Enotic

ENOTICON (ἐνωτικόν) - Name of the decree issued in the year 482 by the emperor Zeno, to put an end to the controversies between Catholics and Monophysites. On 25 Oct. 451 the Council of Chalcedon had solemnly proclaimed the faith in one Christ to be confessed in two natures, without confusion, inseparable. The condemnation of Monophysitism, however, met with a resistance more stubborn than the anathema against the Nestorians. In Palestine a veritable revolution led by the monks drove out the orthodox bishops; even the see of Antioch was occupied repeatedly by a partisan of the Monophysite theses, Peter the Fuller. Even more serious were the events in Egypt, where a great part of the population had remained faithful to Dioscorus (v.). The Catholic patriarch Proterius was killed in a popular riot, while the Monophysite Timothy Aelurus was raised to his see

(457-77). The Monophysite opposition soon constituted for the Empire a threat all the more grave inasmuch as, in Syria and in Egypt, strong national tendencies, contrary to Byzantine domination, were joined to the religious controversy. Meanwhile imperial policy wavered uncertainly between the supporters and the opponents of Chalcedon. The emperor Leo (457-74) intervened against Timothy Aelurus and Peter the Fuller, but the usurper Basiliscus (475-76) restored them to their sees and in a circular letter, the Encyclion, condemned the Symbol of Chalcedon. In great majority the bishops of the East subscribed to this first example of a dogmatic edict issued directly by the political authority. As soon as the usurper was defeated, the emperor Zeno (474-91) abolished the Encyclion, but under the influence of the patriarch of Constantinople Acacius (471-80) he favored the plan of ending the ruinous christological controversies at the price of some concession.

The favorable occasion presented itself at the death of the orthodox patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Salophaciolus (June 482). Zeno and Acacius intended to establish on the see of St. Mark the Monophysite bishop Peter Mongus, proposing to him a dogmatic formula which in its 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, of Egypt, of Libya and of the Pentapolis; but in reality the document was destined for the whole empire.

In order to unite all subjects in a common profession of faith, the imperial decree urges a return to the Symbol of Nicaea alone, a formula of faith confirmed at Constantinople (381) and followed also by the fathers of Ephesus (431). It then condemns Nestorius and Eutyches, approving instead the twelve chapters of Cyril (v.). The Council of Chalcedon is not explicitly rejected, but the decree toward the end anathematizes "whoever thinks" or has thought differently, now or in any circumstance, at Chalcedon or in any other council. Positively the E. declares that the only Son of God, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, consubstantial with us according to humanity, having become incarnate, is one and not two. Of this one alone are the miracles and the sufferings voluntarily endured by him in the flesh. The Incarnation does not add another Son, but "the Trinity has remained the Trinity, even when one of the Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate." Docetism is furthermore rejected, and every division or confusion (but mention of one or two natures is scrupulously avoided).

The E., even if not formally heretical, by its implications and its silences, as well as by the caesaropapism manifested in it, was an exceedingly dangerous document. Defined by some as a political masterpiece, in fact it did not bring about religious unity; on the contrary it soon increased discords and schisms, thus 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 on the tome of St. Leo, and even the passionate Monophysites did not welcome what in their eyes was an unworthy compromise; rebelling against Peter Mongus himself, they formed at Alexandria a distinct party, called that of the acephali or headless, because, having removed communion with Peter, they remained without a head. What was worse, the E. led to a long rupture with Rome (Acacian schism, 484-510). In fact pope Felix 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 these allowed themselves to be won over by Acacius, the Pope pronounced in a Roman Council (28 July 482) the excommunication of his own legates and the deposition of Acacius. A harsh intervention, but necessary. The rupture already existed through the fault of Acacius who, the true manipulator of the E., had been ready to sacrifice an ecumenical council and union with the Apostolic See to political ends and to the dream of his own supremacy in an imperial Church. Various negotiations with Rome begun by the successors of Acacius did not have a happy outcome, given the Monophysite preferences of the emperor Anastasius (491-518). Only his successor Justin (518-27), aided by the count Justinian, his nephew and heir to the throne, renewed the union with Rome. The pope Hormisdas (514-23) asked and obtained that there be signed a formulary which contained the recognition of the orthodoxy always preserved by the Roman See, the acceptance of the Symbol of Chalcedon and of the dogmatic letters of St. Leo, the removal from the diptychs of Acacius and his successors, as well as of the emperors Zeno and Anastasius. Thus in 519, after 35 years, the schism provoked by the E. ended with a decisive affirmation of the papal magisterium against Byzantine caesaropapism.

Agostino Mayer