EUTICHE. — Born in 378, probably at Constantinople, he embraced the religious life as a young man in a monastery in the surrounding area, where he had as his teacher a certain Massimo, an avowed opponent of Nestorianism, who transmitted to him his own hatred of Dyophysitism. Having become a priest and been elected archimandrite of the monastery, without any profound theological formation, he immediately threw himself headlong into the doctrinal controversies of the time, although prudence should certainly have counseled him to remain silent. At the time of the Council of Ephesus, he joined the monks of the capital who, led by the abbot Dalmazio, went to Theodosius to implore the release of Cirillo and Memmone (Mansi, VI, 628, 713). S. Cirillo held him in exceptional esteem and sent him a copy of the acts of the Council of Ephesus (Mansi, ibid., 631).
After the death of s. Dalmazio (around 440), Eutiche became one of the most notable figures in Byzantine monasticism. His prestige increased when, in 441, the eunuch Chrysaphios, whom he had baptized, came to power. He then used and abused this prestige to strike at all those who seemed to him infected with Nestorianism. Among those who, during Cirillo’s lifetime, had conducted a campaign hostile to Nestorio and the Antiochenes, there were some qualified Apollinarians and genuine Monophysites, as well as crude supporters of s. Cirillo’s formula: “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” This movement was directed by Dioscoro of Alexandria, who succeeded Cirillo in 444. During the year 448, the imperial government adopted various oppressive measures against the bishops of Syria; behind them, it was not difficult to discern the hand of Chrysaphios’s favorite, together with that of the patriarch of Alexandria. Teodoreto was one of the victims. In Constantinople, where Flaviano had replaced Proclo in 446, Eutiche displayed intemperate zeal against the supporters of the two natures in Christ. He even wrote to the Pope, denouncing the dangers of resurgent Nestorianism. S. Leone replied to him (Mansi, V, 1323).
This fanatical destroyer of heretics, however, was not truly a pure orthodox. By dint of fighting Nestorianism, he fell into the opposite error, namely, Monophysitism. Relying on the Cyrillian expression—which he was in fact unable to explain in an orthodox manner—Eutiche eventually classified as Nestorians all those who professed two natures in Jesus Christ after the union. Eusebio of Dorileo, the same man who twenty years earlier had been the first to attack Nestorio, detected the new heresy during the discussions he had with the aged archimandrite and seized the opportunity offered by the Permanent Synod (σύνοδος ἐνδημῶδος), on 8 November 448, to present Flaviano, immediately after the meeting had ended, with a memorandum against Eutiche, demanding that the document be read publicly at once and that the archimandrite appear before the Synod.
The weak Flaviano, dismayed by this unexpected turn of events, consented to the reading of the memorandum, but advised Eusebio to work upon Eutiche in order to bring him back to orthodoxy. Eusebio stood firm and insisted at all costs that the matter be examined without delay by the Synod itself. The archimandrite was invited to appear: at first he refused, but after a third written summons he sent word that he was ill and could not comply. Flaviano, full of indulgence, granted him a postponement until 22 November, on which day the archimandrite finally appeared, accompanied by a considerable number of monks, soldiers, and officials. Crisapio had not abandoned his godfather at this delicate juncture. The session began with the reading of the acts of the preceding sessions. In response to the questions put to him, Eutiche contradicted himself, thereby providing unequivocal evidence of his limited education and narrow mind. He stubbornly opposed the following two propositions, refusing without subterfuge to accept them: 1) In Jesus Christ, after the union, there are two natures; 2) Jesus is consubstantial with us through his human nature. His obstinacy prompted Flaviano and the members of the Synod to issue a sentence of deposition and excommunication against Eutiche, judged to have fallen into the error of Valentino and Apollinare (Mansi, VI, 743). The blow was severe not only for Eutiche, but also for Crisapio, Dioscoro, and the entire Monophysite clique. Flaviano could now rightly expect harsh retaliation, which was not long in erupting. First of all, Eutiche rejected the sentence by which he had been condemned and appealed to the Pope and to many other bishops of the West and East. He then maintained that the conciliar acts relating to his condemnation had been falsified. By order of the emperor, a new synod was held on 12 April 449 to ascertain the validity of Eutiche’s complaints. His