MONOPHYSITES. – This is the name given to the heretics who, in the incarnate Son of God, admit only one nature (in Greek φύσις), resulting from the union of divinity with humanity. They directly oppose the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which proclaimed that the Word of God, born, with respect to his humanity, of the Virgin Maria, subsists in one hypostasis or person and in two natures (ἐν δύο φύσει), which remain distinct and undivided, united and unconfused. The term Monophysitism is ambiguous, because the m. did not all explain the word φύσις in the same way. This must be insisted upon above all. Since several Monophysite Churches still exist today, it is appropriate to establish upon which kind of Monophysitism they are founded. Moreover, since Monophysitism gave rise to numerous sects during its first two centuries of existence (5th and 6th centuries), the principal ones must be recalled, referring, for most of them, to a separate treatment in their respective articles.
I. THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF MONOPHYSITISM
As has already been noted in the article Eutiche e eutichianismo (v.), three kinds of Monophysitism are distinguished: 1) real or Eutychian Monophysitism; 2) verbal Monophysitism, called Severian after Severus of Antioch, who was its principal exponent; 3) orthodox Monophysitism, that of s. Cirillo Alessandrino, who employed the pseudo-Athanasian formula: one incarnate φύσις of the Word of God: μία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσχεκωμένη, and explained it satisfactorily. After the Council of Chalcedon, this formula no longer corresponded perfectly to the terminology established by the Council; nevertheless, this did not prevent several theologians and even some councils from continuing to use it, although not exclusively.Eutychianism is the radical form of Monophysitism, the form that many historians, even today, wrongly attribute to all m. Whatever Eutyches’ thought may have been, the name Eutychianism has been applied to all those systems that obstinately refused to recognize in Christ anything but one nature, one essence. For this reason it is called real, that is, true, Monophysitism. Eutyches had maintained the following two propositions: 1) Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with us; 2) after the union of the divinity and humanity, there is one nature, not two. All the errors that can logically be deduced from these two propositions have been attributed to Eutyches and constitute historical Eutychianism. A priori, four forms of Eutychianism are possible: 1) humanity is absorbed by divinity, just as a drop of honey thrown into the sea is dissolved (cf. Theodoreto, Eranistes, 2: PG 83, 153, 157); 2) divinity disappears into humanity. The Word loses his divine attributes, emptying (ἐκέλωνεν: Philip., 2, 7), so to speak, himself of his divinity (hence the name Kenosis [v.], adopted by the modern proponents of this error); 3) the two natures are mixed or fused in such a way as to produce a theandric composite, which is neither properly God nor properly man, but both simultaneously, like water mixed with wine or hydrogen and oxygen which, when united, become water. This is the classical form of real Monophysitism; 4) the two natures of Christ are the parts of a natural whole, mutually completing one another and forming one complete nature or essence. Such was the conception of Apollinaris, who, moreover, mutilated Christ’s human nature by depriving it of the rational soul or νόος. The Apollinarians were called situasi (from συνουσίωσις = reduction of two essences to one). Docetism, according to which the Word assumed only the appearances of flesh, and the error of Valentino and Apelle, who maintained the celestial origin of the Saviour’s humanity, have also been classified as Monophysitism. Finally, mention should be made of the curious Monophysitism of certain heretics, according to which the Word, through his omnipotence, brought about a metamorphosis by condensing himself into flesh. These various forms of Monophysitism had adherents who were very limited in number and never constituted important groups, with the exception of the Apollinarians; all these sects disappeared long ago.
Verbal Monophysitism consists solely in the terminology used. It is called Severian Monophysitism because its principal supporter was Severus of Antioch (d. 538). These m., who presented themselves as the faithful disciples of s. Cirillo Alessandrino, maintained that in the incarnate Word there is one φύσις after the union of divinity and humanity; they nevertheless gave the term φύσις the meaning of a concrete being subsisting in itself, of a subject of attribution, that is, of an individual nature which is at the same time a hypostasis, a true person. For these m., the terms φύσις, ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον are entirely synonymous when applied to the mystery of the Incarnation. When the Council of Chalcedon understands φύσις (in Latin natura) as an individual nature, an essence considered as distinct from the suppositum in which it subsists, which is called hypostasis or person (ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον), verbal Monophysitism regards φύσις as equivalent to ὑπόστασις or πρόσωπον. According to the Council, in Jesus Christ there are two individual natures or essences, divinity and humanity, and one hypostasis or person, the person of the Word, the Son of God. The logomachy over the term φύσις is clear. In all other respects, Severus speaks as an orthodox Christian. He refuses to say “two natures,” or φύσεις, after the union, but readily admits two essences, δύο φύσιαι: which is equivalent to the two natures of the Council. Severus rejected every form of Eutychianism; according to him, Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and consubstantial with us according to his humanity; he rejected every mixture and every confusion of the essences, and while holding to the perfect immutability of the Word in the union, he nevertheless refused to follow the terminology adopted at Chalcedon and remained obstinately attached to the Cyrillian formula: one φύσις of the incarnate Word, forgetting that s. Cirillo had consented to say: two natures, δύο φύσεις, even before any conciliar definition. Although Severus and his disciples expressed themselves in an orthodox manner concerning the mystery of the Incarnation, they were heretics: a) because they accused Pope s. Leone Magno and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of Nestorianism; b) because they refused to recognize as legitimate a Christological terminology canonized by the Church and clung exclusively to Monophysite terminology, which had become dangerous and ambiguous after the rise of Eutychianism; c) because they used formulas, expressions, and analogies which, taken in themselves, without the explanations with which they surrounded them, coincided with and favored heresy. They said, for example: two natures or φύσεις before the union; one nature or φύσεις after the union; or: Christ results from two natures, ἐν δύο φύσεων, but does not subsist in two natures, ἐν δύο φύσεσι; in Jesus Christ there is one φύσις or composite hypostasis, μία φύσις σύνθετος. Monothelitism (v.) arose, they were already using the formulas characteristic of these two errors, so concerned were they to affirm the unity of Christ in every sphere; they considered everything in relation to the agent, the person, the principium quod, leaving in the shadows nature as such, or the principium quo.
II. MONOPHYSITISM IN THE MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES
It is well known that the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, all supporters of a single nature or φύσις in Christ, eventually formed dissident groups, each with its own hierarchy; thus the so-called Monophysite Churches came into being. Three of them still exist today, dating back to the first half of the sixth century: the Egyptian or Coptic Church, upon which the Church of Ethiopia depends, having recently become autocephalous (1948); the Jacobite Syriac Church, so called after Giacomo Baradeo, the first to establish an independent hierarchy; and the Armenian Church, which took no part in the Council of Chalcedon and adhered to the Henoticon of Zenon at the Synod of 491. It is nevertheless necessary here to determine the form of Monophysitism to which each of them adhered. Anyone who has studied the Christological doctrine of these groups in depth will have no difficulty in answering that they have always taught verbal Monophysitism, even though from time to time genuine Eutychians appeared among them, but failed to spread their error. From their origins these Churches anathematized all forms of Eutychianism and explained the Monophysite formulas as they had been interpreted by the first proponents of verbal Monophysitism: Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenus of Mabbug, the Henoticists, Severus of Antioch, etc. This is clearly evident: a) from the worship they render to the Fathers of the Church who lived before the Council of Chalcedon, and particularly to s. Cyril of Alexandria, regarded as the pre-eminent teacher; b) from the professions of faith and decrees of their particular councils; c) from their liturgical books; d) from the writings of their principal theologians (cf. M. Jugie, Theologia dogmatica Orientalium dissidentium, V, Paris 1935, pp. 490-524); it should merely be noted that already earlier distinguished scholars had warned of the logomachy surrounding the term φύσις or nature in the Monophysite controversy.It is appropriate to point out that, over the course of the centuries, Eutychian infiltrations occurred in the Churches under discussion; they were, however, immediately recognized and opposed and consequently had no opportunity to impose themselves upon the common doctrine.
III. PRINCIPAL MONOPHYSITE SECTS
During the first two centuries after the Council of Chalcedon, Monophysitism, in its forms of Eutychianism and Severianism, split into numerous sects. These divisions were caused both by conflicts of jurisdiction and by doctrinal differences, especially by variety in terminology. There is no need to discuss the Eutychian sects, whose various kinds have already been mentioned, since none of them succeeded in establishing a distinct and lasting group. It is sufficient to recall the principal divisions that occurred within verbal Severian Monophysitism. The classic land of the schisms was Egypt, where the anti-Chalcedonian movement immediately gained strength. The first bone of contention among the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon was the Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno. The bishops who led the sect submitted to this formula of compromise, but a considerable number of their faithful refused to follow them: thus arose the Henoticians and the Acephali. Around 518-2c, that is, at the beginning of the reign of Justin, controversy broke out between Julian of Halicarnassus and Severus of Antioch concerning the passibility of Jesus’ body before the Resurrection. Julian maintained that Jesus’ body, from the moment of its conception, had habitually been impassible and incorruptible, and had suffered and died by a miracle. Severus maintained the opposite thesis, namely, the orthodox one. The Julianists, also called Gaianites, were called Aphthartodocetists, while the Severians were called Phthartolatrae.Around 540, Themistius (v.) attributed to Jesus Christ, as man, a certain ignorance, particularly ignorance of the day of judgment, and thus became the leader of the Agnoetae (v.). The opponents of the Agnoetae were called Theodosians, after the name of the Monophysite patriarch Theodosius (535–66), who had condemned Themistius.
The innovations of John Philoponus concerning terminology gave rise to several sects. He himself was accused of tritheism. With him, the Monophysite controversy was no longer limited to the mystery of the Incarnation but extended to the mystery of the Trinity. Most of the Monophysite sects were short-lived. Above and beyond them, Severus’s Monophysitism continued to exist in its broad outlines in the three Churches discussed above.