Monophysitism
| Part of the series on Eastern Christianity | |
| |
|
History | |
|
Traditions | |
|
Liturgy and Worship | |
|
Theology | |
Monophysitism (from the Greek monos meaning 'one, alone' and physis meaning 'nature') is the christological position that Christ has only one nature (divine), as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. The term also refers to the movement centered on this concept, which struggled against the Chalcedonian formula in the fifth through sixth centuries CE.
Monophysitism and its antithesis, Nestorianism, were both hotly disputed and divisive competing tenets in the maturing Christian traditions during the first half of the fifth century. Monophysitism grew to prominence in the Eastern Roman empire, particularly in Syria, the Levant, Egypt, and Anatolia, while the Western Roman empire remained for the most part under the religious influence of the papacy, which denounced the doctrine as heresy.
Two major doctrines are specifically associated with Monophysitism:
- Eutychianism, which held that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature.
- Apollinarianism, which held that, while Christ possessed a normal human body and emotions, the Divine Logos had basically taken the place of the nous, or mind.
The Eutychian form of Monophysitism emerged after the "diaphysite" doctrine of Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, had been rejected at the First Council of Ephesus. Eutyches, also from Constantinople, emerged with a diametrally opposite view. Eutyches' was accused of heresy in 448, leading to his excommunication. In 449, at the controversial Second Council of Ephesus, Eutyches was reinstated and his chief opponents were deposed. However, Monophysitism and Eutyches were again rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
Monophysitism continued to have many adherents, however, and the controversy reemerged in a major way in late fifth century, in the form of the Acacian schism. In this drama, Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople and Emperor Zeno sought to reconcile the Monophysite and Chalcedonian Christians by means of the Henotikon, a document which essentially banned debate over the question of Christ's "natures." The schism lasted for several decades until the orthodox emperor Justin I reversed the policy of his predecessors and encouraged Patriarch John II of Constantinople to submit to the doctrine promulgated by Pope Hormisdas.
History
Background
The doctrine of Monophysitism can be seen as evolving in reaction to the "diaphysite" theory of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople in the early fifth century. Nestorianism was an attempt to explain rationally the doctrine of the Incarnation, which held that God the Son had dwelt among men in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Nestorius held that the human and divine essences of Christ were separate, so that the man Jesus and the divine Logos, were in effect two "persons," a similar sense of the Trinity being three "persons."[1] Consequently, Nestorians rejected such terminology as "God was crucified," because the humanity of Jesus Christ that suffered was distinct from his divinity. Likewise, Nestorius rejected the term Theotokos (God-bearer or Mother of God) as a title of the Virgin Mary, suggesting instead the title Christotokos (Mother of Christ), as more accurate.
Bishop Cyril of Alexandria led the theological criticism of Nestorius beginning 429. "I am amazed," he said, "that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not." Pope Celestine I, who was suspicious of Nestorius for granting hospitality to certain certain Pelagian clerics whom the pope had condemned soon joined Cyril in condemning Nestorius. After considerable wrangling and intrigue the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorianism as heresy. Nestorius himself was deposed as bishop of Constantinople and excommunicated.
Eutychianism
Cyril taught that in Christ, "There is only one physis, since it is the Incarnation, of God the Word." Only this sounds very much like Monophysitism, Cyril was apparently beyond reproach. Eutyches (c. 380—c. 456), a presbyter and archimandrite of a monastery of 300 monks near Constantinople, emerged after Cyril's death as Nestorianism's most vehement opponent. He held that Christ's divinity and humanity were perfectly united, and his vehement expression of this principle led to his being understood to insist that Christ had only one nature (essentially divine) rather than two.
Eutychianism became a major controversy among the eastern church and Pope Leo I, from Rome, wrote that Eutyches teaching was indeed an error, although he admitted that it seemed to be more from a lack of skill on the matters than from malice. Nevertheless, Eutyches found himself denounced as a heretic in November 447, during a local synod in Constantinople. Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople did not wish the council to consider the matter due to the great prestige that Eutyches enjoyed, but he finally relented, and Eutyches was condemned as a heretic by the synod. However, the emperor Theodosius II and the Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria did not accept this decision. Dioscorus held his own synod at Alexandria reinstating Eutyches, and the emperor called a council to be held in Ephesus in 449, inviting Pope Leo I, who agreed to be represented by four legates.
