◉ The Hypostatic Union and the Law of Non-Contradiction: A Modal-Logical Audit

Chalcedonian Christology does not entail a contradiction merely by affirming that one person is fully divine and fully human. The contradiction appears only when that conciliar nucleus is conjoined with further claims about essential divine attributes, complete human cognition, genuine temptation, unqualified personal predication, and a single unrestricted modality. This paper isolates those additional claims and tests two resulting packages in normal classical modal logic. The epistemic package combines the Son's essential divinity, the necessary inclusion of omniscience in divinity, and the premise that a completely human cognitive life leaves open a possible human state of non-omniscience. The volitional package combines divine impeccability with an agential reading of temptation on which yielding is genuinely possible. Both derivations are valid, but neither establishes that Chalcedon alone is inconsistent. Their soundness turns on explicit bridge premises. The paper therefore examines the strongest objections, adds an actuality variant motivated by Mark 13:32 and Luke 2:52, and evaluates six families of response: reduplicative predication, two-minds accounts, kenotic theories, compositional models, bi-modal semantics, and dialetheic Christology. Several strategies yield classically consistent interpretations; some may count as clarifications of conciliar predication rather than revisions of the doctrine. The audit's conclusion is diagnostic: any adequate account must state how nature-level properties bear on the one person, which modality governs the relevant possibility claims, and which account of complete humanity and temptation it adopts. The unqualified extended package is not jointly satisfiable, but the Hypostatic Union is not thereby shown to be incoherent without qualification.