Eutyches

EUTYCHES. - 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 Maximus, a declared opponent of Nestorianism, who transmitted to him his own hatred for dyophysitism. Having become a priest and been elected archimandrite of the monastery, without a deep theological formation, he immediately threw himself headlong into the doctrinal controversies of the time, whereas prudence should well have suggested silence to him. At the time of the Council of Ephesus, he joined the monks of the capital who, led by the abbot Dalmatius, went to Theodosius to implore the release of Cyril and Memnon (Mansi, VI, 628, 713). St. Cyril held a singular esteem for him and sent him a copy of the acts of the Council of Ephesus (Mansi, ibid., 631).

After the death of St. Dalmatius (around 440), Eutyches became one of the most notable figures of Byzantine monasticism. His prestige increased when in 441 the eunuch Chrysaphius, whom he had held at Baptism, rose to power. It was then that he used and abused this prestige to strike all those who seemed to him infected with Nestorianism. Among those who, while Cyril was alive, had waged a campaign unfavorable to Nestorius and the Antiochenes, there were qualified Apollinarians and true Monophysites as well as crude supporters of the formula of St. Cyril: one is the incarnate nature of God the Word. This movement was directed by Dioscorus of Alexandria, who succeeded Cyril in 444. During the year 448, several oppressive measures were taken by the imperial government against the bishops of Syria, behind which it was not difficult to discover the hand of Chrysaphius's favorite together with that of the patriarch of Alexandria. Theodoret was one of the victims. At Constantinople, where Flavian in 446 had replaced Proclus, Eutyches displayed an intemperate zeal against the supporters of the twofold nature in Christ. He even wrote a letter to the Pope in which he denounced the dangers of resurgent Nestorianism. St. Leo replied to him (Mansi, V, 1323).

This fanatical crusher of heretics, however, was not truly a pure orthodox. By dint of fighting Nestorianism, he fell into the opposite error, that is, into Monophysitism. Strong in the Cyrillian expression (which he did not know how to explain truly in an orthodox manner), Eutyches ended up classifying among the Nestorians all those who professed two natures in Jesus Christ after the union. Eusebius of Dorylaeum, the very one who 20 years earlier had been the first to attack Nestorius, intuited the new heresy during the discussions he had with the old archimandrite and seized the occasion of the permanent Synod (σύνοδος ἐνδημῶδος), 8 Nov. 448, to deliver to Flavian, as soon as the meeting had ended, a memorial against Eutyches, demanding the immediate public reading of the document and the appearance of the archimandrite before the Synod.

The weak Flavian, dismayed by such an unexpected turn of events, gave his assent for the reading of the memorial, but advised Eusebius to work with Eutyches to bring him back to orthodoxy. Eusebius held firm and insisted at all costs that the question be examined without delay in the Synod itself. The archimandrite was invited to present himself: at first he refused, but after a third written invitation, he let it be known that he was ill and could not obey. Flavian, full of condescension, granted him a postponement until 22 Nov., on which day, finally, the archimandrite presented himself, accompanied by a good number of monks, soldiers and officials. Chrysaphius had not abandoned his godfather in such a delicate conjuncture. The session began with the reading of the acts of the previous sessions. To the questions put to him, Eutyches replied contradicting himself, thus giving undoubted proof of his scant education and his petty mind. He obstinately opposed the two following 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 stubbornness drove Flavian and the members of the Synod to issue a sentence of deposition and excommunication against Eutyches, held to have fallen into the error of Valentinus and Apollinaris (Mansi, VI, 743). The blow was severe not only for Eutyches, but for Chrysaphius, Dioscorus and the whole clique of the Monophysites. Flavian could now well expect a harsh reprisal, which was not long in breaking out. Eutyches, first of all, rejected the sentence by which he had been struck and appealed to the Pope and to many other bishops of the West and the East. He maintained, then, that the acts of the Council relating to his condemnation had been falsified. By order of the emperor, on 12 Apr. 449 a new synod was held to ascertain the correctness of Eutyches's complaints. His envoys, however, could not adduce any prejudice of a certain seriousness against the incriminated acts. A new commission of inquiry, on 27 Apr., on a particular point. All these intrigues, moreover, were to lead to nothing. At the beginning of 449, Eutyches and Dioscorus had solicited an ecumenical council to re-examine the question. Theodosius II, whom Chrysaphius manipulated as he pleased, could not refuse. With a letter dated 30 March 449, he ordered the metropolitans of the Empire to go to Ephesus with some of their suffragans, carefully chosen, for the day 1 Aug. (Mansi, VI, 588 ff.). It is well known what happened in this second Council of Ephesus, which Pope St. Leo qualified with the title of "robber council of Ephesus" (v. EFESO, LATROCINIO di). Dioscorus spoke there as master. It was impossible for the legates of the Pope to carry out their mission. After reciting the Symbol of Nicaea and expressing his own devotion to the Sts. Fathers, after hurling anathema at all heretics beginning with Simon Magus, particularly at Manes, Valentinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius, Eutyches was rehabilitated by almost all the bishops present, after these had already launched anathema at whoever admitted two natures, δύο φάσιος, in Christ after the Incarnation (Mansi, VI, 862-70). Very little, however, did the success of Eutyches and Dioscorus last, despite the zeal displayed by the Emperor so that the decisions of the conciliabulum might be sanctioned. Shortly afterward, on 28 July 450, Theodosius II died from a fall from his horse. The empress Pulcheria took the reins of government into her hands and had the senator Marcian recognized as emperor, to whom she joined herself in marriage. Chrysaphius was condemned to death, the decrees of the "robber council" annulled, Eutyches was driven from his monastery and confined to a locality near Constantinople. At the Council of Chalcedon, which took place shortly afterward, Eutyches did not make an appearance. At the request of the Pope, he was removed from Constantinople and sent no one knows where. He passed through Jerusalem where he was a guest of the priest Hesychius (L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, III, Paris 1910, p. 471). A letter of St. Leo to the Emperor dated 15 Apr. 454 informs us that the heretic had not ceased to spread his error from the new place of exile and therefore invoked for him a greater isolation (Ep. 134: PL 54, 1095). After these dates, history is silent about Eutyches. Previously, on 28 July 452, Marcian had condemned his writings to the fire (Mansi, VII, 501). He could not, in the end, have written much. From the acts of the councils we can extract some letter of his and some declaration.

