Product Code Database
Miaphysitism ( "miaphysitism". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.) is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one nature or physis (). It is the position held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It differs from the dyophysitism of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East and major Protestant denominations, which holds that Jesus is one Person with two natures (divine and human) as defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
While historically a major point of controversy within Christianity, some modern declarations by both Chalcedonian and miaphysite Churches claim that the difference between the two Christological formulations does not reflect any significant difference in belief about the nature of Christ. Other statements from both Chalcedonian and miaphysite churches claim that such difference is indeed theological but has been "widened by non-theological factors".
Others interpret the miaphysite term physis in line with its use by the Council of Chalcedon and speak of "miaphysitism" as "monophysitism", a word used for all forms of denial of the Chalcedonian doctrine. However, they add that "miaphysitism" is "the more accurate term for the position held by the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian churches". The Second Council of Constantinople, held in 553 following Chalcedon, accepted Cyril's phrase but warned against misinterpreting it. Denzinger in Latin, 429; English translation of an earlier edition, 220
Etymologically, mia‑physis and mono‑physis both mean 'one nature'. However, mia‑physis has come to denote the specific Severian theology that understands the union of Christ's natures as a single nature by composition, interpreted by miaphysites as Cyrillian (the formula mia physis being drawn from his writings), rather than the Eutychianism view of union by mixing or other forms of 'one‑nature' (monophysite) theology (e.g., one purely human nature, one purely divine nature). Strictly speaking, by meaning alone, miaphysites (Severians) are a type of monophysite, but a distinct kind and not to be confused with other non‑miaphysite monophysites (such as Eutychians or Ebionites). In recent times, miaphysites have adopted "miaphysite" as a self‑designation; conversely, "monophysite" has been used to label non‑miaphysite monophysites (especially Eutychians) and is considered by many miaphysites to be pejorative and inaccurate to describe their theology.
The broad term "dyophysitism" covers not only Chalcedonian teaching but also interpretations like Nestorianism which held that Jesus is not only of two natures but is in fact two centers of attribution, which may imply two Persons, a view nominally rejected by Chalcedonians. Likewise, "monophysitism" includes both Oriental Orthodox teaching and Eutychianism, the latter maintaining that after the union, the eternal Son possessed a single synthesized nature, neither purely divine nor purely human, identical with neither. Miaphysites reject Eutychianism: they hold that the incarnate Christ has one nature that is fully divine and fully human, retaining the properties of both without mingling, confusion ("pouring together"), or change.
To avoid confusion with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. None of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term 'mia physis' denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term 'monophysites' ... The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine-human nature."; cf. Coptic Orthodox Church of the Southern United States, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
The Agreed Statement by the Anglican–Oriental Orthodox International Commission in 2014 also declared:
The condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus (431) was a victory for the Alexandrian school, but acceptance required compromise: the Formula of Reunion agreed by Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch in 433. Cyril died in 444, and under his successor, Dioscurus I of Alexandria, a Constantinople‑based archimandrite named Eutyches, whose responses were judged heretical by Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, accused Flavian himself of heresy. The emperor convoked another council in Ephesus and placed Dioscurus as the presiding bishop. This Second Council of Ephesus (449) rehabilitated Eutyches after his confession was deemed orthodox by the bishops, and condemned & deposed Flavian and other bishops. They appealed to Pope Leo I, who denounced the assembly as a latrocinium (robber council) instead of a regular concilium, declaring it null and void. Today the Oriental Orthodox Churches recognize that council as valid.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) annulled the earlier council presided over by Dioscurus. It was not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, who do not defend Eutyches and instead accept his implicit condemnation by the Third Council of Ephesus (475). Chalcedon accepted by acclamation Leo's Tome — the letter by Pope Leo I setting out, as he saw it, the Church's doctrine on the matter — and issued the Chalcedonian Definition. The clause most relevant to miaphysitism states:"
Dissent from this definition did not at first lead to a clean break between what are now the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. While in the West, Holy See tended to uphold steadfastly the text of Leo's Tome and of the Chalcedonian definition, the situation in the East was fluid for a century after the council, with compromise formulas imposed by the emperors and accepted by the church and leading at times to schisms between East and West (cf. Acacian Schism, Henotikon, Monoenergism). Initially, before the campaigns of Justin I and Justinian I against the miaphysites, they comprised the majority of the East at the time. The situation then hardened into a fixed division between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonian churches, the latter which later split into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church (and its Protestant offshoots).
At that meeting they agreed to establish an official theological dialogue between the two Churches. On 12 February 1988 the commission conducting that dialogue signed "a common formula expressing our official agreement on Christology", which had already been approved by the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church on 21 June 1986. The brief common formula was as follows:
A "Doctrinal Agreement on Christology" was signed on 3 June 1990 by Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews I, Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and Pope John Paul II, in which they explicitly spoke of "divine and human natures":
Similar accords were signed by the head of the Catholic Church and the heads of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church.
In 1984, John Paul II and the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I, signed a declaration allowing, "in certain circumstances", the faithful to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from either Community. Another 1994 agreement permitted Catholics and members of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to receive the sacrament of matrimony from either Church.
Ecumenical dialogue between the two Churches was suspended following Rome's declarations on Fiducia supplicans (same‑sex blessings) and further statements by Pope Francis on homosexual unions.
A second Agreed Statement was published in the following year, 1990, declaring:
Implementing the recommendations of these two Agreed Statements would theoretically restore full communion between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but as of 2021 they have not been enacted. Among the Eastern Orthodox, only the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Romania have accepted the Statements; among the Oriental Orthodox, the Coptic, Syriac, and Malankara Churches have accepted them. The Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) has requested clarification on some points, and the monastic community of Mount Athos rejects any form of dialogue, whether with the Oriental Orthodox or others.A. Rofoeil, "What Hinders the Full Communion between the Coptic Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox", pp. 10–11.
|
|
