Miaphysitism

Terminology

The word miaphysite derives from the Ancient Greek μία (mía; "one") and φύσις (phúsis; "nature"). Miaphysites claim that the teaching is based on Cyril of Alexandria's formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning "one physis of the Word of God made flesh" (or "... of God the Word made flesh"), with early miaphysite Christians claiming such terminology was furthermore present in early patristic writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius I of Rome, and Gregory Thaumaturgus. However, Dyophysites interpret Saint Cyril's reference to "one nature" to mean Christ's human nature as the adjective "incarnate" is used in reference to nature and not person. The 451 Council of Chalcedon used physis to mean "nature" (as in "divine nature" and "human nature"), and defined that there is in Jesus one hypostasis (person) but two physeis (natures). It is disputed whether Cyril used physis in that sense. John Anthony McGuckin says that in Cyril's formula "physis serves as a rough semantic equivalent to hypostasis". The 431 Council of Ephesus used physis to signify the single subjecthood of Christ and also condemned speaking of two physeis (natures) in various homilies contained within the official minutes.

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.

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 Eutychian 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. Non[e] 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."

The Agreed Statement by the Anglican–Oriental Orthodox International Commission in 2014 also declared:

Conflict

The conflict over terminology was to some extent a conflict between two renowned theological schools. The Catechetical School of Alexandria focused on the divinity of Christ as the Logos or Word of God and thereby risked leaving his real humanity out of proper consideration (cf. Apollinarism). The stress by the School of Antioch was on the humanity of Jesus as a historical figure. Layered onto this theological rivalry was political competition between Alexandria on one side, and Antioch and Constantinople on the other.

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, Rome 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 and Justinian 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).

Thoughts of resolution

In recent decades, a number of Christological agreements between miaphysite and Chalcedonian Churches have been signed by theologians and church leaders, including with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, the Anglican Church, and some Protestant Churches.

Catholic Church

On 20 May 1973, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and Pope Paul VI of Rome jointly signed a common declaration that explicitly distinguishes Christ's divinity and humanity without necessarily using the phrase "two natures":{{cite web|title=Common declaration of Paul VI and Shenouda III |url= http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html |access-date= 2020-09-16 | publisher = Vatican |archive-date=14 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200214123730/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

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:

At the same time, we anathematize the doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches.|Mixed Commission of the Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church: Common formula on Christology}}

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.

Eastern Orthodox

Although unofficial dialogue between individual theologians of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox began in 1964, official dialogue did not begin until 1985. By 1989 the two sides reached agreement on Christology, stating that in Cyril of Alexandria's formula the word physis refers to the hypostasis of Christ — the one eternal Person (one of the three hypostases) of the Trinity — who "became incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary, Theotokos, and thus became man, consubstantial with us in his humanity but without sin. He is true God and true man at the same time, perfect in his divinity, perfect in his humanity. Because the one whom she bore was at the same time fully God as well as fully human, we call the Blessed Virgin Theotokos. When we speak of the one composite hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. Rather, the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature, uniting it with his own uncreated divine nature to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine‑human being, the natures being distinguished from each other only in contemplation."

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.

References

References

1. [http://www.dictionary.com/browse/miaphysitism "miaphysitism"]. ''[[Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary]]''.
2. "The Universal Church and Schisms".
3. Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. "Agreed Statements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (June 1989 & September 1990)".
4. (17 October 2014). "Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission". Anglican Communion.
5. "Joint Declaration of the Holy Father Pope Paul VI and His Holiness Shenouda III (May 10, 1973) {{!}} Paul VI".
6. (2011). "The acts of the Council of Chalcedon". Liverpool University Press.
7. McGuckin, John. "St. Cyril of Alexandria's Miaphysite Christology and Chalcedonian Dyophysitism: The Quest for the Phronema Patrum".
8. Frenkel, Luise Marion. (2015). "Thedotus of Ancyra's homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431)". Peeters.
9. Parry, Ken. (2009). "The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity". John Wiley & Sons.
10. [http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxp#bfj Denzinger in Latin, 429]; [http://patristica.net/denzinger/ English translation of an earlier edition, 220]
11. Grudem, Wayne A.. (2014). "Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith". [[Zondervan]].
12. Newman, John Henry. (2011). "John Henry Newman Sermons 1824–1843". Clarendon Press.
13. Bishoy of Damiette. (3 February 1998). "Interpretation of the Christological Official Agreements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches".
14. "'Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission' (Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia 5–10 November 2002. Revised. Cairo, Egypt 13–17 October 2014".
15. Rausch, Thomas P.. (2003). "Who Is Jesus?: An Introduction to Christology". Liturgical Press.
16. Wigram, William Ainger. (1978). "The Separation of the Monophysites". AMS Press.
17. "Coptic Church Common Formula on Christology". CAM.
18. "1990 Accordo dottrinale sulla cristologia tra Giovanni Paulo II e Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews I". Vatican.
19. "Dichiarazione Comune di Giovanni Paolo II e del Patriarca Siro d'Antiochia Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas". Vatican.
20. "Common Declaration of John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I". Vatican.
21. Wooden, Cindy. "Pope: Catholic, Oriental Orthodox should look at more sacramental sharing".
22. Pentin, Edward. (2024-03-11). "Copts Halt Ecumenical Talks Over Rome’s ‘Change of Position’ on Homosexuality".
23. Bishop Youssef, "The Agreed Statements: Oriental Orthodox Responses" in ''St Nerses's Theological Review'' (1998), pp. 55-60, as reported in the [https://suscopts.org/resources/literature/161/the-agreed-statements-oriental-orthodox-responses/ Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States]
24. (2000). "Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations at World Level 1982–1998". World Council of Churches.
25. A. Rofoeil, [https://www.academia.edu/40176808/What_Hinders_the_Full_Communion_between_the_Coptic_Orthodox_and_the_Eastern_Orthodox "What Hinders the Full Communion between the Coptic Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox"], pp. 10–11.