Who Can Legitimately be Called a “Monophysite”?
We are dealing with the so-called “moderate Monophysitism” of such people as Dioscorus of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Philoxenus of Mabbug, as well as of the modern Non-Chalcedonian Oriental churches, such as those of Egypt (the Copts), Ethiopia, Armenia, as well as the so-called West Syrians or Jacobites who exist today in a number of Middle Eastern countries as well as in India. We are not dealing with the radical forms of Monophysitism such as those found in Eutyches or Julian of Halicarnassus, whose teachings were strongly condemned by such people as Severus as well as by the contemporary Non-Chalcedonian churches. We should use the word “Monophysite” in a broad way, to refer to any person or church which, after the Council of Chalcedon, prefers the phrase “one nature” to the phrase “in two natures” which was approved by Chalcedon. It is true that many contemporary Anti-Chalcedonians do not like to be called Monophysites, and prefer such phrases as “Oriental Orthodox,” “Non-Chalcedonian,” “Pre-Chalcedonian,” or even 'Miaphysites." The reasons that are given for this objection include that they believe the Incarnation was a union of two natures, not one, that they believe that the God-Man possesses a synthetic, composite, or complex (synthetos) nature not a simple one, that they believe that there is no mutation of, or confusion between, the natures in the union, and even that one can acknowledge two natures after the union in imagination or contemplation (en theoria). Despite all these qualifications, however, it must be stated that contemporary Anti-Chalcedonian theologians continue to prefer the term “one nature” (mia physis) to refer to Christ after the Incarnation. Despite the theological qualifications above concerning two natures in theory, the contemporary Anti-Chalcedonians still prefer the phrase “one nature” (mia physis) and thus “Monophysite” is still an accurate term. It is unscholarly to assert that today, in the interests of ecumenism, it is only permissible to refer to Eutychians as Monophysites and that adherents of Severus of Antioch cannot by called Monophysites (as the current ecumenical fad has it). Historically the term Monophysite was never limited to followers of Eutyches, who did not have much of a following, but was used to refer to anyone who preferred to speak of “one nature” (mia physis) even after the Council of Chalcedon said Christ should be acknowledged “in two natures.” It is true that for those who consider Monophysitism a heresy, the term has a negative connotation. But those who still prefer the term “one nature” (mia physis) should not object when others call them Monophysite---because that is their own terminology. It is etymologically, historically, and theologically justified and accurate. The current ecumenistic distinction in terminology between “Eastern” Orthodox (i.e. Chalcedonian) and “Oriental” Orthodox (i.e. Anti-Chalcedonian) is contrived and unscholarly, with no etymological or geographical justification whatsoever. Serious scholarly objections could also be made to the term “Pre-Chalcedonian.” The Anti-Chalcedonians may choose to call themselves Orthodox when among themselves, and Oriental Orthodox when among others, but the use of the phrase “Orthodox churches” (including both Chalcedonians and Anti Chalcedonians) is also unscholarly because it can be taken to mean that the two groups form one church, communion, or denomination when, in fact, they have not for over 1500 years. As long as they accurately represent the moderate Anti-Chalcedonian theology, scholars and Orthodox Chalcedonian believers should continue to use the historically-accurate term “Monophysites."
Concerning Saint Cyril’s teaching on “dividing the sayings” in the gospels, Father John Meyendorff makes the following inaccurate comment: “Cyril, after having refused, in the forth anathematism against Nestorius, the method of scriptural exegesis that consisted in attribution some texts of the New Testament to the man Jesus, and some to the God-Word, eventually admitted the inevitability of that in his letter to Acacius of Melitene … and in the formula of union of 433" (Meyendorff 1969/1987:218 note 22). This statement of Meyendorff is extremely imprecise and misleading. (He makes a similarly inaccurate statement in Meyendorff 1974/1983.) If one reads the relevant texts carefully, one finds that the type of “division of sayings” that Saint Cyril does approve of, and indeed employs himself in his scriptural commentaries, does not violate his fourth anathema which prohibits another type of division of sayings, namely between two hypostases. After reading carefully some of Saint Cyril’s writings relevant to the “dividing of sayings” I have been able to detect no evolution in his understanding of the matter. Anathema number four reads: “If anyone shall divide between two persons or hypostases those expressions which are contained in the evangelical and apostolic writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God, let him be anathema.” This type of dividing the sayings Saint Cyril never approved of. But neither was this what the Antiochenes did in the Formula of Union. The confession of John of Antioch and the Eastern bishops read, in part, “as to the expressions concerning the Lord in the gospels and epistles, we are aware that theologians understand some as common, as relating to one person, and others they distinguish, as relating to two natures, explaining those that befit the divine nature according to the Godhead of Christ, and those of a humble sort according to his manhood.” Saint Cyril’s positive reaction to this confession, with its mention of two natures after the union, is well known: “Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad, for the mid-wall of partition is broken down, and the cause of sorrow is removed, and all manner of dissention taken away.” Later in his epistle Saint Cyril writes, “the variance between the churches was altogether groundless and without any real cause.”
