Hovorun Theological Controversy in the Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ -...
description
Transcript of Hovorun Theological Controversy in the Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ -...
-
g.
Durham E-Theses
Theological controversy in the seventh century
concerning activities and wills in Christ
Hovorun, Serhiy
How to cite:
Hovorun, Serhiy (2003) Theological controversy in the seventh century concerning activities and wills in
Christ, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham -Theses Online:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4061/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes provided t h a t :
a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4061/
-
Academic Support Office, Durham University, University Office, Old Elvet, Durham D H l 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107
http: / /etheses.dur.ac.uk
mailto:[email protected]://etheses.dur.ac.uk
-
THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY
CONCERNING ACTIVITIES AND WILLS IN CHRIST
Serhiy Hovorun
Faculty of Theology
University of Durham
PhD. Thesis
2003
ABSTRACT
The primary purpose of the thesis is to fill the existing gaps in our
understanding of various theological and political aspects of the controversy
that took place in both Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire in the
seventh century the main theological point of which was whether Christ had
one or two energeiai and wills.
Before corning to any conclusions on this subject, I shall investigate the
preliminary forms of Monenergism and Monothelitism i.e., belief in a single
energeia and will of Christ, which were incorporated in the major Christological
systems developed by Apollinarius of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and
Severus of Antioch (chapters 1-3).
Against this background, it becomes obvious that the Chalcedonian
Monenergism and later Monothelitism emerged from the movement of neo-
Chalcedonianism. It was an attempt by the political and ecclesiastical
authorities to achieve a theological compromise with various non-Chalcedonian
groups, mainly Severian, but also 'Nestoriari. Their ultimate goal was to
reconcile these groups with the Catholic Church of the Empire (chapter 4).
However, this project of reconciliation on the basis of the single-energeia
formula was contested by the representatives of the same neo-Chalcedonian
tradition and consequently condemned at the Councils of Lateran (649) and
Constantinople (680/681). Thus, the same neo-Chalcedonian tradition produced
two self-sufficient and antagonistic doctrines. A major concern of the thesis is to
expose and compare systematically their doctrinal content per se and in the
wider context of the principles of neo-Chalcedonianism (chapter 5).
-
A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.
THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE
SEVENTH CENTURY CONCERNING
ACTIVITIES AND WILLS
IN CHRIST
Serhiy Hovorun
Ph. D. Thesis
University of Durham
Department of Theology
2003
3 0 SEP
-
2
TABLEOFCONTENT
Declaration ..........................................................................................................6
Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................7
Introduction ........................................................................................................8
1.FourmainkindsofMonenergismMonothelitism..................................14
2.PreChalcedonianMonenergismMonothelitism....................................21
2.1.ApollinariusofLaodicea ......................................................................21
2.2.Antiochiantradition..............................................................................26
3.AntiChalcedonianMonenergismandMonothelitism...........................35
3.1.Severusandhisdisciplesadversaries ................................................35
3.1.1.MonenergismofSeverusofAntioch ...........................................35
3.1.2.MonothelitismofSeverus .............................................................48
3.1.3.JulianofHalicarnassus ..................................................................53
3.1.4.SergiustheGrammarian ...............................................................56
3.1.5.Conclusions .....................................................................................59
3.2.Theopaschism ........................................................................................61
3.3.AspecialcaseofSeveranMonenergism:Agnoetes..........................75
3.4.TherefutationoftheAgnoetesbytheSeverans ...............................80
3.4.1.TheodosiusofAlexandria .............................................................80
3.4.2.AnthimusofTrebizond .................................................................84
3.4.3.Colluthus .........................................................................................86
3.4.4.ConstantineofLaodicea................................................................87
-
3
3.5. Monophysite Monenergism on the eve of and during the
controversy................................................................................................................89
4.History ...........................................................................................................93
4.1.Historicalpremises ...............................................................................93
4.2.Settingupthenewdoctrine.................................................................97
4.3.Alexandrianunion ..............................................................................117
4.4.TheEcthesis ...........................................................................................128
4.5.MaximusandtheWest:strategicalliance........................................134
4.6.TheTypos...............................................................................................142
4.7.TheLateranCouncil............................................................................144
4.8.ThesixthecumenicalCouncil............................................................148
4.9.MonothelitismaftertheCouncil .......................................................156
4.10.Conclusions ........................................................................................160
5. Imperial MonenergismMonothelitism versus Dyenergism
Dyothelitism................................................................................................................162
5.1.Keynotions...........................................................................................162
5.1.1.TheonenessofChrist...................................................................162
5.1.2.Onehypostasisandtwonatures................................................164
5.1.3.Naturalproperties........................................................................167
5.1.4.Energeia...........................................................................................171
5.1.4.1.Notion .....................................................................................171
5.1.4.2.Anewtheandricenergeia ....................................................177
-
4
5.1.4.3.Twoenergeiai...........................................................................193
5.1.4.4.Createdanduncreatedenergeiai ..........................................198
5.1.5.Will .................................................................................................200
5.1.5.1.Notion .....................................................................................200
5.1.5.2.Oneortwowills ....................................................................203
5.2.Relationsbetweenmaincategories...................................................220
5.2.1.EnergeiaOneWhoActs ............................................................220
5.2.2.WillOneWhoWills..................................................................234
5.2.3.Willnous ..................................................................................242
5.2.4.Energeianature ...........................................................................246
5.2.5.Willnature ....................................................................................254
5.2.6.Energeiawillnaturalproperties............................................261
5.2.7.Energeiawill................................................................................264
5.3.TheContributionofAnastasiusofSinai ..........................................266
5.3.1.WhowasAnastasiusaddressing?..............................................268
5.3.2.Hypostasisnaturewillenergeia ..........................................272
5.3.3.Theandricenergeia ........................................................................296
5.3.4.Argumentsinfavouroftwoenergeiai ........................................299
5.3.4.1.Diversityofactivities ............................................................300
5.3.4.2.TheConnectionbetweenenergeiaiandproperties............320
5.3.4.3.ImageofChrist ......................................................................321
5.3.5.Willenergeiasin.......................................................................326
-
5
5.3.6.FearofChrist.................................................................................327
5.4.TheMonothelitismoftheMaronites ................................................335
Conclusion.......................................................................................................350
Bibliography....................................................................................................354
-
DECLARATION
No part of the material offered in this thesis previously has been
submittedforadegreeinthisorinanyotheruniversity.
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation and
informationderivedfromthisthesisshouldbeacknowledged.
This thesis does not exceed the maximum length allowable by the
university.
-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FirstandforemostIwouldliketoexpressmydeepgratitudetoProfessor
AndrewLouth.Hissupervisionallowshisstudentstorealisetheirfullpotential
andskills inauniqueatmosphereofcreative freedom.At thesame time they
benefitfromhisimmenseerudition,whichhecombineswithaspecialpatristic
approach to the Fathers of theChurch. This is an approach that the Fathers
appliedthemselves.
I also feel indebted to my Professors at the University of Athens,
StylianosPapadopoulosandVlasiosPheidas,whotaughtmetoapplythesame
approach inmy studies of the Fathers. Professor Pheidas also suggested the
topicofthethesisandgaveinitialguidelines.IamespeciallygratefultoBishop
Hilarion(Alfeyev)asithewhoinspiredmetocontinuemyeducationinBritain.
IalsowishtoexpressgratitudetoDr.SebastianBrockforhiselucidating
explanation concerning the transmission of the text of psDionysius into the
Syriactradition;toDr.RichardSorabjiforhisinvaluablesuggestionsconcerning
thephilosophicalbackgroundof thecontroversy; to IrinaKukotawhohelped
megainaccesstosomebooksandtoreadaSyriacmanuscript;andtoMagnus
Wheelerand JackieKeirswhoundertook strenuous taskofproofreading this
dissertation. Finally, Iwould like to thank the Aid to the Church inNeed, St
Andrews Trust and particularly its former directorDarylHardman, and the
ChurchMissionSocietyfortheirfinancialassistanceduringmyresearch.Without
theirsupport,thisthesiswouldhaveneverbeenwritten.
-
8
INTRODUCTION
Thecontroversyconcerning energeiaiandwills inChristwas fora long
timeunderstudied.Itremainedasubjectofinterestforafewscholarsonlywho
touchedonitoccasionally,ofteninthecontextofotherproblems.1Onlyrecently
aseriesofresearchesappearedwhichdramaticallywidenedourunderstanding
ofthecontroversyinitsvariousaspects.
First,aseriesofcriticallyeditedsourceson the theologyof theseventh
centuryendowed thescholarshipwithpowerful toolsof research.Among the
most important of these were the acts of the Lateran (649) and
Constantinopolitan (680/681)CouncilseditedbyRudolfRiedinger2, theworks
ofMaximustheConfessorthathavebeenpublishedsofarintheseriesCorpus
1SeeWernerElert,WilhelmMaurer,andElisabethBergstrsser.DerAusgangderaltkirchlichenChristologie: eineUntersuchungberTheodor vonPharanund seineZeit alsEinfhrung in die alteDogmengeschichte. Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957; Siegfried Helmer, DerNeuchalkedonismus:Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes.Bonn:[s.n.],1962.
2 Rudolf Riedinger. Concilium Lateranense a 649 Celebratum,Acta ConciliorumOecumenicorum.Series Secunda; 1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1984 (henceforth ACO2 I); Concilium UniversaleConstantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones IXI, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. SeriesSecunda; 2,1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1990 (henceforth ACO2 II1); Concilium UniversaleConstantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones XIIXVIII, Epistulae, Indices, Acta ConciliorumOecumenicorum.SeriesSecunda;V.2,2.Berolini:DeGruyter,1992(henceforthACO2II2).Thesamescholar published a series ofmaterials related to the text of the acts and the history of theCouncils: Die Lateranakten von 649: einWerk der Byzantiner umMaximosHomologetes.Byzantina13. (Doremaston I.Karagiannopoulo) (1985);DiePrsenzundSubskriptionslistendesVI.OekumenischenKonzils(680/81)undderPapyrusVind.G.3,Abhandlungen/BayerischeAkademieder Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; n.F., Heft 85. Munchen: Verlag derBayerischen Akademie derWissenschaften: In Kommission bei C.H.Beck, 1979; LateinischeUbersetzungengriechischerHretikertextedessiebentenJahrhunderts,Sitzungsberichte/sterreichischeAkademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; Bd. 352. Wien: OsterreichischeAkademie derWissenschaften, 1979; Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsakten des 7. Jahrhunderts,Instrumentapatristica;34.Steenbrugis;Turnhout:inAbbatiaS.Petri:Brepols,1998.
-
9
Christianorum1, as well as biographical materials2 related to him, and the
writingsofAnastasiusSinaitapublishedbyKarlHeinzUthemann3.Second,the
studiesofthehistoryandthebackgroundofthecontroversyhavedramatically
advancedinrecentyears.Thus,therelativelyoldbutstillvaluableresearchesof
Garegin Owsepian4, Venance Grumel5, and Erich Caspar6 were significantly
enrichedbytheextensivestudiesofJanLouisVanDieten7,PietroConte1,Franz
1Quaestiones ad Thalassium: una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita,Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 1980; Quaestiones et dubia, CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca; 10.Brepols:Turnhout;Leuven:UniversityPress,1982;Ambigua adIohannem iuxta Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae latinam interpretationem, Corpus Christianorum. SeriesGraeca; 18.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress, 1988;Opuscula exegetica duo.Expositio inPsalmum LIX.Expositio orationis dominicae,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca; 23.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress,1991;Liberasceticus,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca; 40.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:UniversityPress, 2000;Ambigua adThomamunacumepistulasecundaadeundem,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;48.Turnhout:Brepols,2002.
2SeetheSyriacVitaofMaximuspublishedbySebastianBrockAnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximustheConfessor.AnalectaBollandiana41(1973);seealsoScriptasaeculiVIIvitamMaximiConfessorisillustrantia,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;39.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols;UniversityPress,1999.PaulineAllenandBronwenNeil.MaximustheConfessorandhiscompanions:documentsfromexile,OxfordEarlyChristianTexts.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.
3 Anastasii Sinaitae Viae dux. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols; University Press, 1981; AnastasiiSinaitaeSermonesduo inconstitutionemhominissecundum imaginemDei;necnonopusculaadversusMonotheletas, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 12. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols: LeuvenUniversityPress,1985.
4GareginOwsepian.DieEntstehungsgeschichtedesMonotheletismusnachihrenQuellengeprftunddargestellt.Leipzig,1897.
5V.Grumel.Les regestesdesactesduPatriarcatdeConstantinople.2ed., revueetcorrige (parJeanDarrouzs)ed,Patriarcatbyzantin;Sr.1.Paris:Institutfrancaisd etudesbyzantines,1972.;Recherchessurlhistoiredemonothlisme.EchosdOrient,no.27(1928);28(1929);29(1930).
6 Erich Caspar. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfngen bis zur Hhe der Weltherrschaft.Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1930.
7JanLouisvanDieten.GeschichtedergriechischenPatriarchenvonKonstantinopel,EnzyklopadiederByzantinistik;Bd.24.Amsterdam:A.M.Hakkert,1972.
-
10
Dlger2, andmost recentlyFriedhelmWinkelmann.3Additionally, the studies
on the secular history of Byzantium in the seventh century have advanced
dramatically,owing to theworkofAndreasStratos4, JohnHaldon5,WalterE.
Kaegi6etal.7
Theprimarypurposeofthepresentthesisistofilltheexistinglacunaein
ourunderstandingofvarioustheologicalaspectsofthecontroversyconcerning
the energeiai and wills, given that the scholarship has already achieved a
significant success in researching its historical background and its sources.
1 PietroConte. Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII, Pubblicazioni dellUniversitcattolicadelS.Cuore.Saggiericerche,SerieIII.Scienzestoriche,4.Milano:EditriceVitaePensiero,1971.
2 FranzDlger andPeterWirth.Regesten derKaiserurkunden des ostrmischenReiches von 5651453,CorpusdergriechischenUrkundendesMittelaltersundderneuerenZeit.ReiheA,Regesten;Abt.1.Munchen:Beck,1977.
3 Friedhelm Winkelmann. Der monenergetischmonotheletische Streit, Berliner byzantinistischeStudien; Bd. 6. Frankfurt amMain;Oxford: P. Lang, 2001. This book is based on an earlierpublicationofthescholarDieQuellenzurErforschungdesmonenergetischmonothelletischenStreites. Klio, no. 69 (1987): 51959. (Henceforth, both works will be referred to asWinkelmann,withanumberofentryfollowing,e.g.Winkelmann3.)
4AndreasStratos.Byzantiumintheseventhcentury.5vols.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1968.
5 John FHaldon. Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Rev. ed.Cambridge[England];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.
6WalterKaegi.Heraclius,EmperorofByzantium.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002;Byzantinemilitaryunrest,471843:aninterpretation.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1981.
7See, for instance,HelgaKpsteinandFriedhelmWinkelmann.Studienzum7. Jahrhundert inByzanz:ProblemederHerausbildungdesFeudalismus,BerlinerByantinistischeArbeiten;Bd47.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1976;WolframBrandes.DieStdteKleinasiensim7.und8.Jahrhundert,Berlinerbyzantinistische Arbeiten; Bd. 56. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1989; Hans Ditten. EthnischeVerschiebungenzwischenderBalkanhalbinselundKleinasienvomEndedes6.biszurzweitenHlftedes9. Jahrhunderts, Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten; Bd. 59. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993;G.J.Reinink and Bernard Stolte. The Reign of Heraclius (610641): Crisis and Confrontation,GroningenStudiesinCulturalChange.Leuven:Peeters,2002.
-
11
Among themain concerns of the dissertation is to reconstruct the doctrinal
systems of MonenergismMonothelitism and DyenergismDyothelitism, of
courseasfarasthesedoctrinesconstitutedasystem.Thetwodoctrineswillbe
analysed in the coordinates of the notions of hypostasis, nature, natural
property, energeia, andwill,which constituted the framework of theological
disputesintheseventhcentury.Inquiryintotherelationsbetweenthesenotions
willhelpus tounderstandbetter thedifferencesand similaritiesbetween the
two rivaldoctrines.Thewritingsof themajorparticipants in the controversy
willbeconsideredinthisframework,inparticularofTheodoreofPharan,Pope
Honorius,Sergius,Pyrrhus,andPaulthePatriarchsofConstantinople,Cyrusof
Alexandria,andMacariusofAntiochamongtheMonenergistsMonothelites,as
well as Sophronius of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, the Popes John,
Theodore,Martin,andAgathoandadditionallyAnastasiusofSinaiasthemajor
representativesoftheDyenergistDyotheliteparty.
The main figure among the Dyothelite theologians was undoubtedly
Maximus. However, his theological contribution will not be presented
separately,butasanintegralpartoftheresponseoftheChurchtothechallenge
ofMonenergismMonothelitism. I believe it could bemisleading to consider
Maximusasaselfsufficient theologianor thinker isolated from thecontextof
the MonenergistMonothelite controversy. The best of his Christological
writings were composed in response to the challenge of Monenergism
Monothelitismandconstitutedonlyapart, thoughavery importantpart,ofa
-
12
major polemical campaign. Therefore, I agree with Andrew Louth who
remarks: Although Maximus the Confessor is a speculative theologian of
genius,hedoesnotseehimself,aswouldsomelatertheologians,asconstructing
a theologicalsystem.Heseeshimselfas interpretingatraditionthathascome
downtohim,andinterpretingitforthesakeofothers.1
Atthesametime,IwillbeconsideringthetheologyofAnastasiusSinaita
separately from therestof theDyenergistDyothelitewritings.Firstly,because
hedidnotimmediatelyparticipateinthecontroversy,andsecondly,becausehis
theological heritage remains virtually unresearched. I intend therefore to
completethisomissionbydevotingaseparatechaptertohistheology.
Togetherwiththeinquiryintothecontentoftheissueoftheenergeiaand
will,IwilltrytolocateitsplaceinthegeneralhistoryofChristology,havingas
anultimateaim toshow that the issuewasnotoneofsecondary importance,
butactuallyoneofthemajorchallengesthattheChristologicaldoctrinefacedin
itshistory. Iwillalso try to show thatbothMonenergismMonothelitismand
DyenergismDyothelitism, in spite of their antagonism, had the same neo
Chalcedonian origin. MonenergismMonothelitism, in particular, was
developedasanattempt to findacompromisewith theSeveran tradition,an
important featureofwhichwasabelief inasingle energeiaofChrist.Severan
Monenergism,however,wasnotthefirstMonenergismtohaveexisted,butwas
1AndrewLouth.MaximustheConfessor.London;NewYork:Routledge,1996,21.
-
13
preceded by other Monenergisms, which were developed within traditions
linked toApollinarius of Laodicea and Theodore ofMopsuestia.One of the
tasks of thepresent thesis is todescribe these kinds ofMonenergism and to
establish what they had in common with the imperial or Chalcedonian
Monenergism.
Although the latter was created within the framework of neo
Chalcedonianism, it was contested and consequently rejected by the
representatives of the same neoChalcedonian tradition. This revealed an
internalcrisisbesettingthetraditionintheseventhcentury.Thiscrisis,however,
didnoteventuallyleadtoablurringoftheprinciplesofneoChalcedonianism,
but on the contrary to amore precise definition of its boundaries and to its
catharsis.
-
1.FOURMAINKINDSOFMONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM
Before proceeding to an examination of the history and the doctrinal
contentofMonenergismandMonothelitism, itshouldbeestablishedwhether
theywere twoseparateandselfsufficientdoctrinesordifferentaspectsof the
sametheologicalperceptionofChrist.Intheperiodbeforetheseventhcentury,
as this will be shown in the following chapters, the two doctrines always
occurred together, though Monenergism normally dominated over
Monothelitism.So itwasalso in theseventhcentury,with theonlydifference
thatafter638,whentheEcthesiswaspromulgated,Monothelitismwasbrought
totheforefrontandMonenergismrecededintothebackground.
Indeed,duringthecontroversyconcerningenergeiaiandwillsinChristin
the seventh century, historicallyMonenergism precededMonothelitism.1 The
imperial civil and ecclesiastic authorities initially recruited it as ameans of
reconciliationwith thenonChalcedonians.Monenergism turnedout tobe,as
A.Louthcharacterizedit,oneofthemostcelebratedecumenicalventuresof
theearlyByzantineperiod.2The reason for thiswas thedominating role that
the issue of the single energeia played in the nonChalcedonian confessions.
Only when the imperial unionist initiatives faced energetic resistance from
certain circles within the Church, was Monenergism pushed into the
1See,forinstance, . .2 . ,1995,736.
2AndrewLouth.St. JohnDamascene: traditionandoriginality inByzantine theology,Oxford earlyChristianstudies.NewYork;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002,153.
-
15
background, and in 638 Monothelitism emerged instead of it. Before that,
Monothelitismhad existed in embryowithinMonenergism.Thus,as earlyas
626PatriarchSergiuswrote inhis lettertoCyrusofPhasisaboutasinglewill,
together with a single energeia.1 Another early Monenergist document, the
Psephos,impliedasinglewillinChristaswell.Itsauthorsrefusedtorecognize
inChristtwoenergeiaibecausethelatterwouldpresupposetwowills.2Onemay
askherewhyMonothelitismwasnotinitiallypromotedexplicitlytogetherwith
Monenergism. Apparently, the authors of the Monenergist project of
reconciliation deliberately limited themselves toMonenergism alone because
otherwise there would have been more protests from the Chalcedonians,
endangeringthewholeproject.Inaddition,theissueofenergeiaiprovedtobeof
greaterimportancetotheMonophysitesthanthatofwills.
When Monenergism was abandoned and Monothelitism emerged
instead, the issue of the single energeia was often implied in Monothelite
documents. Inparticular, itoccurred inoneof theearliest textscontaining the
Monothelite confession, the Ecthesis.3 The only known case, when
Monothelitism was combined with Dyenergism was that of Constantine of
Apamea,whichwasexaminedatthesixthecumenicalCouncil.However,aswe
shall see later, Constantine put these two doctrines together rather
1ACO2II25281519.
2ACO2II254213.
3SeeACO2I160419.
-
16
mechanically, and the sort of Monothelitism that he confessed, in effect
presupposed Monenergism. Now it is possible to come to a preliminary
conclusion thatMonenergism andMonothelitism,whatever historical shapes
they took, were not two separate teachings, but one solid doctrine. In the
present thesis, therefore, I will be calling this doctrine Monenergist
MonotheliteorMonenergismMonothelitismandtreatitasasinglewhole.
Theclose linkbetweenthe issuesofenergeiaandwill inChristwasalso
validfortheOrthodoxopponentstoMonenergismMonothelitism.Dyenergism,
which they defended in the first stages of the controversy, had always
presupposedDyothelitismandviceversa.Therefore,attheCouncilsofLateran
(649)andConstantinople(680/681),theissuesofenergeiaiandwillsweregiven
equalattentionandMonenergismwasdisclaimedtogetherwithMonothelitism.
So,itseemsappropriatethatIshouldconsidertheOrthodoxbeliefsconcerning
energeiai and wills in Christ as a single doctrine and call it Dyenergist
DyotheliteorDyenergismDyothelitism.
ThedoctrineofMonenergismMonothelitismas itwasdiscussed in the
seventhcenturydidnotemerge fromnowhere. Itwasprecededbyaseriesof
other MonenergismsMonothelitisms, which although not selfstanding
doctrines,wereintegralpartsofmajorChristologicalsystems.1Thereareatleast
fourkindsoftheMonenergistMonothelitedoctrinespromotingasingleenergeia
1As .Pheidas remarks, .
728.
-
17
and will emphatically and based on general principles of the major
Christologicalsystems.1Thefirstwasestablishedatthebeginningoftheepoch
of Christological controversies. Its author was Apollinarius, who put
Christological problems on the agenda of Christian theology. Antiochian
theologians,amongwhomthemostfamouswereTheodoreofMopsuestiaand
Nestorius,developed,inoppositiontoApollinarius,theirownChristologywith
its own specific sort of MonenergismMonothelitism. The Alexandrian
tradition,ofwhich thechief representativewasSeverusofAntioch,produced
itsownpictureofsingleenergeiaandwill,contrasting it to theNestorianone.
For Severus and his followers, the issue of single energeia became more
importantthanitwasfortheNestoriansandturnedouttobeacrucialpointof
Severan perception of Christ.2 Some lesser subdivisions of theMonenergist
MonothelitedoctrineemergedwithintheMonophysitemovement.Theyfitted
the doctrinal variations developed in such antiChalcedonian groups as
Julianists, Agnoetes etc. Finally, in the seventh century a new sort of
MonenergismMonothelitismemergedfromtheneoChalcedonianorCyrillian
interpretation of Christological doctrine.3 Paradoxically, Dyenergism
1IwillnotdiscussMonenergismwhichisimpliedinArianism,becauseithasnotproducedaselfsufficientChristologicaldoctrine.
2 See .Pheidas: , . 727.
3 Scholars chiefly accept that MonenergismMonothelitism was a product of CyrillianChalcedonianism.SeeCharlesMoeller:lemononergismeetlemonothlismeneviennentpasdunMonophysitisme extrmiste,maisdunochalcdonisme. LeChalcdonisme et lenochalcdonismeenOrientde451lafinduVIesicle.InAloysGrillmeierandHeinrichBacht.
-
18
Das Konzil von Chalkedon:Geschichte undGegenwart; imAuftrag der Theologischen Fakultt S.J.SanktGeorgen, Frankfurt/Main.Wurzburg:Echter,v. I, 1951, 695n.167; J.Pelikan: Unlike theNestorian and Monophysite teachings, the new ideas and formulas (=those ofMonenergismandMonothelitism) thatprovokedcontroversywerepropagatedchieflywithinthe ranksof theorthodoxandwithin theboundariesof theempire.TheChristian tradition: ahistoryofthedevelopmentofdoctrine.Chicago;London:UniversityofChicagoPress,I,1971,62;F.Winkelmann: inderAuseinandersetzungkmpftennichtOrthodoxegegenMonophysiten,sondern es handelte sich um einen Streit ber ein christologisches Problem, der unterTheologen ausgetragen wurde, die sich zum Chalkedonense bekannten. Winkelmann 14;A.Louth: Monenergismand laterMonothelitismwasdevisedasarefinementofCyrillineChalcedonianChristology.Maximus56;seealsoLarsThunberg.MicrocosmandMediator:TheTheologicalAnthropologyofMaximustheConfessor.ThesisUppsala,C.W.K.Gleerup,1965,4041; Joseph Farrell. FreeChoice in St.Maximus theConfessor. SouthCanan,Pa.: St.Tikhon sSeminaryPress,1989,71; finally,K.H.Uthemanndedicated to thisquestionspecial research:DerNeuchalkedonismusalsVorbereitungdesMonotheletismus:EinBeitragzumeigentlichenAnliegen des Neuchalkedonismus. Studia Patristica 29 (1997): 373413; see also his articleSergiosI,BiographischBibliographischesKirchenlexikon(BBKl)http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml[29/05/2003].ThenotionofneoChalcedonianismwasoriginallyintroducedbyJ.Lebon.HedistinguishedagroupofsixthcenturyChaldenoniantheologianswhooftenreferredtothetheologyofCyrilofAlexandriaandtriedtointerpretitinthecontextofChalcedon(JosephLebon.LemonophysismeSvrien: tude historique, littraire et thologique sur la rsistance monophysite au Concile deChalcdoine jusqu la constitution de lglise jacobite, Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis.Dissertationesadgradumdoctorisinfacultatetheologicaconsequendumconscriptae.Series2;Tomus4.Lovanii:J.VanLinthout,1909).TheideasofLebonweredevelopedfurtherbyCharlesMoeller.UnReprsentantde la christologienochalcdonienneaudbutdu sixime sicle enorient:NephaliusdAlexandrie,1944,73140;Lechalcdonisme637720).LaterM.Richardredefinedthefeaturesof neoChalcedonianism and enumerated among them the usage of Cyrilian formula oneincarnatenatureof theGodLogos and with the inserted(Marcel Richard. Le nochalcdonisme. Mlanges de science religieuse 3 (1946), 159). Thisdefinition was later accepted by Moeller who went further and affirmed that a specificcharacteristic of neoChalcedonianism was the appropriation of both two natures and onenature formulas (Le chalcdonisme 666). Referring to Leontius of Jerusalem, MoellersuggestedthattheothercharacteristicfeatureofneoChalcedonianismwasthatthequalitiesofthehumannatureinChristsubsistedinthehypostasis(TextesMonophysitesdeLoncedeJrusalem.Ephemeridestheologicaelovanienses27(1951),471ff).Latersomescholarsaddedthatthe neoChalcedoniantheologyunderstoodhypostaticunionassyntheticunion,andthatitstressed that this union is ex duabus naturis asmuch as it is in duabus naturis. Thunberg,Microcosm38;seealsoP.Galtier.L Occidentetlenochalcdonisme.Gregorianum40(1959),55,andHansUrs vonBalthasar.Kosmische Liturgie: dasWeltbildMaximus desBekenners.Zweite,vll. ver. Aufl ed. [Einsiedeln, Switz.]: JohannesVerlag, 1961, 242 n.4. See about neoChalcedonianismingeneral:PatrickGray.ThedefenseofChalcedonintheEast(451553),StudiesinthehistoryofChristianthought;v.20.Leiden:Brill,1979; NeoChalcedonismandtheTradition:From Patristic to Byzantine Theology. Byzantinische Forschungen 16 (1982), 6170; AloisGrillmeier.VorbereitungdesMittelalters.EineStudieberdasVerhltnisvonChalkedonismusund NeuChalkedonismus in der lateinischen Theologie von Boethius bis zu Gregor demGroen.InDasKonzilvonChalkedon:GeschichteundGegenwart,editedbyAloisGrillmeierandHeinrich Bacht, 791839. Wurzburg: Echter, 1953; Der NeuChalkedonismus. Um dieBerechtigungeinesneuenKapitels inderDogmengeschichte.Historisches JahrbuchderGorresGesellschaft 77 (1958): 151160; Das stliche unddaswestlicheChristusbild.Zu einer Studie
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml
-
19
Dyothelitism,whichwas opposite toMonenergismMonothelitism, arose also
from neoChalcedonianism.1 The present research is concerned to show that
bothteachingshadthesameneoChalcedonianbackgroundandtoclarifywhat
theyhad incommonand inwhattheydiffered.Thefactthattwoantagonistic
doctrinesemergedfromthesametraditionofneoChalcedonianism,meansthat
in thebeginningof theseventhcentury the latterwasundergoingan internal
crisis.2 However, that MonenergismMonothelitism appeared within neo
Chalcedonianism, did not question the legitimacy of this tradition as such.
Nobody from the DyenergistDyothelite camp doubted or criticized either
ber den Neuchalcedonismus. Theologie und Philosophie 59 (1984): 8496; S.Helmer, DerNeuchalkedonismus; Lorenzo Perrone. La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche: dalConciliodiEfeso (431)alsecondoConciliodiCostantinopoli (553),Testiericerchediscienzereligiose(IstitutoperlescienzereligiosediBologna);18.Brescia:Paideia,1980.
1See, for instance, the fifthanathematismof theLateranCouncil:
, .ACO2I37218.(Siquissecundum sanctospatresnon confiteturpropriae et secundumueritatemunamnaturamDeiVerbiincarnatamperhocquodincarnatamdiciturnostrasubstantiaperfecteinChristoDeoetindimminuteabsquetantummodopeccatosignificata,condemnatussit.ACO2I37317).CyrilofAlexandriawasthemostquotedauthorbybothDyenergistDyotheliteCouncils.IntheactsoftheLateranCouncil,hewascited66times,and intheactsofthesixthecumenicalCouncil42times.Concerning therootsofMaximus theConfessorsposition in thecontroversy,A.Louthremarks: It is important to realizehowmuchhe (=Maximus) took forgranted theCyrillineChalcedonianism he inherited: his opposition toMonothelitism is worked out within thistradition, not as a criticism of that tradition. He is wholly committed to theAlexandrianunderstandingof the Incarnationas theSonofGodsassumingahumannatureand livingahumanlife,withitscorollaryinthevalidityoftheopaschitelanguage.Maximus2728.SeealsoJ.Farrell: St.Maximus stands firmlywithin theNeoChalcedonian,orCyrillicChalcedonian,traditionofChristology.FreeChoice23.
2 As J.Farrell remarks, the whole controversy between the Byzantine Monotheletes andDyotheletesmustbeinterpretedasaconflictbetweentwosignificantandquiteopposedpartieswithinCyrillicChalcedonianismitself.Freechoice71.
-
20
Cyril1or theevenmoreambiguousps.DionysiuswithhisratherMonenergist
formulaacertaintheandricenergeia.ThewayofinterpretationofChalcedonby
employing the language of Cyril remained the basis of the Dyenergist
Dyothelite polemics againstMonenergismMonothelitism. The crisis led to a
more precise understanding ofwhat is allowedwithin neoChalcedonianism
andwhatexceedsitsboundaries.MonenergismMonothelitismwasbornwithin
neoChalcedonianism,buteventuallysteppedbeyonditslimits,andasaresult
wasrejectedbytheotherneoChalcedonianstheDyenergitesDythelites.
Apparently, the neoChalcedonianMonenergismMonothelitismwould
neverhaveemergedifothersortsofMsmsMsms,particularlytheMonophysite
one, did not exist. Therefore, I shall thoroughly investigate it and its
predecessors,ApollinarianandNestorianMonenergismMonothelitism.
1 In this regard, itwould be sufficient tomention the evaluation provided by Sophronius:
, .ACO2II14721517, and by PopeMartin at the Lateran:
, .ACO2I3582832. (Audiamusergo iterum eumdem beatum Cyrillum haec prudentissime praedicantem, ut nihil omninonegetur de nostrae naturae unitis in eo substantialibus proprietatibus, sed per omniatemptatumspontepropternostramsalutemabsque tantummodopeccatoDominumetDeumnostrum Iesum Christum. ACO2I3592831). As for Maximus, L.Thunberg remarks: As anauthorityCyrilofAlexandriaplaysaratheroutstandingroleinMaximuswritings.Microcosm40.
-
2.PRECHALCEDONIANMONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM
2.1.APOLLINARIUSOFLAODICEA
ApollinariusofLaodicea(d.ca392)1developedaspecificdoctrineofthe
Incarnation, which became a prologue to the longlasting period of the
Christologicalcontroversiesandhadechoesas lateas in theseventhcenturys
MonenergismMonothelitism. Apollinarius struggled to give his own
interpretationtothewayofunityoftheGodheadandthehumanityinChrist,
opposingitmainlytoAdoptionism,withitsconceptionoftheindwellingofthe
Logos in aman.2 To him, the idea of adoption or indwelling did not reflect
sufficientlytheunityandintegrityoftheGodheadandthehumanityinChrist.
Inordertoemphasizethisunity,ApollinariuspresentedtheIncarnationasthe
integrationoftheLogosandananimatedflesh.ThefleshassumedbyChrist,on
its own, is not a complete humanity yet, lacking as it does a / .
Owing to this,Christ remains a singleand integral entity.Both theanimated
1 See on account of his life and theology:GuillaumeVoisin. Lapollinarisme: tude historique,littraire et dogmatique sur le dbut des controverses christologiques au IVe sicle. Paris: A.Fontemoing, 1901; Hans Lietzmann. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule: Texte undUntersuchungen. Tubingen: Teubner, 1904; Charles Raven. Apollinarianism: an essay on theChristologyoftheearlyChurch.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1923;H.deRiedmatten,SomeneglectedaspectsofApollinaristChristology.DomStud1(1948):239260;Lachristologied ApollinairedeLaodice.StudiaPatristica2(1957):208234;LacorrespondanceentreBasiledeCsare etApollinaire de Laodice. Journal of Theological Studies 7, 8 (1956, 1957); Sur lesnotionsdoctrinalesopposesApollinaire.Revue thomiste51 (1951):553572;GeorgePrestigeandHenryChadwick.StBasiltheGreatandApollinarisofLaodicea.London:SPCK,1956;RichardNorris. Manhood and Christ: a study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Oxford:ClarendonPress,1963.
2See,forinstance,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.186p.3181724.
-
22
flesh and theLogos are forApollinariusparts of the singlenature ofChrist.
These parts, however, should not be considered as equal. The divine part
dominatesthehumanone.Itisthelifegivingspirit;thewholelifeofChristis
concentrated in it. It is the only and selfsufficient source ofmovement and
activityinChrist:Thedivineintellectis and .1The
animated flesh,on the contrary, ispassively subordinated to theGodhead. It
doesnotmovebyitself,butisbeingconstantlymovedandledbytheGodhead:
Thefleshisalwaysmovedbyhimwhomovesandleads.2Theanimatedflesh
andtheGodheadtogetherconstituteaperfectunityofapassiveandadynamic
component supplementary to each other. This supplementarity of Christs
elementsmakeshimasingleandcompletebeing:
It (=the flesh) was adopted ( ) by him (=the heavenly ruler)according to its passibility ( ) and received the divine(Logos),whoindwelledinit,accordingtotheactivity( ).Therefore,hewasasinglelivingbeing( )composedofwhatismovedandwhatmoves( ),butnottwo(beings),neither(washecomposed)oftwoperfectandselfmoving(entities).3
Therefore,theenergeiaofChristforApollinariuscouldbeonlyone,andit
isdivine.ItisexclusivelyprovidedbytheLogos:
Inhim is confessedanaturewhich ismadeupof twoparts,as theLogoswithhisdivineperfectioncontributesanaturalactivitytothewhole(
1adIulian,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.151p.247302481.
2 .LietzmannApollinarisfr.107p.2321011.
3Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.107p.2321418.
-
23
).Thisisalsothecasewithordinaryman,whoismadeupoftwoincompleteparts,whichproduceonenatureanddisplayitunderonename.1
ThehumanityofChristparticipates in thedivine energeia,because it is
totallysubjectedtotheGodhead:
Forthehuman(energeia)takespart( )inthedivineenergeia,asfarascanreach (it),being lesser thanwhat is thegreatest.Also,man isaslaveofGod,andGodisnotaslaveofman,norofhimself.Also,theformerisacreatureofGod,whilethelatterisnotacreatureofmannorofhimself.2
Apollinarius made a distinction between the divine energeia and the
human movements ( ) of Christ. The former is pure and
sinless, whereas the latter are weak, passive, and can be subjected to sin,
sufferings, and death.Apollinarius avoided speaking of the activities of the
fleshasenergeiai.Tohim,theyweremerelymovements( ):
ForGod,enfleshedinhumanflesh,retainshisownproperoperationunsullied( ).He is Intellectunconqueredbypsychicand fleshly passions (
), and he guides the flesh and the motions of the flesh ( )divinelyandsinlessly;andnotonly isheunmasteredby
death,butheisalsothelooserofdeath.3
Energeia ofChrist is single on the level of the spirit.However, having
been passed through the prism of the flesh, it disperses as amultiplicity of
particularactions.GregoryofNyssaquotesthispointofApollinarius:
Distinguishing( )theoperationaccordingtothefleshandmaking itequaltoone( )accordingtothespirit.
1deUnioneCorp,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.187511.
2Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.130p.239610.
3FidesSecPart,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.1781317/transl.R.Norrishttp://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/3224/apollinaris.htm[24/07/2003].
http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/3224/apollinaris.htm
-
24
He says, hewho is equal in power ( ) has distinction ofoperationswith regard to the flesh ( )accordingtowhichhehasvivifiednotallbutthosewhomhewished.1
Thus, the energeia of the flesh, in comparisonwith the activity of the
Godhead, isnotenergeia,butapassivemovementcausedby thedivinity.This
becomesclearerwhenageneralApollinarianconceptionoftheunityofChrist
istakenintoconsideration.Accordingtothisconception,theunityisnotstatic,
butdynamicandlively( ).2Christisonebecausehehasonelife
andonepower,whichproceedsfromtheGodheadandimbuesthehumanity.3
Apollinarius identifies this lifeofChristwith theenergeia.Thus, theenergeia is
not justanactivity,butalsoalifegivingpoweroftheGodhead.Therefore,the
human actions of Christ cannot be called energeiai, butmerely movements.
ApollinariuswentfurtherandassertedthattheenergeiaoftheLogossubstituted
hishumansoulandmind.4Thus, thenotionofenergeiabecamecrucial for the
wholesystemofApollinarius.
1advApol3.1.17645;1013,inLietzmann,Apollinarisfrr.59,60pp.2173031,21835/modifiedtransl.byRichard McCambly http://www.bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/appolin.html[24/07/2003].
2 Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.144 p.2424. The dynamic aspect of Christs unity was firstlyunderlinedbyH.deRiedmatten,Someneglected239260;Lachristologie208234.
3See: ,, .deFideInc,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.1981617.Also,wheninterpretingthe
1Cor15,45 (the firstman,Adam,becamea livingbeing; the lastAdambecamea lifegivingspirit),Apollinariusascribed toChristonlyone life,and this life is thatof theGodhead (seeadDionI,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.2612.)
4 .deUnione,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.2p.20479.
http://www.bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/appolin.html
-
25
Another important point in the system of Apollinarius was the
conception ofwill. Christ has only onewill, aswell as one nature and one
energeia:
Forthisreason,weconfesssingleChrist;and,becauseheissingle,weworshiphissinglenature,will,andenergeia,whichispreservedequallyinthemiraclesandthepassions( ).1
Thewillisdivine:
Buttheyaretroubledwiththetroubleoftheunbelieversanddonotrememberthat thiswill issaid tobenotaproper (will)ofamanwho isof theearth,asthey think,butofGodwhohasdescended fromheaven (see1Cor15,47); it(=thewill)wasadoptedforhisunity( ).2
Thewillissingleanddivinebecauseitiscloselylinkedtothesingleand
divinenous.Thenoushasanabsolutecontroloverthevolitionalfaculty.Itisthe
only subject ofwilling.Thewill and its subject are so closely linked to each
other that there is no gap between them. Two wills would introduce two
subjectsofwilling,whichisunacceptable:
For if every intellect rules over ( )hisownwill ( ), beingmoved according to nature, then it is impossible for two
(subjects) who will what is opposite to one another ( ), to coexist in one and the same subject ( ... );foreachonewoulddowhatisadesirable
to it, according to a selfmoved impulse ( ).3
1adIulian,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.151p.24857.
2Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.63p.2182024.
3 adIulian, Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.150 p.2472327. See also: ,
. deUnione, Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.2 p.2041114. Thestatementwas reproducededby thedisciplesofApollinarius.For instance, amemberofhisschool,Vitalis,wroteinhisepistletoTimotheus:
-
26
Apollinarius believed that twowillswould necessarily introduce two
willing subjects, which, in their own turn, would necessarily wish things
oppositetoeachother.Thus,Apollinariusapriorirejectedtwowills,aswellas
thepossibility for them tohave one subject and function in accordancewith
eachother.This statementwas insistently repeatedbyall latergenerationsof
Monothelites.
2.2.ANTIOCHIANTRADITION
WithintheframeworkoftheAntiochiantheology,anotherspecifickind
ofMonenergismMonothelitismwasdeveloped.Themaincontribution to this
developmentwasmade by Theodore ofMopsuestia (c. 350 428/429)1,who
constructedhistheologyinoppositionchieflytoArianismandApollinarianism.
Inparticular,hecriticizedthepresuppositionsexploredbyApollinarius,which
A.Grillmeier characterizes as a framework. This framework,
accordingtothescholar,meansthevital,dynamicinfluenceoftheLogosonthe
fleshofChrist.Withinthe framework,thisstoicideaoftheLogos
as isfarmoredecisivethantheoversightofthesoulofChrist.Itis,in
, , . , .Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.175p.2752226.
1SeeonaccountofhislifeandworksanarticleofK.G.WesselingintheBBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_v_mo.shtml [13/10/2002], in which also extensivebibliography. Unfortunately, the scholarship has not paid proper attention to the issue ofMonenergism andMonothelitism in theTheodorian tradition sofar.The topic is alsomostlyignoredinthetheologicaldiscussionsheldbetweentheChurchesoftheEastandtheWest(see,forinstance,SyriacDialoguesponsoredbyProOriente).
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_v_mo.shtml
-
27
fact, the real source fromwhich thewholepatternofa christologywithouta
soulofChrist(whetherasatheologicaloraphysicalfactor)hasdeveloped.1In
opposition to this framework, Theodore developed a framework
.2 His main concern here was the completeness of humanity in
Christ. In order to defend this completeness, Theodore accentuated the
distinctionbetweenthetwonaturesinChrist.Indevelopingthedistinction,he
drew a picture of Christwho is composed of two independent entities: the
Logos and theman. In otherwords, the two natures ofChristwere given a
concrete existence. To clarify his conception, Theodore applied toChrist the
language of indwelling and assumption: the Logos indwelt in aman3 and a
wholemanwasassumedbytheLogos4.
Theodore developed his conception of indwelling and assumption in
contrasttoApollinariusviewsthattheLogossubstitutedforthehumannousin
Christ. Theodore indicated various negative consequences of these views,
1AloisGrillmeier.ChristinChristiantradition.2ndrevised.London:Mowbrays,1975I426.
2Grillmeier,ChristI428439.
3SeeinPsal449a: . , , .Alsointhe7thCatecheticalhomily:Hebecameman,they(=the318Fathers)said.Anditwasnotthroughasimpleprovidencethathe loweredhimself,norwas itthroughthegiftofpowerfulhelp,ashehasdonesooftenandstill (does).Ratherdidhe takeourverynature;heclothedhimselfwithitanddweltinitsoastomakeitperfectthroughsufferings;andheunitedhimselfwithit.HomCatech161/Grillmeier,ChristI429.
4SeethefifthCatecheticalhomily: OurholyFathersalsosaidwhowasincarnatesothatyouwouldunderstandthat itwasaperfectmanthathetookAndhetooknotonlyabody,butthewholeman,composedofabodyandan immortalandrationalsoul.Heassumedhimforour salvation and through him hewon salvation for our life.HomCatech 5, 127/Grillmeier,ChristI427.
-
28
including the elimination ofChrists human activities e.g. hunger, thirst, and
tiredness. One of Theodoresmajor concerns was to defend the reality and
fullnessofhumanfaculties inChrist, includinghishumanactivitiesandwills.
Forinstance,hewroteinhisfifthCatecheticalhomily:
Consequently,ifthedivinitytakestheplaceofthesoul,it(=thebodyofChrist)hadneitherhunger,northirst,norwasittired,nordidithaveneedoffood.1
TherearetwosourcesofactionsinChrist:oneistheLogosandtheother
istheman.Thetwonaturescooperatewitheachother:
Moreover(thedivineSon)furnishedhiscooperationintheproposedworkstotheonewhowasassumed.(Now)wheredoesthis(cooperation)entailthattheDeityhadreplacedthe(human)nousinhimwhowasassumed?Foritwasnothiswonttotaketheplaceofthenousinany,whoevertheywere,towhomheaccorded his cooperation.And ifmoreoverhe accorded to the onewhowasassumed an extraordinary cooperation, this does notmean (either) that theDeity took theplaceof thenous.Butsuppose,asyouwouldhave it, that theDeitytooktheroleofthenousinhimwhowasassumed.Howwasheaffectedwithfearinhissuffering?Why,inthefaceofimmediateneed,didhestandinwantofvehementprayersprayerswhich,astheblessedPaulsays,hebroughtbeforeGodwithaloudandclamorousvoiceandwithmanytears?Howwasheseizedofsuchimmensefearthathegaveforthfountainsofsweatbyreasonofhisgreatterror?2
HealsoappliedtothehumanityofChristanabilitytowill:
Withindissolubleloveheformedhimselfaccordingtothegood,receivingalsothecooperationofGodtheWordinproportiontohisownchoiceofthegoodHeheld fast to thiswaybyhisownwill,whileon theotherhand thischoicewasmadesecureinhimbythecooperatingworkofGodtheWord.3
Thus,asA.Grillmeierremarks,inthetheologyofTheodorethehuman
natureofChrist regains its realphysicalhuman inner lifeand itscapacity for
1HomCatech5,112/Norris,Manhood150.
2inPaul(Swete2,315)/A.Grillmeier,ChristI,428.
3deIncarn7,fr.3.
-
29
action.1Theodore ascribed to each nature a capacity to act andwill.Yet, he
preferred to speak of a single common energeia and will in Christ.2 His
conceptionofasingleenergeiaandwillcanbebettercomprehendedthroughhis
understandingof thenotionofprosopon,as thismaybe seen in the following
passage:
Theideaofunityaccordingtotheessence( )istrueonlyifappliedto (thebeings)of the sameessence,but iswrong ifapplied to (thebeings)ofdifferentessences;otherwiseit(=theidea)couldnotbefreefromconfusion.Atthe same time, theway of unity according to benevolence ( ),whilepreservingnaturesunconfusedandundivided,indicatesasinglepersonof both, aswell as a singlewill and energeiawhich are followed by a singlepoweranddominion.3
Thenotions of activity andwill areputhere on the same level as the
notion of . The latter will help us to explain the former. In the
Commentary on John, the theologian interpretedRom 7 (inwhichPaul speaks
aboutamanwhofeelshimselfsubjectedsimultaneouslytothelawofGodand
tothelawofsin)andremarkedthattheApostlereferstotwodifferententities.
He unites, however, these entities using a common point of reference the
pronoun I ( ).Theodore applied toChristwhatPaul says abouthimself.
Thus, the twonaturesareunited in thesingle IofChrist,whichsignifieshis
common person: So our Lord, when he spoke of his manhood and his
1ChristI,427.
2See, forexample: , , , , ,
inMatth(ACO2I3322023;Maximus,SpiritalisTomus173;Swete,TheodoriEpiscopi339).
3adDomn2026.
-
30
Godhead,referredthepronoun Itothecommonperson(pars p).1Theodore
explainedwhathemeantbysayingprosoponinhisContraEunomium:
Prosoponisusedinatwofoldway:foreitheritsignifiesthehypostasisandthatwhicheachoneofusis,oritisconferreduponhonour,greatnessandworship;forexample Pauland Peter signify thehypostasisand theprosoponofeachoneofthem,buttheprosoponofourLordChristmeanshonour,greatnessandworship.ForbecauseGodtheWordwasrevealedinmanhood,hewascausingthe glory of his hypostasis to cleave to the visible one; and for this reason,prosoponofChristdeclaresit(=theprosopon)tobe(aprosopon)ofhonour,notoftheousiaof the twonatures.For thehonour isneithernaturenorhypostasis,but an elevation togreatdignitywhich isawardedasadue for the causeofrevelation.Whatpurplegarmentsorroyalapparelarefortheking,isforGodthe Word the beginning which was taken from us without separation,alienationordistance inworship.Therefore,as it isnotbynature thatakinghaspurplerobes,soalsoneitherisitbynaturethatGodtheWordhasflesh.ForanyonewhoaffirmsGodtheWordtohavefleshbynature(predicatesthat)hehassomething foreign to thedivineousiabyundergoinganalterationby theadditionofanature.But ifhehasnot fleshbynature,howdoesApollinariussaythatthesameoneispartiallyhomoousioswiththeFatherinhisGodhead,and (partially)homoousioswithus in the flesh, so thathe shouldmakehimcomposite?Forhewho is thusdivided intonaturesbecomesand is found (tobe)somethingcompositebynature.2
Thus, Theodore was aware that signifies or a
concretebeing.Whenapplied toChrist,however, ithasanothermeaning.To
Theodore,thissignifiesonesinglehonour,theonegreatness,worship,dignity
etcofthedivinityandmanhood,ofwhichChristiscomposed.Thisisamanner
of appearance and revelation of God through the manhood. A.Grillmeier
offered the following interpretation of Theodores conception of prosopon: In
Theodore, as also later inNestorius and inTheodoret,beforeChalcedon, the
word prosopon shouldnot simplybe rendered person,giving theword the
1 inIoan 816 (Corpus ScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium (CSCO) 116) 119/Grillmeier,Christ I431).
2contEunom101/Grillmeier,ChristI433.
-
31
strictly ontological content which it had later. Prosopon here should not be
interpreted in the lightof thedefinitionofperson inBoethiusorLeontiusof
Byzantium.Atthisstage,wemustalsoexcludethefullChalcedoniansenseof
prosopon.TheAntiocheneconceptofprosoponderivesfromtheoriginalmeaning
ofthewordprosopon,countenance.Prosoponistheforminwhichaphysisor
hypostasis appears. Every nature and every hypostasis has its own proper
prosopon. It gives expression to the reality of the naturewith itspowers and
characteristics.1
NowwecanseewhyTheodorepreferred tospeakofasinglecommon
activity andwill of Christ. Both thewill and the activity, as aspects of the
prosopon,constitutedtohimacommonmanifestationofChristsnatures.Asthe
prosoponwasa singleappearanceofbothdivinityandmanhood inChrist, so
weretheactivityandthewill.
Theodores conception of the single activity andwill is to some extent
similartothatofApollinarius,thoughTheodorearguedagainsthisviews.The
prosoponofTheodorealludes to the livelyand lifegivingpowerof theLogos.
Hencehis idea concerning single energeia andwill,which corresponds to the
dynamicMonenergismMonothelitismofApollinarius.
1Grillmeier,ChristI431.
-
32
The scheme developed by Theodorewas implemented byNestorius1,
who reproducedTheodores conceptionofprosoponas the commongloryand
worship of Christs Godhead and manhood: The two natures have one
Lordshipandonepowerormightandoneprosopon in theonedignityand in
the same honour.2 As an appearance of both God and man in Christ, the
prosopon toNestoriusdenotedaspace,where their energeticalandvolitional
capacitiesmanifestthemselves.Therefore,Christhadoneenergeia3andwill4.
Inconclusion,theAntiochiantraditionlinkedtoTheodoreofMopsuestia
andNestorius5consideredthesingleactivityandwillofChristasaspectsofthe
commonprosopon,which isanappearance and revelationof the twonatures.
Theactivityandthewillconstituteacommonmanifestationofthetwonatures,
1SeeonNestoriusinE.Reichert,Nestorius,BBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/n/nestorius_v_k.shtml[07/01/2003].
2adAlex1961517;ACO2I334910/Grillmeier,ChristI462.
3 See, for example: , , , ,
. , Sermo II223224;ACO2I3323538.
4See,forexample: , ,
Sermo IV 2241215;ACO2I33435.
5AflorilegiumcontainingrelevanttestimoniesfromtheworksofotherNestorianauthors,whichwere collected apparently byMaximus,was included into the acts of the Lateran Council(ACO2 I332334.)Asanadditionalexample,NestorianpatriarchTimothy Icanbementionedhere,forwhomhypostasisofthemanassumedbytheLogoshadasinglewillandactionwiththeLogoswhohadclothedhimself inhim.ep34 (CSCO75)127; (CSCO74)186.Herejectedonewillandanotherwill,foreverythingwasbroughttogetherintoanineffableunion.ep36(CSCO75)179;(CSCO74)258.
http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/n/nestorius_v_k.shtml
-
33
which do not appear separately, but only together. Therefore, the prosopon,
togetherwith thewill and the energeia, is one. This point of the Theodoran
Nestorian tradition was witnessed by Maximus the Confessor who in the
Disputation with Pyrrhus said that the Monothelites, while rejecting
Nestorianism,acceptedtheNestorianconceptionofthesinglewill:
Thosewhosayonewillvindicatehis(=Nestorius)teachings,fortheirEcthesistestifies, advocates, and decrees onewill,which is exactlywhatNestoriusadvocated:thedoctrineofonewillintwopersonswasinventedbyhim.1
DidnotNestorius,whoindeedmaintainedthatthereweretwopersons,rathersaythattherewasbutoneenergy?2
HereMaximususestheword notintheNestorian,butinthe
Cappadocian sense. The two natures of Christ, as theywere understood by
Nestorius,signifiedforMaximustwopersons.Thesetwopersonsarelinkedin
awayofrelativeunionthatisasourceofthesinglewillandenergeia:
But according to what you say, if persons be introduced along with theenergies, and vice versa, energies with persons, then you are compelled,followingthesameprinciples,eithertosaythatbecauseoftheoneoperationofthe Holy Godhead there is one person as well, or because of its threeHypostases that there are threeoperations.Oryoumightmaintain that theirunion is relational ( ),asNestoriussaidofChrist, for theoneenergywastheunion,asNestoriusandhispartymaintainedintheirwritings.3
Apparently,Maximusfirst,inthecontextoftheMonothelitecontroversy,
suggested that the Nestorian tradition presupposed Monenergism and
Monothelitismandmadean importantcontribution to the investigationof the
1Disputatio313b/JosephFarrell.ThedisputationwithPyrrhusofourfatheramongthesaintsMaximustheConfessor.SouthCanaan,Pa.:St.Tikhon sSeminaryPress,1990.
2Disputatio336d/Farrell,TheDisputation57.
3Disputatio336d337a/Farrell,TheDisputation56.
-
34
Nestorian variant of MonenergismMonothelitism. In particular, to his
authorshipapparentlybelongstheflorilegiumofrelevantTheodorianNestorian
texts,whichwasincludedintheactsoftheLateranCouncil.
-
35
3.ANTICHALCEDONIANMONENERGISMANDMONOTHELITISM
A tradition affiliating itself to Cyril of Alexandria and rejecting the
Council of Chalcedon with its two natures formulas was developed as a
marginaloppositiontotheNestorianChristology.Althoughtherepresentatives
ofthisnonChalcedoniantraditionheavilycriticisedNestorianism,theytosome
extentretaineditsbeliefinthesingleenergeiaandwillinChrist.However,this
belief became more important for the antiChalcedonians than for the
Nestorians. In addition, itwas built ondifferent theologicalpresuppositions.
ThechiefrepresentativeofthistraditionwasSeverusofAntioch(465538).1
3.1.SEVERUSANDHISDISCIPLESADVERSARIES
3.1.1.MONENERGISMOFSEVERUSOFANTIOCH
The available testimonies allow us to say that Severus was the first
amongthemajorteachersofMonophysitismwhoinadirectwaydealtwiththe
issueof activities inChrist.This isnot strange, insofar ashewas the first in
manyother fieldsof theologicalresearch.2Hewascompelled todealwith the
1SeeW.A.Wigram.TheseparationoftheMonophysites.London:FaithPress,1923;JosephLebon.La christologie du monophysisme syrien. In Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte undGegenwart,editedbyAloysGrillmeierandHeinrichBacht,425580,1951;W.H.C.Frend.TheriseoftheMonophysitemovement:chaptersinthehistoryofthechurchinthefifthandsixthcenturies.London:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1972; RobertaChesnut. Threemonophysite christologies:SeverusofAntioch,PhiloxenusofMabbugandJacobofSarug,Oxfordtheologicalmonographs.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1976.
2AccordingtoA.Grillmeier,Hebecamethechallengerfortheentiresixthcentury.ChristII219.
-
36
issuebyhisadversarieseitherfromthecampoftheMonophysitesorfromthe
Dyophysiteparty.AmonghismainopponentswereJulianofHalicarnassusand
Sergius the Grammarian from the side of theMonophysites, and John the
GrammarianandNephaliusfromtheChalcedonians.Theproblemofenergeiaas
such, however, was not Severus target. He solved it within the wider
problematicofChristsessence(s)andproperty(ies).However, theconclusions
hecametobecameapatterntobefollowedbylatergenerationsofSeverans.
ForSeverus,theenergeiaofChristwasprimarilysingle:Thereisonlyone
singleactivity,onlyone singleoperativemotion.1Anyduality in regardof it
should be avoided, as he clarified in the survivingGreek fragment from his
third epistle to John the abbot: We understood and understand the one
composite (activity); itcannotbe interpretedother thanasarejectionofevery
duality.2Severusexploredtheonenessoftheenergeiaasanargumentinfavour
oftheonenessoftheChristsnature.Onenessoftheenergeiawasforhimmore
evidentthantheonenessofthenature.HeascribedthesingleenergeiaofChrist
exclusively toChristasanactingsubject. Itwasnowonder, therefore, thathe
condemnedPopeLeowholinkedtheenergeiaitothenatures3:
1contGramIII38(CSCO102)1756/Grillmeier,ChristII2163.
2adIoan3092022.
3Severusrefershere to the famous formula from theTomusofLeo: Agitenimutraque formacumalteriuscommunionequodpropriumhabuit,VerboquidemoperantequodVerbiest,carneautemexequentequodcarnisest,ethorumcoruscatmiraculis,aliudverosubcumbit iniuriis.adFlav281214.
-
37
Ifhe (=Leo) inspiritwere toholdandconfess thehypostaticunion,hecouldnotsaythateachofthetwonatureskeepsitspropertywithoutdetraction,buthewould say, likeCyril, that theLogosnowand thenpermitted the flesh tosufferwhat isproper to itand tooperateaccording to the lawsof itsnature.Thus theLogoswouldbear thatas itsownwhich isof the flesh,andstillnotrelinquishwhathehasaccordingtohisessence( ),alsonotthesuperioritytosufferingandhishighestnobility.1
By ascribing the energeiai to two natures, Leo, for Severus, was
introducingtwosubjectsofactivityandthussplittingChrist.Oneenergeiawas
forhimthereforeaninevitableconditionoftheunityofChrist.Concerningthe
singleenergeia,itisnotonlyitssubject,whichisdivine,buttheenergeiaitselfis
mostlydivineaswell.2A.Grillmeiercharacterizesitasanactivity,whichflows
fromabove.3Severusstatedconcerningthis:
InfactwhentheGodLogosinhisaugustunionwithhumanityallowedthisto change, even transformed this, not indeed into his own nature for thisremained what itwas but into his glory ( ) and into his own power( ),how thencanyourefer to the teachingof theSynodofChalcedonandtheTomeofLeo..,whichhavedistributed(theoperationes,theactivityofthe )totheLogosandthehumanbeinginChrist?4
1contGramIII29(CSCO102)791825/Grillmeier,ChristII2162.
2AsGrillmeier remarks, TheLogos is always conceivedbeSeverus as agens, as ,always involved in theworksmentioned.He isnotonly the final,bearing subject, towhichaccording to the lawof the communicationof idiomataevenpurelyhumanactsareascribed,while the ability (facultas), which releases them from itself, would be the human nature.According to Severus, in every activity of the Emmanuel, that is, the incarnate Logos, thedivinity participates as facultas, as nature principle, and not only as final, bearing subject.Grillmeier,ChristII2165.
3Grillmeier,ChristII2163.
