Monophysitism Is False

Originally posted 1/30/2009.

MYTH
Jesus Christ subsists in only one nature

Monophysitism is false. All possible attempts to justify Monophysitism fail. Scripture plainly positively excludes the heresy.


Jn 6:38: Because I came down from Heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him that sent Me.
WRH: (1) Christ cannot make such a distinction of wills if He does not subsist in two natures. St. Paul the Apostle says in

Phil 2:5-9: For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross. For which cause, God also hath exalted Him and hath given Him a name which is above all names…

(2) Thus there are two forms, i.e., two natures in Christ.{1} (3) The form of God and the form of a servant are not the same, because, says St. Thomas Aquinas, “nothing takes that which it already has.”{2} (4) If the hypostatic union changed the form of God subsisting in Christ, then Christ would not be God after the union of natures,{3} but the Scriptures clearly call Christ God in both the Old and New Testaments.{4} (5) The form of God and the form of a servant were not mixed into one nature, because then each form would become “partially changed” and diminished, i.e., not whole.{5}

(6) If the two natures are mixed, then only a strange third nature, not the divine and human natures, would remain, so Christ cannot be of two natures and not subsist in two natures.{6} There are two possibilities in the Eutychian paradigm, then: either (7) only the divine nature remained and Christ was not really human but only appeared to be human (the heresy of the Manicheans), or (8) the divine nature changed into a human nature, which is patently absurd.{7}

(9) When one nature is made “of two permanent components, these components are either” body parts, e.g., animal limbs, which is not applicable to this case, or the components are matter and form, e.g., body and soul, but the divine persons are not composed of matter and form.{8}

(10) Finally, it cannot be said that Christ subsists in one compound divine-human nature, or else Christ is not consubstantial with the Father because the Father does not subsist in a divine-human nature, and Christ is not consubstantial with us, because the Theotókos does not subsist in a divine-human nature.{9} But it is written, Heb 2:17: “Wherefore, it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that He might be a propitiation for the sins of the people.”{10} Cyrillian Miaphysitism is not the same as Monophysitism,{11} and anyone saying that one nature results from two, which is not the sense of the Doctor Incarnationis St. Cyril of Alexandria, is a heretic.

Notes & References
{1} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Doctor Angelicus). “Book IV, Article 35: Against the Error of Eutyches.” Trans. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., M.A. Summa Contra Gentiles: Of God and His Creatures. London: Burnes and Oates, 1905. 30 Jan. 2009 <http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc4_35.htm>.
{2} Ibid.
{3} Ibid.
{4} “Jesus Christ Is God!” The Banana Republican. 20 Jan. 2009. 30 Feb. 2009 <http://thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2009/01/jesus-christ-is-god.html>. This under construction post thus far includes citations from 35 of the 73 books of the Bible: Psalms, Proverbs, Wisdom, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Micah, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation.
{5} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Doctor Angelicus). “Book IV, Article 35: Against the Error of Eutyches.” Trans. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., M.A. Summa Contra Gentiles: Of God and His Creatures. London: Burnes and Oates, 1905. 30 Jan. 2009 <http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc4_35.htm>.
{6} Ibid.
{7} Ibid.
{8} Ibid.
{9} St. John of Damascus (Doctor), An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3:3, “Concerning Christ’s two natures, in opposition to those who hold that He has only one” @ http://newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm.
{10} Aquinas, St. Thomas (Doctor Angelicus). “Book IV, Article 35: Against the Error of Eutyches.” Trans. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., M.A. Summa Contra Gentiles: Of God and His Creatures. London: Burnes and Oates, 1905. 30 Jan. 2009 <http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc4_35.htm>.
{11} “Miaphysitism.” The Banana Republican. 25 Feb. 2008. 30 Jan. 2009 <https://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/miaphysitism/>.

Advertisements

3 Responses to Monophysitism Is False

  1. […] Monophysitism *Monophysitism Is False […]

  2. […] doctor” [Mansi vii:190CD] after the latter anathematized the heresiarchs Nestorios and Eutyches. Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I, Pelagius II, and the Doctor St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (9/3) all […]

  3. […] nature.{2} The properties of the human nature cannot be predicated of the divine nature, because the two natures remain distinct from one another and do not become one […]

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: