Jump to content

Monophysitism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
capitalize
restore IPA transcriptions
(43 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Christological term and doctrine which emphasizes the one holy, divine aspect and nature of Christ.}}
{{short description|Christological doctrine}}
{{Christology}}
{{Christology|expanded=Doctrines}}{{Distinguish|Miaphysitism}}
'''Monophysitism''' ({{IPAc-en|m|ə|ˈ|n|ɒ|f|ɪ|s|aɪ|ˌ|t|ɪ|z|əm}} or {{IPAc-en|m|ə|ˈ|n|ɒ|f|ɪ|s|ɪ|ˌ|t|ɪ|z|əm}}) or '''monophysism''' ({{IPAc-en|m|ə|ˈ|n|ɒ|f|ɪ|z|ɪ|z|əm}}) is a [[Christology|Christological]] term derived from μόνος ''monos'', "alone, solitary"<ref>[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=mo/nos Liddell & Scott]</ref> and φύσις ''physis'', a word that has many meanings<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Liddell |editor1-first=Henry George |editor2-last=Scott |editor2-first=Robert |title=A Greek-English Lexicon |url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=fu/sis |access-date=21 September 2021 |via=The Perseus Project: Perseus Digital Library |publisher= Department of the Classics, Tufts University |chapter=φύσις}}</ref> but in this context means "[[Nature (philosophy)|nature]]". It is defined as "a doctrine that in the person of the [[incarnation (Christianity)|incarnated]] [[Logos (Christianity)|Word]] (that is, in [[Jesus Christ]]) there was only one nature—the divine".<ref name="EspínNickoloff2007">{{cite book|author1=Orlando O. Espín|author2=James B. Nickoloff|title=An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k85JKr1OXcQC&pg=PA902|year=2007|publisher=Liturgical Press|isbn=978-0-8146-5856-7|page=902}}</ref>
'''Monophysitism''' ({{IPAc-en|m|ə|ˈ|n|ɒ|f|ɪ|s|aɪ|t|ɪ|z|əm}} {{respell|mə|NOF|ih|seye|tih|zəm}}<ref>[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/monophysitism "monophysitism"]. ''[[Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary]]''.</ref>) or '''monophysism''' ({{IPAc-en|m|ə|ˈ|n|ɒ|f|ɪ|z|ɪ|z|əm}} {{respell|mə|NOF|ih|zih|zəm}}; from [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] {{lang|grc|μόνος}} {{transl|grc|monos}}, "solitary"<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=mo/nos|title=Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, μόνος|website=www.perseus.tufts.edu}}</ref> and {{lang|grc|φύσις}} {{transl|grc|physis}}, "[[Nature (philosophy)|nature]]") is a [[Christology]] that states that there was only one nature—the divine—in the person of [[Jesus Christ]], who was the [[incarnation (Christianity)|incarnated]] [[Logos (Christianity)|Word]].<ref name="EspínNickoloff2007">{{cite book|author1=Orlando O. Espín|author2=James B. Nickoloff|title=An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=k85JKr1OXcQC&pg=PA902|year=2007|publisher=Liturgical Press|isbn=978-0-8146-5856-7|page=902}}</ref>


== Background ==
== Background ==


The [[First Council of Nicaea]] (325) declared that Christ was divine ([[homoousios]], [[Consubstantiality|consubstantial]], of one being or essence, with [[God the Father|the Father]]) and human (was incarnate and became man). In the fifth century a heated controversy arose between the [[episcopal see|sees]] and theological schools of [[see of Antioch|Antioch]] and [[see of Alexandria|Alexandria]] about how divinity and humanity existed in Christ,<ref>{{cite book|author=Ted Campbell|title=Christian Confessions: A Historical Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p2mUxxxGt_sC&pg=PA43|date=1 January 1996|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|isbn=978-0-664-25650-0|page=43}}</ref> the former stressing the humanity, the latter the divinity of Christ. [[Cyril of Alexandria]] succeeded in having [[Nestorius]], a prominent exponent of the Antiochian school, condemned at the [[Council of Ephesus]] in 431, and insisted on the formula "one ''physis'' of the incarnate Word", claiming that any formula that spoke of two ''physeis'' represented [[Nestorianism]]. Some taught that in Christ the human nature was completely absorbed by the divine, leaving only a divine nature. In 451, the [[Council of Chalcedon]], on the basis of [[Pope Leo the Great]]'s [[Leo's Tome|449 declaration]], [[Chalcedonian Definition|defined]] that in Christ there were two ''natures'' united in one ''person''.<ref name="Kleinhenz2004">{{cite book|author=Christopher Kleinhenz|title=Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E2CTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT762|date=2 August 2004|publisher=[[Routledge]]|isbn=978-1-135-94880-1|page=762}}</ref>
The [[First Council of Nicaea]] (325) declared that Christ was both divine ([[homoousios]], [[Consubstantiality|consubstantial]], of one being or essence, with [[God the Father|the Father]]) and human (was [[Incarnation (Christianity)|incarnate]] and became man). In the fifth century a heated controversy arose between the [[episcopal see|sees]] and theological schools of [[see of Antioch|Antioch]] and [[see of Alexandria|Alexandria]] about how divinity and humanity existed in Christ,<ref>{{cite book|author=Ted Campbell|title=Christian Confessions: A Historical Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p2mUxxxGt_sC&pg=PA43|date= 1996|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|isbn=978-0-664-25650-0|page=43}}</ref> with the former stressing the humanity, the latter the divinity of Christ. [[Cyril of Alexandria]] succeeded in having [[Nestorius]], a prominent exponent of the Antiochian school, condemned at the [[Council of Ephesus]] in 431, and insisted on the formula "one ''physis'' of the incarnate Word", claiming that any formula that spoke of two ''physeis'' represented [[Nestorianism]]. Some taught that in Christ the human nature was completely absorbed by the divine, leaving only a divine nature. In 451, the [[Council of Chalcedon]], on the basis of [[Pope Leo the Great]]'s [[Leo's Tome|449 declaration]], [[Chalcedonian Definition|defined]] that in Christ there were two ''natures'' united in one ''person''.<ref name="Kleinhenz2004">{{cite book|author=Christopher Kleinhenz|title=Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E2CTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT762|date=2004|publisher=[[Routledge]]|isbn=978-1-135-94880-1|page=762}}</ref>


Those who insisted on the "one ''physis''" formula were referred to as Monophysites, while those who accepted the Chalcedonian "two natures" definition were called ''[[Dyophysites]]'', a term applied also to followers of Nestorianism.
Those who insisted on the "one ''physis''" formula were referred to as ''monophysites'' ({{IPAc-en|m|ə|ˈ|n|ɒ|f|ɪ|s|aɪ|t|s}}), while those who accepted the "two natures" definition were called ''[[dyophysites]]'', a term applied also to followers of Nestorianism.


== Groups called monophysite ==
== Groups called monophysite ==


The forms of monophysism were numerous, and included the following:
The forms of monophysism were numerous, and included the following:
* [[Acephali]] were Monophysites who in 482 broke away from [[Peter III of Alexandria]] who made an agreement with [[Acacius of Constantinople]], sanctioned by Emperor [[Zeno (emperor)|Zeno]] with his [[Henotikon]] edict that condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches, as the Council of Chalcedon had done, but ignored that council's decree on the two natures of Christ. They saw this as a betrayal of S. Cyrils use of "Mia Physis" and refused to be subject to the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, preferring to be instead ecclesiastically "without a head" (the meaning of ''acephali'').<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01100c.htm John Joseph A'Becket, "Acephali" in ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (New York `1907)]</ref>
* [[Acephali]] were monophysites who in 482 broke away from [[Peter III of Alexandria]] who made an agreement with [[Acacius of Constantinople]], sanctioned by Emperor [[Zeno (emperor)|Zeno]] with his [[Henotikon]] edict that condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches, as the Council of Chalcedon had done, but ignored that council's decree on the two natures of Christ. They saw this as a betrayal of S. Cyrils use of "mia physis" and refused to be subject to the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, preferring to be instead ecclesiastically "without a head" (the meaning of ''acephali'').<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01100c.htm|title=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Acephali|website=www.newadvent.org}}</ref> For this, they were known as Headless Ones.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A Reply to Fr. John Morris Concerning His Review of My Book, The Non-Orthodox |url=http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/morris_review.aspx |access-date=2022-11-15 |website=orthodoxinfo.com}}</ref>
* [[Agnoetae]], Themistians or Agnosticists, founded by Themistius Calonymus around 534, held that the nature of Jesus Christ, although divine, was like other men's in all respects, including limited knowledge.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Frank Leslie Cross|author2= Elizabeth A. Livingstone (eds.)|title=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fUqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA29|year=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-280290-3|page=29}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kEXOzNeSgWoC&pg=PA81|date=1 September 2010|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-1-4267-2191-5|page=81}}</ref> They must be distinguished from a fourth-century group called by the same name, who denied that God knew the past and the future.<ref>{{cite book|author=J. C. Cooper|title=Dictionary of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6ZC3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA119|date=23 October 2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-26546-6|page=119}}</ref>
* [[Agnoetae]], Themistians or Agnosticists, founded by Themistius Calonymus around 534, held that the nature of Jesus Christ, although divine, was like other men's in all respects, including limited knowledge.<ref>{{cite book|editor1=Frank Leslie Cross|editor2= Elizabeth A. Livingstone |title=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fUqcAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA29|year=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-280290-3|page=29}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kEXOzNeSgWoC&pg=PA81|date= 2010|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-1-4267-2191-5|page=81}}</ref> They must be distinguished from a fourth-century group called by the same name, who denied that God knew the past and the future.<ref>{{cite book|author=J. C. Cooper|title=Dictionary of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6ZC3AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA119|date=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-26546-6|page=119}}</ref>
* [[Aphthartodocetae]], [[Phantasiasts]] or, after their leader [[Julian of Halicarnassus]], Julianists believed "that the body of Christ, from the very moment of his conception, was incorruptible, immortal and impassible, as it was after the resurrection, and held that the suffering and death on the cross was a miracle contrary to the normal conditions of Christ's humanity".<ref>{{cite book|author=Mary Clayton|title=The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aLxwYDgHf54C&pg=PA43|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-58168-4|page=43}}</ref> Emperor [[Justinian I]] wished to have this teaching adopted as orthodox, but died before he could put his plans into effect.<ref>{{cite book|author=William Holmes|title=The Age of Justinian|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GLh4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT280|date=12 December 2017|publisher=Jovian Press|isbn=978-1-5378-1078-2|page=280}}</ref>
* [[Aphthartodocetae]], [[Phantasiasts]] or, after their leader [[Julian of Halicarnassus]], Julianists believed "that the body of Christ, from the very moment of his conception, was incorruptible, immortal and impassible, as it was after the resurrection, and held that the suffering and death on the cross was a miracle contrary to the normal conditions of Christ's humanity".<ref>{{cite book|author=Mary Clayton|title=The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aLxwYDgHf54C&pg=PA43|year=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-58168-4|page=43}}</ref> Emperor [[Justinian I]] wished to have this teaching adopted as orthodox, but died before he could put his plans into effect.<ref>{{cite book|author=William Holmes|title=The Age of Justinian|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GLh4DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT280|date=2017|publisher=Jovian Press|isbn=978-1-5378-1078-2|page=280}}</ref>
* [[Apollinarianism|Apollinarians]] or Apollinarists, named after [[Apollinaris of Laodicea]] (who died in 390) proposed that Jesus had a normal human body but had a divine mind instead of a regular human [[soul]]. This teaching was condemned by the [[First Council of Constantinople]] (381) and died out within a few decades.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm Sollier, Joseph. "Apollinarianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia] Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 8 February 2019</ref> Cyril of Alexandria declared it a mad proposal.<ref name="McGuckin1994">{{cite book|author=McGuckin|title=St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q-p5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA109|date=1 July 1994|publisher=BRILL|isbn=978-90-04-31290-6|page=109}}</ref>
* [[Apollinarianism|Apollinarians]] or Apollinarists, named after [[Apollinaris of Laodicea]] (who died in 390) proposed that Jesus had a normal human body but had a divine mind instead of a regular human [[soul]]. This teaching was condemned by the [[First Council of Constantinople]] (381) and died out within a few decades.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm Sollier, Joseph. "Apollinarianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia] Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 8 February 2019</ref> Cyril of Alexandria declared it a mad proposal.<ref name="McGuckin1994">{{cite book|author=McGuckin|title=St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q-p5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA109|date=1994|publisher=Brill|isbn=978-90-04-31290-6|page=109}}</ref>
* [[Docetism|Docetists]], not all of whom were Monophysites, held that Jesus had no human nature: his humanity was only a phantasm, which, united with the impassible, immaterial divine nature, could not really suffer and die.<ref>{{cite book|author=Daniel R. Streett|title=They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=A2XN2zFinK8C&pg=PA38|date=27 January 2011|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-024771-8|pages=38–39}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=J.R.C. Cousland|title=Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rMw6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA99|date=16 November 2017|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|isbn=978-0-567-66817-2|page=99}}</ref>
* [[Docetism|Docetists]], not all of whom were monophysites, held that Jesus had no human nature: his humanity was only a phantasm, which, united with the impassible, immaterial divine nature, could not really suffer and die.<ref>{{cite book|author=Daniel R. Streett|title=They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=A2XN2zFinK8C&pg=PA38|date=2011|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-11-024771-8|pages=38–39}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=J.R.C. Cousland|title=Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rMw6DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA99|date= 2017|publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing|isbn=978-0-567-66817-2|page=99}}</ref>
* [[Eutychianism|Eutychians]] taught that Jesus had only one nature, a union of the divine and human that is not an even compound, since what is divine is infinitely larger than what is human: the humanity is absorbed by and transmuted into the divinity, as a drop of honey, mixing with the water of the sea, vanishes. The body of Christ, thus transmuted, is not consubstantial [[homoousios]] with humankind:<ref>{{cite book|author1=E. A. Livingstone|author2=M. W. D. Sparks|author3=R. W. Peacocke|title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DZecAQAAQBAJ|date=12 September 2013|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-965962-3|chapter=Monophysitism}}</ref> <ref>{{cite book|author1=Fred Sanders|author2=Klaus Issler|title=Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qkWPkbi0NhoC&pg=PA22|year=2007|publisher=B&H Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-8054-4422-3|page=22}}</ref> In contrast to Severians, who are called verbal Monophysites, Eutychianists are called real or ontological Monophysites,<ref name="Hannah2019"/><ref name="Loon2009">{{cite book|author=Hans van Loon|title=The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8BWwCQAAQBAJ|date=7 April 2009|publisher=BRILL|page=33|isbn=978-90-474-2669-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Bernhard Bischoff|author2=Michael Lapidge|title=Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PCn2EL3rT84C&pg=PA11|year=1994|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-33089-3|page=11}}</ref> and their teaching has been called {{By whom|date=June 2021}} "an extreme form of the Monophysite heresy that emphasizes the exclusive prevalence of the divinity in Christ".<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eutyches |title = Eutyches &#124; Orthodox abbot}}</ref>
* [[Eutychianism|Eutychians]] taught that Jesus had only one nature, a union of the divine and human that is not an even compound, since what is divine is infinitely larger than what is human: the humanity is absorbed by and transmuted into the divinity, as a drop of honey, mixing with the water of the sea, vanishes. The body of Christ, thus transmuted, is not consubstantial [[homoousios]] with humankind.<ref>{{cite book|author1=E. A. Livingstone|author2=M. W. D. Sparks|author3=R. W. Peacocke|title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DZecAQAAQBAJ|date=2013|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-965962-3|chapter=Monophysitism}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Fred Sanders|author2=Klaus Issler|title=Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qkWPkbi0NhoC&pg=PA22|year=2007|publisher=B&H Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-8054-4422-3|page=22}}</ref> In contrast to Severians, who are called verbal monophysites, Eutychianists are called real or ontological monophysites,<ref name="Hannah2019"/><ref name="Loon2009">{{cite book|author=Hans van Loon|title=The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8BWwCQAAQBAJ|date=2009|publisher=Brill|page=33|isbn=978-90-474-2669-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Bernhard Bischoff|author2=Michael Lapidge|title=Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PCn2EL3rT84C&pg=PA11|year=1994|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-33089-3|page=11}}</ref> and their teaching is "an extreme form of the monophysite heresy that emphasizes the exclusive prevalence of the divinity in Christ".<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eutyches |title = Eutyches &#124; Orthodox abbot}}</ref>
* [[Miaphysitism|Miaphysites]] are often labelled Monophysites, a label that they reject, basing their theology on the formula of Cyril of Alexandria that spoke of ''mia'' (one) ''physis'', not of a ''mone'' (lone) ''physis'';<ref>{{cite book|author=Ken Parry|title=The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC|date=10 May 2010|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-4443-3361-9|pages=104, 125}}</ref> and they distance themselves from and denounce the Eutychian interpretation of Monophysitism.<ref>{{cite book|author=John Anthony McGuckin|title=The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JmFetR5Wqd8C&pg=PT785|date=15 December 2010|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-4443-9254-8|page=785}}</ref> Miaphysitism is the official doctrine of the [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]],<ref name="ODLA">{{cite book|author=Oliver Nicholson|title=The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=A09WDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1016|date=19 April 2018|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-256246-3|page=1016}}</ref> who hold that the one hypostasis of Christ is fully divine and fully human,<ref>[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Miaphysitism Wiktionary]</ref> so that Christ became a real and perfect Man in body, mind, and soul without ever ceasing to be God,<ref>[https://www.wdacna.com/thearmenianchurch Tiran Nersoyan, "The Armenian Church: A Brief History]</ref>
* [[Tritheism|Tritheists]], a group of sixth-century monophysites said to have been founded by a monophysite named John Ascunages<ref>{{cite book|author=Simplicius|title=On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RAQsAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA9|date=2014|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-1-4725-0166-0|page=9}}</ref> of Antioch. Their principal writer was [[John Philoponus]], who taught that the common nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an abstraction of their distinct individual natures.<ref>{{cite book|author1=E. A. Livingstone|author2=M. W. D. Sparks|author3=R. W. Peacocke|title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DZecAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA573|date= 2013|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-965962-3|page=573}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15061b.htm|title=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tritheists|website=www.newadvent.org}}</ref>
* [[Severus of Antioch|Severians]] accepted the reality of Christ's human nature to the extent of insisting that his body was capable of corruption, but argued that, since a single person has a single nature and Christ was one person, not two, he had only a single nature. Agreeing in substance, though not in words, with the Definition of Chalcedon, Severians are known also as verbal Monophysites.<ref name="Hannah2019">{{cite book|author=John D. Hannah|title=Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=daamDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153|date=26 March 2019|publisher=Kregel Academic|isbn=978-0-8254-2775-6|page=153}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kEXOzNeSgWoC&pg=PA77|date=1 September 2010|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-1-4267-2191-5|pages=77–78, 81}}</ref>
* The [[Oriental Orthodox]], or [[Severus of Antioch|Severians]], accept the reality of Christ's human nature to the extent of insisting that his body was capable of corruption, but argue that, since a single person has a single nature and Christ is one person, not two, he has only a single nature. Agreeing in substance, though not in words, with the Definition of Chalcedon, they are called "verbal monophysites" by some [[Eastern Orthodox]].<ref name="Hannah2019">{{cite book|author=John D. Hannah|title=Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=daamDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153|date= 2019|publisher=Kregel Academic|isbn=978-0-8254-2775-6|page=153}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kEXOzNeSgWoC&pg=PA77|date= 2010|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-1-4267-2191-5|pages=77–78, 81}}</ref> The Oriental Orthodox reject the label of monophysitism and consider monophysitism a heresy, preferring to label their non-Chalcedonian beliefs as [[miaphysitism]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lotha |first=Gloria |date=2023-03-16 |title=Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Coptic-Orthodox-Church-of-Alexandria |access-date=2023-04-24 |publisher=[[Encyclopedia Britannica]] |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Petruzzello |first=Melissa |date=2023-04-13 |title=Monophysite |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/monophysite |access-date=2023-04-24 |publisher=[[Encyclopedia Britannica]] |language=en}}</ref>
* [[Tritheism|Tritheists]], a group of sixth-century Monophysites said to have been founded by a Monophysite named John Ascunages<ref>{{cite book|author=Simplicius|title=On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RAQsAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA9|date=22 April 2014|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-1-4725-0166-0|page=9}}</ref> of Antioch. Their principal writer was [[John Philoponus]], who taught that the common nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an abstraction of their distinct individual natures.<ref>{{cite book|author1=E. A. Livingstone|author2=M. W. D. Sparks|author3=R. W. Peacocke|title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DZecAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA573|date=12 September 2013|publisher=OUP Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-965962-3|page=573}}</ref><ref>[http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/15061b.htm John Chapman, "Tritheists" in ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' (New York 1912]</ref>