representatives, however, were unable to produce any serious evidence of prejudice against the disputed acts. A new commission of inquiry was appointed on 27 April concerning a particular point. All these intrigues, moreover, were destined to lead nowhere. At the beginning of 449, Eutiche and Dioscoro had called for an ecumenical council to re-examine the question. Theodosius II, whom Crisapio manipulated at will, could not refuse. By a letter dated 30 March 449, he ordered the metropolitans of the Empire to go to Ephesus, together with some carefully chosen suffragans, by 1 August (Mansi, VI, 588 ff.). What happened at this second Council of Ephesus is well known; Pope s. Leone described it as the “robbery of Ephesus” (v. EFESO, LATROCINIO di). Dioscoro spoke there as master. The Pope’s legates were unable to complete their mission. After reciting the Nicene Creed and expressing their devotion to the holy Fathers, and after anathematizing all heretics, beginning with Simon Magus and especially Manete, Valentino, Apollinare, and Nestorio, Eutiche was rehabilitated by nearly all the bishops present, after they had already anathematized anyone who admitted two natures, δύο φάσιος, in Christ after the Incarnation (Mansi, VI, 862–70). Eutiche and Dioscoro’s success, however, lasted very little, despite the Emperor’s zeal in ensuring that the decisions of the conciliabulum were sanctioned. Shortly afterward, on 28 July 450, Theodosius II died after falling from a horse. The empress Pulcheria took the reins of government into her hands and had the senator Marciano recognized as emperor, marrying him herself. Crisapio was condemned to death, the decrees of the “robbery” were annulled, and Eutiche was expelled from his monastery and confined to a place near Constantinople. Eutiche did not appear at the Council of Chalcedon, which took place shortly afterward. At the Pope’s request, he was removed from Constantinople and sent to an unknown destination. He passed through Jerusalem, where he was the guest of the priest Esichio (L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, III, Paris 1910, p. 471). A letter from s. Leone to the Emperor, dated 15 April 454, informs us that the heretic had not ceased propagating his error from his new place of exile, and therefore pleaded for his being placed in stricter isolation (Ep. 134: PL 54, 1095). After these dates, history falls silent regarding Eutiche. Earlier, on 28 July 452, Marciano had condemned his writings to the flames (Mansi, VII, 501). In the end, he cannot have written very much. From the acts of the councils, we can recover a few of his letters and some of his declarations.
Undoubtedly, Eutiche was more ignorant than malicious. His great fault was to concern himself with theology despite his lack of preparation. Pope s. Leone described him as multum imprudent et nimis imperitus (Ep. 28: PL 54,
756). The favor he enjoyed with Chrysaphius, together with his indiscreet zeal against Nestorianism, was the principal cause of his downfall. Cunning and unscrupulous men, such as Dioscorus, and well-disguised heretics, such as certain Apollinarians and Monophysites, used him as an instrument to achieve their objectives. More than an innovator, he was, like Nestorius, a pawn for disseminating errors that already existed. It is also easy to note other points of resemblance between the two heresiarchs, who gave rise to schisms that have still not been completely extinguished.
II. DOCTRINE OF EUTYCHES
It is very difficult to know precisely what Eutyches’s personal doctrine concerning the mystery of the Incarnation was, because undoubtedly he himself did not understand it well. Eutyches was a heretic because he obstinately maintained formally ambiguous statements, which were moreover false in their context; but since these formulas lend themselves to an orthodox explanation and certain of his assertions favor a benevolent interpretation, one remains uncertain about his actual thought.Here is a series of orthodox propositions either heard from his lips or set down by his pen: 1) He who was born of the Virgin Mary is perfect God and perfect man; 2) the Word took flesh from the Holy Virgin; 3) Mary is consubstantial with us (Acts of the Synod of 448: Mansi, VI, 725–30, 741); 4) anathema to Apollinaris, Valentinus, Manes, Nestorius, and all heretics down to Simon, and to all those who maintain that the flesh of our Lord was brought down from heaven; 5) in the Incarnation there was no mingling of divinity and humanity, but the Word remained immutable; 6) Eutyches explicitly accepts the definitions of Nicaea and Ephesus and invokes in his own favor the testimonies of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Athanasius, Atticus, and Proclus (Letters to St. Leo: PL 54, 716, 717, 718; Acts of the Robber Council of Ephesus: Mansi, VI, 631–34).
Why, then, was Eutyches, who had declarations of this nature to his credit, condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 448 as infected with the error of Valentinus and Apollinaris? How could he be accused of Docetism, crude Monophysitism, Origenism, and even Nestorianism? The explanation of so strange a fact must be sought in two ambiguous statements of the old archimandrite: 1) I acknowledge that our Lord was (became) of two natures; but after the union I acknowledge only one nature: ὁμολογῶ ἐκ δύο φάσεων γεγενέσθαι τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν πρὸ τῆς ἐνώσεως, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἕνωσιν μὲν φάσιν ὁμολογῶ (Mansi, VI, 744); 2) Until this moment I have not said that the body of our Lord God was consubstantial with us, but I confess that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us... I acknowledge that Christ’s body is God’s body; I have never wished to call God’s body the body of man, but this body is human: οὐκ εἶπεν ἀδῶα ἀνθρώπων τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ αἴμα, ἀνθρώπων δὲ τὸ αἷμα. (Mansi, VI, 741). When invited to anathematize the following two propositions for which he was reproached: 1) Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with us; 2) After the union there is only one nature, not two, Eutyches firmly refused in these words: I have not found the doctrine of which you have spoken to me clearly expressed in Scripture, nor has any Father ever taught it to me (Mansi, VI, 745). From those two statements the grounds were derived for specifically defining Eutychianism. Thus, despite his repeated declarations, all the errors that could logically be deduced from them were attributed to their author. If Christ is not consubstantial with us, his humanity is merely an appearance, or else it must have a heavenly origin: hence the accusations of Docetism, Valentinianism, Origenism, and Apollinarianism made against Eutyches. Mary is not truly the Mother of God. If «ante unionem» there were two natures, then, at least at a certain moment, they were separate, and the union did not take place from the very first instant of conception: an error that, on the testimony of Cassian, many Westerners gratuitously attributed to Nestorius. If «post unionem» there is already only one nature, there are four hypotheses: either divinity and humanity were fused to form a tertium quid, or humanity was absorbed by divinity like a drop of water in the ocean, or the Word was condensed into flesh and thereby lost His divine attributes, or the two natures became like the constituent parts of a natural whole, in the same way as soul and body form a single nature.
Many other absurdities were drawn from Eutyches’s two statements, which could very well have received a charitable interpretation, such as would not have been difficult to find in the writings of St. Cyril. But the Fathers of the Synod of 448 were anything but benevolent toward the obstinate old man, who exploited the influence he enjoyed over Chrysaphius in order to persecute those who admitted two natures in Christ. They took his words literally and extracted from them Valentinian and Apollinarian grounds. The contemporaries first, and posterity thereafter, imitated them, attributing to Eutyches all the errors concealed beneath the label of Valentinianism and Apollinarianism. Most of the Monophysites themselves rejected Eutychianism in the sense described above with horror.
