Monophysitism

According to the ideas of the Roman Catholic and Greco-Byzantine Orthodox tradition, the Council of Chalcedon was convened against the Monophysitism of Eutyhius and his supporters, where this heresy was condemned. The monophysite doctrine after the Chalcedon Cathedral spread in the eastern provinces of Byzantium , that is, in Asia Minor , Syria and Egypt , as well as outside the empire in Armenia ^[1] . According to the historian A. V. Kartashev , the influence of the Monophysites in the VI century was also strengthened with the assistance of Empress Theodora , who “ artificially propagated the Monophysite consecrations and directly created and strengthened the historical existence of the Monophysite churches until our days .” ^[one]

In full agreement with such ideas, all the churches that reject the Council of Chalcedon and its Diophysical teaching are considered by the supporters of this Cathedral to be “Monophysite” or “Eutychian” churches. Despite some recent inter-church communication, mitigating the rhetoric of confessional apologists , for Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox “monophysite churches” are all Old Eastern Orthodox churches , in particular the Armenian Apostolic Church . However, such ideas about the Old Eastern churches come into conflict with the fact that all these churches officially reject Monophysitism and anathematize Eutychius, which is considered the founder of Monophysitism.

According to the Ancient Eastern Orthodox churches themselves, naming them “Monophysite” and attributing the heresy Eutyches to them by apologists of Chalcedonism is a distortion of historical and theological reality due to dishonest confessional apology. Ancient Eastern churches insist that they contain the faith of a single Church before Chalcedon, consecrated by the Third Ecumenical Council . Therefore, the Ancient Eastern churches are also called the Dohalkidon Orthodox Churches ^[2] . Anathematizing monophysitism, that is, the docetic heresy of Eutychius, the Old Eastern churches profess the Myaphysitic christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the One nature (of two natures) in Christ.

According to the history of the Ancient Eastern churches, the real Monophysitism in the history of Christianity was a local phenomenon, and, condemned as a heresy by all local Churches without exception, it disappeared, only periodically giving relapses among the new radical opponents of the Council of Chalcedon and the teachings of Pope Leo , whose new Diophysite Christology, even during the confession of one hypostasis in Christ was considered by them heretical. ^[3]

Condemnation and Justification of Eutyches

Monophysitism is believed to have arisen in the 5th century as a teaching of the extreme radical wing of the followers of St. Cyril of Alexandria , who condemned Nestorianism at the Third Ecumenical Council , a Christological doctrine that introduced a natural division into the only God-man of Christ. According to Cyril, this teaching led to the recognition of two persons in Christ. Fighting against a two-subject Christology, St. Cyril insisted on the Christological formula, which he considered belonging to St. Athanasius the Great - "μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη" ^[4] .

It is generally accepted that Eutychius, and through him the subsequent Monophysites, distorted the teachings of St. Cyril, believing that the unity of the Savior’s nature indicates only His Godhead, although Cyril himself never denied the human nature of Jesus. However, the lack of documentary sources does not allow us to judge the real way of thinking of Euthychus. The only genuine quote from his confession was preserved in the famous tomos of the Pope Leo: “I confess that our Lord consisted of two natures before unification, and after unification I confess one nature . ” It is believed that by such a confession Eutyches unambiguously betrayed his Monophysitism. In fact, Eutychius with these words only repeated the confession of Cyril of Alexandria from his epistle to Akaki Melitensky: “we affirm that the two natures are united; and we believe that after this union, as if destroying separability in two, there is only one nature of the Son, as one, but humanized and embodied . "

The history of the Church connects the beginning of the struggle against Monophysitism with the Constantinople Local Council of 448, at which Eutyches was condemned for refusing to profess two natures in Christ. At the same time, the very fact of holding this council is not so much a consequence of the emergence of a new heresy as a consequence of the Christological confrontation between the representatives of Antioch and Alexandria theological schools that did not stop after the Third Ecumenical Council . All that Eutychius was accused of by his opponents, namely, the confession of one nature when Christ's mankind disappeared due to its mixing with the deity, was also accused by St. Nicholas of St. Cyril of Alexandria ^[5] . After the condemnation of Nestorius and the victory of Cyril, the Antiochs needed revenge, and in the person of the Mother Superior of Constantinople they found an object for counterattack. Convicted in his patriarchy , Eutyhius did not recognize heresies, but appealed to other authoritative departments , in particular Rome and Alexandria .

Having received a letter from Eutyches, Pope Leo I took his side, writing a message to the Patriarch of Constantinople Flavian , in which he expressed his displeasure. Naturally, the patriarch of Alexandria Dioskor also sided with Eutychius, who, in condemning Eutychius, saw the intrigues of St. Cyril, who were not staunch against the Christology. And if Pope Leo subsequently sided with Flavian and changed his mind about Eutychius, then Patriarch Dioskor set out to justify Eutyches and inflict a final defeat on the Antiochs by convening a new Ecumenical Council .

Having received permission from Emperor Theodosius II to convene a cathedral without the blessing of Leo, Patriarch Dioskor set the pope against himself. In many ways, therefore, Leo sided with Flavian and recognized the decisions of the Council of Constantinople, condemning Eutyches. And naturally, trying to justify the latter, Dioskor entered into an open confrontation with Pope Leo, who convinced the emperor of the irrelevance of the new cathedral, since "the heresy of Eutyches was obvious without it." In his next letter to Patriarch Flavian, the pope outlined his vision of the union of two natures in Christ. This theological document, which unambiguously supports Antiochian Christology, went down in history as the “ tomos of Pope Leo ”, causing an ambiguous reaction among Eastern theologians , supporters of the Ephesian Ecumenical Council .

The New Ecumenical Council was opened on August 1, 449 in Ephesus , therefore in history it is called the Second Ephesian Ecumenical Council . At this council, Eutyches presented his confession, and since no docetic heresy was discovered in it, the abbot of Constantinople was acquitted. In addition, using the emperor’s support, Dioskoros, in an effort to defend the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria, ignored Pope Leo’s Diophysite tomos , condemned the doctrine of the two natures, and deposed all his opponents, led by the Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople. Subsequently, this gave rise to the pope's supporters to question the Orthodox Church and reject it. In addition, for the same reason, the docetic heresy attributed to Eutyches began to be attributed to Dioscorus himself. Despite the fact that Dioskor was a strict follower of swt. Cyril of Alexandria, and had never even been condemned by the Chalcedonites for heresy, however, subsequently, the label of "Monophysite" was firmly stuck to it by supporters of Chalcedon theology. After the death of Emperor Theodosius, the Diocorean Cathedral in Ephesus was called by the pope “Robber” because of the alleged “violence” committed on it ^[6] .

Chalcedon Cathedral and the Enoticon of Zeno

Contrary to popular belief that the Council of Chalcedon (451) was convened against Monophysitism, this fact is not confirmed by the documents of the cathedral itself. In the cathedral definitions there are no words “monophysitism” and “mono-physis”, and also there are no anathematisms, which would be natural for a cathedral convened against heresy. In fact, with the help of the new Ecumenical Council , the emperor Marcian, who came to power, wanted to bring the church of the empire to the unity of faith on the basis of the Diophysite teachings of Pope Leo. At the council, the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus was asked to repent for holding the Second Ephesian Council and anathematize Eutyches for heresy, which he refused and was deposed for formally disciplinary reasons. Naturally, in such circumstances, the unity of the church was not achieved. The creed of Chalcedon Cathedral as Diophysite met fierce rejection throughout the East, where traditionally supporters of Myaphysite theology prevailed. From now on, the schism in the church and the confrontation between the two Christological parties of diophysites and myaphysites passed from the plane of the Antiochs-Alexandrians to the plane of chalcedonites-non-chalcedonites.

In order to calm the empire, several emperors in a row published conflicting documents, either canceling the results of the Council of Chalcedon, or restoring them. The most significant among these documents was the Zenot enoticon (482), the emperor’s religious message designed to reconcile the warring parties by returning the faith of the Church to the time of the three ecumenical councils. That is, it was proposed the rejection of both the Second Ephesian and Chalcedon Councils, equally claiming the status of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. The main heretics were declared on the one hand Nestorius, on the other hand - Eutyches. It was a compromise, and for the sake of the church-wide rejection of the Miaphysites , the kryptonestorians signed an enotikon, which sacrificed Eutychius, recognizing him as a heretic-doket, of which he was accused of diophysites. Despite leading to the so-called. The "Akakian schism" of the Roman Church’s demarche, based on the enoticon, achieved some unity of the eastern patriarchates. At the very end of the 5th century, for the sake of unity with the Byzantine church, the churches of Armenia , Georgia and Caucasian Albania outside the empire also joined the enoticon. So the name of the abbot of Constantinople Eutyches fell into the lists of anathematized heresiarchs in these churches.

In 519, in order to eliminate the split between Constantinople and Rome, the new emperor Justin I rejected the Zenith enoticon and proclaimed the Council of Chalcedon holy and Ecumenical. Accordingly, the split returned to the East. But despite the fact that the batch of diophysites returned to Chalcedon, the myaphysites did not symmetrically declare the Second Ephesian Council as ecumenical and rehabilitate Eutyches. Therefore, he is still considered a heretic in ancient Eastern churches , who taught Doketism , and the number of Ecumenical Councils is limited to three.

