The Monophysite Writers

Originally posted 8/20/2009.

MYTH
Dioscoros, Severos, and Timohy Ailouros were orthodox and unjustly condemned

1. This post is meant to dispel the myth that the Monophysite heresiarchs the Oriental Orthodox Churches venerates as its doctors were orthodox “Miaphysites” like various Wikipedia articles say.

Dioscoros
2. The Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils condemned as a Monophysite Patriarch Dioscoros “the Great” of Alexandria (d. 9/17/454), who exonerated the unrepentant heretic Eutyches at the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449 and rejected the Creed of Union signed by his predecessor St. Cyril I, and said that the blood of Christ is incorruptible κατά φύσίν (by nature, i.e., of its own nature),{1} but this plainly obliterates the διαίρεσις (distinction) between and leads to a κρασίς (mixing) of the divine nature and the human nature.


{1} Patriarch St. Nicephoros of Constantinople, Book of Selections Against Eusebius and Epiphanides 30:V in Jean-Baptiste-François Cardinal Pitra: Spicilegium Solesmense IV:380 (Paris, 1858).

Peter the Fuller
3. Patriarch Peter II the Fuller of Antioch, who accepted the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno, added ό σταυρωθεις δι’ ήμας (Who was crucified for us) to the Trisagion, thereby making all three Persons of the Trinity suffer. He thus revived Patripassianism.

Severos
4. Patriarch Severos of Antioch, who accepted the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno and rejected the Creed of Union signed by Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria–whom he pretended to follow in all matters Christological [PG 89:103D]–affirmed μία φύσις θεανδρική (one theandric nature) of Christ. This is impossible, because if Christ had a single συνθετος (compound) divine-human φύσις, He would not be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who subsist only in the divine nature, nor would he be consubstantial with us, because we do not have a divine-human nature. Severos also affirmed μία θεανδρική ένέργεία, by which Christ acts in all things. Divine actions exercised in and through the human nature (raising the dead by a word and healing the sick by a touch) are formally theandric (divino-human). This is the theandric energy to which St. Dionysios the Areopagite refers [Letter 4 to Caius in PG 3:1072C]. Purely human actions exercised in response to the divine will (walking and eating) are materially theandric (humano-divine). But there are purely divine actions (creating souls and conserving the universe) that are not theandric, and so not all of the activities of Christ are theandric. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III), in Session 10 [Mansi xi:443BC], quoted the following absurd statement of Severos from his Epistle 2 to Count Oecumenis: “Yet one, i.e. Incarnate Word, wrought one and the other–neither was this from one nature, and that from another; nor can we justly affirm that because there are distinct things operated there are therefore two operating natures and forms.”Timothy
5. Patriarch Timothy III αίλουρος (the Weasel) of Alexandria, who spurned the Creed of Union signed by Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria [PG 86A:276B],{1} rejected even the formula εκ δύο φύσεων (from two natures) because “There is no nature which is not a hypostasis, nor hypostasis which is not a person,” and said that therefore there were two natures neither “before” nor after the Incarnation. This leads to the impossible doctrine that Christ simultaneously immortal and mortal in the same nature (i.e., A and ~A at the same time in the same sense).

{1} “Cyril… having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of μία φύσις Θeoυ Λόγου (one nature of God the Word), he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two natures of Christ.” Notice that Timothy omitted the crucial adjective “incarnate” from the Cyrillian formula.

Advertisements

5 Responses to The Monophysite Writers

  1. […] Macarios). The see of Alexandria succumbed to Monophysitism (Dioscoros “the Great”, Timothy Aeluros, Peter Mongo, Athanasius II, John II, John III, Timothy III, Theodosius, Damianos) after its wicked […]

  2. […] Oriental Orthodox Doctors *The Monophysite Writers *Was Severus of Antioch Orthodox? Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)MiaphysiteSt. […]

  3. […] Eastern Catholics on the Byzantine Catholic Forum: *“They had a beautiful icon of . . . St Dioscoros of Alexandria, which I purchased. They asked me my religious affiliation and then the two Copts looked at each […]

  4. […] The ordo theologiae of the Nestorians is two natures → two persons, while the ordo theologiae of the Monophysites is one person → one nature. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Contra NestoriusWas […]

  5. […] Harmonious Energies & Wills 5. There are two energies (operations) in Christ,{31} and two distinct wills [Lk 22:42]: the divine and human.{32} In Christ there is a will of […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: