More on Monophysites...

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I hope to post some more thoughts on modern day Monophysites (ie. Copts, Armenians,ect) within a week or so.

As a precursor, I would like Anastasios' (an SVS theology student) and/or Mor Ephrem's thoughts, as long time defenders of "anti-Chalcedonians", on the following: Without regard to any issues relative to Monophysitism specifically, ecumenists are completley at a loss to explain why "anti-Chalcedonians" are not Monothelites. It is a fact that anti-Chalcedonians with much compunction admit they are indeed Monothelites and believe in Monoenergism.

Comments?

[Anastasios]

I always cringe when this topic comes up because I have consistently said that I am not theologically gifted and educated enough to discuss monophystism. In Patristics 202, we zoom through it in 3 weeks as part of a discussion of Chalcedon before and after. There are just so many more worthwhile things to cover such as St Athanasios, St John of Damascus, etc. But I will try to offer a few comments.

Monothelitism, if I recall correctly, was a political heresy invented by Patriarch Sergius (not the one everyone on this site hates! ). It was framed in a Neo-Chalcedonian (ie. those who accepted Chalcedon after the fifth council condemned the Three Chapters, cf. Leontius of Byzantium's theology) millieu as an attempt to speak of one will in Christ as in one principle of action, so that Christ would be united.

St Maximus the Confessor noted that a nature, in order to be a real thing, would have to have a will or an energy, because a real nature has to operate. So he found Sergius's reasoning to be lacking and shortsighted, and hence declared that no, Christ has two wills and two energies.

Non-Chalcedonians, on the other hand, seeing the nature of Jesus Christ as being one incarnate (composite) nature after the union coming from the two diverse natures (human and divine) saw union of God and man in a different way (as a composite nature) and hence the idea of energy or will is foreign to their whole theological system. In other words, they are not concerned with whether a nature has to have an energy proper to it to be a true nature, nor are they interested in wills or energies in Sergius's way of thinking because Sergius was creating this idea of operation in order to speak of a unified Christ. Non-Chalcdonians, believing the Word taking flesh effected the one Christ, would need no exposition of one energy to maintain one subject.

In other words, you are taking the question out of its historical development and context and hence coming to a novel conclusion. Someone once said (I will have to ask Fr Behr), "conclusions without the arguments that preceed them are ambiguous at best." Of course I mean this in a spirit of fraternal charity.

anastasios

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

Thank you for the explanation.

Of course the Orthodox say, that because Christ had a Human Nature, He had a Human Will, which was capable of Sin. The centerpiece of the Monothelite heresy, which is really part of the Monophysite heresy, is the conclusion that because the Divine and Human Nature became One Nature, there was no longer a Human Will capable of Sin. After all, without the human Will there is no chance for sin whatsoever. This would be like saying Christ's human Nature was was only good in-so-far as it gave Him flesh, but because he did not have a Human Will, He really did not have all the properties of a man.

This is very profound and important. Without Two Wills, there is no New Adam.

In other words, they [Monophysites] are not concerned with whether a nature has to have an energy proper to it to be a true nature, nor are they interested in wills or energies in Sergius's way of thinking .... Non-Chalcdonians, believing the Word taking flesh effected the one Christ, would need no exposition of one energy to maintain one subject.

I believe you are mistaken here, they are concerned. They explicitly point out that when they talk about One Will, there is no longer room for a discussion of Two Wills acting as One through some unity like they do when they discuss One Nature, but that since there is One Nature, there is as a result only One Will. Within this One Will,

I don't have any more time tonight although I have more to say here, as you might have guessed.

[Aristokles]

Anastasios,
Of course the Orthodox say, that because Christ had a Human Nature, He had a Human Will, which was capable of Sin. The centerpiece of the Monothelite heresy, which is really part of the Monophysite heresy, is the conclusion that because the Divine and Human Nature became One Nature, there was no longer a Human Will capable of Sin. After all, without the human Will there is no chance for sin whatsoever. This would be like saying Christ's human Nature was was only good in-so-far as it gave Him flesh, but because he did not have a Human Will, He really did not have all the properties of a man.
This is very profound and important. Without Two Wills, there is no New Adam.

In other words, they [Monophysites] are not concerned with whether a nature has to have an energy proper to it to be a true nature, nor are they interested in wills or energies in Sergius's way of thinking .... Non-Chalcdonians, believing the Word taking flesh effected the one Christ, would need no exposition of one energy to maintain one subject.

I believe you are mistaken here, they are concerned. They explicitly point out that when they talk about One Will, there is no longer room for a discussion of Two Wills acting as One through some unity like they do when they discuss One Nature, but that since there is One Nature, there is as a result only One Will. Within this One Will,

Ah!....I am beginning to see some clearing in the fog. If OOD is correct here ( current working agreements aside), then the non-Chalcedonian position of Christ without a human will to be tempted and a human nature to suffer untenable, or at the least, makes the sacrifice on the cross something different (less?) than it was.
I hope I'm wrong here

Demetri

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Demetri, I believe this issue has been almost totally ignored.

Anastasios (or Mor Ephrem),

So then, would you agree, as simple as it is, that "Anti-Chalcedonians" are Monothelites? I cannot see how this can be escaped in any way, shape, or form.

btw, I am not trying to have a lengthy debate here, I honestly cannot see any argument on this matter whatsoever.

[Anastasios]

But NonChalcedonians beleive that Christ was tempted and suffered, so I don't understand your point

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

The question, "why are they NOT monothelytes?"
The answer, "...they believe in the suffering..."

Exactly.