sign in sign up
<<
Home , Monophysitism

Against the “Oriental Orthodox” Monophysite Formula By W. J. Whitman

During the Nestorian controversy, St. used the following formula: the person of is “one nature () of the Word of God Incarnate.” Additionally, Cyril used the terms physis and hypostasis interchangeably. The Cyrilline Monophysites considered this terminology to be part of sacred tradition. However, the Orthodox faction believed no such thing. It is not the terminology of St. Cyril that we must believe, but the spirit of what he taught. Fr. writes: “Thus, in order to understand the Fathers properly, we must know not only the expressions that they used, in other words, what they said and taught, but we must also know the corresponding concepts.”1 The Orthodox found it necessary to reformulate the linguistic expressions of Cyril‟s in the midst of new controversies. The Monophysite faction resisted any refinement of theological terminology. After Cyril‟s time, a heretic named adopted this same formula; but Eutyches‟ interpretation of it was diametrically opposed to Cyril‟s. Eutyches taught that the two natures (physeis) in Christ—the divinity and the humanity—were united into one nature (physis) in such a way that the humanity was virtually annihilated through absorption. The Cyrilline Monophysites, who clung to the words of Cyril, were willing to accept Eutyches as one of their own: for he used the “right” phrases and terms. It did not matter much to them that what Eutyches taught was entirely wrong. The Monophysites sided with Eutyches against the rest of at the Second in 449AD. In response to this, the Orthodox faction held the Council of in 451AD, to which the Monophysites were invited to give their defense. It is from this Council that the Orthodox Chalcedonian formula came. Chalcedon attempted to refine the expression of Christological doctrine in order to make it clear and easy to understand. The Fathers realized that it is important to differentiate between terms in theology. All the terms used in the early Christological and Trinitarian formulas were virtually synonymous: nature (physis), person (hypostasis), and essence (ousia) had very similar meanings at the time. There were and are no adequate terms to describe God in human language, but the Fathers were attempting to find a way to describe God that was at least almost adequate. They needed different words to differentiate between different things. The Fathers in the Ecumenical Councils put a lot of effort towards developing a standard terminology. They began to differentiate between terms in order to demonstrate that there were different kinds of natures. They called the general nature of the Godhead ousia or essence, they called the individualized-natures within that general nature hypostaseis or persons, and they called the two natures in the person of Christ physeis. By redefining these terms, they were able to show that their understanding of the was not self-contradictory. This redefinition of terms is why these words have an entirely different meaning in Christian philosophy than in non-Christian Greek philosophy. The greatest downfall of the Monophysite Christology is that it does not differentiate between terms as well as Chalcedonian Christology does. The Monophysites maintain that there are two natures (physeis) in Christ—humanity and divinity—and that these two natures (physeis) are one nature (physis) through the . When examining the Monophysite formula, one can only come to one of three conclusions: (1) —that one of the two natures was absorbed by the other and no longer exists on its own grounds—, (2) that Monophysitism is inherently self-contradictory insofar as it teaches that Christ is simultaneously one physis and

1 John Romanides, Patristic Theology, Ch. 17 two physeis, or (3) that the term physis has an entirely different meaning in the context of the two natures than it does in the context of the one nature. This third position is the one that most Monophysites hold to, so why shouldn‟t the term be replaced by a different term in one of these contexts in order to clarify the meaning of the formula? Well, that is exactly what the Fathers did at the : they replaced the word physis with the word hypostasis in reference to the one nature of Christ. The Monophysites refuse to allow this differentiation between physis and hypostasis. If physis and hypostasis are synonymous, then Monophysitism is at least terminological . There are two physeis in Christ and physis means hypostasis, therefore there are two hypostaseis in Christ. It is not difficult to see how this could easily be interpreted in a crypto-Nestorian fashion.2 If it comes up in a debate, the Monophysite cannot consistently deny that Christ is two persons (hypostaseis)—he has no rational defense against a Nestorian opponent. But the Bible says that the Christian must „always be prepared to give a rational defense to anyone who asks him about his faith.‟3 On a strictly Monophysite basis, one does not have a strong fortification against . A Eutychian or Nestorian opponent could easily tear a Cyrilline Monophysite to shreds in a rational debate. The Chalcedonian formula, on the other hand, rose up as an indestructible bulwark of the orthodox faith. It is stated in The Declaration of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon that the Council of Chalcedon “receives the synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, addressed to and the Easterners, judging them suitable, for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardor for a knowledge of the saving symbol. And, for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, it has rightly added to these the letter of the President of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, which was addressed to Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory, for the removal of the false doctrines of Eutyches…” Thus, the Council of Chalcedon accepted the teachings of St. Cyril, but chose to refine his terminology and combine it with that of St. Leo, thereby establishing a formula that was clearly neither Nestorian nor Eutychian. The Council affirmed that Christ has two natures (physeis)—divinity and humanity—, which are united into one person (hypostasis) by virtue of the hypostatic union (i.e. the Incarnation). The Chalcedonian Declaration of Faith states: “Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son of God and our Lord Christ is to be confessed as one and the same, that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable and human body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born into the world of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united, and that without the distinction of

2 It is worth noting that the Monophysites in India seem to have a tendency to be more sympathetic to the Nestorians than they are to the Orthodox. 3 1 Peter 3:15 natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.”