THEOPASCHITES. - The term (Θεός = God and πάσχω = I suffer) designates those who attribute suffering and death to the Word.
A distinction must be drawn between two forms of theopaschism: the proper or real one, heretical, which refers passion and death to the divinity and expresses itself in the formula: Divinitas passas est; and the improper or nominal one, orthodox and legitimate, which, through the communication of idioms (v.), attributes to the person of the Incarnate Word the actions and passions of the assumed human nature. Once the Incarnation is presupposed, it may be said: Deus passus est, unus de Trinitate crucifixus est. Theopaschite expressions already occur in the Fathers prior to the Christological controversies (cf. St. Ignatius, Ad Rom., VI; Ad Eph. I, 1). Against them rose Nestorianism (v.), which denied the communication of idioms. Since the two natures each have their own personality, the operations must be referred to the respective nature and person, nor can it be said: Deus natus, passus, mortuus est. St. Cyril defended these expressions, adding for clarity the word carne (cf. Anathematism XII, in Denz-U, 124).
While Nestorianism rejected even verbal theopaschism, Eutychianism (v.) or real Monophysitism (v.) went to the opposite extreme, upholding real theopaschism. The error sprang from theories that maintained the absorption of the humanity by the divinity, which alone would subsist, or the "nullification" of the divinity in the humanity, or the mingling of divinity and humanity in a divine-human compound, in a 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 Fullo (v.). He added to the Trisagion of the Mass (Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis) the words: qui crucifixus est pro nobis, 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 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 as of Jesus Christ. Catholics, however, rejected the addition, equivocal and suspect, because among the nominal Monophysites there were some Eutychians. Once the danger of error was removed, the addition was accepted by Catholics as well. Rome at first tolerated it, then ordered its suppression in 1677 for the Armenians, and again in 1833.
The form of Philoxenus also spread among the Monophysites: Unus de Trinitate crucifixus est. The expression, like the preceding one, referred to Christ, is legitimate, by reason of the communication of idioms, and the nominal Monophysites took it in an orthodox sense. For Catholics it was, on the lips of the Monophysites, dangerous and suspect. Some Scythian monks, in order to win over the Monophysites, took up the Cyrillian formula: Unus de Trinitate passus est carne, and attempted to have it approved by the pontifical legates at Constantinople. These resisted, judging the attempt inopportune, because favorable to Monophysitism. Four monks came to Rome to convince Pope Hormisdas (v.), who, informed by the legates, refused to approve the formula, suspect in its tenor and in the intention of its supporters. The Scythian monks did not desist; the emperor Justinian included the formula in the profession of faith (15 March 533) and sought its approval from Pope John II. The latter, Western theologians having judged the formula orthodox in itself, approved it (25 March 534). He thus departed from the line of conduct of his predecessor, who had resisted, considering the origin of the formula and the favor it enjoyed among the Monophysites, among whom there were true Eutychians. A firmer attitude would have spared further discussions and would have checked the movement of Monophysite revival. Pope Vigilius had to recognize the same formula (cf. Council of Constantinople II, can. 10; Denz-U, 222).