Hovorun Theological Controversy in the Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ - 2004-Libre

g.

Durham E-Theses

Theological controversy in the seventh century

concerning activities and wills in Christ

Hovorun, Serhiy

How to cite:

Hovorun, Serhiy (2003) Theological controversy in the seventh century concerning activities and wills in

Christ, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham -Theses Online:

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4061/

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or

charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes provided t h a t :

a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source

a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses

the full-text is not changed in any way

The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4061/

Academic Support Office, Durham University, University Office, Old Elvet, Durham D H l 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107

http: / /etheses.dur.ac.uk

mailto:[email protected]://etheses.dur.ac.uk

THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY

CONCERNING ACTIVITIES AND WILLS IN CHRIST

Serhiy Hovorun

Faculty of Theology

University of Durham

PhD. Thesis

2003

ABSTRACT

The primary purpose of the thesis is to fill the existing gaps in our

understanding of various theological and political aspects of the controversy

that took place in both Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire in the

seventh century the main theological point of which was whether Christ had

one or two energeiai and wills.

Before corning to any conclusions on this subject, I shall investigate the

preliminary forms of Monenergism and Monothelitism i.e., belief in a single

energeia and will of Christ, which were incorporated in the major Christological

systems developed by Apollinarius of Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and

Severus of Antioch (chapters 1-3).

Against this background, it becomes obvious that the Chalcedonian

Monenergism and later Monothelitism emerged from the movement of neo-

Chalcedonianism. It was an attempt by the political and ecclesiastical

authorities to achieve a theological compromise with various non-Chalcedonian

groups, mainly Severian, but also 'Nestoriari. Their ultimate goal was to

reconcile these groups with the Catholic Church of the Empire (chapter 4).

However, this project of reconciliation on the basis of the single-energeia

formula was contested by the representatives of the same neo-Chalcedonian

tradition and consequently condemned at the Councils of Lateran (649) and

Constantinople (680/681). Thus, the same neo-Chalcedonian tradition produced

two self-sufficient and antagonistic doctrines. A major concern of the thesis is to

expose and compare systematically their doctrinal content per se and in the

wider context of the principles of neo-Chalcedonianism (chapter 5).

A copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.

THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN THE

SEVENTH CENTURY CONCERNING

ACTIVITIES AND WILLS

IN CHRIST

Serhiy Hovorun

Ph. D. Thesis

University of Durham

Department of Theology

2003

3 0 SEP

2

TABLEOFCONTENT

Declaration ..........................................................................................................6

Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................7

Introduction ........................................................................................................8

1.FourmainkindsofMonenergismMonothelitism..................................14

2.PreChalcedonianMonenergismMonothelitism....................................21

2.1.ApollinariusofLaodicea ......................................................................21

2.2.Antiochiantradition..............................................................................26

3.AntiChalcedonianMonenergismandMonothelitism...........................35

3.1.Severusandhisdisciplesadversaries ................................................35

3.1.1.MonenergismofSeverusofAntioch ...........................................35

3.1.2.MonothelitismofSeverus .............................................................48

3.1.3.JulianofHalicarnassus ..................................................................53

3.1.4.SergiustheGrammarian ...............................................................56

3.1.5.Conclusions .....................................................................................59

3.2.Theopaschism ........................................................................................61

3.3.AspecialcaseofSeveranMonenergism:Agnoetes..........................75

3.4.TherefutationoftheAgnoetesbytheSeverans ...............................80

3.4.1.TheodosiusofAlexandria .............................................................80

3.4.2.AnthimusofTrebizond .................................................................84

3.4.3.Colluthus .........................................................................................86

3.4.4.ConstantineofLaodicea................................................................87

3

3.5. Monophysite Monenergism on the eve of and during the

controversy................................................................................................................89

4.History ...........................................................................................................93

4.1.Historicalpremises ...............................................................................93

4.2.Settingupthenewdoctrine.................................................................97

4.3.Alexandrianunion ..............................................................................117

4.4.TheEcthesis ...........................................................................................128

4.5.MaximusandtheWest:strategicalliance........................................134

4.6.TheTypos...............................................................................................142

4.7.TheLateranCouncil............................................................................144

4.8.ThesixthecumenicalCouncil............................................................148

4.9.MonothelitismaftertheCouncil .......................................................156

4.10.Conclusions ........................................................................................160

5. Imperial MonenergismMonothelitism versus Dyenergism

Dyothelitism................................................................................................................162

5.1.Keynotions...........................................................................................162

5.1.1.TheonenessofChrist...................................................................162

5.1.2.Onehypostasisandtwonatures................................................164

5.1.3.Naturalproperties........................................................................167

5.1.4.Energeia...........................................................................................171

5.1.4.1.Notion .....................................................................................171

5.1.4.2.Anewtheandricenergeia ....................................................177

4

5.1.4.3.Twoenergeiai...........................................................................193

5.1.4.4.Createdanduncreatedenergeiai ..........................................198

5.1.5.Will .................................................................................................200

5.1.5.1.Notion .....................................................................................200

5.1.5.2.Oneortwowills ....................................................................203

5.2.Relationsbetweenmaincategories...................................................220

5.2.1.EnergeiaOneWhoActs ............................................................220

5.2.2.WillOneWhoWills..................................................................234

5.2.3.Willnous ..................................................................................242

5.2.4.Energeianature ...........................................................................246

5.2.5.Willnature ....................................................................................254

5.2.6.Energeiawillnaturalproperties............................................261

5.2.7.Energeiawill................................................................................264

5.3.TheContributionofAnastasiusofSinai ..........................................266

5.3.1.WhowasAnastasiusaddressing?..............................................268

5.3.2.Hypostasisnaturewillenergeia ..........................................272

5.3.3.Theandricenergeia ........................................................................296

5.3.4.Argumentsinfavouroftwoenergeiai ........................................299

5.3.4.1.Diversityofactivities ............................................................300

5.3.4.2.TheConnectionbetweenenergeiaiandproperties............320

5.3.4.3.ImageofChrist ......................................................................321

5.3.5.Willenergeiasin.......................................................................326

5

5.3.6.FearofChrist.................................................................................327

5.4.TheMonothelitismoftheMaronites ................................................335

Conclusion.......................................................................................................350

Bibliography....................................................................................................354

DECLARATION

No part of the material offered in this thesis previously has been

submittedforadegreeinthisorinanyotheruniversity.

The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation and

informationderivedfromthisthesisshouldbeacknowledged.

This thesis does not exceed the maximum length allowable by the

university.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

FirstandforemostIwouldliketoexpressmydeepgratitudetoProfessor

AndrewLouth.Hissupervisionallowshisstudentstorealisetheirfullpotential

andskills inauniqueatmosphereofcreative freedom.At thesame time they

benefitfromhisimmenseerudition,whichhecombineswithaspecialpatristic

approach to the Fathers of theChurch. This is an approach that the Fathers

appliedthemselves.