The Second Council of Ephesus convened on August 8, 449, with some 130 bishops in attendance. Dioscorus of Alexandria presided by command of the emperor, who denied a vote to any bishop who had voted in Eutyches' deposition two years earlier. As a result, there was a near-unanimous support for Eutyches—the pope's representatives being among the few who insisted on Eutyches' being in error. Moreover, the council went so far as to condemn and expel Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, who soon died.
The decisions of this council threatened schism between the East and the West, and soon became known in the west as the "Robber Synod."
Chalcedon
The situation continued to deteriorate until the ascension of Emperor Marcian to the imperial throne, brought about a reversal of policy in the East. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was now convened in 451, under terms less favorable to the Monophysites. It promulgated the doctrine which ultimately—though not without serious challenges—stood as the settled christological formula for most of Christendom. Eutychianism was once again rejected, and the formula of "two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation" was adopted.
- "We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person and one hypostasis."
Although this settled matters between Constantinople and Rome on the christological issue, a new controversy arose as a result of Chalcedon's canon number 28, granting Constantinople, as "New Rome" equal ecclesiastical privileges with "old" Rome. This, of course, was unacceptable to the pope, who accepted the council's theological points, but not its findings on church disciple.
Pope Simplicius role
Monophysitism continued to be a major movement in many eastern provinces, with popular sentiment on both sides of the issue sometimes breaking out into violence over the nomination of various bishops in cities often divided by Monophysite and Chalcedonian factions. In 474, Emperor Leo II sought Pope Simplicius' confirmation of Constantinople's status as "New Rome" and its rights to nominate bishops of certain cities previously under the pope's jurisdiction. Simplicius rejected the emperor's request.
In 476, after Leo II's death, Flavius Basiliscus drove the new emperor, Zeno, into exile and seized the Byzantine throne. Basiliscus looked to the Monophysites for support, and he allowed the deposed Monophysite patriarchs Timotheus Ailurus of Alexandria and Peter Fullo of Antioch to return to their sees. At the same time Basiliscus issued a religious edict which commanded that only the first three ecumenical councils were to be accepted, rejecting the Council of Chalcedon. All eastern bishops were commanded to sign the edict. The patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, wavered; but a popular outcry led by rigidly orthodox monks moved the him to resist the emperor and to reject his overtures to the Monophysites.
When the former emperor, Zeno, regained power from Basiliscus in 477, he sent the pope an orthodox confession of faith, whereupon Simplicius congratulated him on his restoration to power. Zeno promptly voided the edicts of Basiliscus, banished Peter Fullo from Antioch, and reinstated Timotheus Salophakiolus at Alexandria. At the same time, he also allowed the Monophysite Patriarch Timotheus Ailurus to retain his office in the same city, reportedly on account of the latter's great age, although no doubt also because of the strength of the Monophysite adherents there. In any case, Ailurus soon died. The Monophysites of Alexandria now put forward Peter Mongus, the former archdeacon of Ailurus, as his successor. Urged by the pope and the orthodox parties of the east, Zeno commanded that Peter Mongus be banished. Peter, however, was able to remain in Alexandria, and fear of the Monophysites prevented the use of force.
Meanwhile the orthodox Patriarch Timotheus Salophakiolus, apparently seeking conciliation, risked the ire of the anti-Monophysites by placing of the name of the respected deceased Monophysite patriarch Dioscurus I on the diptychs, the list of honored leaders to be read at the church services. Simplicius wrote to Acacius of Constantinople on March 13, 478 urging that Salophakiolus should be commanded to reverse himself on this matter. Salophakiolus sent legates and letters to Rome to assure the pope that Dioscorus' name would be removed from the lists.
Patriarch Acacius continued his campaign against the Monophysistes, and at his request Pope Simplicius condemned by name the previously named "heretics" Mongus and Fullo, as well as several others. The pope also named Acacius as his representative in the matter. When the Monophysites at Antioch raised a revolt in 497 against anti-Monophysite Patriarch Stephen II and killed him, Acacius himself chose and consecrated Stephen's successors. Simplicius demanded that the emperor punish the murderers of the patriarch, but—ever vigilant to defend Rome's prerogatives—strongly reproved Acacius for allegedly exceeding his competence in performing the consecration of Stephen III. Relations between the patriarchs of the two great cities now soured considerably.
