| Part of a series on |
| Christology |
|---|
.jpg) |
Doctrines
|
Eutychianism, also known asReal Monophysitism,[1][2][3] is a set of Christiantheological doctrines derived from the ideas ofEutyches of Constantinople (c. 380 – c. 456). Eutychianism is amonophysite understanding of how the human and divine relate within the person ofJesus Christ, with Christ beingin one nature andof two, with the humanity of Christ subsumed by the divinity.
Eutychians were often labelledPhantasiasts by their adversaries, who accused theirChristology of reducing Jesus'incarnation to a phantasm.[4]
At various times, Eutyches taught that the human nature of Christ was overcome by the divine or that Christ had a human nature but it was unlike the rest of humanity. One formulation is that Eutychianism stressed the unity of Christ's nature to such an extent that Christ's divinity consumed his humanity as the ocean consumes a drop of vinegar. Eutyches maintained that Christ wasof two natures but notin two natures: separate divine and human natures had united and blended in such a manner that although Jesus washomoousion with the Father, he was nothomoousion with the man.[5]
Eutychianism was rejected at theFourth Ecumenical Council inChalcedon in 451 and thestatement of faith known as theChalcedonian Creed. The reaction against Eutychianism also led to the schism withOriental Orthodoxy.
As the Christian Church grew and developed, the complexity of its understanding of theTriune God and theperson of Christ also grew and developed. It's important to understand the controversies ofChristology regarding its parallel with theorganisation of the church, as they are ideally united as one, the latter seen as the body ofChrist. In 325, the issue of how to reconcile the claims ofmonotheism with the assertion of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth was largely settled at theFirst Ecumenical Council held atNicaea.[6]
Especially among the Greek-speaking Christians, attention turned to how to understand how the second person of the Trinity became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ.[6] TheNicene Creed said that Jesus was "of one Being (ousia) with(God) the Father" and that he "was incarnate of theHoly Spirit and theVirgin Mary and became truly human."[7] However, neither the Nicene Creed nor thecanons of the Council provided a detailed explanation of how God became human in the person of Jesus, leaving the door open for speculation.
One such theory of how the human and divine interact in the person of Jesus was put forward by thePatriarch of Constantinople,Nestorius (c. 386–451). Nestorius, a student of theAntiochene school of theology, taught that in the incarnation two distincthypostases ("substances" or, as Nestorius' critics such asJohn Cassian andCyril of Alexandria employed the term, "persons") were conjoined in Jesus Christ: one human (the man) and one divine (the Word).[8] Thus, Mary should not be considered the God-bearer (Theotokos) since she only contributed to and bore the human nature of Christ, making her theChristotokos.[9]
In 431, Nestorius and his teachings were condemned by theThird Ecumenical Council, held inEphesus, which defined theChurch of the East.[9] The Council of Ephesus did not answer the question of how the human and divine interrelated in the person of Christ. It seemingly rejected any attempted answer that stressed the duality of Christ's natures to the expense of his unity as a singlehypostasis (understood to mean "person").
In response to Eutychianism, the Council adopteddyophysitism, which clearly distinguished between person and nature, by stating that Christ is one person in two natures but emphasized that the natures are "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation".[10]
Miaphysites rejected that definition as verging onNestorianism and instead adhered to the wording ofCyril of Alexandria, the chief opponent of Nestorianism, who had spoken of the "one (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate" (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένηmia physis tou theou logou sesarkōmenē).[11] The distinction of the stance was that the incarnate Christ has one nature, but it is still of both a divine character and a human character and retains all the characteristics of both, with no mingling, confusion or change of either nature. Miaphysites condemned Eutychianism.