I also feel indebted to my Professors at the University of Athens,

StylianosPapadopoulosandVlasiosPheidas,whotaughtmetoapplythesame

approach inmy studies of the Fathers. Professor Pheidas also suggested the

topicofthethesisandgaveinitialguidelines.IamespeciallygratefultoBishop

Hilarion(Alfeyev)asithewhoinspiredmetocontinuemyeducationinBritain.

IalsowishtoexpressgratitudetoDr.SebastianBrockforhiselucidating

explanation concerning the transmission of the text of psDionysius into the

Syriactradition;toDr.RichardSorabjiforhisinvaluablesuggestionsconcerning

thephilosophicalbackgroundof thecontroversy; to IrinaKukotawhohelped

megainaccesstosomebooksandtoreadaSyriacmanuscript;andtoMagnus

Wheelerand JackieKeirswhoundertook strenuous taskofproofreading this

dissertation. Finally, Iwould like to thank the Aid to the Church inNeed, St

Andrews Trust and particularly its former directorDarylHardman, and the

ChurchMissionSocietyfortheirfinancialassistanceduringmyresearch.Without

theirsupport,thisthesiswouldhaveneverbeenwritten.

8

INTRODUCTION

Thecontroversyconcerning energeiaiandwills inChristwas fora long

timeunderstudied.Itremainedasubjectofinterestforafewscholarsonlywho

touchedonitoccasionally,ofteninthecontextofotherproblems.1Onlyrecently

aseriesofresearchesappearedwhichdramaticallywidenedourunderstanding

ofthecontroversyinitsvariousaspects.

First,aseriesofcriticallyeditedsourceson the theologyof theseventh

centuryendowed thescholarshipwithpowerful toolsof research.Among the

most important of these were the acts of the Lateran (649) and

Constantinopolitan (680/681)CouncilseditedbyRudolfRiedinger2, theworks

ofMaximustheConfessorthathavebeenpublishedsofarintheseriesCorpus

1SeeWernerElert,WilhelmMaurer,andElisabethBergstrsser.DerAusgangderaltkirchlichenChristologie: eineUntersuchungberTheodor vonPharanund seineZeit alsEinfhrung in die alteDogmengeschichte. Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1957; Siegfried Helmer, DerNeuchalkedonismus:Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes.Bonn:[s.n.],1962.

2 Rudolf Riedinger. Concilium Lateranense a 649 Celebratum,Acta ConciliorumOecumenicorum.Series Secunda; 1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1984 (henceforth ACO2 I); Concilium UniversaleConstantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones IXI, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. SeriesSecunda; 2,1. Berolini: De Gruyter, 1990 (henceforth ACO2 II1); Concilium UniversaleConstantinopolitanum Tertium: Concilii Actiones XIIXVIII, Epistulae, Indices, Acta ConciliorumOecumenicorum.SeriesSecunda;V.2,2.Berolini:DeGruyter,1992(henceforthACO2II2).Thesamescholar published a series ofmaterials related to the text of the acts and the history of theCouncils: Die Lateranakten von 649: einWerk der Byzantiner umMaximosHomologetes.Byzantina13. (Doremaston I.Karagiannopoulo) (1985);DiePrsenzundSubskriptionslistendesVI.OekumenischenKonzils(680/81)undderPapyrusVind.G.3,Abhandlungen/BayerischeAkademieder Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; n.F., Heft 85. Munchen: Verlag derBayerischen Akademie derWissenschaften: In Kommission bei C.H.Beck, 1979; LateinischeUbersetzungengriechischerHretikertextedessiebentenJahrhunderts,Sitzungsberichte/sterreichischeAkademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse; Bd. 352. Wien: OsterreichischeAkademie derWissenschaften, 1979; Kleine Schriften zu den Konzilsakten des 7. Jahrhunderts,Instrumentapatristica;34.Steenbrugis;Turnhout:inAbbatiaS.Petri:Brepols,1998.

9

Christianorum1, as well as biographical materials2 related to him, and the

writingsofAnastasiusSinaitapublishedbyKarlHeinzUthemann3.Second,the

studiesofthehistoryandthebackgroundofthecontroversyhavedramatically

advancedinrecentyears.Thus,therelativelyoldbutstillvaluableresearchesof

Garegin Owsepian4, Venance Grumel5, and Erich Caspar6 were significantly

enrichedbytheextensivestudiesofJanLouisVanDieten7,PietroConte1,Franz

1Quaestiones ad Thalassium: una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita,Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 1980; Quaestiones et dubia, CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca; 10.Brepols:Turnhout;Leuven:UniversityPress,1982;Ambigua adIohannem iuxta Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae latinam interpretationem, Corpus Christianorum. SeriesGraeca; 18.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress, 1988;Opuscula exegetica duo.Expositio inPsalmum LIX.Expositio orationis dominicae,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca; 23.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:LeuvenUniversityPress,1991;Liberasceticus,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca; 40.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols:UniversityPress, 2000;Ambigua adThomamunacumepistulasecundaadeundem,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;48.Turnhout:Brepols,2002.

2SeetheSyriacVitaofMaximuspublishedbySebastianBrockAnEarlySyriacLifeofMaximustheConfessor.AnalectaBollandiana41(1973);seealsoScriptasaeculiVIIvitamMaximiConfessorisillustrantia,CorpusChristianorum.SeriesGraeca;39.Turnhout;Leuven:Brepols;UniversityPress,1999.PaulineAllenandBronwenNeil.MaximustheConfessorandhiscompanions:documentsfromexile,OxfordEarlyChristianTexts.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.

3 Anastasii Sinaitae Viae dux. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols; University Press, 1981; AnastasiiSinaitaeSermonesduo inconstitutionemhominissecundum imaginemDei;necnonopusculaadversusMonotheletas, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca; 12. Turnhout; [Leuven]: Brepols: LeuvenUniversityPress,1985.

4GareginOwsepian.DieEntstehungsgeschichtedesMonotheletismusnachihrenQuellengeprftunddargestellt.Leipzig,1897.

5V.Grumel.Les regestesdesactesduPatriarcatdeConstantinople.2ed., revueetcorrige (parJeanDarrouzs)ed,Patriarcatbyzantin;Sr.1.Paris:Institutfrancaisd etudesbyzantines,1972.;Recherchessurlhistoiredemonothlisme.EchosdOrient,no.27(1928);28(1929);29(1930).

6 Erich Caspar. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfngen bis zur Hhe der Weltherrschaft.Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1930.

7JanLouisvanDieten.GeschichtedergriechischenPatriarchenvonKonstantinopel,EnzyklopadiederByzantinistik;Bd.24.Amsterdam:A.M.Hakkert,1972.

10

Dlger2, andmost recentlyFriedhelmWinkelmann.3Additionally, the studies

on the secular history of Byzantium in the seventh century have advanced

dramatically,owing to theworkofAndreasStratos4, JohnHaldon5,WalterE.

