he defends the decision of the Council of Chalcedon and the teaching of Pope Leo I, as to the manner of existing both natures in Jesus Christ, contained in the phrase in duabus naturis. At the same time he does not resign from using a „competitive“ phrase ex duabus naturis. In this way he proves the complementarity of both phrases, not affecting the substance of the Chalcedon dogma.plCC-BY - Uznanie autorstwaJezus Chrystusdogmat chalcedońskisobór chalcedońskidwie natury Jezusa Chrystusateologiateologia dogmatycznachrystologiadogmaty chrystologiczneWigiliusz z Tapsoregula fideiContra Eutychetemformuła „z dwóch natur”formuła „w dwóch naturach”unia hipostatycznadogmatybóstwo Chrystusaczłowieczeństwo ChrystusaJesus ChristChalcedonian dogmaCouncil of ChalcedonJesus Christ’s two naturestheologydogmatic theologyChristologyChristological dogmasVigilius of Tapsusformula “from two natures”formula “in two natures”hypostatic uniondogmasdivinity of Christhumanity of ChristArticle