4 Philalethes (CSCO 134) 266282671/Grillmeier, Christ II2 83; also adOecum 18447. In thiswaySeverusinterpretedthefollowingpassageofCyril:NowwesaythatthecoalrepresentsforusthesymbolandtheimageoftheincarnateLogosOnecanseeinthecoal,asinanimage,theLogoswhohasproceededfromtheFatherandhasbeenunitedtothehumanity;buthehasnotceased tobe thatwhichhewas; ratherhehas transformed intohisdoxaandpower ( )whathadbeenassumed, i.e.united tohim. Justas the fireinformsthewoodandexpandsitselfinitasittakespossessionofit,withoutatallcausingthewood toceasebeingwood, ratherallowing it toblend into theappearanceandpowerof the
-
38
Thequestionhereiswhatshouldbetheplaceofahumancomponent,if
any,inthisactivity.ThehumanityofChrist,whichSeverusdesignatedasflesh
endowedwitharationalsoul,1 isan throughwhich theLogosacts.2
Thisinstrumentmustnotbeconsideredseparatelyfromitsconsummateunity
with the Logos. It is not detachable from the Christs single nature, but
constitutes an integral part of it. Severus made this clear in the following
passage:
Theincarnatehasdoneandsaidthis,foritisunitedhypostaticallytothebodyandthroughadheringtogether( )ithadthisasanorganforthedeeds,asthesoultoo,whichispeculiartoeachoneofus,haschosenitsownbodyasorgan; the Logos does not act through an extrinsically (united)Godbearinghuman being, as the ravings ofNestoriuswould have it, nor in theway inwhichanartisanusesatoolandthuscompletestheworkand(not)likethewayacitharaplayerstrikesthecithara.3
fire,asthis(=thefire)effectsinit(=thewood)whatispropertotheformerandthusappearstobecompletelyonewithit,so,also,representtoyourselfthethingswithChrist!ForGodhas,inan ineffablewayunitedwithhumanity,retainedwhatthiswasbutalsowhathewas;oncetruly united, it (the humanity) is one with him. For he has made his own what is its(humanitys)andnowpoursoutintoitthepowerofhisownnature( ).Scholia154ff./Grillmeier,ChristII282.
1contGramIII33(CSCO,102)134.
2SeecontGramIII33(CSCO,102)1361720;adSergI(CSCO120)62821.
3contGramIII33(CSCO,102)135210/Grillmeier,ChristII2168.Severusbasedhisconceptionofflesh as on the teaching of Athanasius: .
. contArian 389ab; see contGram III 33 (CSCO, 102) 1352022; see also in
Athanasius:
.deIncarn8.3710.
-
39
ThisclarifiestheplaceofahumanaspectintheactivityofChrist,which
canberegardedasavehicleofthedominatingdivineenergeiahelping ittobe
manifestedintheworld.Thisvehicleisanintegratedpartofthesingleactivity,
thoughnotassignificantasthedivineone.Severusillustratedthisbyreferring
totheGospelstoryaboutthehealingoftheleper:
WhiletheincarnateGodspokewithhumantongueandsaidwithhumanandclear voice to the leper: Iwill, be clean (Matt 8, 3),he showed through theeffectthatthevoice,inkeepingwiththemixingworthyofGod,hasgoneforthfrom the incarnateGod; for the healing of the leperwent togetherwith theheardword.1
ThisisanillustrationofhowSeverusunderstoodtheprocessofChrists
action,whichwasreconstructedbyA.Grillmeier: Theactivitystarts from the
divinityastherealsource;itmixesitselfwiththehumanvoice(oraswellwith
thetouchofJesushand)andproducesthemiraculouseffectinthesickperson.
Thehumanvoiceisonlythevehicleofthedivineflowofwill.2
Anticipating the laterMonenergists,Severusbuilthisconceptionof the
single energeia upon the famous formula from the fourth epistle of ps.
DionysiustoGaius:
For,even,tospeaksummarily,Hewasnotaman,notasnotbeingman,butasbeingfrommenwasbeyondmen,andwasaboveman,havingtrulybeenbornman;andfortherest,nothavingdonethingsDivineasGod,northingshumanasman,butexercising forusa certainnew theandricenergyofGodhavingbecomeman.3
1contGramIII32(CSCO102)942732/Grillmeier,ChristII2163164.
2Grillmeier,ChristII2164.
3 CorpDionys II 161; PG 3, 1072bc/Transl. by John Parker (modified), The Saint PachomiusLibraryhttp://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/diolet4.html[23/07/2003].
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/diolet4.html
-
40
Severus was the first theologian who interpreted the formula in the
Monenergistway.Hewrotesomescholia to this text. Inoneof them,which is
foundinthelettertoJohntheabbot,hestated:
Aswehavealreadydevelopedinfullbreadthinotherwritings,weunderstoodand understand the statement of the utterlywiseDionysius theAreopagite,who says: SinceGodhasbecomeahumanbeing,heperformedamongusanewtheandricactivity,oftheonecomposite(activity);itcannotbeinterpretedother than as a rejectionof everyduality; andwe confess the incarnateGod,whooperated inthisnewmanner,astheonetheandricnatureandhypostasisandalsoas theone incarnatenatureof theGodLogos.Because thereasonofsalvation, which has established new natures, together with them hasestablishednewappellations.SothatifChristisone,thanweascend,sotosay,toahighmountainandprofessonebecausehe isonenature,hypostasis,and energeia, (whicharealso)composite;alsoweanathematizeall thosewho,concerning this (question), teachsaboutadyadofnaturesandactivitiesaftertheunity.1
Thispassageprovidesrichmaterialforconclusions.2Firstly,Severusonce
againrepeatedthattheenergeiaofChristissingle,andthisisbecauseChristis
one. It is single also because thenaturehypostasis3 ofChrist is single.Apart
from this, he showed us that the energeia is closely linked to the nature
hypostasis.ThemodeoftheirunityandtheirexistenceaftertheIncarnationare
identical.Therefore,theycanbecharacterizedinasimilarway.4Forinstance,as
1adIoan309310.
2 For a theological interpretation of the text seeA.Grillmeier,Christ II2 170171; J.Lebon, LeMonophysitisme319320,451453;LepseudoDenys893895.
3Asitisknown,SeverusconsideredthetermsnatureandhypostasisinapplicationtoChristassynonyms(see,forinstance,Grillmeier,ChristII2150152).
4 See another fragment from the epistle to John the abbot:
.adIoan310811.J.Leboncommentsonthesepassages: Lanatureet lhypostaseduVerbe incarnesontdans lesmmesconditionsquesonactivit:si londitque lactivitestunique,thandriqueetcompose, ilest logiquededonnercesqualificatifslanatureetlhypostase.LeMonophysitisme320.
-
41
the single energeia of Christ is theandric so is the naturehypostasis: We
confess one theandric nature and hypostasis.1On the other hand, the single
energeiaofChristisoneandcomposite,asisthenaturehypostasis.Thus,what
Severus meant when speaking about the single composite nature and
hypostasis can help us to reconstruct his idea about the single composite
activityofChrist.
TheusagebySeverusof the term with respect toChristhad
been formally justifiedbyCyrilofAlexandria2andGregoryofNazianzus3 to
whom he refers. However, the expression one composite nature and
hypostasis had never been used before.4 The expression is synonymous at
leastforSeveruswiththeclassicalformulaoneincarnatenatureoftheWord.
The theologian opposed the to the mixing ( ) and made it
synonymouswith the unity ( ).Byusing theexpression,hewanted to
avoid two extremes, that of a division and that of amixture in Christ.As
A.Grillmeier remarks, for Severus was not so much a static
ontologicalendresult,asratherthecharacterizationofthehistoricalprocessof
1 adIoan30924.
2Severus,adSergium II (CSCO120)80.Herefers to the followingworksofCyril:adSuccen II;QuodUnus689ab.
3SeeSeverusadSergII(CSCO120)8486.
4This is theconclusionof J.Lebon: En somme,Svreest le seul tmoinde la formule: ( ) , quil emploie dans une passage de sa 3e lettre Jean
lhigoumne.LeMonophysitisme319.
-
42
the assumptionof the fleshby theLogos according to the hypostasis.1 It also
signifiedanew statusofexistenceof thenatureofChrist.Thehumanityand
divinity of Christ exist only in the status of the composition (
).OutofChrist, they existon the entirelydifferent levelofbeing
independentmonads ( ).2All thesecharacteristicsof
the composed naturehypostasis can be applied to the composed energeia of
Christ.Thus,theenergeiaisnotamixture,butadynamicunityofitsdivineand
human components. In fact, it is an entirely new and different modus of
activity,which can be identified neitherwith purely divine norwith purely
humanactivities.
ApartfromemphasisingtheunityofthesingleChristsenergeia,Severus
alsoallowedcertaindiversityinit.Thus,hedrewadistinctionbetweentheone
actingChrist, one activity, and result(s) of this activity: Hewho acts is one
thing,andactivity isanother,andanother thatwhichwasenacted,and these
thingsarequiteremoved fromeachother.3Theactivity isnotsomething that
1ChristII2128.
2LeontiusofJerusalemascribedtheexpressionstoSeverus(contMonoph1848a;seeJ.Lebon,Lachristologie 476 n. 59; Grillmeier, Christ II2127). J.Lebon: Svre declare quil ne peutcomprendre cetteexpression,sicenestdans le sensduneactivit compose ( )maisrigoureusementune( ).Lpithte nelseenrienlunitdactivit;elleindiqueseulementquecetteactivitdungenrenouveau,queleVerbeexerceaprsstrefaitchair,estle rsultat de la composition. Or, cette dernire carte la division aussi bien quelle vite lemlangedes choses composes.Lepatriarchepeut ainsi conserverdans leChristune activitunique,malgr laqualificationde thandriquequellereoitde lAreopagite.LeMonophysitisme319320.
3adSergI(CSCO119)81/IainTorrance.ChristologyafterChalcedon:SeverusofAntiochandSergiustheMonophysite.Norwich:CanterburyPress,1988,152.
-
43
exists detached of the acting subject. It has no an independent existence,
becauseitisjustamovementoramotion:Activityissomethinginthemiddle,
thatis,anactivemovement,betweenhimwhoactedandthatwhichwasacted
upon.1 Severus formulated the ontological status of activity as beingnot a
hypostasis.Ontheotherhand,theresultsoftheactivity,beingconcretethings,
arehypostases:(Activity)isnotahypostasis,butthethingswhichareenacted,
whicharebroughttocompletionasaresultofthisandexist,(arehypostases).2
Inthis,Severusfollowsps.BasilsfourthbookContraEunomium3,inwhichthe
samedistinctionwas employed.4BothChrist andhis activity for Severus are
single. The latter could be attributed neither to the Godhead nor to the
humanity, but to the single Christ. The results of the activity, however, are
diverseandcanbeclassifiedeitherasdivineorhumanworks:
Thereisonewhoacts( ),thatistheWordofGodincarnate;andthereisoneactivemovementwhich isactivity ( ),but the thingswhicharedone ( ) are diverse, that is, (the things) accomplished byactivityAnd it isnot that, because these thingswhichweredonewereofdifferentkinds,we say that conceptually therewere twonatureswhichwere
1adSergI(CSCO119)82/Torrance,Christology152153.