Kaegi6etal.7

Theprimarypurposeofthepresentthesisistofilltheexistinglacunaein

ourunderstandingofvarioustheologicalaspectsofthecontroversyconcerning

the energeiai and wills, given that the scholarship has already achieved a

significant success in researching its historical background and its sources.

1 PietroConte. Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII, Pubblicazioni dellUniversitcattolicadelS.Cuore.Saggiericerche,SerieIII.Scienzestoriche,4.Milano:EditriceVitaePensiero,1971.

2 FranzDlger andPeterWirth.Regesten derKaiserurkunden des ostrmischenReiches von 5651453,CorpusdergriechischenUrkundendesMittelaltersundderneuerenZeit.ReiheA,Regesten;Abt.1.Munchen:Beck,1977.

3 Friedhelm Winkelmann. Der monenergetischmonotheletische Streit, Berliner byzantinistischeStudien; Bd. 6. Frankfurt amMain;Oxford: P. Lang, 2001. This book is based on an earlierpublicationofthescholarDieQuellenzurErforschungdesmonenergetischmonothelletischenStreites. Klio, no. 69 (1987): 51959. (Henceforth, both works will be referred to asWinkelmann,withanumberofentryfollowing,e.g.Winkelmann3.)

4AndreasStratos.Byzantiumintheseventhcentury.5vols.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1968.

5 John FHaldon. Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Rev. ed.Cambridge[England];NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.

6WalterKaegi.Heraclius,EmperorofByzantium.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002;Byzantinemilitaryunrest,471843:aninterpretation.Amsterdam:Hakkert,1981.

7See, for instance,HelgaKpsteinandFriedhelmWinkelmann.Studienzum7. Jahrhundert inByzanz:ProblemederHerausbildungdesFeudalismus,BerlinerByantinistischeArbeiten;Bd47.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,1976;WolframBrandes.DieStdteKleinasiensim7.und8.Jahrhundert,Berlinerbyzantinistische Arbeiten; Bd. 56. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1989; Hans Ditten. EthnischeVerschiebungenzwischenderBalkanhalbinselundKleinasienvomEndedes6.biszurzweitenHlftedes9. Jahrhunderts, Berliner byzantinistische Arbeiten; Bd. 59. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993;G.J.Reinink and Bernard Stolte. The Reign of Heraclius (610641): Crisis and Confrontation,GroningenStudiesinCulturalChange.Leuven:Peeters,2002.

11

Among themain concerns of the dissertation is to reconstruct the doctrinal

systems of MonenergismMonothelitism and DyenergismDyothelitism, of

courseasfarasthesedoctrinesconstitutedasystem.Thetwodoctrineswillbe

analysed in the coordinates of the notions of hypostasis, nature, natural

property, energeia, andwill,which constituted the framework of theological

disputesintheseventhcentury.Inquiryintotherelationsbetweenthesenotions

willhelpus tounderstandbetter thedifferencesand similaritiesbetween the

two rivaldoctrines.Thewritingsof themajorparticipants in the controversy

willbeconsideredinthisframework,inparticularofTheodoreofPharan,Pope

Honorius,Sergius,Pyrrhus,andPaulthePatriarchsofConstantinople,Cyrusof

Alexandria,andMacariusofAntiochamongtheMonenergistsMonothelites,as

well as Sophronius of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, the Popes John,

Theodore,Martin,andAgathoandadditionallyAnastasiusofSinaiasthemajor

representativesoftheDyenergistDyotheliteparty.

The main figure among the Dyothelite theologians was undoubtedly

Maximus. However, his theological contribution will not be presented

separately,butasanintegralpartoftheresponseoftheChurchtothechallenge

ofMonenergismMonothelitism. I believe it could bemisleading to consider

Maximusasaselfsufficient theologianor thinker isolated from thecontextof

the MonenergistMonothelite controversy. The best of his Christological

writings were composed in response to the challenge of Monenergism

Monothelitismandconstitutedonlyapart, thoughavery importantpart,ofa

12

major polemical campaign. Therefore, I agree with Andrew Louth who

remarks: Although Maximus the Confessor is a speculative theologian of

genius,hedoesnotseehimself,aswouldsomelatertheologians,asconstructing

a theologicalsystem.Heseeshimselfas interpretingatraditionthathascome

downtohim,andinterpretingitforthesakeofothers.1

Atthesametime,IwillbeconsideringthetheologyofAnastasiusSinaita

separately from therestof theDyenergistDyothelitewritings.Firstly,because

hedidnotimmediatelyparticipateinthecontroversy,andsecondly,becausehis

theological heritage remains virtually unresearched. I intend therefore to

completethisomissionbydevotingaseparatechaptertohistheology.

Togetherwiththeinquiryintothecontentoftheissueoftheenergeiaand

will,IwilltrytolocateitsplaceinthegeneralhistoryofChristology,havingas

anultimateaim toshow that the issuewasnotoneofsecondary importance,

butactuallyoneofthemajorchallengesthattheChristologicaldoctrinefacedin

itshistory. Iwillalso try to show thatbothMonenergismMonothelitismand

DyenergismDyothelitism, in spite of their antagonism, had the same neo

Chalcedonian origin. MonenergismMonothelitism, in particular, was

developedasanattempt to findacompromisewith theSeveran tradition,an

important featureofwhichwasabelief inasingle energeiaofChrist.Severan

Monenergism,however,wasnotthefirstMonenergismtohaveexisted,butwas

1AndrewLouth.MaximustheConfessor.London;NewYork:Routledge,1996,21.

13

preceded by other Monenergisms, which were developed within traditions

linked toApollinarius of Laodicea and Theodore ofMopsuestia.One of the

tasks of thepresent thesis is todescribe these kinds ofMonenergism and to

establish what they had in common with the imperial or Chalcedonian

Monenergism.

Although the latter was created within the framework of neo

Chalcedonianism, it was contested and consequently rejected by the

representatives of the same neoChalcedonian tradition. This revealed an

internalcrisisbesettingthetraditionintheseventhcentury.Thiscrisis,however,

didnoteventuallyleadtoablurringoftheprinciplesofneoChalcedonianism,

but on the contrary to amore precise definition of its boundaries and to its

catharsis.

1.FOURMAINKINDSOFMONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM

Before proceeding to an examination of the history and the doctrinal

contentofMonenergismandMonothelitism, itshouldbeestablishedwhether

theywere twoseparateandselfsufficientdoctrinesordifferentaspectsof the

sametheologicalperceptionofChrist.Intheperiodbeforetheseventhcentury,

as this will be shown in the following chapters, the two doctrines always

occurred together, though Monenergism normally dominated over

Monothelitism.So itwasalso in theseventhcentury,with theonlydifference

thatafter638,whentheEcthesiswaspromulgated,Monothelitismwasbrought

totheforefrontandMonenergismrecededintothebackground.