The emergence of "Monophysite" churches

Despite the support of the Council of Chalcedon by the popes and emperors, the non-Chalcedonian party remained strong in the East. It was not possible to impose chalcedonism on the eastern patriarchates even through repression . The expulsion from the Antioch chair of the legitimate Myafizite patriarchs and the almost complete destruction of the local church hierarchy led to the revival of the Syrian church in the form of a nearly clandestine, but already independent from Constantinople, myaphysitic patriarchate. In Egypt, on the contrary, all attempts by the imperial church to plant the Chalcedonite patriarchs on the Alexandria pulpit led to riots in the local population and their overthrow. For this reason, the empire was forced to create an alternative Chalcedonite Alexandrian patriarchate, in addition to its will, allowing the Miafizites of Egypt to stand out in a church independent of the empire.

In the 7th century, the Eastern Roman Empire lost all of its Middle Eastern territories due to the Arab conquests. Chalcedonism is almost completely enclosed in the remaining territory of the empire, spreading beyond its borders only in the loyal empire of the Greek diaspora. Thus, the Christological separation of diophysites and myaphysites within the once unified Byzantine church passed into the already inter-church division, gradually acquiring national characteristics. Since then, ignoring the true confession of the Eastern non-Chalcedonian churches, the confessional apology of chalcedonites has been reduced to the fact that by labeling their opponents with the label "monophysites", they reduced the status of their religion from the ancient, consecrated by the Ecumenical Councils of the Myaphysitic doctrine to the level of the newly created only spread out monophysite heresies.

Judging by the surviving literature, the Monk Anastasia of Sinait is the first polemicist and apologist in Chalcedonism, in whose writings the term “monophysites” appears, by which he refers to representatives of the Ancient Eastern Orthodox churches. So he accuses the Armenian Apostolic Church of Monophysitism, giving his own, very original interpretation of the Armenian tradition to celebrate the Eucharist with whole, not diluted wine:

The polemic dishonesty of Anastasia Sinait in this example is proved by the fact that instead of the official religion of the church, where the AAC itself would confirm its monophysitism, he builds his "evidence" on his own interpretations of the Armenian rite. The Armenian Church does not have such an interpretation of the Eucharist, and in no way does the rite of the Eucharist connect with Christology. In addition, the polemic dishonesty of Sinait is proved by the fact that the AAC during the life of the Monk Anastasia herself fought against the Monophysites, subsequently fixing anathematisms against this heresy at her local Manazkert Cathedral (726):

Moreover, the statement of Anastasia Sinait contradicts another Greek-Orthodox legend, according to which the Armenian Church, allegedly adopting Chalcedonism at the Karin Cathedral (633), remained in Greek Orthodoxy right up to the Manazkert Cathedral, where it fell back to Monophysitism ^[8] . Thus, according to this legend, the AAC was Diophysite for almost a century, from 633 to 726, that is, completely and completely during the life of Anastasia Sinait (c. 640 - end of the VII / beginning of the VIII century).

The systematizer of Byzantine theology, John Damaskin, in his collection “On the One Hundred Heresy in Brief” ^[9] very highly divorces, and at the same time reduces the Eutychian docetic heresy with the faith of the “Egyptian-Monophysites”:

Calling the Egyptians “Monophysites” and reproaching them only for “separating from the Orthodox Church,” Damaskin does not seem to directly link their unclear “heresy” with docetism, but through Dioscoros revered by the Egyptians, he still leads them to Eutyches. As a result, both the Egyptians and all other Christian peoples who do not recognize the Council of Chalcedon, contrary to their real faith and against their will, turned out to be “euthychians-Monophysites” for the Chalcedonites, who do not recognize man in Christ, but consider him only God.

Apart from the abstract “followers of Eutychius,” until the heresy of the aphthalletic Yulianists heresy in the 6th century, the history of the church does not name a single theological movement that would preach a teaching that would at least come close to the definition of Monophysitism. In the polemic struggle with the followers of Sevirianism and in opposition to the Monotheelite union , the so-called. “ Actists ” are extreme in their views, opposed to the official confession of non-Chalcedonian churches, in fact professing the docetic doctrine of the inconsistency of the Body of Christ ^[10] . Since the churches of Egypt and Syria were inclined to profess Sevirianism - the Miaphysitic doctrine, which in many respects converges with Diophysitism , actists could not exist other than stand out in a rejected sect .

In the 7th century, the docetic teachings of radical Julianists penetrated into Armenia , assimilating among a certain, insignificant part of the AAC theologians, whose leader was Sargis Mayragometsi. Such heresies are opposed by such famous fathers of the Armenian Church as Theodoros Krtenavor, Khosrovik Targmanich and Catholicos Saint Hovhannes Odznetsi (717-728). As a result of this struggle, the Monophysites from the Armenian Church are erupted, and heresy itself is anathematized at the Manazkert Cathedral ^[11] . After the condemnation of the Monophysites at Manazkert Cathedral, the history of the AAC does not know other examples of the appearance of carriers of pre-doctrine teachings in Armenia.