Undoubtedly, Eutyches was more ignorant than malicious. He had the great fault of occupying himself with theology, despite his lack of preparation. Pope St. Leo defined 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 ruin. Astute, unscrupulous people, such as Dioscorus, and well-disguised heretics, such as certain Apollinarians and Monophysites, used him as an instrument to achieve their own objectives. More than an innovator, he was, like Nestorius, a front man for spreading already existing errors. It is easy to notice other points of similarity between the two heresiarchs, who gave rise to schisms not yet completely extinct.

II. DOCTRINE OF EUTYCHES

It is very difficult to know precisely what Eutyches' personal doctrine on the mystery of the Incarnation was, because without doubt he himself did not know it well. Eutyches was a heretic because he maintained with formal obstinacy equivocal formulas, false moreover in their context; but since such formulas lend themselves to an orthodox explanation and certain of his statements favor a benevolent interpretation, one remains undecided about his actual thought.

Here is a series of orthodox propositions taken from his lips or fixed 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, to Valentinus, to Mani, to Nestorius and all heretics down to Simon, to all those who maintain that the flesh of our Lord was brought down from heaven; 5) in the Incarnation there was no mixture of divinity and humanity, but the Word remained immutable; 6) Eutyches explicitly accepts the definitions of Nicaea and of Ephesus and invokes in his own favor the testimonies of St. Cyril of Alexandria, of Gregory the Wonderworker, of Gregory of Nazianzus, of Basil, of Athanasius, of Atticus and of 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 has to his credit declarations of such a nature, condemned by the Council of Constantinople of 448 as infected with the error of Valentinus and of Apollinaris? How could he be accused of docetism, of crude monophysitism, of Origenism and even of Nestorianism? The explanation of so strange a fact must be sought in two equivocal statements of the old archimandrite: 1) I acknowledge that Our Lord has been (has become) of two natures; but after the union I no longer acknowledge that there is 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 the body of Christ is the body of God; the body of God I have never wished to call the body of a man, but this body is human: οὐκ εἶπεν ἀδῶα ἀνθρώπων τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ αἴμα, ἀνθρώπων δὲ τὸ αἴμα. (Mansi, VI, 741). Invited to anathematize the two following statements that were being reproached against him: 1) Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with us; 2) After the union, there is only one nature, not two, Eutyches refused flatly with these words: I have not found the doctrine of which you have spoken to me expressed clearly in Scripture, nor has any Father ever taught it to me (Mansi, VI, 745). From those two statements the reasons were drawn to determine Eutychianism specifically. Thus there were attributed to their author, despite his reiterated declarations, all the errors that can logically be deduced from them. If Christ is not consubstantial with us, his humanity is only an appearance, or else it must have a heavenly origin: hence the accusation of docetism, of Valentinianism, of Origenism, of Apollinarianism made against Eutyches. Mary is not truly the mother of God. If «ante unionem» «there were two natures, then, at least at a determined moment, they were separate and the union did not take place from the very first instant of the conception: an error which, 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 thus lost its divine attributes, and the two natures became like the constituent parts of a natural whole, in the same way as the soul and the body which form a single nature.