2adSergI(CSCO119)81/Torrance,Christology152.
3Abouttheauthenticityofthebooks4and5seeClavisPatrumGraecorum(CPG)2837.
4Theauthorof the4thbookcontEunomwrites: .
. .contEunom689c.
-
44
effecting those things, for aswehave said, a singleGod theWord incarnateperformedbothofthem.1
Inorder to illustratehowChristacted,Severususedthemodelofman.
He said that there are intellectual and corporeal humanworks that can be
clearlydistinguished.Eachsortofworkscorrespondseithertobodyortosoul.
However,theactivityisstillone:
Thereforegodlessarethose,whowithregardtoChristteachtwonatureswhichact;for it isnecessarythateachnaturehasanactionwhichispropertoitanddifferent,thatis,anactingmovement/motion.IfweconfessChristasonefromtwo,andasoneperson,onehypostasisandonesingle incarnatenatureoftheLogos, consequently itwillbeonewho acts andonemovementwhichbearshim in action, although the works are different, that is, the completelyperformed deedswhich come from the action. For some fitGod, others thehuman being; but they are performed by one and the same, by God whowithout alteration has become flesh and a human being. And this is notsurprising, (but) similar to theworks of a human being, ofwhich some areintellectual, theothersvisibleandcorporeal It is,however,asinglehumanbeing,composedofabodyandasoul,whodoesthisandthat,andthereisonlyonesingleworkingmovement.Hence,whenChristisconcerned,werecognizea change ofwords. Some suit God, others the human being But on thisaccountwedonot say that there theybelong to thatnatureandhere to thisnature. For theywere expressed indistinguishably of the one and the sameChrist.2
Thus, the activity and its results, deeds, do not always correspond to
each other. The unity of the activity, fromwhich neither purely divine nor
purelyhumanenergeiaicanbeextracted,becomesdispersedintomultipledeeds
thatcouldbedescribedeitherasdivineorashuman.
1adSergI(CSCO120)6033619/Grillmeier,ChristII2165.HerepeatedthesameideaincontGram:There isonlyone singleactivity,onlyone singleoperativemotion,as there isalsoonlyonespeaking of the incarnate Logos, be it that the actions and thewords have been different.contGram III 38 (CSCO 102) 17567. J.Meyendorff remarks about this point of Severus: Theagentsunity(Christssinglehypostasisnature)entailstheunityofenergeia,withoutmakingitimpossible for theworks, corresponding to the natural qualities of the human and divinenatures,tobedistributed intovariouscategories,divineandhuman.JohnMeyendorff.ChristinEasternChristianthought.2nded.Crestwood,N.Y:St.Vladimir sSeminaryPress,1975,43.
2Hom109,758760.
-
45
Another important question, which is closely linked to the issue of
energeia, is that ofChrists natural property(ies). Severus developed a special
andquiteinnovativeconceptionofthenaturalproperties.Thisconceptionwas
articulated mainly in his correspondence with Sergius the Grammarian.1
Severusused theword propertyboth in thesingularand theplural. Inboth
cases,he called them natural. In the caseofpropertiesintheplural,healso
spokeofpropertiesoftheflesh,propertiesofthehumanity,andpropertiesof
thedivinityoftheWord.2Inrespecttothepropertyinthesingular,heasserted
itsoneness.Hecondemned the ideaof twopropertiescoexisting inChrist,as
wellasoftwoenergeiai.Heprobablyreferredtothecorrespondingteachingof
hisopponentsamongtheDyophysites:
IfsomeoneshouldwrongfullydivideEmmanuelwithadualityofnaturesafterthe union, there also occurs a division at the same time, along with thedifferenceofthenatures,andthepropertiesaredividedineveryrespecttosuitthe(two)natures.3
TwonaturesofChristwouldnecessarilyintroducetwoproperties.Thisis
because his property (propertyinthesingular) corresponds to the nature. In
another part of the same letter, Severus spoke of a complete fitting of the
propertytothenature:Thosenaturesattracttheirownactivitiesandproperties
which are divided along with the natures completely and in everything.4
1SeeaspecialresearchofTorrance,Christology;seealsoA.Grillmeier,ChristII2111128.
2adSergI(CSCO119)7779/Torrance,Christology150.
3adSergI(CSCO119)7778/Torrance,Christology150.
4adSergI(CSCO119)80/Torrance,Christology151.
-
46
However, the propertyinthesingular is not monolithic. It reflects the
wholeness of Christs nature, which includes divinity and humanity.1 The
Godheaddoesnotturn intothehumanity,andthehumanitydoesnotbecome
divinity. The single Logos retains both of them unchangeable as his natural
characteristicsandnaturalproperties:
Wearenotallowedtoanathematizethosewhospeakofnaturalproperties:thedivinityandthehumanitythatmakethesingleChrist.Thefleshdoesnotceasetoexistasflesh,evenifitbecomesGodsflesh,andtheWorddoesnotabandonhis own nature, even if he unites himself hypostatically to the fleshwhichpossessesarationalandintelligentsoul.Butthedifferenceisalsopreservedaswellastheidentityundertheformofthenaturalcharacteristicsofthenatureswhichmake up the Emmanuel, since the flesh is not transformed into theWordsnatureandtheWordisnotchangedintoflesh.2
Thesespecialcharacteristicsofdivinityandhumanity,whichareretained
by thesinglenatureof theLogos,werecalledbySeverus particularities.The
naturalpropertythatremainssinglerevealsthesetwoparticularities:
Weareobliged toacknowledgeaswell theparticularitiesof thenatures fromwhichEmmanuelis.Andwecallthisaparticularityandnameit:(thisis,)thatwhich (lies) indifferenceofnaturalquality,which (definition) Iwillnotceaserepeatingmany times, and not that (which lies) in (independent) parts, andnaturesinindependentexistenceareimplied.3
Moreover, the two particularities should be ascribed primarily to the
propertyofChristandmuchlesstohisnature.Insuchaway,Severusfoundan
effective solution to the antinomy which he was always facing: how is it
possible to speak simultaneously about the unity and a certain duality of
1Severusremarked:Naturalqualityistheprincipleofhow(athing)is.adSergI(CSCO119)7778/Torrance,Christology150.
2adOecum2176177/Meyendorff,Christ4041.
3adSerg (CSCO119)80/Torrance,Christology152.
-
47
Christsnature?Tohim,itwaspossiblebecausethedualityisretainedmainlyin
thepropertyofthenature.Byascribingparticularitiestotheproperty,Severus
withdrew them from thesinglenatureandsoprotected it frombeingsplitby
particularities. In addition, the fact that Christs single naturehypostasis is
compositecouldbeexplainedbythedualcharacterofthenaturalproperty.1
ItisnowpossibletoconcludethatthedualityofthepropertyforSeverus
wasstrongerthanthedualityeitherofthenatureoroftheenergeia.Thismeans,
in turn, that thepropertydidnot correspondas closely to thenature,as, for
example, the Chalcedonians believed. Thus, Severus allowed certain
incoherenceanda gapbetweenthenatureand itsproperty.Sucha gapalso
existsbetweenthepropertyandtheactivity,whichismorecloselyrelatedtothe
nature than the property.However, even so the property remains single. In
order toprove this,Severus impliedanargument that laterwouldbeusedby
theMonenergists.Hesaidthatifoneacceptstwoproperties,thenamultiplicity
ofthemmustbeassumed,becauseboththedivinityandthehumanityofChrist
havevariousproperties:
Howisitnotabsurdtospeakoftwopropertiesortwoactivities?Fortherearemanypropertiesandnotjusttwo,ofeachnature.Forexample,ofhishumanitythereisperceptibility,andvisibility,andmortality,andbeingsubjecttohungerand to thirstand toother things like it.And therearemanypropertiesof thedivinenature:invisibility,intangibility,beingbeforetheages,beingunlimited.
1 SeeMeyendorff: These two categories or qualities, divine and human,within the singlenature (or concrete being) areundoubtedlywhatmakes this composite nature inevitable.Christ41.
-
48
Thethingswhicharedonearesimilarlymanyandvarious,andalltheseareasmanyasthehumananddivineactionsthatamancanrecount.1
Severususedinthispassagethewordpropertyintheplural.Hemadea
clear distinction between the single property and themultiple properties of
Christssinglenature.Heplacedthepropertiesinthepluralonthesamescale
as the deeds of Christ. They are, so to speak, deeds either of the single
propertyorofthesinglenature.Themultiplicityofthepropertiesintheplural
canbegroupedintotwocategories:divineandhuman.Somepropertiesretain
theirdivinecharacter,othersthehumanone.However,thisdistinctionbetween
theproperties isconditional.Becauseof theirunity inoneChrist, theycanbe
characterizedneitheraspurelydivinenoraspurelyhuman.Thedivineones
canalsobenamedhumanandviceversa:
Whenahypostaticunionisprofessed,ofwhichthefulfilmentisthatfromtwothere isoneChristwithoutconfusion,oneperson,onehypostasis,onenaturebelongingtotheWordincarnate,theWordisknownbymeansofthepropertiesof the flesh,and thepropertiesof thehumanitywillbecome thepropertiesofthe divinity of the Word; and again the properties of the Word will beacknowledgedasthepropertiesoftheflesh,andthesameonewillbeseenbymeans of both (sets of properties), both touchable and not touchable, andvisible andnotvisible, andbelonging to time and frombefore time, andweshallnotattributethepropertiesofeachnature,dividingthemup.2
3.1.2.MONOTHELITISMOFSEVERUS
SeverusdidnotpayasmuchattentiontotheconceptionofwillinChrist
ashedidinthecaseoftheenergeia.Wehaveafewgeneraloutlinesofhisviews
1adSergI(CSCO119)8687/Torrance,Christology155.
2adSergI(CSCO119)79/Torrance,Christology151.
-
49
onthequestionofwill.DeaconOlympiodore1,anAlexandrianexegeteordained
by thePatriarch John IINicaiotes (505516), tellsus thatSeverus taughtabout
onewillofChrist.2Indeed,Severusallowsaresearcherofhisviewstoconclude
thathepreferred to speak of the singlewill inChrist. Severus linkedwill to
activity.An activity is an impetus of awill (in other passages, however, he
impliesthat,rather,awillistheimpetusofanactivity).InChristthereisnogap
betweenwillingandactinghewillsandimmediatelyacts:
Hewhoacts ishewho is impelled towardsdoingsomething,but theactivity(is) likeanactivemovementand impetusofthewillwhich isdirectedonandindicatesdoingsomething,andissetinmotionatonce.Inthecaseo