In 1964, in the city of Aarhus (Denmark), a dialogue began between the theologians of the Orthodox churches of the Byzantine tradition and the Ancient Eastern churches .

The third meeting of the Joint Commission on Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches was held at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy , Geneva, from September 23 to 28, 1990. At the meeting, an agreed statement and recommendations to the churches were drawn up. ^[12]

The last meetings in the theological dialogues of the Orthodox Churches with the Pre-Chalcedonian Churches took place in 1990 (Chambesy) and 1993.

These meetings and the documents that followed them caused a number of complaints (not only in Russia, but also, for example, on Mount Athos and in Serbia) to the hierarchy of the Orthodox Churches in following the “ecumenical heresy”.

These documents were not approved at the Bishops 'Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1997 and at the Anniversary Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000 ^[13]

The dialogue is ongoing.

Criticism of dialogue

In 1999, V. M. Lurie (now cleric of the Russian Orthodox Church Church cleric with the Russian Orthodox Church ) in collaboration with the Protodeacon of the Russian Orthodox Church MP A. V. Kuraev, in his open letter to the chairman of the Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church MP regarding a possible Union of Diophysite Chalcedonite churches of the Byzantine tradition with the pre-Chalcedonian Miaphysite churches ^{12] [14]} argued that in terms of Byzantine Orthodoxy, "Monophysitism" terminology is acceptable in the Orthodox discourse, but "Monophysitism" in the form in which it is understood the historical non-Chalcedonian churches, does not meet the Orthodox Nome doctrine and is in fact a form of Monophysite heresy . ^[15]

• Myaphysitism
• Monothelitism
• Diophysitism
• Christology

Научно-богословская литература

• John Anthony McGuckin , «The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity» (недоступная ссылка) , Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
• Болотов В. В. Лекции по истории древней Церкви . — Петроград: Третья Государственная Типография, 1918. — Т. 4. — 600 с.
• Давыденков О. В. , прот. Христологическая система Севира Антиохийского М: Изд-во ПСТГУ , 2007. — 328 с. ISBN 978-5-7429-0257-7
• Карташёв А. В. Вселенские Соборы . — М.: Республика , 1994. — 542 с. — ISBN 5-250-01847-5 .
• Лурье В. М. . История византийской философии. Формативный период. — СПб., Axioma, 2006. XX + 553 с. ISBN 5-901410-13-0 Оглавление , Раздел 1, гл. 1 , Раздел 1, гл. 2 , Раздел 2, гл. 1 , Раздел 2, гл. 2 , Раздел 4, гл. 1 , Раздел 4, гл. 2
• Ларше Ж.-К. Христологический вопрос. По поводу проекта соединения Православной Церкви с Дохалкидонскими Церквами: нерешенные богословские и экклезиологические проблемы / пер.: Савва (Тутунов), иеромонах // Богословские труды . М., 2007. № 41. (Дунаев А. Г. Рецензия // Богословские труды . — М.: Издательский Совет РПЦ, 2007. — Вып. 41.
• Artemi, E. , «Mia physis of God Logos sesarkomeni» a)The analysis of this phrase according to Cyril of Alexandria b)The analysis of this phrase according to Apollinaris of Laodicea",Ecclesiastic Faros t. ΟΔ (2003), 293—304. англ.
• McGrath, Alistair . Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers . Chapter 1. 1998.
• Meyendorff Jean . Le Christ dans la Theologie Byzantine. Paris, 1968. (На английском: John Meyendorff. Christ in the Eastern Christian Thought. New York, 1969. Русский перевод: Прот. Иоанн Мейендорф . «Иисус Христос в восточном православном богословии». М., 2000)

Византийское православное богословие

• Творения преподобного Иоанна Дамаскина Источник знания Пер. with Greek. и коммент. Д. Е. Афиногенова, А. А. Бронзова, А. И. Сагарды, Н. И. Сагарды. — М.: Индрик, 2002. — 416 с. — (Святоотеческое наследие. Т. 5) ISBN 5-85759-186-4
• Прп. Иоанн Дамаскин О сложной природе против акефалов // Творения преподобного Иоанна Дамаскина. Христологические и полемические трактаты. Слова на богородичные праздники / Пер. свящ. Максима Козлова и Д. Е. Афиногенова (М. 1997). Page 194—201 ISBN 5-7248-0044-6
• Ostrogorsky, George. History of the Byzantine State . — Basil Blackwell, 1956.
• 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, JND, 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.
• Meyendorff, John. Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450-680 AD . — Crestwood, NY : St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1989. — Vol. 2. — ISBN 978-0-88-141056-3 .

• Agreed State noments between representative of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches