Monophysite, Miaphysite, Non-Chalcedonian

Three words are in circulation and they name three different things. “Monophysite” strictly names the Eutychian doctrine that Christ’s humanity was absorbed into his divinity — a heresy the separated churches themselves anathematize. “Miaphysite” names the Cyrilline “one incarnate nature” Christology as Severus of Antioch and the Oriental Orthodox hold it. “Non-Chalcedonian” names, accurately and without prejudging the doctrinal question, those who did not receive the Fourth Ecumenical Council. This file fixes the definitions, gives their scholarly history, and notes where this repository’s own usage is inconsistent.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

Why a File About Words

Because the entire dispute is about a word.

The Chalcedonian schism is unique among the Church’s great divisions in that both sides confess, in their own vocabularies, that Christ is one, that he is fully God and fully man, that his humanity is consubstantial with ours, that the Virgin is Theotokos, and that Nestorius and Eutyches are both heretics. What they do not share is a use of the word physis. If a reader does not have the words straight, he cannot even state what the disagreement is — let alone assess it. And a reader who has been taught to call the Copts “Monophysites” has been taught to believe something about them that is false, which is a poor foundation for either argument or charity.

“Monophysite” — What It Strictly Names

From μόνος, “single, alone,” and φύσις: the doctrine that after the union there is only one nature in Christ, the human having been absorbed, swallowed up, or so overwhelmed by the divine that it no longer subsists as a genuine nature consubstantial with ours. This is Eutychianism.

The historical Eutyches held exactly this. He would say Christ was “of two natures” before the union and “one nature” after it, and he balked at confessing that Christ’s flesh is consubstantial with ours — the point on which the Home Synod of Constantinople condemned him in November 448 (acts of the 448 synod, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.1.1; Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005, vol. 1, 1–37; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 2nd ed., London: Mowbray, 1975, 523–526). The image associated with the position is the drop of honey lost in the sea.

Monophysitism so defined is a heresy, condemned by the Church, and it is the doctrine the four adverbs “without confusion, without change” of the Chalcedonian Definition exclude. It is also — and this is the whole point of the file — the doctrine the Oriental Orthodox churches themselves anathematize. Severus of Antioch wrote against it; the separated churches condemn Eutyches by name in their own tradition; and the First Agreed Statement of 1989 records both families affirming that they condemn Eutychianism (First Agreed Statement, Anba Bishoy Monastery, 20–24 June 1989; see The Chambésy Statements and the Proposal to Lift the Anathemas).

To call the Copts, the Syriac Orthodox, the Armenians, or the Ethiopians “Monophysites” in the strict sense is therefore to attribute to them a doctrine they repudiate. It is inaccurate, and METHODOLOGY §4.1 forbids it: heterodox and separated positions are to be reported accurately, in their own terms.

“Miaphysite” — What It Names

From μία, “one” in the sense of a single united or composite reality, and φύσις: the doctrine that Christ is out of two natures united into one incarnate nature, “without mingling, without confusion, without alteration,” each constituent retaining the fullness of its own properties, so that the double consubstantiality is affirmed — consubstantial with the Father in Godhead, consubstantial with us in manhood.

This is St. Cyril’s formula mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē, “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” taken as the governing rule of faith. In this usage physis does not mean what Chalcedon means by it. It means the one concrete living reality of the incarnate Christ — approximately what Chalcedon calls hypostasis. Cyril used physis and hypostasis nearly interchangeably; the formula reached him under St. Athanasius’ name and in fact derives from Apollinaris, a provenance Cyril did not know (McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, Leiden: Brill, 1994, on the misattribution).

Severus of Antioch is the classical Miaphysite theologian. He confessed the double consubstantiality; anathematized Eutyches; anathematized Julian of Halicarnassus for teaching an incorruptible body; and distinguished the two natures “in thought alone” (kat’ epinoian) while refusing to number them in the concrete (Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien, Louvain, 1909; Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, London: Routledge, 2004; Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon, Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1988; see Severus, Jacob Baradaeus, and the Parallel Hierarchies).

The word “Miaphysite” itself is modern, not ancient. It was proposed as a technical term of the history of dogma in the twentieth century precisely to mark the difference from Eutychianism; the article that fixed it in scholarly use is Dietmar W. Winkler, “Miaphysitism: A New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology,” The Harp 10 (1997): 33–40. Aloys Grillmeier came to prefer the description “mia-physis Christology” for the same reason; Sebastian Brock urged retiring “Monophysite” from scholarly usage as a mislabel (Winkler, 1997; Grillmeier with Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2 pts. 1–2, London: Mowbray, 1987–1995; Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, London: Routledge, 2000, 56, on Brock’s argument). The change of vocabulary in the literature is therefore not an ecumenical courtesy but a correction of a historical description, made by scholars including Roman Catholics and Protestants with no stake in Orthodox–Oriental relations.