==Verbal Monophysitism==
==Verbal monophysitism==


Concerning verbal declarations of Monophysitism, Justo L. González stated, "in order not to give an erroneous idea of the theology of the so-called Monophysite churches, that have subsisted until the twentieth century, one should point out that all the extreme sects of Monophysism disappeared within a brief span, and that the Christology of the present so-called Monophysite churches is closer to a verbal than to a real Monophysism".
Concerning verbal declarations of monophysitism, Justo L. González stated, "in order not to give an erroneous idea of the theology of the so-called monophysite churches, that have subsisted until the twentieth century, one should point out that all the extreme sects of monophysism disappeared within a brief span, and that the Christology of the present so-called monophysite churches is closer to a verbal than to a real monophysism".<ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1VMeQcNyDjYC&pg=PA82|year=1987|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-0-687-17183-5|page=82}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1VMeQcNyDjYC&pg=PA82|year=1987|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-0-687-17183-5|page=82}}</ref>


== Political situation of Monophysitism after Chalcedon ==
== Political situation of monophysitism after Chalcedon ==


Under Emperor [[Basiliscus]], who ousted Emperor [[Zeno (emperor)|Zeno]] in 475, "the Monophysites reached the pinnacle of their power". In his ''Encyclion'', which he issued in the same year, he revoked the Council of Chalcedon and recognized the [[Second Council of Ephesus]] of 449 except for its approval of Eutyches, whom Basiliscus condemned. He required his edict to be signed by each bishop. Among the signatures he obtained were those of three of the four Eastern Patriarchs, but the Patriarch and the populace of the capital protested so resolutely that in 476, seeing that his overthrow was imminent, he issued his ''Anti-Encyclion'' revoking his former edict. In the same year, Zeno returned victoriously.<ref>{{cite book|author=E. Glenn Hinson|title=The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0ymn8dHYbaUC&pg=PT298|year=1996|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-0-687-00603-8|page=298}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Philip Hughes|title=History of the Church: Volume 1: The World In Which The Church Was Founded|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gSPUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA265|date=1 January 1948|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-7220-7981-2|page=265}}</ref>
Under Emperor [[Basiliscus]], who ousted Emperor [[Zeno (emperor)|Zeno]] in 475, "the monophysites reached the pinnacle of their power"{{whosequote}}. In his ''Encyclion'', which he issued in the same year, he revoked the Council of Chalcedon and recognized the [[Second Council of Ephesus]] of 449 except for its approval of Eutyches, whom Basiliscus condemned. He required his edict to be signed by each bishop. Among the signatures he obtained were those of three of the four Eastern Patriarchs, but the Patriarch and the populace of the capital protested so resolutely that in 476, seeing that his overthrow was imminent, he issued his ''Anti-Encyclion'' revoking his former edict. In the same year, Zeno returned victoriously.<ref>{{cite book|author=E. Glenn Hinson|title=The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0ymn8dHYbaUC&pg=PT298|year=1996|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-0-687-00603-8|page=298}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Philip Hughes|title=History of the Church: Volume 1: The World In Which The Church Was Founded|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gSPUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA265|date= 1948|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-7220-7981-2|page=265}}</ref>


Events had made it clear that there was a split between the population, staunchly Chalcedonian in sympathies, of Constantinople and the Balkans and the largely anti-Chalcedonian population of Egypt and Syria. In an attempt to reconcile both sides, Zeno, with the support of [[Acacius of Constantinople]] and [[Peter III of Alexandria]], tried to enforce the compromise [[Henoticon]] (Formula of Union) decree of 482, which condemned Eutyches but ignored Chalcedon. Schisms followed on both sides. [[Holy See|Rome]] excommunicated Acacius (leading to the 35-year [[Acacian schism]]), while in Egypt the [[Acephali]] broke away from Peter III. The Acacian schism continued under Zeno's successor, the Monophysite [[Anastasius I Dicorus]] and ended only with the accession of the Chalcedonian [[Justin I]] in 518.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Bryan Ward-Perkins|author2=Michael Whitby|title=The Cambridge ancient history. 14. Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425 - 600|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qf8mrHjfZRoC&pg=PA51|year=2000|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-32591-2|pages=51–52}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kEXOzNeSgWoC&pg=PA79|date=1 September 2010|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-1-4267-2191-5|pages=79–82}}</ref>
Events had made it clear that there was a split between the population, staunchly Chalcedonian in sympathies, of Constantinople and the Balkans and the largely anti-Chalcedonian population of Egypt and Syria. In an attempt to reconcile both sides, Zeno, with the support of [[Acacius of Constantinople]] and [[Peter III of Alexandria]], tried to enforce the compromise [[Henoticon]] (Formula of Union) decree of 482, which condemned Eutyches but ignored Chalcedon. Schisms followed on both sides. [[Holy See|Rome]] excommunicated Acacius (leading to the 35-year [[Acacian schism]]), while in Egypt the [[Acephali]] broke away from Peter III. The Acacian schism continued under Zeno's successor, the monophysite [[Anastasius I Dicorus]] and ended only with the accession of the Chalcedonian [[Justin I]] in 518.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Bryan Ward-Perkins|author2=Michael Whitby|title=The Cambridge ancient history. 14. Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425–600|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Qf8mrHjfZRoC&pg=PA51|year=2000|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-32591-2|pages=51–52}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Justo L. González|title=A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kEXOzNeSgWoC&pg=PA79|date= 2010|publisher=Abingdon Press|isbn=978-1-4267-2191-5|pages=79–82}}</ref>


Justin I was succeeded by the Chalcedonian [[Justinian I]] (527–565), whose wife, however, the [[Empress Theodora]], protected and assisted the Monophysites.<ref name=":0" /> [[Ghassanids|Ghassanid]] patronage of the Monophysite Syrian Church during this time, under [[phylarch]] [[Al-Harith ibn Jabalah]], was crucial for its survival and revival, and even its spread.<ref>Rome in the East, Warwick Ball, Routledge, 2000, p. 105</ref> Justinian I was followed by [[Justin II]], who, after being, perhaps because of Theodora's influence, a Monophysite, converted to the Chalcedonian faith before obtaining the imperial throne. Some time later, he adopted a policy of persecuting the Monophysites.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|author=John Wesley Barker|title=Justinian and the Later Roman Empire|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LiJljEXvwAoC&pg=PA212|year=1966|publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press|isbn=978-0-299-03944-8|pages=212–213}}</ref> From Justinian I on, no emperor was a declared Monophysite, although they continued their efforts to find compromise formulas such as [[monoenergism]] and [[monothelitism]].
Justin I was succeeded by the Chalcedonian [[Justinian I]] (527–565), whose wife [[Theodora (wife of Justinian I)|Empress Theodora]] protected and assisted the monophysites.<ref name=":0" /> [[Ghassanids|Ghassanid]] patronage of the monophysite Syrian Church under [[phylarch]] [[Al-Harith ibn Jabalah]] was crucial for its survival, revival, and even its spread.<ref>Rome in the East, Warwick Ball, Routledge, 2000, p. 105</ref> Justinian I was followed by [[Justin II]], who after being a monophysite, perhaps because of Theodora's influence, converted to the Chalcedonian faith before obtaining the imperial throne. Some time later, he adopted a policy of persecuting the monophysites.<ref name=":0">{{cite book|author=John Wesley Barker|title=Justinian and the Later Roman Empire|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LiJljEXvwAoC&pg=PA212|year=1966|publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press|isbn=978-0-299-03944-8|pages=212–213}}</ref> From Justinian I on, no emperor was a declared monophysite, although they continued their efforts to find compromise formulas such as [[monoenergism]] and [[monothelitism]].

== See also ==
* [[Miaphysitism]]
* [[Chalcedonian Christianity]] (Jesus's divinity was also viewed as one nature by a minority of Roman Christians around the time of the [[Council of Chalcedon]])<ref>{{Cite book |last=Olupona |first=Jacob K. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/839396781 |title=African Religions: A Very Short Introduction |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-19-979058-6 |location=Oxford |pages=90 |oclc=839396781}}</ref>


== References ==
== References ==
Line 45: Line 47:
[[Category:Christianity in the Byzantine Empire]]
[[Category:Christianity in the Byzantine Empire]]
[[Category:Christianity in the Middle East]]
[[Category:Christianity in the Middle East]]
[[Category:Christology]]
[[Category:Heresy in Christianity]]
[[Category:Heresy in Christianity]]
[[Category:Schisms in Christianity]]
[[Category:Schisms in Christianity]]
[[Category:Nature of Jesus Christ]]

Revision as of 18:55, 31 August 2024

Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator
Concepts
Doctrines
Christological doctrines
By denomination
Not to be confused with Miaphysitism.

Monophysitism (/məˈnɒfɪsaɪtɪzəm/ mə-NOF-ih-seye-tih-zəm[1]) or monophysism (/məˈnɒfɪzɪzəm/ mə-NOF-ih-zih-zəm; from Greek μόνος monos, "solitary"[2] and φύσις physis, "nature") is a Christology that states that there was only one nature—the divine—in the person of Jesus Christ, who was the incarnated Word.[3]

Background

The First Council of Nicaea (325) declared that Christ was both divine (homoousios, consubstantial, of one being or essence, with the Father) and human (was incarnate and became man). In the fifth century a heated controversy arose between the sees and theological schools of Antioch and Alexandria about how divinity and humanity existed in Christ,[4] with the former stressing the humanity, the latter the divinity of Christ. Cyril of Alexandria succeeded in having Nestorius, a prominent exponent of the Antiochian school, condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and insisted on the formula "one physis of the incarnate Word", claiming that any formula that spoke of two physeis represented Nestorianism. Some taught that in Christ the human nature was completely absorbed by the divine, leaving only a divine nature. In 451, the Council of Chalcedon, on the basis of Pope Leo the Great's 449 declaration, defined that in Christ there were two natures united in one person.[5]

Those who insisted on the "one physis" formula were referred to as monophysites (/məˈnɒfɪsaɪts/), while those who accepted the "two natures" definition were called dyophysites, a term applied also to followers of Nestorianism.

Groups called monophysite

The forms of monophysism were numerous, and included the following:

  • Acephali were monophysites who in 482 broke away from Peter III of Alexandria who made an agreement with Acacius of Constantinople, sanctioned by Emperor Zeno with his Henotikon edict that condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches, as the Council of Chalcedon had done, but ignored that council's decree on the two natures of Christ. They saw this as a betrayal of S. Cyrils use of "mia physis" and refused to be subject to the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria, preferring to be instead ecclesiastically "without a head" (the meaning of acephali).[6] For this, they were known as Headless Ones.[7]
  • Agnoetae, Themistians or Agnosticists, founded by Themistius Calonymus around 534, held that the nature of Jesus Christ, although divine, was like other men's in all respects, including limited knowledge.[8][9] They must be distinguished from a fourth-century group called by the same name, who denied that God knew the past and the future.[10]
  • Aphthartodocetae, Phantasiasts or, after their leader Julian of Halicarnassus, Julianists believed "that the body of Christ, from the very moment of his conception, was incorruptible, immortal and impassible, as it was after the resurrection, and held that the suffering and death on the cross was a miracle contrary to the normal conditions of Christ's humanity".[11] Emperor Justinian I wished to have this teaching adopted as orthodox, but died before he could put his plans into effect.[12]
  • Apollinarians or Apollinarists, named after Apollinaris of Laodicea (who died in 390) proposed that Jesus had a normal human body but had a divine mind instead of a regular human soul. This teaching was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople (381) and died out within a few decades.[13] Cyril of Alexandria declared it a mad proposal.[14]
  • Docetists, not all of whom were monophysites, held that Jesus had no human nature: his humanity was only a phantasm, which, united with the impassible, immaterial divine nature, could not really suffer and die.[15][16]
  • Eutychians taught that Jesus had only one nature, a union of the divine and human that is not an even compound, since what is divine is infinitely larger than what is human: the humanity is absorbed by and transmuted into the divinity, as a drop of honey, mixing with the water of the sea, vanishes. The body of Christ, thus transmuted, is not consubstantial homoousios with humankind.[17][18] In contrast to Severians, who are called verbal monophysites, Eutychianists are called real or ontological monophysites,[19][20][21] and their teaching is "an extreme form of the monophysite heresy that emphasizes the exclusive prevalence of the divinity in Christ".[22]
  • Tritheists, a group of sixth-century monophysites said to have been founded by a monophysite named John Ascunages[23] of Antioch. Their principal writer was John Philoponus, who taught that the common nature of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an abstraction of their distinct individual natures.[24][25]
  • The Oriental Orthodox, or Severians, accept the reality of Christ's human nature to the extent of insisting that his body was capable of corruption, but argue that, since a single person has a single nature and Christ is one person, not two, he has only a single nature. Agreeing in substance, though not in words, with the Definition of Chalcedon, they are called "verbal monophysites" by some Eastern Orthodox.[19][26] The Oriental Orthodox reject the label of monophysitism and consider monophysitism a heresy, preferring to label their non-Chalcedonian beliefs as miaphysitism.[27][28]

Verbal monophysitism

Concerning verbal declarations of monophysitism, Justo L. González stated, "in order not to give an erroneous idea of the theology of the so-called monophysite churches, that have subsisted until the twentieth century, one should point out that all the extreme sects of monophysism disappeared within a brief span, and that the Christology of the present so-called monophysite churches is closer to a verbal than to a real monophysism".[29]

Political situation of monophysitism after Chalcedon

Under Emperor Basiliscus, who ousted Emperor Zeno in 475, "the monophysites reached the pinnacle of their power"[who said this?]. In his Encyclion, which he issued in the same year, he revoked the Council of Chalcedon and recognized the Second Council of Ephesus of 449 except for its approval of Eutyches, whom Basiliscus condemned. He required his edict to be signed by each bishop. Among the signatures he obtained were those of three of the four Eastern Patriarchs, but the Patriarch and the populace of the capital protested so resolutely that in 476, seeing that his overthrow was imminent, he issued his Anti-Encyclion revoking his former edict. In the same year, Zeno returned victoriously.[30][31]

Events had made it clear that there was a split between the population, staunchly Chalcedonian in sympathies, of Constantinople and the Balkans and the largely anti-Chalcedonian population of Egypt and Syria. In an attempt to reconcile both sides, Zeno, with the support of Acacius of Constantinople and Peter III of Alexandria, tried to enforce the compromise Henoticon (Formula of Union) decree of 482, which condemned Eutyches but ignored Chalcedon. Schisms followed on both sides. Rome excommunicated Acacius (leading to the 35-year Acacian schism), while in Egypt the Acephali broke away from Peter III. The Acacian schism continued under Zeno's successor, the monophysite Anastasius I Dicorus and ended only with the accession of the Chalcedonian Justin I in 518.[32][33]

Justin I was succeeded by the Chalcedonian Justinian I (527–565), whose wife Empress Theodora protected and assisted the monophysites.[34] Ghassanid patronage of the monophysite Syrian Church under phylarch Al-Harith ibn Jabalah was crucial for its survival, revival, and even its spread.[35] Justinian I was followed by Justin II, who after being a monophysite, perhaps because of Theodora's influence, converted to the Chalcedonian faith before obtaining the imperial throne. Some time later, he adopted a policy of persecuting the monophysites.[34] From Justinian I on, no emperor was a declared monophysite, although they continued their efforts to find compromise formulas such as monoenergism and monothelitism.

See also

References

  1. ^ "monophysitism". Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.
  2. ^ "Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, μόνος". www.perseus.tufts.edu.
  3. ^ Orlando O. Espín; James B. Nickoloff (2007). An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies. Liturgical Press. p. 902. ISBN 978-0-8146-5856-7.
  4. ^ Ted Campbell (1996). Christian Confessions: A Historical Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-664-25650-0.
  5. ^ Christopher Kleinhenz (2004). Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. p. 762. ISBN 978-1-135-94880-1.
  6. ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Acephali". www.newadvent.org.
  7. ^ "A Reply to Fr. John Morris Concerning His Review of My Book, The Non-Orthodox". orthodoxinfo.com. Retrieved 2022-11-15.
  8. ^ Frank Leslie Cross; Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
  9. ^ Justo L. González (2010). A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation. Abingdon Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-1-4267-2191-5.
  10. ^ J. C. Cooper (2013). Dictionary of Christianity. Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-134-26546-6.
  11. ^ Mary Clayton (1998). The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-521-58168-4.
  12. ^ William Holmes (2017). The Age of Justinian. Jovian Press. p. 280. ISBN 978-1-5378-1078-2.
  13. ^ Sollier, Joseph. "Apollinarianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 8 February 2019
  14. ^ McGuckin (1994). St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts. Brill. p. 109. ISBN 978-90-04-31290-6.
  15. ^ Daniel R. Streett (2011). They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 38–39. ISBN 978-3-11-024771-8.
  16. ^ J.R.C. Cousland (2017). Holy Terror: Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-567-66817-2.
  17. ^ E. A. Livingstone; M. W. D. Sparks; R. W. Peacocke (2013). "Monophysitism". The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-965962-3.
  18. ^ Fred Sanders; Klaus Issler (2007). Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology. B&H Publishing Group. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-8054-4422-3.
  19. ^ a b John D. Hannah (2019). Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity. Kregel Academic. p. 153. ISBN 978-0-8254-2775-6.
  20. ^ Hans van Loon (2009). The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Brill. p. 33. ISBN 978-90-474-2669-1.
  21. ^ Bernhard Bischoff; Michael Lapidge (1994). Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian. Cambridge University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-521-33089-3.
  22. ^ "Eutyches | Orthodox abbot".
  23. ^ Simplicius (2014). On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2-3. A&C Black. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-4725-0166-0.
  24. ^ E. A. Livingstone; M. W. D. Sparks; R. W. Peacocke (2013). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. OUP Oxford. p. 573. ISBN 978-0-19-965962-3.
  25. ^ "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tritheists". www.newadvent.org.
  26. ^ Justo L. González (2010). A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation. Abingdon Press. pp. 77–78, 81. ISBN 978-1-4267-2191-5.
  27. ^ Lotha, Gloria (2023-03-16). "Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
  28. ^ Petruzzello, Melissa (2023-04-13). "Monophysite". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
  29. ^ Justo L. González (1987). A History of Christian Thought Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation. Abingdon Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-687-17183-5.
  30. ^ E. Glenn Hinson (1996). The Early Church: Origins to the Dawn of the Middle Ages. Abingdon Press. p. 298. ISBN 978-0-687-00603-8.
  31. ^ Philip Hughes (1948). History of the Church: Volume 1: The World In Which The Church Was Founded. A&C Black. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-7220-7981-2.
  32. ^ Bryan Ward-Perkins; Michael Whitby (2000). The Cambridge ancient history. 14. Late antiquity: empire and successors, A.D. 425–600. Cambridge University Press. pp. 51–52. ISBN 978-0-521-32591-2.
  33. ^ Justo L. González (2010). A History of Christian Thought Volume II: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation. Abingdon Press. pp. 79–82. ISBN 978-1-4267-2191-5.
  34. ^ a b John Wesley Barker (1966). Justinian and the Later Roman Empire. Univ of Wisconsin Press. pp. 212–213. ISBN 978-0-299-03944-8.
  35. ^ Rome in the East, Warwick Ball, Routledge, 2000, p. 105
  36. ^ Olupona, Jacob K. (2014). African Religions: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 90. ISBN 978-0-19-979058-6. OCLC 839396781.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monophysitism&oldid=1243305495"