TheFirst Council of Nicaea (325) declared that Christ was both divine (homoousios,consubstantial, of one being or essence, withthe Father) and human (wasincarnate and became man). In the fifth century a heated controversy arose between thesees and theological schools ofAntioch andAlexandria about how divinity and humanity existed in Christ,[4] with the former stressing the humanity, the latter the divinity of Christ.Cyril of Alexandria succeeded in havingNestorius, a prominent exponent of the Antiochian school, condemned at theCouncil of Ephesus in 431, and insisted on the formula "onephysis of the incarnate Word", claiming that any formula that spoke of twophyseis representedNestorianism. Some taught that in Christ the human nature was completely absorbed by the divine, leaving only a divine nature. In 451, theCouncil of Chalcedon, on the basis ofPope Leo the Great's449 declaration,defined that in Christ there were twonatures united in oneperson.[5]
Those who insisted on the "onephysis" formula were referred to asmonophysites (/məˈnɒfɪsaɪts/), while those who accepted the "two natures" definition were calleddyophysites, a term also applied to followers of Nestorianism.
The forms of monophysism were numerous, and included the following:
Acephali were monophysites who in 482 broke away fromPeter III of Alexandria who made an agreement withAcacius of Constantinople, sanctioned by EmperorZeno with hisHenotikon edict that condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches, as the Council of Chalcedon had done, but ignored that council's decree on the two natures of Christ. They saw this as a betrayal of S. Cyril's use of "mia physis" and refused to be subject to the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, preferring to be instead ecclesiastically'headless' (Latin:acephalī).[6] For this, they were known as'the headless' or'headless ones'.[7]
Agnoetae, Themistians or Agnosticists, founded by Themistius Calonymus around 534, held that the nature of Jesus Christ, although divine, was like other men's in all respects, including limited knowledge.[8][9] They must be distinguished from a fourth-century group called by the same name, who denied that God knew the past and the future.[10]
Aphthartodocetae,Phantasiasts or, after their leaderJulian of Halicarnassus, Julianists believed "that the body of Christ, from the very moment of his conception, was incorruptible, immortal and impassible, as it was after the resurrection, and held that the suffering and death on the cross was a miracle contrary to the normal conditions of Christ's humanity".[11] EmperorJustinian I wished to have this teaching adopted as orthodox, but died before he could put his plans into effect.[12]
Apollinarians or Apollinarists, named afterApollinaris of Laodicea (who died in 390) proposed that Jesus had a normal human body but had a divine mind instead of a regular humansoul. This teaching was condemned by theFirst Council of Constantinople (381) and died out within a few decades.[13] Cyril of Alexandria declared it a mad proposal.[14]
Docetists, not all of whom were monophysites, held that Jesus had no human nature: his humanity was only a phantasm, which, united with the impassible, immaterial divine nature, could not really suffer and die.[15][16]
Eutychians taught that Jesus had only one nature, a union of the divine and human that is not an even compound, since what is divine is infinitely larger than what is human: the humanity is absorbed by and transmuted into the divinity, as a drop of honey, mixing with the water of the sea, vanishes. The body of Christ, thus transmuted, is not consubstantialhomoousios with humankind.[17][18] In contrast to Severians, who are called verbal monophysites, Eutychianists are called real or ontological monophysites,[19][20][21] and their teaching is "an extreme form of the monophysite heresy that emphasizes the exclusive prevalence of the divinity in Christ".[22]
Tritheists, a group of sixth-century monophysites said to have been founded by a monophysite named John Ascunages[23] of Antioch. Their principal writer wasJohn Philoponus, who taught that the common nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an abstraction of their distinct individual natures.[24][25]
TheOriental Orthodox, orSeverians, accept the reality of Christ's human nature to the extent of insisting that his body was capable of corruption, but argue that, since a single person has a single nature and Christ is one person, not two, he has only a single nature. Agreeing in substance, though not in words, with the Definition of Chalcedon, they are called "verbal monophysites" by someEastern Orthodox.[19][26] The Oriental Orthodox reject the label of monophysitism and consider monophysitism a heresy, preferring to label theirnon-Chalcedonian beliefs asmiaphysitism.[27][28]
Concerning verbal declarations of monophysitism, Justo L. González stated, "in order not to give an erroneous idea of the theology of the so-called monophysite churches, that have subsisted until the twentieth century, one should point out that all the extreme sects of monophysism disappeared within a brief span, and that the Christology of the present so-called monophysite churches is closer to a verbal than to a real monophysism".[29]
Political situation of monophysitism after Chalcedon
Under EmperorBasiliscus, who ousted EmperorZeno in 475, "the monophysites reached the pinnacle of their power"[who said this?]. In hisEncyclion, which he issued in the same year, he revoked the Council of Chalcedon and recognized theSecond Council of Ephesus of 449 except for its approval of Eutyches, whom Basiliscus condemned. He required his edict to be signed by each bishop. Among the signatures he obtained were those of three of the four Eastern Patriarchs, but the Patriarch and the populace of the capital protested so resolutely that in 476, seeing that his overthrow was imminent, he issued hisAnti-Encyclion revoking his former edict. In the same year, Zeno returned victoriously.[30][31]
Events had made it clear that there was a split between the population, staunchly Chalcedonian in sympathies, of Constantinople and the Balkans and the largely anti-Chalcedonian population of Egypt and Syria. In an attempt to reconcile both sides, Zeno, with the support ofAcacius of Constantinople andPeter III of Alexandria, tried to enforce the compromiseHenoticon (Formula of Union) decree of 482, which condemned Eutyches but ignored Chalcedon. Schisms followed on both sides.Rome excommunicated Acacius (leading to the 35-yearAcacian schism), while in Egypt theAcephali broke away from Peter III. The Acacian schism continued under Zeno's successor, the monophysiteAnastasius I Dicorus and ended only with the accession of the ChalcedonianJustin I in 518.[32][33]
Justin I was succeeded by the ChalcedonianJustinian I (527–565), whose wifeEmpress Theodora protected and assisted the monophysites.[34]Ghassanid patronage of the monophysite Syrian Church underphylarchAl-Harith ibn Jabalah was crucial for its survival, revival, and even its spread.[35] Justinian I was followed byJustin II, who after being a monophysite, perhaps because of Theodora's influence, converted to the Chalcedonian faith before obtaining the imperial throne. Some time later, he adopted a policy of persecuting the monophysites.[34] From Justinian I on, no emperor was a declared monophysite, although they continued their efforts to find compromise formulas such asmonoenergism andmonothelitism.
.jpg)
