Recent from talks
Miaphysitism
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Miaphysitism
Miaphysitism (/maɪˈæfɪsaɪtɪzəm, miː-/) is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one nature (physis, Greek: φύσις). It is a position held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It differs from the Dyophysitism of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East and the major Protestant denominations, which holds that Jesus is one "person" of two "natures", a divine nature and a human nature, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
While historically a major point of controversy within Christianity, some modern declarations by both Chalcedonian and miaphysite (/maɪˈæfɪsaɪt, miː-/) churches claim that the difference between the two Christological formulations does not reflect any significant difference in belief about the nature of Christ. Other statements from both Chalcedonian and miaphysite churches claim that such difference is indeed theological although "widened by non-theological factors".
The word miaphysite derives from the Ancient Greek μία (mía, "one") and φύσις (phúsis, "nature, substance"). Miaphysite teaching is based on Cyril of Alexandria's formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning "one physis of the Word of God made flesh" (or "... of God the Word made flesh"). Early miaphysite Christians claimed such terminology was furthermore present in early patristic writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius I of Rome, and Gregory Thaumaturgus. The 451 Council of Chalcedon used physis to mean "nature" (as in "divine nature" and "human nature"), and defined that there is in Jesus one hypostasis (person) but two physeis (natures). It is disputed whether Cyril used physis in that sense. John Anthony McGuckin says that in Cyril's formula "physis serves as a rough semantic equivalent to hypostasis". The 431 Council of Ephesus used physis to signify the single subjecthood of Christ and also condemned speaking of two physeis (natures) in various homilies contained within the official minutes
Others interpret the miaphysite term physis in line with its use by the Council of Chalcedon and speak of "miaphysitism" as "monophysitism", a word used of all forms of denial of the Chalcedonian doctrine. However, they add that "miaphysitism" is "the more accurate term for the position held by the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian churches". The Second Council of Constantinople (553), the ecumenical council that followed that of Chalcedon, accepted Cyril's phrase but warned against misinterpreting it.
By etymology, mia-physis means the same thing as mono-physis : one nature. Howewer, mia-physis has come to designate the specific Severian theology of the union of the natures of Christ into one nature by composition, understood by Miaphysites as a Cyrilian doctrine (the formula mia physis being taken from his writings), rather than the Eutychian theology of union by mixing, or the various other kinds of "one nature" (monophysite) theology (one human-only nature, one divine-only nature, one angelic nature, etc). Howewer, strictly speaking from the meaning of the word monophysite, miaphysites (or severians) are a kind of monophysites, although a specific kind, not to be confused with other non miaphysites monophysites (like Eutychians, or Ebionites, for exemple). In recent times, the term "Miaphysite" have been adopted by Miaphysites to self designate, and, in contradiction to the etymological meaning of the term, "Monophysite" have been used to designate non-Miaphysite monophysites, especially Eutychians, and taken by Miaphysites to be pejorative and unfit to describe their theology.
The broad term "dyophysitism" covers not only the Chalcedonian teaching but also what Nestorianism interpreted as meaning that Jesus is not only of two natures but is in fact two centres of attribution, and thus two persons, a view condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. Similarly, "monophysitism" covers not only Oriental Orthodox teaching but also the view called Eutychianism, according to which, after the union of the divine and human natures in the incarnation of the eternal Son or Word of God, he has only a single "nature", a synthesis of divine and human, identical with neither. This doctrine is rejected by miaphysites, who teach instead that the incarnate Christ has one "nature" that is both divine and human in its character, retaining all the characteristics of both humans and divinity, but with no mingling, confusion (pouring together) or change within.[citation needed]
To avoid being confused with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Non[e] of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term 'mia physis' denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term 'monophysites'. ... The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine-human nature."
The Agreed Statement by the Anglican–Oriental Orthodox International Commission in 2014 said:
Hub AI
Miaphysitism AI simulator
(@Miaphysitism_simulator)
Miaphysitism
Miaphysitism (/maɪˈæfɪsaɪtɪzəm, miː-/) is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one nature (physis, Greek: φύσις). It is a position held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It differs from the Dyophysitism of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East and the major Protestant denominations, which holds that Jesus is one "person" of two "natures", a divine nature and a human nature, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
While historically a major point of controversy within Christianity, some modern declarations by both Chalcedonian and miaphysite (/maɪˈæfɪsaɪt, miː-/) churches claim that the difference between the two Christological formulations does not reflect any significant difference in belief about the nature of Christ. Other statements from both Chalcedonian and miaphysite churches claim that such difference is indeed theological although "widened by non-theological factors".
The word miaphysite derives from the Ancient Greek μία (mía, "one") and φύσις (phúsis, "nature, substance"). Miaphysite teaching is based on Cyril of Alexandria's formula μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, meaning "one physis of the Word of God made flesh" (or "... of God the Word made flesh"). Early miaphysite Christians claimed such terminology was furthermore present in early patristic writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius I of Rome, and Gregory Thaumaturgus. The 451 Council of Chalcedon used physis to mean "nature" (as in "divine nature" and "human nature"), and defined that there is in Jesus one hypostasis (person) but two physeis (natures). It is disputed whether Cyril used physis in that sense. John Anthony McGuckin says that in Cyril's formula "physis serves as a rough semantic equivalent to hypostasis". The 431 Council of Ephesus used physis to signify the single subjecthood of Christ and also condemned speaking of two physeis (natures) in various homilies contained within the official minutes
Others interpret the miaphysite term physis in line with its use by the Council of Chalcedon and speak of "miaphysitism" as "monophysitism", a word used of all forms of denial of the Chalcedonian doctrine. However, they add that "miaphysitism" is "the more accurate term for the position held by the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian churches". The Second Council of Constantinople (553), the ecumenical council that followed that of Chalcedon, accepted Cyril's phrase but warned against misinterpreting it.
By etymology, mia-physis means the same thing as mono-physis : one nature. Howewer, mia-physis has come to designate the specific Severian theology of the union of the natures of Christ into one nature by composition, understood by Miaphysites as a Cyrilian doctrine (the formula mia physis being taken from his writings), rather than the Eutychian theology of union by mixing, or the various other kinds of "one nature" (monophysite) theology (one human-only nature, one divine-only nature, one angelic nature, etc). Howewer, strictly speaking from the meaning of the word monophysite, miaphysites (or severians) are a kind of monophysites, although a specific kind, not to be confused with other non miaphysites monophysites (like Eutychians, or Ebionites, for exemple). In recent times, the term "Miaphysite" have been adopted by Miaphysites to self designate, and, in contradiction to the etymological meaning of the term, "Monophysite" have been used to designate non-Miaphysite monophysites, especially Eutychians, and taken by Miaphysites to be pejorative and unfit to describe their theology.
The broad term "dyophysitism" covers not only the Chalcedonian teaching but also what Nestorianism interpreted as meaning that Jesus is not only of two natures but is in fact two centres of attribution, and thus two persons, a view condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. Similarly, "monophysitism" covers not only Oriental Orthodox teaching but also the view called Eutychianism, according to which, after the union of the divine and human natures in the incarnation of the eternal Son or Word of God, he has only a single "nature", a synthesis of divine and human, identical with neither. This doctrine is rejected by miaphysites, who teach instead that the incarnate Christ has one "nature" that is both divine and human in its character, retaining all the characteristics of both humans and divinity, but with no mingling, confusion (pouring together) or change within.[citation needed]
To avoid being confused with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Non[e] of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term 'mia physis' denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term 'monophysites'. ... The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine-human nature."
The Agreed Statement by the Anglican–Oriental Orthodox International Commission in 2014 said: