MONOPHYSITES. - This is the name given to 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 declared that the Word of God, born in His humanity from the Virgin Mary, subsists in one hypostasis or person and in two natures (ἐν δόξῃ φύσει), which remain distinct and undivided, united and unconfused. The term Monophysitism is ambiguous because the Monophysites do not all explain the word φύσις in the same way. This must be emphasized first of all. Since there are still various Monophysite Churches in existence today, it is important to determine on which type of Monophysitism they are based. Moreover, since physical speculation gave rise to numerous sects in its first two centuries of existence (5th and 6th centuries), it is necessary to recall the principal ones, referring for the most part to a separate treatment in their respective articles.
I. THE VARIOUS FORMS OF MONOPHYSITISM
As has already been noted in the article on Eutyches and Eutychianism (v.), three types of Monophysitism are distinguished: real and Eutychian; verbal, called Severian after Severus of Antioch, its chief exponent; and orthodox, that is, the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who used the pseudo-Athanasian formula: "one incarnate φύσις of the Word of God," μία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, and explained it in a satisfactory manner. After the Council of Chalcedon, this formula no longer perfectly corresponded to the terminology established by the Council; nevertheless, this did not prevent many theologians and even some councils from continuing to use it, though not exclusively.Eutychianism is the radical form of Monophysitism, which many historians even today mistakenly attribute to all Monophysites. There are numerous varieties of it, many of them antedating Eutyches. Whatever Eutyches' actual thought may have been, the name Eutychianism has been applied to all those systems which rigidly refused to acknowledge in Christ anything but one nature, one essence. For this reason it is called real or true Monophysitism. Eutyches advanced the following two propositions: 1) Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with us; 2) after the union of divinity and humanity, there is only 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 possible forms of Eutychianism can be distinguished: 1) humanity is absorbed by divinity, somewhat as a drop of honey thrown into the sea dissolves (cf. Theodore, Eranistes, 2: PG 83, 153, 157); 2) divinity disappears into humanity. The Word empties (ἐκένωσεν: Phil. 2:7), so to speak, itself of its divinity (whence the name Kenosis [v.] adopted by modern supporters of this error); 3) the two natures are mixed or fused so as to form a theandric compound which is neither properly God nor properly man, but both at the same time, as water mixed with wine or as hydrogen and oxygen uniting to become water. This is the classical form of real Monophysitism; 4) the two natures of Christ are the parts of a natural whole which mutually complement each other and form one complete nature or essence. Such is the conception of Apollinaris, who, however, mutilated the human nature of Christ by subtracting from it the rational soul or νοῦς. The Apollinarians have been called Synousiasts (from συνοουσία = reduction of two essences to one). The Docetists, who held that the Word assumed only the appearances of flesh, and the errors of Valentinus and Apelles, who maintained the celestial origin of the Savior's humanity, have also been reduced to Monophysitism. Finally, there is the curious Monophysitism of certain heretics who held that the Word, by His omnipotence, brought about a metamorphosis, condensing Himself into flesh. These various forms of Monophysitism have had supporters, though their numbers were always limited and they never formed important groups, except for the Apollinarians; all these sects have long since disappeared.
Verbal Monophysitism consists solely in the terminology used. It is called Severian Monophysitism because its chief exponent was Severus of Antioch (d. 538). These Monophysites, who presented themselves as faithful disciples of St. Cyril of Alexandria, maintained that in the incarnate Word there is only one φύσις after the union of divinity and humanity; they however gave to the term φύσις the meaning of a concrete being subsisting in itself, of a subject of attribution, i.e., of an individual nature which is at the same time a hypostasis, a true person. For these Monophysites, the terms φύσις, ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον are entirely synonymous when applied to the mystery of the Incarnation. Whereas the Council of Chalcedon understands by φύσις (in Latin, natura) an individual nature, an essence considered as distinct from the suppositum in which it inheres, which is called hypostasis or person (ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον), verbal Monophysitism considers φύσις as equivalent to ὑπόστασις or πρόσωπον. According to the Council, in Jesus Christ there are two natures or individual essences, divinity and humanity, and one hypostasis or person, the person of the Word, Son of God. The logomachy over the term φύσις is evident. As for the rest, Severus speaks like an orthodox Christian. If he refuses to say "two natures or φύσις after the union," he willingly admits "two essences, δυο φύσις," which is equivalent to the two natures of the Council. Severus rejected all forms 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 any mixture or confusion of the essences and, while maintaining the perfect immutability of the Word in the union, he nevertheless refused to follow the terminology used at Chalcedon and clung exclusively to the Cyrillian formula: "one φύσις of the incarnate Word," forgetting that St. Cyril had consented to speak of "two natures, δυο φύσις," even before any conciliar definition. Although Severus and his disciples expressed themselves in an orthodox manner regarding the mystery of the Incarnation, they were heretics: a) because they accused Pope St. Leo the Great 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 equivocal after the rise of Eutychianism; c) because they used formulas, expressions, and analogies which, taken by themselves without the explanations with which they surrounded them, coincided with heresy and favored II. For example, they said: "two natures or φύσις before the union; one nature or φύσις after the union"; or again: "Christ results from two natures, ἐκ δυο φύσις, but does not subsist in two natures, ἐν δυο φύσις"; in Jesus Christ there is one φύσις or composed hypostasis, μία φύσις σύνδεσμος. Before Monergism and Monothelitism (v.) arose, they already used the formulas that characterize these two errors, being concerned as they were to affirm the unity of Christ in every respect, and they considered everything in relation to the agent, the person, the principium quod, leaving in the shadows the nature as such or the principium quo.
II. THE MONOPHYSITISM OF THE MONOPHYSITE CHURCHES
It is well known how the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, all advocates of a single nature or φύσις in Christ, ended by constituting themselves into dissident groups, each with its own hierarchy; thus arose the so-called Monophysite churches, three of which still exist today, dating back to the first half of the 6th century: the Egyptian or Coptic Church, from which the Church of Ethiopia depends, having recently become autocephalous (1948); the Jacobite Syrian Church, so called from James Baradaeus, the first to establish an independent hierarchy; and the Armenian Church, which took no part in the Council of Chalcedon and adhered to Zeno’s Henoticon and the Synod of 491. For each of these, however, it is necessary to determine the form of Monophysitism to which it adhered.
Those who have studied in depth the Christological doctrine of these groups have no difficulty in answering that they have always taught verbal Monophysitism, even though from time to time true Eutychians have appeared among them, who, however, failed to spread their error. From their origins, these Churches anathematized all forms of Eutychianism and interpreted Monophysite formulas in the same way as the first supporters of verbal Monophysitism did: Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenus of Mabbug, the Henoticians, Severus of Antioch, etc. This is clearly evident: a) from the veneration they accord to the Fathers of the Church prior to the Council of Chalcedon, particularly St. Cyril of Alexandria, regarded as the preeminent doctor; b) from the professions of faith and decrees of their particular councils; c) from their liturgical books; d) from the writings of their leading theologians (cf. M. Jugie, *Theologia dogmatica Orientalium dissidentium*, V, Paris 1935, pp. 490-524); it need only be noted that already before this, illustrious scholars had pointed out the logomachy surrounding the term φύσις or nature in the Monophysite controversy.
It should be noted that over the centuries there have been Eutychian infiltrations into the Churches under discussion; these, however, were immediately recognized and combated and thus did not succeed in imposing themselves upon common doctrine.
III. PRINCIPAL MONOPHYSITE SECTS
In the first two centuries following the Council of Chalcedon, Monophysitism, in its two forms of Eutychianism and Severianism, fragmented into numerous sects. These divisions were provoked both by jurisdictional conflicts and by doctrinal differences, especially by the variety of terminology. There is no need to treat the Eutychian sects, of which the various kinds have already been mentioned, since none of them succeeded in forming a distinct and lasting group. It is sufficient to recall the main divisions that occurred in Severian or verbal Monophysitism. The classic ground of these schisms was Egypt, where the anti-Chalcedonian movement quickly took shape.
The first cause of discord among the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon was Zeno’s Henoticon. The bishops leading the sect accepted this formula of compromise, but a considerable number of their faithful refused to follow them: thus arose the Henoticians and the Acephali. Around 518-20, at the beginning of Justin’s reign, a controversy broke out between Julian of Halicarnassus and Severus of Antioch regarding the passibility of Christ’s body before the Resurrection. Julian maintained that Christ’s body, from the moment of its conception, was habitually impassible and incorruptible, and that He suffered and died by miracle. Severus upheld the opposite thesis, namely the orthodox one. The Julianists, also called Gaians, were called Aphthartodocetae, while the Severians were called Phthartolatrae.
Around 540, the Alexandrian deacon Themistius (v.) attributed to Christ as man a certain ignorance, particularly of the day of judgment, thus becoming the leader of the Agnestics (v.). The opponents of the Agnestics were called Theodosians, after the name of the Monophysite patriarch Theodosius (535-66), who had condemned Themistius.
The innovations of John Philoponus regarding terminology gave rise to several sects. He himself was accused of the worst heresy. 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 had only a fleeting existence. Above and beyond them, the Monophysitism of Severus continued to subsist in its broad outlines within the three Churches already discussed.