The Henotikon
After the death of Salophakiolus, the Monophysites of Alexandria again elected Peter Mongus patriarch, while the orthodox chose Johannes Talaia. Despite Acacius' earlier opinion that Mongus was a heretic, both Acacius and the emperor were opposed to Talaia and sided with Mongus, perhaps on the grounds that his moral reputation was superior.
Emperor Zeno, meanwhile was very desirous of ending the strife between the Monphysite and Chalcedonian factions, which was causing considerable difficulty for him. The document known as the Henotikon, approved by Zeno in 481, was an attempt to achieve such a conciliation.
The Henotikon begins by insisting on the faith defined at the first three ecumenical councils at Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Nestorius and Eutyches are both condemned, the anathemas of them by Cyril of Alexandria approved. Christ is definite as both God and man, but "one, not two." Whether this "one" refers to his "person" or "nature" is carefully is not said. Only one of the Trinity (the Son) was incarnate in Jesus. Who thinks otherwise is anathematized, especially Nestorius, Eutyches, and all their followers. The Henotikon intentionally avoided the standard Catholic formula (one Christ in two natures) and pointedly names only the first three ecumenical councils with honor. It was thus easily seen as a repudiation of the Council Chalcedon. The Catholic Encylopedia admits that it "contains no actually heretical statement."
The stricter Monophysites were not content with this formula, and separated themselves from Mongus, forming the sect called the Acephali ("without a head" - with no patriarch). Nor were Catholics satisfied with a document that avoided declaring the faith of Chalcedon. The emperor, however, succeeded in persuading Patriarch Acacius to accept the Henotikon, a fact that is remarkable, since Acacius had stood out firmly for the Chalcedonian faith under Basiliscus.
The Henotikon was addressed in the first place to the Egyptians, but was then applied to the whole empire. Both Catholic and strict Monophysite bishops were deposed if they did not assent to it, and their sees were given to churchmen who agreed to the compromise.
The Acacian schism
However, the emperor had not anticipated the effect of Rome. From all parts of the eastern bishops sent complaints to Pope Felix III (483-92) entreating him to stand out for the Council of Chalcedon.
The first act of Pope Felix III c. 483 was to repudiate the Henotikon, and address a letter of remonstrance to Acacius. In 484, Felix excommunicated Patriarch Peter Mongus of Alexandria, greatly exacerbating hard feelings between East and West. Legates sent from Rome to Constantinople, however, were heard to utter the name of Peter in the readings of the sacred diptychs there. When this was made known at Rome, Felix convened a synod of seventy-seven bishops in the Lateran Basilica, in which it was alleged that the legates had only pronounced Peter as orthodox under duress. Patriarch Acacius was excommunicated, and the synod demonstrated it firmly in opposition to any compromise with Monopysitism by also excommunicating the mistreated papal envoys as well.
Acacius himself died in 489. Zeno died in 491, and his successor, Anastasius I (491-518), began by keeping the policy of the Henotikon, gradually becoming more sympathetic with complete Monophysitism as Catholic opposition to the Henotikon increased.
After Acacius' death an opportunity for ending the schism arose when he was succeeded by the orthodox Patriarch Euphemius, who restored the names of the recent popes to the diptychs at Constantinople and seemed amenable to reunion. However, when Pope Gelasius I insisted on the removal of his name of the much respected Acacius from the diptychs, the opportunity was lost. Gelasius' book De duabus in Christo naturis ('On the dual nature of Christ') delineated the western view and continued the papal policy of no compromise with Monophysitism.
The next pope, Anastasius II, wavered in this attitude when he offered communion to Deacon Photinus of Thessalonica, who was a supporter of the Acacian party. So adamant were feelings in Rome against such an act that when he died shortly afterward, the author of his brief biography in the Liber Pontificalis would state that he was "struck dead by divine will."
In a letter to Emperor Anastasius I, Pope Symmachus defended the opponents of the Henotikon, although without success. The emperor was determined to put an end to the divisive debate over the question of Christ's natures and resented Rome's meddling in his affairs. Shortly after 506 the emperor wrote to Symmachus a letter full of invectives for daring to interfere both with imperial policy and the rights of the eastern patriarch. The pope replied with an equally firm answer, maintaining in the strongest terms the rights and Roman church as the representative of Saint Peter. In a letter of October, 8 512, addressed to the bishops of Illyria, the pope warned the clergy of that province not to hold communion with "heretics," meaning Monophysites, a direct assault on the principles of the Henotikon.