Indeed,duringthecontroversyconcerningenergeiaiandwillsinChristin

the seventh century, historicallyMonenergism precededMonothelitism.1 The

imperial civil and ecclesiastic authorities initially recruited it as ameans of

reconciliationwith thenonChalcedonians.Monenergism turnedout tobe,as

A.Louthcharacterizedit,oneofthemostcelebratedecumenicalventuresof

theearlyByzantineperiod.2The reason for thiswas thedominating role that

the issue of the single energeia played in the nonChalcedonian confessions.

Only when the imperial unionist initiatives faced energetic resistance from

certain circles within the Church, was Monenergism pushed into the

1See,forinstance, . .2 . ,1995,736.

2AndrewLouth.St. JohnDamascene: traditionandoriginality inByzantine theology,Oxford earlyChristianstudies.NewYork;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002,153.

15

background, and in 638 Monothelitism emerged instead of it. Before that,

Monothelitismhad existed in embryowithinMonenergism.Thus,as earlyas

626PatriarchSergiuswrote inhis lettertoCyrusofPhasisaboutasinglewill,

together with a single energeia.1 Another early Monenergist document, the

Psephos,impliedasinglewillinChristaswell.Itsauthorsrefusedtorecognize

inChristtwoenergeiaibecausethelatterwouldpresupposetwowills.2Onemay

askherewhyMonothelitismwasnotinitiallypromotedexplicitlytogetherwith

Monenergism. Apparently, the authors of the Monenergist project of

reconciliation deliberately limited themselves toMonenergism alone because

otherwise there would have been more protests from the Chalcedonians,

endangeringthewholeproject.Inaddition,theissueofenergeiaiprovedtobeof

greaterimportancetotheMonophysitesthanthatofwills.

When Monenergism was abandoned and Monothelitism emerged

instead, the issue of the single energeia was often implied in Monothelite

documents. Inparticular, itoccurred inoneof theearliest textscontaining the

Monothelite confession, the Ecthesis.3 The only known case, when

Monothelitism was combined with Dyenergism was that of Constantine of

Apamea,whichwasexaminedatthesixthecumenicalCouncil.However,aswe

shall see later, Constantine put these two doctrines together rather

1ACO2II25281519.

2ACO2II254213.

3SeeACO2I160419.

16

mechanically, and the sort of Monothelitism that he confessed, in effect

presupposed Monenergism. Now it is possible to come to a preliminary

conclusion thatMonenergism andMonothelitism,whatever historical shapes

they took, were not two separate teachings, but one solid doctrine. In the

present thesis, therefore, I will be calling this doctrine Monenergist

MonotheliteorMonenergismMonothelitismandtreatitasasinglewhole.

Theclose linkbetweenthe issuesofenergeiaandwill inChristwasalso

validfortheOrthodoxopponentstoMonenergismMonothelitism.Dyenergism,

which they defended in the first stages of the controversy, had always

presupposedDyothelitismandviceversa.Therefore,attheCouncilsofLateran

(649)andConstantinople(680/681),theissuesofenergeiaiandwillsweregiven

equalattentionandMonenergismwasdisclaimedtogetherwithMonothelitism.

So,itseemsappropriatethatIshouldconsidertheOrthodoxbeliefsconcerning

energeiai and wills in Christ as a single doctrine and call it Dyenergist

DyotheliteorDyenergismDyothelitism.

ThedoctrineofMonenergismMonothelitismas itwasdiscussed in the

seventhcenturydidnotemerge fromnowhere. Itwasprecededbyaseriesof

other MonenergismsMonothelitisms, which although not selfstanding

doctrines,wereintegralpartsofmajorChristologicalsystems.1Thereareatleast

fourkindsoftheMonenergistMonothelitedoctrinespromotingasingleenergeia

1As .Pheidas remarks, .

728.

17

and will emphatically and based on general principles of the major

Christologicalsystems.1Thefirstwasestablishedatthebeginningoftheepoch

of Christological controversies. Its author was Apollinarius, who put

Christological problems on the agenda of Christian theology. Antiochian

theologians,amongwhomthemostfamouswereTheodoreofMopsuestiaand

Nestorius,developed,inoppositiontoApollinarius,theirownChristologywith

its own specific sort of MonenergismMonothelitism. The Alexandrian

tradition,ofwhich thechief representativewasSeverusofAntioch,produced

itsownpictureofsingleenergeiaandwill,contrasting it to theNestorianone.

For Severus and his followers, the issue of single energeia became more

importantthanitwasfortheNestoriansandturnedouttobeacrucialpointof

Severan perception of Christ.2 Some lesser subdivisions of theMonenergist

MonothelitedoctrineemergedwithintheMonophysitemovement.Theyfitted

the doctrinal variations developed in such antiChalcedonian groups as

Julianists, Agnoetes etc. Finally, in the seventh century a new sort of

MonenergismMonothelitismemergedfromtheneoChalcedonianorCyrillian

interpretation of Christological doctrine.3 Paradoxically, Dyenergism

1IwillnotdiscussMonenergismwhichisimpliedinArianism,becauseithasnotproducedaselfsufficientChristologicaldoctrine.

2 See .Pheidas: , . 727.

3 Scholars chiefly accept that MonenergismMonothelitism was a product of CyrillianChalcedonianism.SeeCharlesMoeller:lemononergismeetlemonothlismeneviennentpasdunMonophysitisme extrmiste,maisdunochalcdonisme. LeChalcdonisme et lenochalcdonismeenOrientde451lafinduVIesicle.InAloysGrillmeierandHeinrichBacht.