Concerning the Christology of Dioscorus and of the Robber Council of Ephesus a few points should be made. Despite the possibility that Dioscorus was never condemned for heresy (but for defending a heretic), and despite the fact that he simply claimed to be following Saint Cyril, it is inaccurate to call Dioscorus a “staunch Cyrillian” as do the Monophysites and some contemporary ecumenist scholars. Dioscorus at Chalcedon insisted that Saint Flavian “was justly condemned [at the Robber Council] because he had spoken of two natures after the union. The only proper formula, he affirmed is ‘one incarnate nature of the divine Logos’” (Davis 1987:182). At the Robber Council presided over by Dioscorus, “Eutyches was rehabilitated. All who adhered to the Formula of Reunion of 433 [as Saint Cyril did] and who spoke of ‘two natures’ were condemned (Florovsky 1971-:8:292). For this reason, Dioscorus cannot be taken seriously as a strict follower of Saint Cyril. This unbending insistence that one can only speak of “one nature” after the union, and never of “two” represents a repudiation of Saint Cyril’s view, as is shown by Saint Cyril's enthusiastic approval of the Formula of Union and it's "two nature" language which was later approved by the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh ecumenical councils of the Orthodox Church.
What were the traditional objections of the Monophysite theologians to the pronouncements of fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh ecumenical councils of the Orthodox Church. An articulate and vigorous exposition of such objections can be found in an article published in 1981 by Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios (formerly known as Father Paul Verghese) of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India (Gregorios 1981:35-44). He later published another article in 1987 which takes a somewhat different position (Gregorios 1987:97-112). The fundamental criterion for Metropolitan Gregorios for the evaluation of christological language is whether or not it is the best (not merely adequate) for the expression of a “theosis soteriology.” He thus prefers the traditional terminology of the Monophysites which speaks of “one theandric nature,” a tradition of christological language which, in his opinion, “does not deny the distinction between the divine and human, but places the emphasis on their union rather than on their distinction” (1987:108-109). Notice how he refers to the “divine and human” in Christ, but not the divine and human natures. For him, the criterion is which terminology most appropriately “places the emphasis,” in view of the ultimate purpose of “best” expressing a message of deification---and by implication he feels that speaking of one divine-human nature after the union is clearly superior for this purpose. Beyond this he does not say why he feels it is preferable to speak of “one theandric nature”---rather than two natures united inseparable and hypostatically---after the union. But it is this perspective from which he criticizes the fourth and sixth ecumenical councils of the Orthodox Church.
The metropolitan offers absolutely no criticism of the definition of Chalcedon itself , with its reference to Christ being acknowledged “in two natures” after the union. Likewise, he does not object too strongly to the first part of the horos of the Sixth Council which states that Christ is “of two natures unconfusedly ... the properties of each nature being preserved.” This section of the horos he finds “basically acceptable,” though not as a “formula of confession like the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.” But he does object to the second part of the horos. “We are unable,” he states, “to say what this council says when it affirms ‘two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him’” (1981).
