08 — The Terms

The terminological flagship of the collection, and a genuine service to the reader. Three words are in circulation — “Monophysite,” “Miaphysite,” “non-Chalcedonian” — and they do not mean the same thing. Getting them right is not a diplomatic softening of the Orthodox case; it is what makes the Orthodox case sayable. The objection is not that the separated churches are Eutychians. It is that they rejected an Ecumenical Council.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

Contents

File Description
monophysite-miaphysite-non-chalcedonian.md What each term strictly names: “Monophysite” for the Eutychian error that the separated churches themselves anathematize; “Miaphysite” for the Cyrilline formula as Severus used it, with the term’s own scholarly history (Winkler, Grillmeier, Brock); “non-Chalcedonian” as the accurate descriptive term; and a note on this repository’s own inconsistent usage
why-precision-strengthens-the-case.md Why exactness here makes the Orthodox objection stronger and not weaker: what the real charge is, why the caricature is a bad argument as well as an unjust one, what “Miaphysite” does not establish, and how to speak about the separated churches without either falsehood or false equivalence

Reading Order

Read Monophysite, Miaphysite, Non-Chalcedonian first for the definitions, then Why Precision Strengthens the Case for what follows from them.

The Rule of This Collection

Throughout these files: “Monophysite” is used only of Eutyches and of the doctrine that the humanity was absorbed. “Miaphysite” is used for the Cyrilline “one incarnate nature” Christology as held by Severus and by the Oriental Orthodox, when that specific doctrine is meant. “Non-Chalcedonian” is the general descriptive term for the churches and parties that did not receive the Fourth Council, and it is the term this collection prefers, because it names exactly what is at issue.

See Also