Many other absurd things have been drawn from the two statements of Eutyches, which could very well have a benign 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 old obstinate man who exploited the prestige he had with Chrysaphius to persecute those who admitted two natures in Christ. They took his words literally and drew from them Valentinian and Apollinarian reasons. His contemporaries first, and later posterity, imitated them, attributing to Eutyches all the errors that lie hidden under the label of Valentinianism and Apollinarianism. The majority of the Monophysites themselves rejected Eutychianism in the above sense with horror.

III. EUTYCHIANISM AND MONOPHYSITISM

One must not confuse Eutychianism and Monophysitism, as most historians and theologians still continue to do. Eutychianism is only one form, the crudest and least important form, of Monophysitism. Etymologically, the word "Monophysitism" can be used to indicate any doctrine that recognizes in the incarnate Word a single φύσις, after the union of humanity with divinity. Historically, those have been called "Monophysites" who rejected the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon, according to which the Word, born of the Virgin Mary according to his humanity, is in a single hypostasis and in two natures, is δύο φύσεις, which remain unconfused, unchanged, undivided, inseparably united. The Eutychians are therefore Monophysites insofar as they do not admit in Christ "post unionem" anything but a single φύσις, but not all Monophysites are Eutychians. Eutychians are all those who compromise the immutability of the Word in the union and attack the reality and integrity of his humanity and thus conclude to a single φύσις, understood in the sense of "individual nature" or, perhaps, of "person," but of a person constituting a natural whole, composed of truly proper parts. We have in fact seen that the two formulas of Eutyches: A single nature after the union - Christ is not consubstantial with us were understood in this way, whatever the path by which one arrives at such a conclusion.

Alongside this real Monophysitism, theologians have discovered another Monophysitism that is purely verbal. That is, the one that posits in Jesus Christ "post unionem" a single φύσις, understood in the sense of a concrete being subsisting in itself, of a unique subject of attribution, that is, of a nature that is at the same time hypostasis, a true person. Φύσις thus becomes synonymous with ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον. While the Council of Chalcedon uses φύσις in the sense of individual nature, of essence considered as abstracted from the suppositum in which it subsists, and distinguishes it from the hypostasis and the person, ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον, verbal Monophysitism takes these 3 terms as synonyms in the mystery of the incarnation, saying that in Jesus Christ there is a single φύσις that is at the same time a ὑπόστασις and a πρόσωπον. Regarding the mystery of the Trinity, on the other hand, it distinguishes between φύσις and ὑπόστασις or πρόσωπον, saying that in God there is a single φύσις and among ὑποστάσεις or πρόσωπα. This is how the equivocation arose that is noted between Chalcedonian dyophysitism and the verbal Monophysitism of which we are speaking. It is the Monophysitism of St. Cyril when he uses the famous expression: μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη: Una natura Verbi Dei incarnata, an expression that he manages to explain orthodoxly. It is the formula of most Monophysites over the course of the centuries, who have given this formula the identical interpretation that St. Cyril gave. But, unlike the bishop of Alexandria who, "pro bono pacis," had accepted recognizing in Christ two φύσεις, his disciples obstinately refused in their fanaticism to adopt the dyophysite terminology, canonized by an ecumenical council and by Pope Leo, against whom the anathema of the partisans of Nestorianism was hurled. They may declare themselves orthodox regarding Christology, while then using certain more or less dangerous formulas, some of which give off a strong odor of Eutychianism. For Catholics, they are and remain true heretics, insofar as they have refused obedience to the infallible magisterium of the universal Church, which they have even accused of error.

The principal exponent of the heterodox verbal Monophysitism of which we speak was Severus of Antioch (d. 538), from whom the name of Severian Monophysitism was given to this form of Monophysitism. Severus admits in Jesus Christ "post unionem" two essences, δύο φύσεις, but a single φύσις. He hurls the anathema against Eutyches. He declares that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity, consubstantial with Mary and with us according to his humanity. He does not accept any 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 can place an orthodox verbal Monophysitism. It is the one that adheres to the Monophysite formula of St. Cyril according to the explanation he himself gave of it, but that simultaneously accepts the orthodoxy of the dyophysite formulas of Chalcedon and of the tome of St. Leo, indeed prefers them to the Monophysite terminology, which became especially dangerous after the appearance of Eutychianism. This kind of Monophysitism, called by some the neo-Chalcedonian current, had as its patrons the orthodox theologians who sought to put an end to the Monophysite schism by showing 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 exponent in Leontius of Byzantium and its most solemn formulation in the canons of the V 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 of verbal Monophysitism. Each of these two forms of Monophysitism then gave rise to many sects, for which v. MONOFISITI.