It is the Tome of Leo, however, to which he most strongly objects. Specifically, he objects to the part from chapter 4 of the Tome which reads, “each nature, in union with the other, performs the actions which are proper to it, the Word those which are proper to the Word, the flesh those which are proper to the flesh. The one is resplendent with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.” After a close examination of some statements (such as the one quoted above) which some of the fathers at Chalcedon thought could be interpreted in a Nestorian fashion, and after a comparison of them with the writing of Saint Cyril (see Romanides 1981) the council approved of the Tome and this sentence was explicitly quoted and approved of by the Sixth Council. The metropolitan, speaking for his church, states: “we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as ‘the pillar of the right faith’ or accept a council which made such a declaration. The council approves explicitly what I regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo” (1981:40). “we regard Leo as a heretic for his teaching that the will and operation of Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ rather than to the one hypostasis.... It is one hypostasis who is both divine and human, and all activities come from the one hypostasis. We therefore insist on the one theandric nature, will, and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord, and condemn the teachings of Leo. We cannot therefore accept the horos of the Sixth Council” (1981:42). “For us Leo is still a heretic” (1981:40). He feels that “if the restoration of communion between our two families of churches were to be dependant on our acceptance of the four councils now rejected by the Non-Chalcedonian family, then we have little reason at present to hope that this condition can be fulfilled” (1981:42). He states however that “it may be possible for us to refrain from condemning [Leo] by name” (1981:40) or formally condemning the Council of Chalcedon (1981:43). “in the interests of restoring communion between us” (1981:40). He makes no mention of the Sixth Council.
Strangely, this article (Gregorios 1981) was reprinted in a 1987 book which also contains another article of his (Gregorios 1987) in which he clearly distances himself (if not repudiates) some of his views expressed in the first article. With regard to the sentence from the Tome of Leo, he notes: "Leo would normally affirm that it is the same One who is the subject of both actions; but he falls into error when he says that the Word does certain actions and the flesh certain others. This could imply two subjects — the essence of the Nestorian heresy. Leo’s personal faith may have been orthodox, but the way he stated it is subject to misinterpretation. To certify such teaching as accurate is for us one of the major mistakes of Chalcedon". (1987:107).
If we assume that ecumenical considerations have not caused the metropolitan to misrepresent his actual beliefs, than this newer view cannot be dismissed as simply a more diplomatic way of stating the same objections as were stated in the first paper. In the language employed by the metropolitan, there is a clear difference in meaning. He no longer finds what he “clearly regard[s] as heresy” in the Tome (1981:40). Leo, rather, “falls into error” because “the way he stated [his faith] is subject to misinterpretation” (1987:107). Leo himself is no longer “still a heretic” (1981:40). Rather it is acknowledged that “Leo’s faith may have been orthodox” (1987:107).
Another article which I would like to examine, briefly, is that by Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America (Nersoyan 1987). Surprisingly, he shows contempt for patristic terminology in such a way that calls into question the validity of the whole discussion. For the archbishop the words ousia, hypostasis, physis, and prosopon “have behind them a field of philosophical, anthropological, and psychological speculation which at present has only an historical interest for us. They have almost become philosophical fossils and should be taken as such” (56). He believes that “propositions that are fashioned as vessels for the truths of the faith ... are only compromises between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of this world (1 Cor. 2:1-5,12) or the elements of this world (Col. 2:20)” (56). He feels that when “you have said, One Lord Christ, true and perfect God and true and perfect man, Logos incarnate, you have described the Jesus of the Gospels and the Christ of faith” (57). For him, “the old terms have lost their relevance to our times.... We have to abandon the inquiry into the mode of juxtaposition of natures in Christ.... [T]he exigency of our time appears to be to leave the Councils and their definitions where they are, stop making them shibboleths for the determination of the orthodoxy or otherwise of one side or the other” (64). Conversely, he shows a great sympathy towards modern Western theologians---he quotes approvingly of Paul Tillich and Karl Rahner. He is aware of how he might be interpreted and thus feels if necessary to explain, "this is not Protestant Liberalism; we assume and take for granted the fundamental agreement between the churches to which we belong.” He adds that “so long as our ecclesiology is firm and sound it will be a strong bulwark, and the recognitions of the limitations of the formulations of Christian truths will not jeopardize the mission of the church” (62-63).
It is well known that many in Egypt strongly disagreed with Saint Cyril’s approval of the Formula of Union with John of Antioch. Dioscorus, Severus, and the modern Monophysite churches are the followers of those who rejected Saint Cyril's actions---they are more in line with those who opposed Saint Cyril than Saint Cyril himself. It is inaccurate to call Dioscorus, Severus, and the moderate Monophysites as a whole “staunch Cyrillians” as is the trend among ecumenistic scholars today. The Monophysites were unfaithful to him in many ways. Saint Cyril would have recognized the Council of Chalcedon, the Tome of Leo, Saint Maximus the Confessor, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council as adhering to the same Orthodox faith as he himself did---just as he recognized the same in John of Antioch and the other Antiochenes who condemned Nestorius. He would have seen Dioscorus, Severus of Antioch, and much of the leadership of the Monophysites for what they were: fanatical extremists who stuck, in an obstinate way, to their own idiosyncratic, and logically inconsistent, usage of the word “nature,” who anathematized those who used the word differently than they did, and who departed from the Church over the issue. Frend refers to Severus as “by nature a pedantic extremist” (1984:838). Implicitly or explicitly the Monophysites repudiate Saint Cyril’s balanced Christology as it was expressed by his approval of the Formula of Union that confessed two natures after the union (with no reference to in "in contemplation only"). Pelikan writes, “The Chalcedonian [Orthodox] opponents of the Jacobite [Monophysite] Christology quoted Cyril against it, and its defenders had to explain away some of Cyril’s language” (Pelikan 1971-89:52; Severus, Against the Godless Grammarian [CSCO 102:149 (101:204-205)]). Dioscorus falsely claimed to simply be adhering to the teachings of Saint Cyril---while at the same time he actually departed from the teachings of the saint significantly. The contemporary Monophysite churches make the same claim, but this runs counter to the demonstrable historical facts. From an objective, historical, scholarly perspective the Anti-Chalcedonians, then and now, have no right to be called “strict Cyrillians.” Formulas aside, Saint Cyril was too profound a theologian, and his understanding of the limitations of human language too deep for him to put word or formulas above the Faith. This is what the Anti-Chalcedonians did. Monophysites (and some present-day ecumenistic scholars) have wondered why the Sixth Ecumenical Council was so “severe” towards Dioscorus and Severus. Severus is called “impious” (asebeis), a term which often if not usually, refers to heterodoxy not lack of devoutness, whereas Dioscorus is mentioned together with Eutyches and called “hateful to God” (theostygon) (DEC 124), when, these objectors say, these men were not guilty of teaching heresy in the true sense of the word. But heresy does not mean simply using the wrong theoretical or verbal formulation, but rather a pride and stubbornness which puts one’s own preferred reasonings, opinions, and words above that of which the Church approves. Despite the similarity at times of Severus’ teaching to that of Saint Cyril, and even of Saint Maximus the Confessor, there exists the same disposition which caused a person such as Appolinarius (who, like Severus, was a very learned and sophisticated theologian) to put his own reasonings above the faith of the Christian community. So despite the closeness (at times) of his words to Orthodoxy, when it comes to the pride that puts one’s own reasonings against the balanced teachings of the Church, Severus was a heretic like Appolinarius.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MODERN WORKS
Cunliffe-Jones 1978 = Hubert Cunliffe-Jones (ed.), A History of Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1978).
Florovsky 1972- = The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (ed. Richard S. Haugh; Belmont, MA; Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1972-).
Frend 1984 = W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (London: Darton, Longman and Todd; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
González 1970- = Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought (3 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970 -).
Hussey 1986 = J. M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford History of the Christian Church; Oxford: Clarendon, 1986).
Kelly 1978 = J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper and Row, r1978).
Lampe 1978 = G. W. H. Lampe, “Christian Theology in the Patristic Period,” in A History of Christian Doctrine (ed. Hubert Cunliffe-Jones; Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1978) 21-180.
Lossky 1944 = Vladimir Lossky, Essai sur la theologie mystique de l’ Eglise de Orient (Paris, 1944); ET: The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (London: James Clarke, 1957).
Meyendorff 1969/1987 = John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (1969; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987).
Meyendorff 1974/1983 = Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974, r1979, r1983).
Pelikan 1971-89 = Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 vols.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971–89).
Ware 1963/1984 = Timothy Ware / Fr. Kallistos Timothy Ware / Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, The Orthodox Church (London: Penguin Books, 1963, r1984).
Ware 1987 = “Eastern Christianity,” in Encyclopedia of Religion (ed. Mircea Eliade; New York: Macmillan, 1987).