18

Das Konzil von Chalkedon:Geschichte undGegenwart; imAuftrag der Theologischen Fakultt S.J.SanktGeorgen, Frankfurt/Main.Wurzburg:Echter,v. I, 1951, 695n.167; J.Pelikan: Unlike theNestorian and Monophysite teachings, the new ideas and formulas (=those ofMonenergismandMonothelitism) thatprovokedcontroversywerepropagatedchieflywithinthe ranksof theorthodoxandwithin theboundariesof theempire.TheChristian tradition: ahistoryofthedevelopmentofdoctrine.Chicago;London:UniversityofChicagoPress,I,1971,62;F.Winkelmann: inderAuseinandersetzungkmpftennichtOrthodoxegegenMonophysiten,sondern es handelte sich um einen Streit ber ein christologisches Problem, der unterTheologen ausgetragen wurde, die sich zum Chalkedonense bekannten. Winkelmann 14;A.Louth: Monenergismand laterMonothelitismwasdevisedasarefinementofCyrillineChalcedonianChristology.Maximus56;seealsoLarsThunberg.MicrocosmandMediator:TheTheologicalAnthropologyofMaximustheConfessor.ThesisUppsala,C.W.K.Gleerup,1965,4041; Joseph Farrell. FreeChoice in St.Maximus theConfessor. SouthCanan,Pa.: St.Tikhon sSeminaryPress,1989,71; finally,K.H.Uthemanndedicated to thisquestionspecial research:DerNeuchalkedonismusalsVorbereitungdesMonotheletismus:EinBeitragzumeigentlichenAnliegen des Neuchalkedonismus. Studia Patristica 29 (1997): 373413; see also his articleSergiosI,BiographischBibliographischesKirchenlexikon(BBKl)http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml[29/05/2003].ThenotionofneoChalcedonianismwasoriginallyintroducedbyJ.Lebon.HedistinguishedagroupofsixthcenturyChaldenoniantheologianswhooftenreferredtothetheologyofCyrilofAlexandriaandtriedtointerpretitinthecontextofChalcedon(JosephLebon.LemonophysismeSvrien: tude historique, littraire et thologique sur la rsistance monophysite au Concile deChalcdoine jusqu la constitution de lglise jacobite, Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis.Dissertationesadgradumdoctorisinfacultatetheologicaconsequendumconscriptae.Series2;Tomus4.Lovanii:J.VanLinthout,1909).TheideasofLebonweredevelopedfurtherbyCharlesMoeller.UnReprsentantde la christologienochalcdonienneaudbutdu sixime sicle enorient:NephaliusdAlexandrie,1944,73140;Lechalcdonisme637720).LaterM.Richardredefinedthefeaturesof neoChalcedonianism and enumerated among them the usage of Cyrilian formula oneincarnatenatureof theGodLogos and with the inserted(Marcel Richard. Le nochalcdonisme. Mlanges de science religieuse 3 (1946), 159). Thisdefinition was later accepted by Moeller who went further and affirmed that a specificcharacteristic of neoChalcedonianism was the appropriation of both two natures and onenature formulas (Le chalcdonisme 666). Referring to Leontius of Jerusalem, MoellersuggestedthattheothercharacteristicfeatureofneoChalcedonianismwasthatthequalitiesofthehumannatureinChristsubsistedinthehypostasis(TextesMonophysitesdeLoncedeJrusalem.Ephemeridestheologicaelovanienses27(1951),471ff).Latersomescholarsaddedthatthe neoChalcedoniantheologyunderstoodhypostaticunionassyntheticunion,andthatitstressed that this union is ex duabus naturis asmuch as it is in duabus naturis. Thunberg,Microcosm38;seealsoP.Galtier.L Occidentetlenochalcdonisme.Gregorianum40(1959),55,andHansUrs vonBalthasar.Kosmische Liturgie: dasWeltbildMaximus desBekenners.Zweite,vll. ver. Aufl ed. [Einsiedeln, Switz.]: JohannesVerlag, 1961, 242 n.4. See about neoChalcedonianismingeneral:PatrickGray.ThedefenseofChalcedonintheEast(451553),StudiesinthehistoryofChristianthought;v.20.Leiden:Brill,1979; NeoChalcedonismandtheTradition:From Patristic to Byzantine Theology. Byzantinische Forschungen 16 (1982), 6170; AloisGrillmeier.VorbereitungdesMittelalters.EineStudieberdasVerhltnisvonChalkedonismusund NeuChalkedonismus in der lateinischen Theologie von Boethius bis zu Gregor demGroen.InDasKonzilvonChalkedon:GeschichteundGegenwart,editedbyAloisGrillmeierandHeinrich Bacht, 791839. Wurzburg: Echter, 1953; Der NeuChalkedonismus. Um dieBerechtigungeinesneuenKapitels inderDogmengeschichte.Historisches JahrbuchderGorresGesellschaft 77 (1958): 151160; Das stliche unddaswestlicheChristusbild.Zu einer Studie

http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s2/sergios_i.shtml

19

Dyothelitism,whichwas opposite toMonenergismMonothelitism, arose also

from neoChalcedonianism.1 The present research is concerned to show that

bothteachingshadthesameneoChalcedonianbackgroundandtoclarifywhat

theyhad incommonand inwhattheydiffered.Thefactthattwoantagonistic

doctrinesemergedfromthesametraditionofneoChalcedonianism,meansthat

in thebeginningof theseventhcentury the latterwasundergoingan internal

crisis.2 However, that MonenergismMonothelitism appeared within neo

Chalcedonianism, did not question the legitimacy of this tradition as such.

Nobody from the DyenergistDyothelite camp doubted or criticized either

ber den Neuchalcedonismus. Theologie und Philosophie 59 (1984): 8496; S.Helmer, DerNeuchalkedonismus; Lorenzo Perrone. La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche: dalConciliodiEfeso (431)alsecondoConciliodiCostantinopoli (553),Testiericerchediscienzereligiose(IstitutoperlescienzereligiosediBologna);18.Brescia:Paideia,1980.

1See, for instance, the fifthanathematismof theLateranCouncil:

, .ACO2I37218.(Siquissecundum sanctospatresnon confiteturpropriae et secundumueritatemunamnaturamDeiVerbiincarnatamperhocquodincarnatamdiciturnostrasubstantiaperfecteinChristoDeoetindimminuteabsquetantummodopeccatosignificata,condemnatussit.ACO2I37317).CyrilofAlexandriawasthemostquotedauthorbybothDyenergistDyotheliteCouncils.IntheactsoftheLateranCouncil,hewascited66times,and intheactsofthesixthecumenicalCouncil42times.Concerning therootsofMaximus theConfessorsposition in thecontroversy,A.Louthremarks: It is important to realizehowmuchhe (=Maximus) took forgranted theCyrillineChalcedonianism he inherited: his opposition toMonothelitism is worked out within thistradition, not as a criticism of that tradition. He is wholly committed to theAlexandrianunderstandingof the Incarnationas theSonofGodsassumingahumannatureand livingahumanlife,withitscorollaryinthevalidityoftheopaschitelanguage.Maximus2728.SeealsoJ.Farrell: St.Maximus stands firmlywithin theNeoChalcedonian,orCyrillicChalcedonian,traditionofChristology.FreeChoice23.

2 As J.Farrell remarks, the whole controversy between the Byzantine Monotheletes andDyotheletesmustbeinterpretedasaconflictbetweentwosignificantandquiteopposedpartieswithinCyrillicChalcedonianismitself.Freechoice71.

20

Cyril1or theevenmoreambiguousps.DionysiuswithhisratherMonenergist

formulaacertaintheandricenergeia.ThewayofinterpretationofChalcedonby

employing the language of Cyril remained the basis of the Dyenergist

Dyothelite polemics againstMonenergismMonothelitism. The crisis led to a

more precise understanding ofwhat is allowedwithin neoChalcedonianism

andwhatexceedsitsboundaries.MonenergismMonothelitismwasbornwithin

neoChalcedonianism,buteventuallysteppedbeyonditslimits,andasaresult

wasrejectedbytheotherneoChalcedonianstheDyenergitesDythelites.