The schism ends
In 514 Anastasius was forced to negotiate with Pope Hormisdas after a pro-Chalcedon military commander, Vitalian, raised a considerable following and defeated the emperor's nephew in battle outside Constantinople. Hormisdas formula for reunion, however, constituted complete capitulation to the Catholic view and Rome's supremacy. Delays in the negotiations, meanwhile, resulted in Anastasius buying adequate time to put down the military threat against him. He now adopted a more overtly pro-Monophysite attitude and took sterner measures against those who opposed the Henotikon. Anastasius died in 518 and was replaced by Junstin I, a Chalcedonian Christian who quickly submitted to Rome and caused the holding a synod at Constantinople where the formula of Hormisdas was a adopted, a major triumph for the papacy. Monphysitism was now placed firmly on the defensive, and a purge of Monophyiste bishops was instituted throughout the East.
Justinian and the Three Chapters
Nevertheless Monophysitism remained a powerful movement, easpecially in the churches of Egypt and Syria. Emperor Justinian was one of the many emperors who tried to reconcile them. His wife Theodora was reportedly a secret Monophysite. Justinian promoted a Monophysite, Anthimus I (536), as patriarch of Constantinople.
In 543-44, in attempt to reconcile the churches of Syria and Egypt with the main body of eastern Christendom, Justinian promoted the so-called Three Chapters. This consisted of propositions anathematizing: 1) the person and allegedly Nestorian writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia 2) certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrrus which could likewise be interpreted as pro-Nestorian and 3) the letter of Ibas to Maris in Persia. Both Ibas and Theodoret had been deprived of their bishoprics by Monophysite forces, and both were restored by the Council of Chalcedon upon agreeing to anathematize Nestorius.
Many eastern bishops and all of the easter patriarchs signed the document. In Western Europe, however, the procedure was considered unjustifiable and dangerous, because on the grounds detract from the importance of the Council of Chalcedon and tended to encourage Monophysites.
The Second Council of Constantinople (May-June, 553) was called by Emperor Justinian in part to further the reconciliation process with Monophyitism. However, it attended mostly by eastern bishops, with only six western bishops from Carthage being present.
Pope Vigilius refused to acknowledge the imperial edict promulgating the Three Chapters and was called to Constantinople by Justinian in order to settle the matter there with a synod. The pope was reportedly taken by imperial guards to a ship and carried to the eastern capital. If the story related by the Liber pontificalis is correct, the pope left Rome on November 22, 545 and reached Constantinople about the end of 546 or in January, 547. Vigilius at first refused to make concessions but wavered under pressure and finally agreed to the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople in a formal statement of February 26, 554. After a residence of eight years at Constantinople the pope was able to start on his return to Rome in the spring of 555, although he died before arriving.
Legacy
Monophysitism is also rejected by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but was widely accepted in Syria, the Levant, and Egypt leading to many tensions in the early days of the Byzantine Empire.
Later, Monothelitism was developed as an attempt to bridge the gap between the Monophysite and the Chalcedonian position, but it too was rejected by the members of the Chalcedonian synod, despite at times having the support of the Byzantine emperors and one of the Popes of Rome, Honorius I. Some are of the opinion that Monothelitism was at one time held by the Maronites, but the Maronite community, for the most part, dispute this, stating that they have never been out of communion with the Catholic Church.
Miaphysitism, the christology of the Oriental Orthodox churches, is sometimes considered a variant of Monophysitism, but these churches view their theology as distinct from Monophysitism and anathematize Eutyches.
See also
- Diophysitism
- Acephali
- Henotikon
- the Three-Chapter Controversy
- Christ the Logos
- West Syrian Rite
ReferencesISBN links support NWE through referral fees
- Agreed Statements between representative of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches
- Joint Declaration by the Oriental and the Catholic Church
- Catholic Encyclopedia article
Credits
New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:
The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:
Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
- ↑ The Greek word hypostasis, translated into Latin as "persona" does not carry quite the same sense of distinction as the Latin, a factor that has contributed to the many theological misunderstandings between eastern and western Christianity, both during this and other theological controversies.
