THEOPASCHITAE. — The term (Θεός = God and πάσχω = I suffer) designates those who attribute suffering and death to the Word.
Two forms of Theopaschism must be distinguished: proper or real Theopaschism, which is heretical and attributes passion and death to the Godhead, expressed in the formula: Divinitas passa est; and improper or nominal Theopaschism, which is orthodox and legitimate, and, through the communication of idioms (v.), attributes to the person of the Incarnate Word the actions and sufferings of the assumed human nature. Assuming the Incarnation, it can be said: Deus passus est, unus de Trinitate crucifixus est. Theopaschite expressions are already found among the Fathers prior to the Christological controversies (cf. St. Ignatius, Ad Rom., VI; Ad Eph. I, 1). Nestorianism (v.) opposed these expressions, denying the communication of idioms. Since the two natures each have their own personality, the operations must be referred to the respective nature and person, and it cannot be said: Deus natus, passus, mortuus est. St. Cyril defended these expressions, adding for clarity the word "flesh" (cf. Anathema XII, in Denz-U, 124).
While Nestorianism rejected even verbal Theopaschism, Eutychianism (v.) or real Monophysitism (v.) went to the opposite extreme, maintaining real Theopaschism. The error arose from theories that supported the absorption of humanity by the Godhead, which alone would subsist, or the "annihilation" of the Godhead in humanity, or the mixture of divinity and humanity in a divine-human compound, in a single theandric nature, or the composition into one complete essence.
The orthodox accused all Monophysites, both nominal and real, of Theopaschism, especially after the liturgical innovation of Peter the Fuller (v.). He added to the Trisagion of the Mass (Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis) the words: qui crucifixus est pro nobis, which were adopted by the Monophysite Churches. The orthodox, who referred the Trisagion to the Most Holy Trinity, saw in the addition a true Theopaschism and a form of Patripassianism. The nominal Monophysites, however, were not Theopaschites in the proper sense. They referred the addition, in an orthodox sense, to the person of the Incarnate Word, understanding the Trisagion of Jesus Christ. Catholics, however, rejected the addition as equivocal and suspect, because among the nominal Monophysites there were some Euchites. Once the danger of error was removed, the addition was also accepted by Catholics. Rome first tolerated it, then ordered its suppression among the Armenians in 1677, and again in 1833.
A similar form spread among the Monophysites: Unus de Trinitate crucifixus est. Like the previous one, this expression, when referred to Christ, is legitimate through the communication of idioms, and the nominal Monophysites took it in an orthodox sense. For Catholics, however, it was dangerous and suspect when uttered by Monophysites. Some Scythian monks, in order to win over the Monophysites, revived the Cyrillian formula: Unus de Trinitate passus est carne, and attempted to have it approved by the papal legates in Constantinople. These resisted, judging the attempt untimely, as it favored Monophysitism. Four monks came to Rome to persuade Pope Hormisdas (v.), who, informed by the legates, refused to approve the formula, suspect both in its wording and in the intention of its supporters. The Scythian monks persisted, Emperor Justinian included the formula in the profession of faith (March 15, 533) and sought its approval from Pope John II. The latter, having been advised by Western theologians that the formula was orthodox in itself, approved it (March 25, 534). Thus he departed from the policy of his predecessor, who had resisted, considering the origin and favor of the formula among Monophysites, among whom there were true Eutychians. A firmer stance would have spared further disputes and curbed the revival of Monophysitism. Pope Vigilius later had to recognize the same formula (cf. Second Council of Constantinople, canon 10; Denz-U, 222).