Part of a series on
Eastern Christianity
Eastern Christianity portal
History
Eastern Orthodox Church History Byzantine Empire Ecumenical council Christianization of Bulgaria Christianization of Kievan Rus' East-West Schism Specific regions: Coptic Egypt · Ukraine
Traditions
Eastern Orthodox Church Oriental Orthodoxy Armenian Church Ethiopian Tewahedo Church Coptic Church Church of the East Eastern Catholic Churches Syriac Christianity
Liturgy and worship
Sign of the cross Divine Liturgy Iconography Asceticism Omophorion
Theology
Hesychasm · Icon Apophaticism Filioque clause Miaphysitism Monophysitism Diophysitism Nestorianism Theosis · Theoria Phronema · Philokalia Praxis · Theotokos Hypostasis · Ousia Essence vs. Energies Metousiosis
v t e

Monophysitism ( /məˈnɒfɨsaɪtɨzəm/ or /məˈnɒfɨsɪtɨzəm/; Greek: monos meaning "only, single" and physis meaning "nature"), is the Christological position that, after the union of the divine and the human in the historical Incarnation, Jesus Christ, as the incarnation of the eternal Son or Word (Logos) of God, had only a single "nature" which was either divine or a synthesis of divine and human. Monophysitism is contrasted to dyophysitism (or dia-, dio-, or duophysitism) which maintains that Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, after the Incarnation.

Historically, Monophysitism (usually capitalized in this sense) refers primarily to the position of those (especially in Egypt and to a lesser extent Syria) who rejected the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Fourth Ecumenical Council). The moderate members of this group, however, maintained an orthodox "Miaphysite" theology that became that of the Oriental Orthodox churches. Many Oriental Orthodox reject the label "Monophysite" even as a generic term, but it is extensively used in the historical literature.

After the Council of Chalcedon, the Monophysite controversy (together with institutional, political, and growing nationalistic factors) led to a lasting schism between the Oriental Orthodox churches, on the one hand, and the Western and the Eastern Orthodox churches on the other. The Christological conflict among monophysitism, duophysitism, and their subtle combinations and derivatives lasted from the third through the eighth centuries and left its mark on all but the first two Ecumenical Councils.

In the light of modern historical research and ecumenical discussions, the miaphysite (orthodox monophysite) and Chalcedonian positions appear to differ mainly in their usage of the key term "nature" rather than in the underlying Christology, but other smaller differences of interpretation or emphasis may also exist. Intercommunion between the Oriental Orthodox and various Chalcedonian churches has not yet been reestablished.

Monophysitism is occasionally referred to as "monophysiticism."

Introduction[link]

A brief definition of Monophysitism can be given as: "Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis in one nature: divine-human."^[1]

Monophysitism was born in the theological "School of Alexandria," which began its Christological analysis with the (divine) eternal Son or Word of God and sought to explain how this eternal Word had become incarnate as a man--in contrast to the "School of Antioch" (birthplace of Nestorianism, the antithesis of Monophysitism), which instead began with the (human) Jesus of the Gospels and sought to explain how this man had become united with the eternal Word in the Incarnation. Both sides agreed, of course, that Christ was both human and divine, but the Alexandrians emphasized divinity (including the fact that the divine nature was itself "impassible" or immune to suffering) while the Antiochines emphasized humanity (including the limited knowledge and "growth in wisdom" of the Christ of the Gospels). Individual Monophysite and Nestorian theologians in fact rarely believed the extreme views that their respective opponents attributed to them (although some of their followers may have). Ultimately, however, the dialectic between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch produced Christologies that on all sides (notwithstanding ongoing differences between the Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonian churches) avoided the extremes and reflect both points of view.

Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the "Fourth Ecumenical Council"), which among other things adopted the Definition of Chalcedon (often known as the "Chalcedonian Creed") stating that Christ is the eternal Son of God "made known in two natures without confusion [i.e. mixture], without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]--not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."^[2]

Accepted by the sees of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch, the Chalcedonian settlement encountered strong resistance in Alexandria (and in Egypt generally), leading ultimately to the schism between the Oriental Orthodox churches (which reject Chalcedon), on the one hand, and the so-called Chalcedonian churches on the other. The Chalcedonian churches--that is, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches together with those Protestant churches that accept at least the first four Ecumenical Councils--have always considered monophysitism to be heretical and have generally viewed it as the (explicit or implicit) position of the Oriental Orthodox churches. The Oriental Orthodox churches, on the other hand, consider their own Christology, known as Miaphysitism and based heavily on the writings of Cyril of Alexandria (whom all sides accept as orthodox), to be distinct from monophysitism, and often object to being labelled monophysites.^{[3] [4]}

Historical Development[link]

Monophysitism and its antithesis, Nestorianism, were both hotly disputed and divisive competing tenets in the maturing Christian traditions during the first half of the 5th century, during the tumultuous last decades of the Western Empire. It was marked by the political shift in all things to a center of gravity then located in the Eastern Roman Empire, and particularly in Syria, the Levant, and Anatolia, where monophysitism was popular among the people.

There are two major doctrines that can indisputably be called monophysite ( /məˈnɒfɨsaɪt/):

• Eutychianism holds that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature: His human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea".
• Apollinarism or Apollinarianism holds that Christ had a human body and human "living principle" but that the Divine Logos had taken the place of the nous, or "thinking principle", analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day.

After Nestorianism, taught by Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, was rejected at the First Council of Ephesus, Eutyches, an archimandrite at Constantinople, emerged with diametrically opposite views. Eutyches' energy and the imprudence with which he asserted his opinions brought him the accusation of heresy in 448, leading to his excommunication. In 449, at the controversial Second Council of Ephesus Eutyches was reinstated and his chief opponents Eusebius, Domnus and Flavian, deposed. Monophysitism and Eutyches were again rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Monophysitism's theological point of view is also rejected by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but was widely accepted in Syria, Egypt and the Levant, leading to many tensions in the Coptic period of the Byzantine Empire.^{[citation needed]}

Later, monothelitism – the belief that Christ was 2 natures in 1 person except that he only had a divine will and no human will – was developed as an attempt to bridge the gap between the monophysite and the Chalcedonian position, but it too was rejected by the members of the Chalcedonian synod, despite at times having the support of the Byzantine emperors and once escaping the condemnation of a Pope of Rome, Honorius I. Some are of the opinion that monothelitism was at one time held by the Maronites, but the Maronite community, for the most part, dispute this, stating that they have never been out of communion with the Catholic Church.

See also[link]

• Dyophysitism
• Acephali
• Henotikon
• the Three-Chapter Controversy
• Christ the Logos
• West Syrian Rite
• Empress Theodora

Bibliography[link]

Davis, Leo Donald, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology, 1983 (Michael Glazier, Wilmington DE), reprinted 1990 (Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, Theology and Life Series 21, 342 pp., ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7), chaps. 4-6, pp. 134-257.

Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, 5th edition 1977 (Continuum, London, 511 pp., ISBN 0-8264-5252-3), chaps. XI-XII, pp. 280-343.

Meyendorff, John (Jean), Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, trans. Dubois, Yves, 1969, 2d ed. 1975 (St. Vladimir's Seminary, Crestwood NY, 248 pp., ISBN 978-0-88141-867-5), chaps. 1-4, pp. 13-90.

References[link]

Additional Sources[link]

Chesnut, R.C., Three Monophysite Christologies, 1976 (Oxford).

Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 1972 (Cambridge).

External links[link]

• Agreed Statements between representative of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches
• Joint Declaration by the Oriental and the Catholic Church
• Catholic Encyclopedia article