MONOTHELITISM. – A Christological heresy of the 7th century, the last major attempt Monophysites (v.) through partial concessions, admitting the two natures in Christ, but at the same time affirming the uniqueness of the operation (monoenergism) and of the will (m., from the Greek μόνη θέλησις, ἐν θέλημα).
I. THE ORIGINS OF THE HERESY AND THE MONENERGETIC PHASE
As early as around 600, the patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria (580–607) had defended the existence of two activities or energies (δύο ἐνέργεια) and of two wills (δύο θελήματα) in Christ (cf. O. Bardenhewer, Ungedruckte Excerpte aus einer Schrift des Patriarchen Eulogius von Alexandrien über Trinität und Incarnation, in Theolog. Quartalsch., 78 [1896], pp. 353–401). The adversaries of Eulogius, who must probably be sought among the adherents of Theodosian or Severian monophysitism, had already fully professed the monotheletic doctrine (“μίαν θέλησιν ἤγουν ἐν θέλημα ἐν χριστῷ δυσσεβῶς δογματίζουσιν,” says Eulogius of those “new descendants of Apollinaris,” ibid., p. 372). Indeed, Severus of Antioch, while admitting two categories of works in Christ, had taught that the operation in the incarnate Word was one, since the one who operates is one; likewise, the will is one, because the willing subject is one. These formulas, although in Severus capable of a benign interpretation, had prepared the heresy that was to disturb almost the whole of the seventh century. But m. attained particular importance only when, under the emperor Heraclius (610–41), it seemed capable of promoting that religious union so greatly desired by the political authorities at a moment when the Byzantine Empire was threatened with collapse, first under the Persian invasion and then under the Arab one. It seems that it was the patriarch Sergius of Constantinople (610–38) who proposed to the Emperor the attempt to bring the Monophysites of Syria and Egypt back to the Church through the doctrine of monenergism (μία ἐνέργεια, “a single operation”). The first attempts at an agreement, begun by Sergius in Egypt with George Arsas, head of the Monophysite sect of the Paulianists, and by the emperor himself in Armenia with Paul the Blind, an eminent leader of the Severians, had no lasting success. More important, however, were the contacts established by Heraclius in 626 with Cyrus, metropolitan of Phasis (Sebastopolis). He asked for and obtained further explanations from Sergius, to which the patriarch of Constantinople added the letter that one of his predecessors, Menna, had allegedly sent to Pope Vigilius in 536; this letter was later rejected as apocryphal by the papal legates at the Council of 680–81. Menna was said there to have taught “ἐν τὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ θέλημα καὶ μίαν ζωοστούν ἐνέργειαν.” Bishop Theodore of Pharan in Arabia was also won over to the new formula. For some time, however, the movement came to a halt. In June 631 Heraclius appointed Cyrus of Phasis patriarch of Alexandria, also granting him political and military power over Egypt, with the explicit task of winning the Monophysites to the Church through the doctrine of monenergy. Cyrus in fact achieved union with the Theodosians (Severians or Phartolaters). The act of union, concluded on 3 June 633, consisted of nine anathemas; in the seventh, the doctrine of the two natures was presented with the utmost circumspection, while it explicitly professed “unum Christum et Filium, operantem Deo decibilia, et humana una dei virili operatione (μὴ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργεῖς), secundum sanctum Dionysium” (Mansi, XI, col. 565). In the same year, 633, Heraclius was able to conclude union with the Armenian Church at the Council of Theodosiopolis (Erzerum). In Syria, as early as 631, the Emperor had reached an understanding with Athanasius, the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, during the Conferences of Hierapolis (Mabbûg). The entire Empire thus appeared to have regained religious unity through adherence—though not sincere in every case—to the Council of Chalcedon and to the doctrine of monergy (although the importance played by the latter in the union with the Armenians is not entirely clear).It is not easy to determine the thought of monenergism precisely, given the imprecision of the term ἐνέργεια, which sometimes means energy, the active principle of operation, while at other times it designates rather τὸ ἐνεργεῖν, operation in act. According to Tixeront (Histoire des dogmes, III, Paris 1928, p. 163, note 3), in the controversy the term ἐνέργεια should be interpreted in this latter sense; but the assertion has not remained uncontested (cf. Fr. Bauer, in Theol. Revue, 26 [1927], col. 273). It may be said that the monenergists conceived ἐνέργεια as the first movement proceeding from the person: “a principio quod actionis.” Monenergism (of the seventh century) admitted human activity and operation in Christ, as well as the “principium quo” of this activity; but it refused to call this activity by the term ἐνέργεια and, above all, did not wish to reckon it in such a way that, when added to the divine operation, there would result two operations (ἐνέργεια) in Christ: “Non ut humanam tollamus, unam operationem dicimus, sed quod ea ratione qua distinguitur contra divinam operationem, passio dicitur” (Pyrrhus, in the Carthaginian disputation of 645: PG 91, 349). The monenergists regarded the unity of the acting subject so exclusively that they attributed operari solely to the suppositum; since in Christ this is one and theandric, they deduced that the operation too is one and theandric. The oneness of the operation was therefore affirmed on the level of the person, not of the nature; hence they called this single operation of the Lord hypostatic, hegemonic, theandric, but in no way physical or a natural property. They interpreted according to their own meaning the celebrated Christological formula of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (at the end of the letter to the monk Caius: PG 3, 1072), according to which Christ, as God made man, manifested to us “καυτὴν τινὰ τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργεια” (it should be noted that in the act of union of 633, instead of a “new” operation, there is mention of “one” theandric operation).
The monenergists (as later did the properly so-called monotheletes) wished to remain orthodox. It may be granted that their thought is less heretical than their formulas considered in themselves. But they altered the natural and traditional meaning of the word ἐνέργεια—expressing by it, as later by the term θέλημα, not the essential property of nature, as operation and will are, but what belongs properly to the person—and they became particularly dangerous through their silence concerning the physical operations (and physical wills) of the two natures. The distance from silence to outright denial was not great. Indeed, after the act of union concluded by Cyrus, the Monophysites rejoiced, saying that it was not they who had adhered to the doctrine of Chalcedon, but rather that the Council had drawn closer to them by admitting, through its affirmation of a single operation, a single nature in Christ (Vita s. Maximi: PG 90, 77–80).
II. THE FIRST RESISTANCE AND THE TRANSITION TO THE MONOTHELITE FORMULA
The first opposition to the act of union of 633 came from the Palestinian monk s. Sofronio (v.), who was then in Egypt with his friend Massimo. When every attempt to bring Ciro back to orthodoxy had proved fruitless, Sofronio asked Sergio himself to remove the expression μία ἐνέργεια from the articles of union. Sergio, unwilling to compromise the movement of conversion to orthodoxy, which he considered highly promising, eventually affirmed that one should speak neither of one nor of two operations in Christ, but that, in accordance with the tradition of the SS. Fathers and Councils, one should profess a single agent in the divine and human actions of the incarnate Word. He wrote to Ciro in this sense, and Sofronio then promised not to reopen the question. These events are known fromanother letter of Sergio to Pope Honorius I (625-38), written in 634, when he already knew of Sofronio’s elevation to the see of Jerusalem and had to seek to forestall the Pope against possible initiatives by the highly learned monk who had become patriarch (Sergio’s letter in Mansi, XI, cols. 529-37; a critical analysis in Tixeront, loc. cit., pp. 167-69). Declaring that he did not wish to take a position in favor of either expression (monenergy and dienergy), Sergio clearly excluded the latter, because, in his view, it would lead to the affirmation of two wills opposed to one another; he also recalled, with evident sympathy, the letter of Menna, a true collection of patristic testimonies concerning the one will of Christ. The letter marks the transition from monoenergism to m. properly so called (the Ecsthesis published in 638 by Eraclio is substantially identical with the so-called ἄβρος, Sergio’s doctrinal decision communicated to Ciro and Pope Honorius). It is true that the formula “one will” (ἐν θέλῃς) is not openly proposed therein, but it is skillfully insinuated. Pope Honorius, however, adopted it and made it his own.
