| Part of a series on |
| Eastern Christianity |
|---|
|
Eastern Christianity portal
|
| History |
|
Orthodox Church History Asian Christianity Coptic Egypt · Ukraine |
| Traditions |
| Orthodox Church Others: Oriental Orthodoxy Ethiopian Tewahedo Church Coptic Church Church of the East Eastern Catholic Churches Syriac Christianity |
| Liturgy and worship |
| Sign of the cross Divine Liturgy Iconography Asceticism Omophorion |
| Theology |
| Hesychasm · Icon Apophaticism Filioque clause Miaphysitism Monophysitism Diophysitism Nestorianism Theosis · Theoria Phronema · Philokalia Praxis · Theotokos Hypostasis · Ousia Essence vs. Energies Metousiosis |
Miaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is a Christological formula of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and of the various churches adhering to the first three Ecumenical Councils. Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one or single nature ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.[1]
Historically, Chalcedonian Christians have considered Miaphysitism in general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation, but they have nevertheless perceived the Miaphysitism of the non-Chalcedonians to be a form of Monophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox Churches themselves reject this characterization.[2]
Contents |
The term "miaphysitism" arose as a response to Nestorianism. As Nestorianism had its roots in the Antiochene tradition and was opposed by the Alexandrian tradition, Christians in Syria and Egypt who wanted to distance themselves from the extremes of Nestorianism and wished to uphold the integrity of their theological position adopted this term to express their position.
The theology of miaphysitism is based on an understanding of the nature (Greek φύσις physis) of Christ: divine and human. After steering between the doctrines of docetism (that Christ only appeared to be human) and adoptionism (that Christ was a man chosen by God), the Church began to explore the mystery of Christ's nature further. Two positions in particular caused controversy:
In response to Eutychianism, the latter Council adopted dyophysitism, which clearly distinguished between person and nature, stating that Christ is one person in two natures, but emphasizes that the natures are "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation".
The Miaphysites rejected this definition as verging on Nestorianism and instead adhered to a wording of Cyril of Alexandria, the chief opponent of Nestorianism, who had spoken of the "one (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate" (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη mia physis tou theou logou sesarkōmenē).[3] The distinction of this stance was that the incarnate Christ has one nature, but that nature is still of both a divine character and a human character, and retains all the characteristics of both. Though the Miaphysites condemned Eutychianism, the two groups were both viewed as monophysites by their opponents.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) was often seen as a watershed for Christology among the Chalcedonians as it adopted dyophysitism. However, as Eastern Churches, especially the Copts in Egypt, who held to Miaphysitism, rejected the decision, the controversy became a major socio-political problem for the Byzantine Empire. There were numerous attempts at reunion between the two camps (including the Henoticon in 482), and the balance of power shifted several times. However, the decision at Chalcedon remains the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and traditional Protestants. The non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches are usually grouped together as Oriental Orthodox. Over recent decades, leaders of the various branches of the Church have spoken about the differences between their respective christologies as not being as extreme as was traditionally held.
John Meyendorff, an historian of this period of Church history, held that the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church is not expressed by Chalcedon alone, but by "Chalcedon plus Cyril" – i.e., the dyophysite position expressed by Chalcedon, plus Cyril's miaphysite expression quoted above in its Orthodox interpretation – with the former attempting to express the inexpressible from one side (the dyophysite site) and the latter doing the same from the miaphysite side, both approaches being necessary and neither sufficient by itself.
Much has been said about the difficulties in understanding the Greek technical terms used in these controversies. The main words are ousia (οὐσία, 'substance'), physis (φύσις, 'nature'), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and prosopon (πρόσωπον, 'person'). Even in Greek, their meanings can overlap somewhat. These difficulties became even more exaggerated when these technical terms were translated into other languages. In Syriac, physis was translated as kyānâ (ܟܝܢܐ) and hypostasis was qnômâ (ܩܢܘܡܐ). However, in the Persian Church, or the East Syriac tradition, qnoma was taken to mean nature, thereby confounding the issue further. The shades of meaning are even more blurred between these words, and they could not be used in such a philosophical way as their Greek counterparts.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches include the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, the Indian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church (including the British Orthodox Church which is under the Patriarch of Alexandria), the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church ('tewahido' is a Ge'ez word meaning 'being made one') and the newly autocephalous Eritrean Orthodox Church.
One or more of the Independent Catholic Churches, while not being in full communion with the above Churches for various reasons, also embrace this Christology. These include the Antiochian Catholic Church in America. In recent theological discourses, some Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholic and Anglican theologians have begun to embrace this Christology as being consistent with, though different from, the Chalcedon formulation.
Just as the Second Council of Constantinople (known as the "Fifth Ecumenical Council") condemned a certain understanding of the Dyophysite formula introduced at the Council of Chalcedon, it likewise condemned a certain understanding of the Miaphysite terminology of Cyril of Alexandria introduced at the Council of Ephesus, thus leaving room for other orthodox understandings for both Dyophysitism and Miaphysitism. A certain understanding of Miaphysitism thus was affirmed as acceptable doctrine among the Chalcedonians.