III. EUTYCHIANISM AND MONOPHYSITISM
Eutychianism and Monophysitism must not be confused, as most historians and theologians still continue to do. Eutychianism is merely a form—the crudest and least important form—of Monophysitism. Etymologically, the word “Monophysitism” may be used to designate any doctrine that recognizes in the incarnate Word a single φύσις, after the union of humanity with divinity. Historically, those who rejected the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon have been called “Monophysites”: according to that doctrine, the Word, born of the Virgin Mary according to humanity, is in one hypostasis and in two natures, is δύο φύσεις, which remain unconfused, unchanged, undivided, and inseparably united. The Eutychians are therefore Monophysites insofar as they admit in Christ, « post unionem », only one φύσις; but not all Monophysites are Eutychians. Eutychians are all those who compromise the immutability of the Word in the union, attack the reality and integrity of his humanity, and thus arrive at a single φύσις, understood in the sense of “individual nature” or perhaps of “person,” but of a person constituting a natural whole composed of genuine parts. We have in fact seen that Eutyches’ two formulas—One nature after the union — Christ is not consubstantial with us—were understood in this way, whatever path led to such a conclusion.Alongside this real Monophysitism, theologians have identified another Monophysitism that is purely verbal. This is the Monophysitism that posits in Jesus Christ, « post unionem », a single φύσις, understood as a concrete being subsisting in itself, as the sole subject of attribution, that is, as a nature that is at the same time hypostasis and true person. Φύσις thus becomes synonymous with ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον. Whereas the Council of Chalcedon uses φύσις in the sense of individual nature, of essence considered as abstracted from the supposit in which it subsists, and distinguishes it from hypostasis and person, ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον, verbal Monophysitism takes these three terms as synonyms in the mystery of the Incarnation, saying that in Jesus Christ there is a single φύσις which is at the same time a ὑπόστασις and a πρόσωπον. With regard to the mystery of the Trinity, however, it distinguishes between φύσις and ὑπόστασις or πρόσωπον, saying that in God there is one φύσις and three ὑποστάσεις or πρόσωπα. This is how the equivocation arose that is observed between Chalcedonian Dyophysitism
and the verbal Monophysitism under discussion. It is the Monophysitism of St. Cyril when he uses the famous expression: μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου συσπροσμένη: Una natura Verbi Dei incarnata, an expression that he succeeds in explaining in an orthodox manner. It is the formula of most Monophysites throughout the centuries, who gave this formula the same interpretation as St. Cyril. But, unlike the bishop of Alexandria, who, « pro bono pacis », had accepted the recognition of two φύσεις in Christ, his disciples stubbornly refused, in their fanaticism, to adopt the Dyophysite terminology canonized by an ecumenical council and by Pope Leo; they were anathematized as partisans of Nestorianism. They may well declare themselves orthodox with regard to Christology, while nevertheless employing certain more or less dangerous formulas, some of which strongly reek of Eutychianism. For Catholics, they are and remain true heretics, insofar as they have rejected obedience to the infallible teaching authority of the universal Church, which they have even accused of error.
The principal representative of the heterodox verbal Monophysitism of which we speak was Severus of Antioch (d. 538), from whom comes the name Severian Monophysitism given to this form of Monophysitism. Severus admits in Jesus Christ, « post unionem », two essences, δύο φύσεις, but a single φύσις. He pronounces anathema against Eutyches. He declares that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with Mary and with us according to humanity. He accepts no kind of mixture or confusion between the two natures and maintains the perfect immutability of the Word. He rejects, however, the Council of Chalcedon and the authority of St. Leo because they upheld two natures, δύο φύσεις, after the union.
Alongside this heterodox verbal Monophysitism, one may place an orthodox verbal Monophysitism. This is the Monophysitism that adheres to St. Cyril’s Monophysite formula according to the explanation he gave it, while at the same time accepting the orthodoxy of the Dyophysite formulas of Chalcedon and of St. Leo’s tome—indeed, preferring them to the Monophysite terminology, which became especially dangerous after the emergence of Eutychianism. This form of Monophysitism, called by some the Neo-Chalcedonian movement, had as its advocates the orthodox theologians who sought to put an end to the Monophysite schism by demonstrating the substantial agreement between the Council of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon, between St. Cyril of Alexandria and Pope St. Leo. This Monophysitism had its most important representative in Leo of Byzantium and its most solemn formulation in the canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and in those of the Lateran Council held in 649 under Pope Martin I.
Thus a general idea has been given of Eutychianism and verbal Monophysitism. Each of these two forms of Monophysitism, moreover, gave rise to many sects, for which V. MONOFISITI.