Apparently, the neoChalcedonianMonenergismMonothelitismwould

neverhaveemergedifothersortsofMsmsMsms,particularlytheMonophysite

one, did not exist. Therefore, I shall thoroughly investigate it and its

predecessors,ApollinarianandNestorianMonenergismMonothelitism.

1 In this regard, itwould be sufficient tomention the evaluation provided by Sophronius:

, .ACO2II14721517, and by PopeMartin at the Lateran:

, .ACO2I3582832. (Audiamusergo iterum eumdem beatum Cyrillum haec prudentissime praedicantem, ut nihil omninonegetur de nostrae naturae unitis in eo substantialibus proprietatibus, sed per omniatemptatumspontepropternostramsalutemabsque tantummodopeccatoDominumetDeumnostrum Iesum Christum. ACO2I3592831). As for Maximus, L.Thunberg remarks: As anauthorityCyrilofAlexandriaplaysaratheroutstandingroleinMaximuswritings.Microcosm40.

2.PRECHALCEDONIANMONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM

2.1.APOLLINARIUSOFLAODICEA

ApollinariusofLaodicea(d.ca392)1developedaspecificdoctrineofthe

Incarnation, which became a prologue to the longlasting period of the

Christologicalcontroversiesandhadechoesas lateas in theseventhcenturys

MonenergismMonothelitism. Apollinarius struggled to give his own

interpretationtothewayofunityoftheGodheadandthehumanityinChrist,

opposingitmainlytoAdoptionism,withitsconceptionoftheindwellingofthe

Logos in aman.2 To him, the idea of adoption or indwelling did not reflect

sufficientlytheunityandintegrityoftheGodheadandthehumanityinChrist.

Inordertoemphasizethisunity,ApollinariuspresentedtheIncarnationasthe

integrationoftheLogosandananimatedflesh.ThefleshassumedbyChrist,on

its own, is not a complete humanity yet, lacking as it does a / .

Owing to this,Christ remains a singleand integral entity.Both theanimated

1 See on account of his life and theology:GuillaumeVoisin. Lapollinarisme: tude historique,littraire et dogmatique sur le dbut des controverses christologiques au IVe sicle. Paris: A.Fontemoing, 1901; Hans Lietzmann. Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule: Texte undUntersuchungen. Tubingen: Teubner, 1904; Charles Raven. Apollinarianism: an essay on theChristologyoftheearlyChurch.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1923;H.deRiedmatten,SomeneglectedaspectsofApollinaristChristology.DomStud1(1948):239260;Lachristologied ApollinairedeLaodice.StudiaPatristica2(1957):208234;LacorrespondanceentreBasiledeCsare etApollinaire de Laodice. Journal of Theological Studies 7, 8 (1956, 1957); Sur lesnotionsdoctrinalesopposesApollinaire.Revue thomiste51 (1951):553572;GeorgePrestigeandHenryChadwick.StBasiltheGreatandApollinarisofLaodicea.London:SPCK,1956;RichardNorris. Manhood and Christ: a study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Oxford:ClarendonPress,1963.

2See,forinstance,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.186p.3181724.

22

flesh and theLogos are forApollinariusparts of the singlenature ofChrist.

These parts, however, should not be considered as equal. The divine part

dominatesthehumanone.Itisthelifegivingspirit;thewholelifeofChristis

concentrated in it. It is the only and selfsufficient source ofmovement and

activityinChrist:Thedivineintellectis and .1The

animated flesh,on the contrary, ispassively subordinated to theGodhead. It

doesnotmovebyitself,butisbeingconstantlymovedandledbytheGodhead:

Thefleshisalwaysmovedbyhimwhomovesandleads.2Theanimatedflesh

andtheGodheadtogetherconstituteaperfectunityofapassiveandadynamic

component supplementary to each other. This supplementarity of Christs

elementsmakeshimasingleandcompletebeing:

It (=the flesh) was adopted ( ) by him (=the heavenly ruler)according to its passibility ( ) and received the divine(Logos),whoindwelledinit,accordingtotheactivity( ).Therefore,hewasasinglelivingbeing( )composedofwhatismovedandwhatmoves( ),butnottwo(beings),neither(washecomposed)oftwoperfectandselfmoving(entities).3

Therefore,theenergeiaofChristforApollinariuscouldbeonlyone,andit

isdivine.ItisexclusivelyprovidedbytheLogos:

Inhim is confessedanaturewhich ismadeupof twoparts,as theLogoswithhisdivineperfectioncontributesanaturalactivitytothewhole(

1adIulian,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.151p.247302481.

2 .LietzmannApollinarisfr.107p.2321011.

3Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.107p.2321418.

23

).Thisisalsothecasewithordinaryman,whoismadeupoftwoincompleteparts,whichproduceonenatureanddisplayitunderonename.1

ThehumanityofChristparticipates in thedivine energeia,because it is

totallysubjectedtotheGodhead:

Forthehuman(energeia)takespart( )inthedivineenergeia,asfarascanreach (it),being lesser thanwhat is thegreatest.Also,man isaslaveofGod,andGodisnotaslaveofman,norofhimself.Also,theformerisacreatureofGod,whilethelatterisnotacreatureofmannorofhimself.2

Apollinarius made a distinction between the divine energeia and the

human movements ( ) of Christ. The former is pure and

sinless, whereas the latter are weak, passive, and can be subjected to sin,

sufferings, and death.Apollinarius avoided speaking of the activities of the

fleshasenergeiai.Tohim,theyweremerelymovements( ):

ForGod,enfleshedinhumanflesh,retainshisownproperoperationunsullied( ).He is Intellectunconqueredbypsychicand fleshly passions (

), and he guides the flesh and the motions of the flesh ( )divinelyandsinlessly;andnotonly isheunmasteredby

death,butheisalsothelooserofdeath.3

Energeia ofChrist is single on the level of the spirit.However, having

been passed through the prism of the flesh, it disperses as amultiplicity of

particularactions.GregoryofNyssaquotesthispointofApollinarius:

Distinguishing( )theoperationaccordingtothefleshandmaking itequaltoone( )accordingtothespirit.

1deUnioneCorp,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.187511.


3FidesSecPart,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.1781317/transl.R.Norrishttp://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/3224/apollinaris.htm[24/07/2003].

http://divinity.library.vanderbilt.edu/burns/3224/apollinaris.htm

24

He says, hewho is equal in power ( ) has distinction ofoperationswith regard to the flesh ( )accordingtowhichhehasvivifiednotallbutthosewhomhewished.1

Thus, the energeia of the flesh, in comparisonwith the activity of the

Godhead, isnotenergeia,butapassivemovementcausedby thedivinity.This

becomesclearerwhenageneralApollinarianconceptionoftheunityofChrist

istakenintoconsideration.Accordingtothisconception,theunityisnotstatic,

butdynamicandlively( ).2Christisonebecausehehasonelife

andonepower,whichproceedsfromtheGodheadandimbuesthehumanity.3

Apollinarius identifies this lifeofChristwith theenergeia.Thus, theenergeia is

not justanactivity,butalsoalifegivingpoweroftheGodhead.Therefore,the

human actions of Christ cannot be called energeiai, butmerely movements.

