Monenergism Monothelitism Versus Dyenergism

CHAPTER THREE

‘IMPERIAL’ MONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM VERSUS DYENERGISMDYOTHELITISM

In this section, I shall explore simultaneously (to the degree that existing sources allow) the ‘imperial’ or ‘Chalcedonian’ Monenergism- Monothelitism and Dyenergism-Dyothelitism, with the objective of clarifying the similarities and diff erences between the two oposing doctrines.

3.1. Key notions

3.1.1. Th e oneness of Christ Owing to a common neo-Chalcedonian background, adherents of both Monenergite-Monothelite and Dyenergite-Dyothelite doctrines accepted the oneness of Christ as a fundamental starting point. Monenergists- Monothelites, however, placed more emphasis on this oneness. In the relatively brief Alexandrian pact, for example, the oneness of Christ is referred to more than twenty times. All statements about the single energeia and will were normally preceded by a confession of Christ’s oneness.1 Dyenergists-Dyothelites also began their commentaries on energeia and will by postulating the oneness, though not as frequently or as insistently as their opponents. In one of the earliest Dyenergist- Dyothelite texts, the encyclical of Sophronius, a statement of faith on the two energeiai and wills begins with a reference to Christ’s oneness .2 In these and many other ways, both parties demonstrated their adherence to the Christological language of Cyril of Alexandria.

1 2 5–6 See the Pact of the Alexandrian union (ACO2 II 598 ), Sergius ’ letter to Pope 2 6–7 29–31 Honorius (ACO2 II 542 ), Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ). 2 1 17–18 ACO2 II 440 . 104 chapter three

3.1.2. One hypostasis and two natures Th e followers of the Monenergist-Monothelite doctrine as it emerged in the seventh century, were Chalcedonians who felt it necessary to make a clear distinction between Christ’s hypostasis and his nature. Th ey also acknowledged that Christ had two natures3 which for them were united unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, and inseparably.4 Christ had two births: eternal from the Father , and temporal from the Virgin Mary.5 He is consubstantial with the Father according to his divine nature and with us according to his humanity.6 He is like us except in sin .7 Th e Monenergists-Monothelites avowed the completeness of both natures of Christ8 and their immutability.9 Sometimes they spoke of ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’ (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). Th ey understood the expression, however, in a strictly Cyrillian sense.10 Th ey also made use of other similar expressions, such as the single Christ ‘contemplated in’11 and coming ‘from two natures’12 etc. Although the Monenergists-Monothelites fully accepted the terminol- ogy of Chalcedon , the expressions they used were not identical with those usually employed by their opponents. Both parties had their own preferences. With regard in particular to Christ’s human nature, the Monenergists-Monothelites favoured the expression ‘fl esh endowed with a soul’ (ἐψυχωμένη σάρξ),13 which they had borrowed from

3 On the terms ‘nature’ and ‘hypostasis,’ see the letter of Patriarch Sergius to Pope 2 16 20–21 Honorius (ACO2 II 542 ), Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ), the confession of Patriarch 1 20–21 Macarius (ACO2 II 226 ) etc. On the distinction between the two natures see, for 31–32 b example, the Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ), Pyrrhus (Disputatio 340 ). 4 2 10 1 8 See the letter of Sergius to Honorius (ACO2 II 542 ); Ecthesis (ACO2 II 222 ); 1 11 the confession of Macarius (ACO2 II 222 ). 5 1 15–17 See the confession of Macarius (ACO2 II 222 ). 6 8–9 1 14–15 See Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ), the confession of Macarius (ACO2 II 222 ), tes- timony of Anastasius Sinaita (Opera 2 VII 333–36). 7 9–10 See Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ). 8 1 7–8 See Ecthesis (ACO2 II 598 ). 9 35–36 See Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ). Patriarch Paul also wrote to Pope Th eodore, say- ing that the two natures of Christ did not mix and did not change, despite the fact 2 17–19 that Christ had only one will (ACO2 II 608 ); see also the confession of Macarius 1 5–8 (ACO2 II 222 ). 10 2 6–8 See the Alexandrian Pact (ACO2 II 598 ), the letter of Sergius to Cyrus (ACO2 I 1383–5). 11 2 12 ACO2 II 598 . 12 2 5–6 ACO2 II 598 . 13 Th ere were several variations on the expression: λογικῶς τε καὶ νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένη 2 20 σάρξ (letter by Patriarch Paul to Pope Th eodore ACO2 II 608 ), and σὰρξ ἐψυχωμένη 31 ψυχῇ λογικῇ τε καὶ νοερᾷ (letter by Sergius to Cyrus ACO2 I 136 ).