ENOTIC (ἐνωτικός) – The name of the decree issued in the year 482 by the Emperor Zeno, intended to put an end to the controversies between Catholics and Monophysites. On 25 October 451, the Council of Chalcedon had solemnly proclaimed the faith in one Christ to be confessed in two natures, unconfused and inseparable. The condemnation of Monophysitism, however, encountered more bitter resistance than the anathema against the Nestorians. In Palestine, a veritable revolution led by monks drove out the orthodox bishops; even the see of Antioch was repeatedly occupied by a partisan of Monophysite theses, Peter the Fuller. The situation in Egypt was even more serious, where a large part of the population remained faithful to Dioscorus (v.). The Catholic patriarch Proterius was killed in a popular uprising, and the Monophysite Timothy Aelurus (457–77) was elevated to his see. Monophysite opposition soon posed a grave threat to the empire, especially since in Syria and Egypt the religious controversy was joined by strong nationalistic tendencies opposed to Byzantine domination.
Meanwhile, imperial policy wavered uncertainly between the supporters and opponents of Chalcedon. 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 Encyclia, condemned the Symbol of Chalcedon. The vast majority of eastern bishops subscribed to this first example of a dogmatic edict issued directly by political authority. As soon as the usurper was defeated, Emperor Zeno (474–91) abolished the Encyclia, but under the influence of the patriarch of Constantinople Acacius (471–89), he favored a plan to end the ruinous Christological controversies at the price of some concessions.
A favorable opportunity 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 that, in its imprecision, would unite all under the new patriarch. Thus the Enoticon, or edict of union, was promulgated in the form of a letter addressed to the faithful of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis; but in reality the document was intended for the entire empire.
To unite all subjects in a common profession of faith, the imperial decree advocated a return to the sole Symbol of Nicaea, a creed confirmed at Constantinople (381) and also followed by the Fathers of Ephesus (431). It then condemned Nestorius and Eutyches, while approving instead the twelve chapters of Cyril (v.). The Council of Chalcedon was not explicitly rejected, but toward the end of the decree it anathematizes “whoever thinks” or “has thought differently, now or at any time, concerning Chalcedon or any other council.” Positively, the Enoticon declares that the only-begotten Son of God, consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and consubstantial with us according to his humanity, is one and not two. Of this one person are the miracles and the sufferings 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, the Word of God, became incarnate.” Moreover, the doctrine of one nature is rejected, and every division or confusion is condemned (though mention of one or two natures is scrupulously avoided).
Though not formally heretical, the Enoticon, by its implications and silences as well as by the caesaropapism it manifested, was an exceedingly dangerous document. Described by some as a political masterpiece, it in fact did not bring about religious unity; rather, it soon increased discord and schism, thus marking a further step toward the formation of national Monophysite Churches. It is true that nearly all the eastern episcopate, under threat of exile, accepted the imperial decree. But the orthodox could tolerate neither the (implicit) condemnation of Chalcedon nor the silence regarding the Tome of St. Leo, and even the ardent Monophysites did not approve what to their eyes was an unworthy compromise. Rebelling even against Peter Mongus himself, they formed at Alexandria a distinct party called the Acephali, or headless, because, having broken communion with Peter, they remained without a head. What was worse, the Enoticon led to a long rupture with Rome (the Acacian schism, 484–519). Indeed, Pope Felix III (483–92), upon receiving news of the Enoticon’s promulgation, sent three legates to the eastern capital to demand strict adherence to the Council of Chalcedon. When these legates were won over by Acacius, the Pope, at a Roman council (28 July 482), pronounced the excommunication of his own legates and the deposition of Acacius. A harsh but necessary intervention. The breach already existed, and Acacius, the true architect of the Enoticon, had been quick to sacrifice others for his political ends and his dream of a supreme imperial Church.
Various negotiations with Rome initiated by Acacius’s successors came to nothing, given the Monophysite leanings of Emperor Anastasius (491–518). Only his successor Justin (518–27), aided by his nephew and co-regent Justinian, renewed union with Rome. Pope Hormisdas (514–23) demanded and obtained the signing of a formulary containing recognition of the orthodoxy always preserved by the Roman See, acceptance of the Symbol of Chalcedon and of the dogmatic letters of St. Leo, the striking of Acacius and his successors from the diptychs, and likewise of the emperors Zeno and Anastasius. Thus in 519, after thirty-five years, the schism provoked by the Enoticon ended with a decisive affirmation of the papal magisterium against Byzantine caesaropapism.