The response of Honorius (the first letter to Sergio, preserved only in the Greek translation (Mansi, XI, cols. 537-44) approves the prohibition against speaking of one or two energies in Christ; in these distinctions the Pope saw useless and dangerous refinements: «ad nos ista pertinere non debent, relinquentes ea grammaticis» (ibid., col. 542). But even before this Honorius had vigorously excluded the hypothesis of a human will in Christ that opposed his divine will and, in this sense, attributed one will to him: «...unam voluntatem fatemur domini nostri Jesu Christi» (ibid., col. 539). In Christ, one person, there can be no dualism or antagonism in willing. But Honorius made it clearly understood that this unity consisted solely in the conformity of the human will with the divine. Thus the Pope, without saying so, supposed the presence in Christ of an act of his human will (this is how Honorius’s thought has recently been interpreted by Galtier; concerning Marić’s studies on the question, V. Fr. Diekamp, in Theologische Revue, 32 [1933], cols. 445-48). This does not alter the fact that the Pope’s response, lacking foresight, accepted Sergio’s tactic of silence, distrusted Sofronio instead, and, by also accepting the ambiguous formula of the one will, supplied weapons to the Monothelite movement.
But Sofronio had already taken action; in 634, having been elected patriarch of Jerusalem, he used the letter of enthronement to be sent to the Pope and to his fellow patriarchs (Epistola Synodica, in Mansi, XI, cols. 461-509; PG 87, 3148-3200) to develop fully the doctrine of the divine and human “energy” of Christ; faithful to his agreement with Sergio, he never explicitly speaks of two operations of Christ, but distinguishes with complete clarity the operation of each nature as the necessary consequence of the dyophysite faith: «utriusque naturae utramque novimus operationem (ἐνατέραν ἐνέργειαν), essentialem dico, naturalem et congrum, indivise de unaqueque procedentem essentia et natura» (op. cit.; PG 87, 3169). The operation follows nature; therefore it cannot be hypostatic or personal, but is the essential, natural, congruous movement of each nature, proceeding from the nature itself. The formula of Pseudo-Dionysius (v. above), employed by the Monoenergists in a subjective sense, as though it were intended to safeguard the unity of the subiectum agens and the single operari of this subject, was interpreted by Sofronio (and later by s. Massimo) in an objective sense: the “theandric operation” is to be understood as belonging to that “intermediate class” of Christ’s operations (between the operations proceeding solely from the divine nature, ἐνέργειαι θεοπρεπεῖς, and those in which only the human nature operates, ἐνέργειαι ἀνθρωποπρεπεῖς), in which the two natures cooperate, operating—without separation and without confusion—what is proper to each; but insofar as they cooperate in producing one single and identical effect, this operation is theandric, divine-human (on the scholastic interpretation of the «operatio dei virilis», cf. I. Backes, Die Christologie des hl. Thomas von Aquin und die griechischen Kirchenvöter, Paderborn 1931, pp. 108-11).
III. THE MONOTHELETISM PROPER TO THE ECTHESIS
A new phase of the controversy began when Heraclius, who had been detained in the East for several years, returned to Constantinople in 638 and appended his signature to a doctrinal document prepared by Sergius: the so-called Ecsthesis (“exposition”), which, drawn up in the form of a symbolic exposition of the dogma of the Trinity and the Incarnation, essentially repeated Sergius’s position of 634; that is, it censured the two expressions “one” or “two” energies, but also declared openly that in Christ there was one will only, without any confusion of the two natures, which preserve intact their own attributes in the one person of the incarnate Word (text in Mansi, X, cols. 991–98).The judgment given above concerning monoenergism applies also to monotheletism properly so called. In affirming the one will or volition (ἐν θέλῃς), the monotheletes did not intend to deny the existence of a human will, understood as natural and physical. But for them willing (θέλῃς) is the initial act, the first determination to will and to act; and this θέλῃς is one, divine, belonging to the «principium quod actionis», to the person, and is therefore called hypostatic and hegemonic. To speak of δύο θελήματα in Jesus Christ, for them, amounted to affirming two contrary wills, or wills wholly independent of one another, as are the wills of two human persons. The monotheletic formula errs (as does the monoenergism from which it arose) by reversing the commonly accepted meaning of the word θέλῃς and by dangerously remaining silent about physical wills. The Church, notwithstanding all the explanations given of the formula “one will,” could not fail to condemn the Ecsthesis. Monotheletism is the fruit of an attempt to find compromises: it adopted from the Severians the terminology concerning the will of the God-Man; but it rejected monoidiotism, that is, the Severian doctrine concerning the unity of natural properties. Monotheletism has therefore been called a semi-dyophysitism and a semi-monophysitism (M. Jugie).
In the Eastern patriarchates, the edict was generally well received. In Rome it became known only in the spring of 640, upon the return of the papal apocrisaries of Severinus, the successor of Honorius I (d. 12 October 638). It is not certain that Pope Severinus condemned the Ecsthesis before his death (2 August 640). It is known, however, that John IV (640–42) condemned the document in a Roman council and requested its suppression from the emperor Constantine III, who had succeeded Heraclius I (11 February 641) and was hostile to monotheletism. But the premature death of the Emperor (35 May 641) restored the supporters of monotheletism to power. Pope Theodore I, who succeeded John IV in 642, repeated the condemnation of the Ecsthesis (letter to the patriarch Paul of Constantinople, in Mansi, X, cols. 702–705).
But the principal champion of the struggle against monotheletism was then emerging in the monk St. Maximus of Chrysopolis, formerly secretary to Heraclius. Particularly famous is his disputation with Pyrrhus, the deposed successor of Sergius, which took place at Carthage in 645 (PG 91, 288–353). Like Sophronius before him, Maximus constantly insisted that every nature is a principle of operation (principium quo); that energy, operation, or activity as such is physical and natural, emanating from nature; and that Christ, having two natures, necessarily has two connatural modes of operation, one divine and one human; just as he has a divine knowledge and a human knowledge, so too he has a twofold will and operation. In Christological difficulties Maximus constantly appealed to the Trinitarian dogma. Against the principal argument of Severus and Pyrrhus—that the number of wills determines the number of those who will—Maximus maintained that, if the person is the principle of willing and acting, then in God there is a threefold will (Disputatio cum Pyrrho: ibid., 348). Moreover, in defending dyothelitism, Maximus frequently returned to the great principle developed by the Greek Fathers in Christological controversies from the fourth century onward: the intimate, indissoluble union between Christology and the dogma of Redemption. Christ, the Redeemer, must be a true mediator, perfectly consubstantial with the two poles: « Quod cum Dei et hominum mediator sit, necesse sit proprie servare naturalem necessitudinem, cum his, inter quae medius intercedit » (Ep., XII: PG 91, 468).
IV. FINE DELLA CONTROVERSIA
Nel 647 papa Teodoro I scomunicò il patriarca Paolo di Costantinopoli dopo che questi ebbe rifiutato l'abiura del m. La corte imperiale, non volendo una completa rottura con Roma, cercò di risolvere l'imbarazzante situazione religiosa con un nuovo editto: il Typos (τύπος περί πίστεως, regola della fede), emanato dall'imperatore Costante II nel 647 in cui proibiva « di discutere in qualsiasi modo intorno a una volontà o a una operazione, a due operazioni o a due volontà » (Mansi, X, coll. 1029-32). Martino I, succeduto a Teodoro (m. il 13 maggio 649), decise di finirla con il m.; convocò nella Basilica del Laterano un concilio con carattere quasi ecumenico: il m. fu condannato, e con esso il Typos, che tentava lasciare in sospeso una questione di fondamentale importanza dogmatica (gli atti in Mansi, X, coll. 863-1170). Le rappresaglie contro il Papa (v. I) e contro Massimo, principale collaboratore del Sinodo Lateranense, furono feroci. La rottura tra Roma e Costantinopoli durò finché nell'a. 678 l'imperatore Costantino IV Pogonato chiese al Papa la composizione del conflitto (per la condanna finale V. COSTANTINOPOLI, III Concilio Costantinopolitano, t. IV, coll. 748 sg.).burgo in Br. 1941, pp. 192-272; B. F. M. Xiberia, De controversis christolog. aevo patristico, in Missell. G. Mercati, I (Studi e testi, 121), Città del Vaticano 1946, pp. 327-54; P. Galtier, La première lettre du pape Honorina, in Gregorianum, 29 (1948), pp. 42-61; P. Sherwood, Siamum Maximus the Confessor, Westminster (Maryland) 1932. Agostino Mayer