MONOPHYSITISM, the Doctrine That the Incarnate Christ Is One Person
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
(CE: 1669a-1678a) MONOPHYSITISM, the doctrine that the incarnate Christ is one Person and has one divine nature as opposed to the orthodox doctrine that he is one Person and has two natures, one human and one divine. The rift between the Monophysites, including the Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, and Armenian churches, and the Orthodox Church has divided Eastern Christianity since the sixth century. It emerged slowly after the Council of CHALCEDON in 451. The Monophysites hold firm to the main Christological tenant of Saint CYRIL I, early fifth-century patriarch of Alexandria, that the two natures of Christ were united at the Incarnation in such a way that the one Christ was essentially divine, although he assumed from the Virgin THEOTOKOS the flesh and attributes of a man. The Period Before Chalcedon (325-451) The distant origins of the Monophysite position can be found in John 1:14 ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"), but no theological issue arose until after the First Council of NICAEA in 325, at which it was agreed that Christ was to be acknowledged as "of one substance with the Father." If, however, He was of one substance (HOMOOUSION) with the Father, how was His humanity to be understood? The long duration of the controversy over ARIANISM, which denied that Christ was divine, masked the problem, but during the 370s Apollinaris of Laodicea, an anti-Arian and a lifelong friend of Saint ATHANASIUS I, patriarch of Alexandria, set out a radical and uncompromising solution (see APOLLINARIANISM). "The supreme point in our salvation," he argued, "is the incarnation of the Word. We believe therefore that with no change in his Godhead, the incarnation of the Word took palce for the renewal of man." "We confess therefore," he told the bishops of Syria at Diocaesarea, "that [the] Word of God . has become flesh without having assumed a human mind, i.e., a mind changeable and enslaved to filthy thoughts, but existing as a divine mind, immutable and heavenly." Therefore, "We confess that . the one Son is not two natures, one to be worshipped and one without worship, but one incarnate nature of God the Word to be worshipped with His flesh in one worship" (Lietzmann, 1904, pp. 178, 250). Apollinarius' ideas struck an immediate response throughout the East, and though they were condemned as unorthodox at the First Council of CONSTANTINOPLE in 381, a large number of tracts setting out his views were circulating at the end of the century under the names of orthodox theologians, including Pope Saint Julius I and Athanasius. These "Apollinarian forgeries" had an enormous effect on the development of monophysitism, not least in contributing toward the formation of Cyril of Alexandria's concept of the Person of Christ. Cyril's Christology was influenced by both genuine and false Athanasian writings, and as his controversy with the Antiochene monk NESTORIUS, patriarch of Constantinople, quickened, the Monophysite element came increasingly to the fore. In his third letter to Nestorius, who held that Christ was two separate persons, he spoke of "the One Hypostasis ["Person"] Incarnate of the Word"; and in the third of the Twelve Anathemas appended to this letter he declared anathema "anyone who divides the hypostases after the union." There was "One Lord Jesus Christ," according to the Scriptures. The Council of EPHESUS in 431 condemned Nestorius but did not declare Cyril's anathemas canonical. Two years later, in April 433, Cyril was obliged to come to terms with the Antiochenes and in the formula of reunion to accept the orthodoxy of those who spoke in terms of "two natures." This was a victory for Antiochene theology and a reverse for the Alexandrians. Cyril's successor, DIOSCORUS I, was determined to restore Alexandria's now traditional status as "city of the orthodox." In Constantinople he found an ally in the archimandrite EUTYCHES. The latter, however, pushed his fear of two-nature Christology further than Cyril would have allowed, asserting that the flesh of Christ was God-made, so that Christ could in no sense be "consubstantial with us." Eutyches was deposed on 22 November 448 by a synod presided over by Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople. Eutyches appealed to the councils of the other archiepiscopal sees and to the church in Ravenna (the imperial residence in the West) against his sentence. Annoyed by the quarrel between Flavian and Eutyches, and fearing a revival of Nestorianism, Emperor Theodosius II, who was now strongly Cyrilist in his theology, convoked the Second council of Ephesus in 449 to judge the case of Eutyches and to decide whether his deposition by Flavian had been just. Dioscorus was to preside. Once again, the Apollinarian forgeries played a crucial part in channeling doctrinal views in the East toward a one-nature Christology. Eutyches produced texts, accepted at Ephesus in 431 as genuine, of documents written ostensibly by Pope Julius and Gregory the Wonderworker to support his case. The council was entranced. "Two natures before the union, and one afterward. Is that not what we all believe?" asked Dioscorus. A long epistle from Pope LEO THE GREAT, known to history as the Tome of Leo, written to support Flavian, asserted exactly the opposite view. It was left unread. The council vindicated Eutyches and condemned as troublemakers Flavian and the archbishop of Antioch, Domnus, who had attempted to innovate statements of the Council of Nicaea. The sentence was confirmed by Theodosius. The emperor's sudden death on 28 July 450 transformed the situation. His successor, Marcian, married Theodosius' pro-Roman sister PULCHERIA, and in the autumn of 451 they summoned another ecumenical council, this one at Chalcedon. It had two aims: to define the faith in a way that would restore communion between Rome and the other patriarchates and to vindicate the position of the see of Constantinople vis-à-vis all other sees in the East, particularly that of Alexandria. The council achieved both objectives. Dioscorus was excommunicated and deposed—not, however, for doctrinal heresy but for ecclesiastical indiscipline. The Definition of Chalcedon was accepted, a statement of faith declaring that Jesus Christ was "made known to us in two Natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably: the difference of the natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved and concurring into one Prosopon and one Hypostasis. ." Though the framers of the Definition intended a careful balance between opposing Christologies, the wording favored the Tome of Leo and the Antiochene cause. While Pope Leo accepted the Definition, he rejected Canon 28 of the council, which restated the primatial rights of Constantinople as the "New Rome." Rome objected to the omission in the canon of any reference to the apostolic and Petrine character of the see of Rome and was never prepared to concede patriarchal status to its sister see of New Rome (Constantinople). This canon, however, was all-important to Constantinople, and for this reason, it could never entirely renounce the Council of Chalcedon. The arrogant behavior of Dioscorus had created a rift among the seventeen Egyptian bishops who accompanied him to Chalcedon. While the majority stood by their archbishop out of fear and loyalty, four sided with the majority at the council, accepted the Christological definition, and took part in the consecration of the archpriest Proterius as successor of Dioscorus. From Chalcedon to the Henoticon of Zeno (451-482) Although the Definition of Chalcedon was well received in Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and throughout the European provinces of the empire, there was deep disquiet elsewhere. Clergy and laity alike found it difficult to understand how opinions accepted by 135 bishops only two years before Ephesus II should now be regarded as heretical, and why Dioscorus should have been excommunicated by many of the same bishops who previously had applauded him. There were serious riots in Alexandria and in Jerusalem, where Bishop Juvenal, an ally of Dioscorus who had abandoned him at Chalcedon, was forced to flee the city (Zacharias Rhetor, 3. 2; Liberatus, 14. 99; Evagrius, 2. 5). Something of the intensity of popular feeling in many parts of the East against Chalcedon has been caught by JOHN OF MAYUMA in his Plerophoria (Witnesses), compiled about 512, in which he branded as traitors and apostates those who had supported Chalcedon. Although imperial troops suppressed the riots and Juvenal returned to Jerusalem, Proterius failed to gain support in Egypt. Opposition to Chalcedon coalesced around one of the priests of Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus ("the Cat") (later TIMOTHY II AELURUS) and the deacon Peter Mongus ("the Hoarse One") (later Peter II Mongus), both future patriarchs. As soon as the news of the death of Marcian reached Alexandria, there was a popular uprising against Proterius. Timothy was consecrated bishop on 16 March 457 or 458, and on 28 March Proterius was lynched. There was now a schism between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians in Egypt. The schism lasted until 482. In 459 Timothy Aelurus was ordered into exile in Kherson in the Crimea by the new emperor, Leo I, who was responding to episcopal opinion throughout the rest of the empire (see Zacharias Rhetor, 4.5-7, Brooks ed., pp. 121-24; and Schwartz, 1914, 2.v.). In 460 the Proterians elected as successor to Proterius, who had died, the Pachomian monk TIMOTHY SALOFACIOLUS ("Wobble Cap"). The death of Leo in January 474 gave Timothy Aelurus his chance. Leo's son, Leo II, died in November, and his successor, Zeno, was unpopular. Timothy took advantage of Basiliscus' revolution against Zeno, in January 475, to leave his place of exile and make for Constantinople. There he was favored by the usurper and restored as patriarch of Alexandria.