ApollinariuswentfurtherandassertedthattheenergeiaoftheLogossubstituted

hishumansoulandmind.4Thus, thenotionofenergeiabecamecrucial for the

wholesystemofApollinarius.

1advApol3.1.17645;1013,inLietzmann,Apollinarisfrr.59,60pp.2173031,21835/modifiedtransl.byRichard McCambly http://www.bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/appolin.html[24/07/2003].

2 Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.144 p.2424. The dynamic aspect of Christs unity was firstlyunderlinedbyH.deRiedmatten,Someneglected239260;Lachristologie208234.

3See: ,, .deFideInc,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.1981617.Also,wheninterpretingthe

1Cor15,45 (the firstman,Adam,becamea livingbeing; the lastAdambecamea lifegivingspirit),Apollinariusascribed toChristonlyone life,and this life is thatof theGodhead (seeadDionI,Lietzmann,Apollinarisp.2612.)

4 .deUnione,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.2p.20479.

http://www.bhsu.edu/artssciences/asfaculty/dsalomon/nyssa/appolin.html

25

Another important point in the system of Apollinarius was the

conception ofwill. Christ has only onewill, aswell as one nature and one

energeia:

Forthisreason,weconfesssingleChrist;and,becauseheissingle,weworshiphissinglenature,will,andenergeia,whichispreservedequallyinthemiraclesandthepassions( ).1

Thewillisdivine:

Buttheyaretroubledwiththetroubleoftheunbelieversanddonotrememberthat thiswill issaid tobenotaproper (will)ofamanwho isof theearth,asthey think,butofGodwhohasdescended fromheaven (see1Cor15,47); it(=thewill)wasadoptedforhisunity( ).2

Thewillissingleanddivinebecauseitiscloselylinkedtothesingleand

divinenous.Thenoushasanabsolutecontroloverthevolitionalfaculty.Itisthe

only subject ofwilling.Thewill and its subject are so closely linked to each

other that there is no gap between them. Two wills would introduce two

subjectsofwilling,whichisunacceptable:

For if every intellect rules over ( )hisownwill ( ), beingmoved according to nature, then it is impossible for two

(subjects) who will what is opposite to one another ( ), to coexist in one and the same subject ( ... );foreachonewoulddowhatisadesirable

to it, according to a selfmoved impulse ( ).3

1adIulian,Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.151p.24857.


3 adIulian, Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.150 p.2472327. See also: ,

. deUnione, Lietzmann, Apollinaris fr.2 p.2041114. Thestatementwas reproducededby thedisciplesofApollinarius.For instance, amemberofhisschool,Vitalis,wroteinhisepistletoTimotheus:

26

Apollinarius believed that twowillswould necessarily introduce two

willing subjects, which, in their own turn, would necessarily wish things

oppositetoeachother.Thus,Apollinariusapriorirejectedtwowills,aswellas

thepossibility for them tohave one subject and function in accordancewith

eachother.This statementwas insistently repeatedbyall latergenerationsof

Monothelites.

2.2.ANTIOCHIANTRADITION

WithintheframeworkoftheAntiochiantheology,anotherspecifickind

ofMonenergismMonothelitismwasdeveloped.Themaincontribution to this

developmentwasmade by Theodore ofMopsuestia (c. 350 428/429)1,who

constructedhistheologyinoppositionchieflytoArianismandApollinarianism.

Inparticular,hecriticizedthepresuppositionsexploredbyApollinarius,which

A.Grillmeier characterizes as a framework. This framework,

accordingtothescholar,meansthevital,dynamicinfluenceoftheLogosonthe

fleshofChrist.Withinthe framework,thisstoicideaoftheLogos

as isfarmoredecisivethantheoversightofthesoulofChrist.Itis,in

, , . , .Lietzmann,Apollinarisfr.175p.2752226.

1SeeonaccountofhislifeandworksanarticleofK.G.WesselingintheBBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_v_mo.shtml [13/10/2002], in which also extensivebibliography. Unfortunately, the scholarship has not paid proper attention to the issue ofMonenergism andMonothelitism in theTheodorian tradition sofar.The topic is alsomostlyignoredinthetheologicaldiscussionsheldbetweentheChurchesoftheEastandtheWest(see,forinstance,SyriacDialoguesponsoredbyProOriente).

http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/t/theodor_v_mo.shtml

27

fact, the real source fromwhich thewholepatternofa christologywithouta

soulofChrist(whetherasatheologicaloraphysicalfactor)hasdeveloped.1In

opposition to this framework, Theodore developed a framework

.2 His main concern here was the completeness of humanity in

Christ. In order to defend this completeness, Theodore accentuated the

distinctionbetweenthetwonaturesinChrist.Indevelopingthedistinction,he

drew a picture of Christwho is composed of two independent entities: the

Logos and theman. In otherwords, the two natures ofChristwere given a

concrete existence. To clarify his conception, Theodore applied toChrist the

language of indwelling and assumption: the Logos indwelt in aman3 and a

wholemanwasassumedbytheLogos4.

Theodore developed his conception of indwelling and assumption in

contrasttoApollinariusviewsthattheLogossubstitutedforthehumannousin

Christ. Theodore indicated various negative consequences of these views,

1AloisGrillmeier.ChristinChristiantradition.2ndrevised.London:Mowbrays,1975I426.

2Grillmeier,ChristI428439.

3SeeinPsal449a: . , , .Alsointhe7thCatecheticalhomily:Hebecameman,they(=the318Fathers)said.Anditwasnotthroughasimpleprovidencethathe loweredhimself,norwas itthroughthegiftofpowerfulhelp,ashehasdonesooftenandstill (does).Ratherdidhe takeourverynature;heclothedhimselfwithitanddweltinitsoastomakeitperfectthroughsufferings;andheunitedhimselfwithit.HomCatech161/Grillmeier,ChristI429.

4SeethefifthCatecheticalhomily: OurholyFathersalsosaidwhowasincarnatesothatyouwouldunderstandthat itwasaperfectmanthathetookAndhetooknotonlyabody,butthewholeman,composedofabodyandan immortalandrationalsoul.Heassumedhimforour salvation and through him hewon salvation for our life.HomCatech 5, 127/Grillmeier,ChristI427.

28

including the elimination ofChrists human activities e.g. hunger, thirst, and

tiredness. One of Theodoresmajor concerns was to defend the reality and

fullnessofhumanfaculties inChrist, includinghishumanactivitiesandwills.