Note carefully what “Miaphysite” does and does not settle. It settles that the position is not Eutychian. It does not settle that the position is orthodox, that it is identical in substance with the Chalcedonian confession, or that the Church’s condemnations of its teachers were mistaken. Those are separate questions, and the next file treats them.

“Non-Chalcedonian” — Why This Collection Prefers It

Non-Chalcedonian names the fact: these are the churches and parties that did not receive the Council of Chalcedon and the three Ecumenical Councils after it.

This is the accurate general term, for three reasons.

It states what is actually at issue. The Orthodox objection is not a diagnosis of a Christological error inside these churches’ teaching; it is that they refused the confession of an Ecumenical Council and broke communion over it. “Non-Chalcedonian” says that and nothing else.

It is true of everyone it covers. “Miaphysite” is a description of a theology, and it fits Severus and the mature tradition well; it fits the Armenian position less exactly, and it says nothing at all about the ecclesial fact. “Non-Chalcedonian” covers the whole family without misdescribing any part of it.

It does not concede the argument. A term that named the position “orthodox in different words” would prejudge Section 09; a term that named it “Monophysite” would prejudge it in the other direction and falsely. “Non-Chalcedonian” leaves the assessment where it belongs — with the Church — while stating the fact accurately.

“Oriental Orthodox” is the self-designation of the modern family — Coptic, Syriac, Armenian Apostolic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Malankara (Indian) — and this collection uses it when referring to those churches as bodies, in the ordinary way one uses a church’s own name. Using a body’s name is not a doctrinal concession; the Orthodox Church has always called the Latins “Roman Catholics” without thereby conceding the claims in either word.

“Anti-Chalcedonian” is used in this collection only of the active opposition of the fifth and sixth centuries — men who campaigned against the council — and not of the modern churches, for whom it is inaccurate in tone.

A Note on This Repository’s Own Usage

Honesty requires a note here, since this file sets a rule that the repository as a whole does not yet keep.

Usage across this knowledge base is currently inconsistent. A substantial number of files use “Monophysite” or “Monophysitism” — including files in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, which speaks of “the Monophysite reaction” and titles a section heading accordingly — while roughly two dozen other files use “miaphysite” for the same tradition. Some files, notably The Definition and the Non-Chalcedonians and the flagship treatments in the St. Cyril and St. Leo collections, state the distinction correctly and then keep it.

The correct usage is the one set out above and applied throughout this collection. Where an older file uses “Monophysite” of the Eutychian error itself — Eutyches’ own doctrine, the “Monophysite” heresy properly so called — it is right. Where it uses “Monophysite” of the Severan tradition or of the modern Oriental Orthodox churches, it should read “Miaphysite” or “non-Chalcedonian,” and a reader encountering it should understand the tradition, not the heresy, to be meant.

This collection does not edit other collections, and no such edits have been made. The inconsistency is recorded here so that a reader who meets both words in this repository knows which is right and why.

Quick Reference

Term	Strictly names	Applies to	Verdict
Monophysite	The humanity absorbed into the divinity; double consubstantiality denied	Eutyches and his followers	A heresy, condemned by the Church — and anathematized by the non-Chalcedonian churches too
Miaphysite	Cyril’s “one incarnate nature” as governing formula; natures distinguished kat’ epinoian; double consubstantiality affirmed	Severus of Antioch; the mature Oriental Orthodox tradition	Not Eutychian; still a refusal of the Chalcedonian confession — see the next file
Non-Chalcedonian	Not having received the Fourth Ecumenical Council and those after it	The whole family, ancient and modern	The accurate descriptive term; the fact from which everything else follows
Oriental Orthodox	The modern communion of six churches	Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankara	Their own name for themselves; used as such

References

Winkler, Dietmar W. “Miaphysitism: A New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology.” The Harp 10 (1997): 33–40.
Grillmeier, Aloys, with Theresia Hainthaler. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. (London: Mowbray, 1975); vol. 2 pts. 1–2, trans. Pauline Allen and John Cawte (London: Mowbray, 1987–1995).
Lebon, Joseph. Le monophysisme sévérien. Louvain: Van Linthout, 1909.
Allen, Pauline, and C. T. R. Hayward. Severus of Antioch. London: Routledge, 2004.
Torrance, Iain R. Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite. Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1988.
Russell, Norman. Cyril of Alexandria. London: Routledge, 2000.
McGuckin, John A. St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 3 vols. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005.
First Agreed Statement of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, 20–24 June 1989.