MESSALIANI. – An ascetic movement with heretical tendencies that arose in Syria. In Greek the m. are called cuchi; but Timotheus, presbyter of Constantinople, also knows for them the names markianists, enthusiasts, choreutes, lampetians, adelphians, and custazians (from Eustathius of Sebaste: PG 86, 45 ff.). Other names could also be added, because the m. have many connections with the Audiani and the Timotheanists (mentioned by Mārūtā of Majferqat). One cannot speak of a true sect, since this was rather an ascetic movement within the Syriac Church with erroneous spiritual doctrines.
The m. are mentioned for the first time (after the Cathari and the Audiani) by Ephraem the Syrian in homily 22 against the heresies (v. ADE. Rücker, Des hl. Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen gegen die Irrlehren [Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 61], Munich 1928, p. 81). The Saint gives no particular information. More extensive is the account of St. Epiphanius (Hacc., 80, 3, 2 ff.), but he was not well informed about the theological problem concerning Messalianism. He says that the m. are an undisciplined crowd of ascetics of both sexes, who sleep in the streets and squares (ibid., 80, 3, 4) and beg for alms (loc. cit.), but on the other hand he also speaks of m. in Mesopotamia who live in monasteries (mandrai; ibid., 80, 6, 3). There were therefore wandering ascetics who adhered to the doctrines of the m., and ascetics who possessed «stabilitas loci». Wandering ascetics and the common life of ascetics of both sexes are not peculiarities of Syrian Messalianism. Nor do the custom of not cutting one’s hair or shaving one’s beard and the wearing of penitential dress (sackcloth; ibid., 80, 6, 5) specifically characterize the m. More instructive is Epiphanius’s information that the m. do not observe fasts (80, 3, 6; cf. Theodoret, Hist. eccl., IV, 11, 7), that they do not work (Epiphanius, Hacc., 80, 4, 1), and that, when asked whether they are prophets, Christ, patriarchs, or angels, they affirm that they are all these things (ibid., 80, 3, 5). These details bear some relation to the ascetic and mystical doctrine of Messalianism. The most concrete information about the doctrine of the m. ultimately derives from the acts of the Synods of Side (under the presidency of Amphilochius of Iconium) and Antioch (under Flavian), which Photius had read (Bibl., cod. 52: PG 103, 88 ff.). The information of Theodoret (op. cit., IV, 11, and Haeret. fab., IV, 11: PG 83, 429 ff.), of Timothy the presbyter (v. above), of John Damascene (De haeres.: PG 94, 729 ff.), and of Euthymius Zigabenus (PG 130, 1273 ff.) is based on this material, supplied by the synodal texts. These synods criticized an «Asceticon» of the m., which, according to Dörries, could still be reconstructed from the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, or more precisely of Simeon of Mesopotamia. The principal points of this doctrine of the m. are the following: in every human being who is born there is a demon, the fatal consequence of Adam’s fall. Baptism cannot drive this demon away, because the Sacrament does not cut the roots of sins. Only continual prayer in the felt presence of the Holy Spirit can drive out the demon and lead man to «apatheia» (imperturbabilitas). The doctrine of the demon who is born with man is ultimately a doctrine of the Jewish religion. It concerns the evil inclination (jēzer ha-ra) that is born with every human being, and which is sexual concupiscence. This more or less conscious identification of concupiscence with original sin was developed in the ancient Church on the basis of Jewish doctrines according to which the root (for the image of the root V. H. Ch. Puech, Le Manichisme, Paris 1949, p. 160) of evil would be «sealed» in eschatological times (IV Esd. 3, 22), in the sense that Baptism or Confirmation would be the «seal» of the root of evil. But when the concept of the seal (ἀφραγίς) was interpreted solely as an eschatological sign, the remission of original sin in Baptism was denied, and the m. reached the conclusion that the sacrament of Baptism is effective only in the manner of a razor, which cuts the hair but does not pull it out by the roots (Theodoret, Haeret. fab., IV, 11). The eradication of sin, that is, of concupiscence, thus becomes the work of the ascetic himself, who, by completely renouncing every form of concupiscence, reaches «apatheia». The consequence is encratism and the affirmation of a presence of the Holy Spirit in the soul not concomitant with the baptismal act, but with the coming of the Spirit upon the Apostles at Pentecost. Hence the interest of the Encratites and the m. in the Apostles, who for them become models for the life of the perfect. The presence of the Spirit must be sensually felt, since concupiscence too is a sensual fact; thus the psychologism of the doctrine of the m. is explained. Everything else in the doctrine of the m. can be interpreted on the basis of these presuppositions: the sensual vision of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity, who are not distinguished; prophetism; the divinization (purification) of the person who has attained «apatheia»; the perfect’s renunciation of work; and indifference toward moral precepts, which apply only to the imperfect, as do, moreover, ascetic precepts and the Sacraments. Although Messalianism is comprehensible in its general outlines, it is nevertheless impossible for us to draw the boundaries between ancient encratism and Messalianism in Mesopotamia. It is very probable that Messalianism spread from Mesopotamia into Asia Minor and western Syria (there were m. in Egypt as well), but the individual phases of this historical development remain obscure today, as does the activity of the individual persons who are mentioned: Adelphus, Lampetius, Eusebius of Edessa, Simeon of Mesopotamia, etc. Messalianism can be reconstructed to a certain extent through the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius or the Liber graduum, but it must be recognized that here we are already dealing with a mitigation of the ascetic doctrine of the m. From opponents of Messalianism such as Diadochus or Mark the Hermit, only a few elements can be drawn for reconstructing the ideas of the m. Perhaps more useful would be a collection of the images used in the writings that underwent the influence of the m. It might perhaps be established that, apart from the doctrine of sin, there are also connections with Jewish mysticism (Merkābhāh-speculation in the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius. The technique of mysticism: holding the head downward during meditation; V. G. Scholem, Les grands courants de la mystique juive, Paris 1950, p. 63, and the κατακαραλλίται among the m. in Constantinople, V. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, II, ed. Chabot, there 1900–10, p. 261). In the images used in the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius, connections with those of pseudo-Clementine literature can be found. It is certain that the m. made extensive use of the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Whether they truly possessed a Christology of the Judeo-Christian type, as one of the accusations alleges, is uncertain. The influence of the spiritual movement of Messalianism was considerable. This must be said not only of the spirituality of the Byzantine Church, which even in the opponents of the m. still reflects their psychologism, nor only of its influence on Islamic mysticism, but also of European Pietism, which, with Luther’s doctrine of concupiscence as its presupposition, proved, in figures such as Wesley and C. Arnold, highly receptive to the spirituality of the m. as they encountered it in the homilies of Pseudo-Macarius. The m. have in common with Manichaeism only the presuppositions of encratism in Mesopotamia.