ENOTICO (ἐνωτικόν) — Name of the decree issued in 482 by the emperor Zenon, in order to put an end to the controversies between Catholics and Monophysites. On 25 October 451 the Council of Chalcedon had solemnly proclaimed faith in one Christ, to be confessed in two unmixed, inseparable natures. The condemnation of Monophysitism, however, encountered more determined resistance than the anathema against the Nestorians. In Palestine a genuine revolution led by the monks drove out the orthodox bishops; the see of Antioch, too, was occupied several times by a partisan of the Monophysite theses, Pietro Fullone. Even graver were the events in Egypt, where a large part of the DIOSCORO, PAPA (v.). The Catholic patriarch Proterio was killed in a popular uprising, while the Monophysite Timoteo Eluro (457–77) was raised to his see.
The Monophysite opposition soon constituted a threat to the Empire all the more serious because, in Syria and Egypt, strong national tendencies opposed to Byzantine domination were associated with the religious controversy. Meanwhile imperial policy fluctuated uncertainly between the supporters and the adversaries of Chalcedon. The emperor Leone (457–74) intervened against Timoteo Eluro and Pietro Fullone, but the usurper Basilisco (475–76) restored them to their sees and, in a circular letter, the Encyclion, condemned the Symbol of Chalcedon. The great majority of the bishops of the East subscribed to this first example of a dogmatic edict issued directly by political authority. As soon as he had defeated the usurper, the emperor Zenon (474–91) abolished the Encyclion, but under the influence of the patriarch of Constantinople Acacio (471–80) he supported the project of bringing the ruinous Christological controversies to an end at the price of certain concessions.
The favorable occasion arose upon the death of the orthodox patriarch of Alexandria Timoteo Salefaciolo (June 482). Zenon and Acacio intended to install the Monophysite bishop Pietro Mongo in the see of St. Mark, proposing to him a dogmatic formula whose imprecision would unite everyone under the new patriarch. Thus the E., or edict of union, was promulgated in the form of an epistle addressed to the faithful of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis; in reality, however, the document was intended for the entire empire.
In order to unite all subjects in a common profession of faith, the imperial decree advocates a return to the sole Symbol of Nicaea, the formula of faith confirmed at Constantinople (381) and likewise followed by the fathers of Ephesus (431). It then condemns Nestorius and Eutyches, while approving the twelve chapters of Cyril (v.). The Council of Chalcedon is not explicitly rejected; toward the end, however, the decree anathematizes « whoever thinks » or has thought differently, now or at any time, concerning Chalcedon or any other council. Positively, the E. declares that the only Son of God, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and consubstantial with us according to humanity, having become incarnate, is one alone and not two. To this one alone belong the miracles and sufferings that he voluntarily endured in the flesh. The Incarnation does not add another Son, but « the Trinity remained the Trinity, even when one of the Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate ». Docetism and every division or confusion are also rejected (although mention of one or two natures is scrupulously avoided).
The E., even if not formally heretical, was, because of its implications and silences, as well as the caesaropapism manifested in it, an exceedingly dangerous document. Defined by some as a political masterpiece, it did not in fact bring about religious unity; on the contrary, it soon increased discord and schism, thereby signifying a further step toward the formation of the national Monophysite Churches. It is true that almost the entire Eastern episcopate, under threat of exile, accepted the imperial decree. But the orthodox could tolerate neither the (implicit) condemnation of Chalcedon nor the silence concerning the tome of St. Leone, while the fervent Monophysites likewise did not welcome what in their eyes was an unworthy compromise; rebelling against Pietro Mongo himself, they formed in Alexandria a distinct party, called the Acephali, or headless, because, having broken communion with Pietro, they remained without a head. Worse still, the E. led to a long rupture with Rome (the schism of Acacio, 484–510). Indeed, Pope Felice III (483–92), as soon as he received news of the promulgation of the E., sent three of his legates to the Eastern capital to demand energetically fidelity to the Council of Chalcedon. When they allowed themselves to be won over by Acacio, the Pope, in a Roman Council (28 July 482), pronounced the excommunication of his own legates and the deposition of Acacio. A harsh but necessary intervention. The rupture already existed through the fault of Acacio who, the true manipulator of the E., had been ready to sacrifice an ecumenical council and union with the Apostolic See for political ends and for the dream of his own supremacy in an imperial Church. Various negotiations with Rome initiated by Acacio’s successors had no successful outcome, given the Monophysite sympathies of the emperor Anastasio (491–518). Only his successor Giustino (518–27), assisted by the count Giustiniano, his nephew and heir to the throne, renewed union with Rome. Pope Ormisda (514–23) requested and obtained the signing of a formula that contained recognition of the orthodoxy that had always been preserved by the Roman See, acceptance of the Symbol of Chalcedon and of the dogmatic letters of St. Leone, and the removal from the diptychs of Acacio and his successors, as well as of the emperors Zenon and Anastasio. Thus, in 519, after thirty-five years, the schism provoked by the E. ended with a decisive affirmation of the papal magisterium against Byzantine caesaropapism.