Forinstance,hewroteinhisfifthCatecheticalhomily:

Consequently,ifthedivinitytakestheplaceofthesoul,it(=thebodyofChrist)hadneitherhunger,northirst,norwasittired,nordidithaveneedoffood.1

TherearetwosourcesofactionsinChrist:oneistheLogosandtheother

istheman.Thetwonaturescooperatewitheachother:

Moreover(thedivineSon)furnishedhiscooperationintheproposedworkstotheonewhowasassumed.(Now)wheredoesthis(cooperation)entailthattheDeityhadreplacedthe(human)nousinhimwhowasassumed?Foritwasnothiswonttotaketheplaceofthenousinany,whoevertheywere,towhomheaccorded his cooperation.And ifmoreoverhe accorded to the onewhowasassumed an extraordinary cooperation, this does notmean (either) that theDeity took theplaceof thenous.Butsuppose,asyouwouldhave it, that theDeitytooktheroleofthenousinhimwhowasassumed.Howwasheaffectedwithfearinhissuffering?Why,inthefaceofimmediateneed,didhestandinwantofvehementprayersprayerswhich,astheblessedPaulsays,hebroughtbeforeGodwithaloudandclamorousvoiceandwithmanytears?Howwasheseizedofsuchimmensefearthathegaveforthfountainsofsweatbyreasonofhisgreatterror?2

HealsoappliedtothehumanityofChristanabilitytowill:

Withindissolubleloveheformedhimselfaccordingtothegood,receivingalsothecooperationofGodtheWordinproportiontohisownchoiceofthegoodHeheld fast to thiswaybyhisownwill,whileon theotherhand thischoicewasmadesecureinhimbythecooperatingworkofGodtheWord.3

Thus,asA.Grillmeierremarks,inthetheologyofTheodorethehuman

natureofChrist regains its realphysicalhuman inner lifeand itscapacity for

1HomCatech5,112/Norris,Manhood150.

2inPaul(Swete2,315)/A.Grillmeier,ChristI,428.

3deIncarn7,fr.3.

29

action.1Theodore ascribed to each nature a capacity to act andwill.Yet, he

preferred to speak of a single common energeia and will in Christ.2 His

conceptionofasingleenergeiaandwillcanbebettercomprehendedthroughhis

understandingof thenotionofprosopon,as thismaybe seen in the following

passage:

Theideaofunityaccordingtotheessence( )istrueonlyifappliedto (thebeings)of the sameessence,but iswrong ifapplied to (thebeings)ofdifferentessences;otherwiseit(=theidea)couldnotbefreefromconfusion.Atthe same time, theway of unity according to benevolence ( ),whilepreservingnaturesunconfusedandundivided,indicatesasinglepersonof both, aswell as a singlewill and energeiawhich are followed by a singlepoweranddominion.3

Thenotions of activity andwill areputhere on the same level as the

notion of . The latter will help us to explain the former. In the

Commentary on John, the theologian interpretedRom 7 (inwhichPaul speaks

aboutamanwhofeelshimselfsubjectedsimultaneouslytothelawofGodand

tothelawofsin)andremarkedthattheApostlereferstotwodifferententities.

He unites, however, these entities using a common point of reference the

pronoun I ( ).Theodore applied toChristwhatPaul says abouthimself.

Thus, the twonaturesareunited in thesingle IofChrist,whichsignifieshis

common person: So our Lord, when he spoke of his manhood and his

1ChristI,427.

2See, forexample: , , , , ,

inMatth(ACO2I3322023;Maximus,SpiritalisTomus173;Swete,TheodoriEpiscopi339).

3adDomn2026.

30

Godhead,referredthepronoun Itothecommonperson(pars p).1Theodore

explainedwhathemeantbysayingprosoponinhisContraEunomium:

Prosoponisusedinatwofoldway:foreitheritsignifiesthehypostasisandthatwhicheachoneofusis,oritisconferreduponhonour,greatnessandworship;forexample Pauland Peter signify thehypostasisand theprosoponofeachoneofthem,buttheprosoponofourLordChristmeanshonour,greatnessandworship.ForbecauseGodtheWordwasrevealedinmanhood,hewascausingthe glory of his hypostasis to cleave to the visible one; and for this reason,prosoponofChristdeclaresit(=theprosopon)tobe(aprosopon)ofhonour,notoftheousiaof the twonatures.For thehonour isneithernaturenorhypostasis,but an elevation togreatdignitywhich isawardedasadue for the causeofrevelation.Whatpurplegarmentsorroyalapparelarefortheking,isforGodthe Word the beginning which was taken from us without separation,alienationordistance inworship.Therefore,as it isnotbynature thatakinghaspurplerobes,soalsoneitherisitbynaturethatGodtheWordhasflesh.ForanyonewhoaffirmsGodtheWordtohavefleshbynature(predicatesthat)hehassomething foreign to thedivineousiabyundergoinganalterationby theadditionofanature.But ifhehasnot fleshbynature,howdoesApollinariussaythatthesameoneispartiallyhomoousioswiththeFatherinhisGodhead,and (partially)homoousioswithus in the flesh, so thathe shouldmakehimcomposite?Forhewho is thusdivided intonaturesbecomesand is found (tobe)somethingcompositebynature.2

Thus, Theodore was aware that signifies or a

concretebeing.Whenapplied toChrist,however, ithasanothermeaning.To

Theodore,thissignifiesonesinglehonour,theonegreatness,worship,dignity

etcofthedivinityandmanhood,ofwhichChristiscomposed.Thisisamanner

of appearance and revelation of God through the manhood. A.Grillmeier

offered the following interpretation of Theodores conception of prosopon: In

Theodore, as also later inNestorius and inTheodoret,beforeChalcedon, the

word prosopon shouldnot simplybe rendered person,giving theword the

1 inIoan 816 (Corpus ScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium (CSCO) 116) 119/Grillmeier,Christ I431).

2contEunom101/Grillmeier,ChristI433.

31

strictly ontological content which it had later. Prosopon here should not be

interpreted in the lightof thedefinitionofperson inBoethiusorLeontiusof

Byzantium.Atthisstage,wemustalsoexcludethefullChalcedoniansenseof

prosopon.TheAntiocheneconceptofprosoponderivesfromtheoriginalmeaning

ofthewordprosopon,countenance.Prosoponistheforminwhichaphysisor

hypostasis appears. Every nature and every hypostasis has its own proper

prosopon. It gives expression to the reality of the naturewith itspowers and

characteristics.1

NowwecanseewhyTheodorepreferred tospeakofasinglecommon

activity andwill of Christ. Both thewill and the activity, as aspects of the

prosopon,constitutedtohimacommonmanifestationofChristsnatures.Asthe

prosoponwasa singleappearanceofbothdivinityandmanhood inChrist, so

weretheactivityandthewill.

Theodores conception of the single activity andwill is to some extent

similartothatofApollinarius,thoughTheodorearguedagainsthisviews.The

prosoponofTheodorealludes to the livelyand lifegivingpowerof theLogos.

Hencehis idea concerning single energeia andwill,which corresponds to the

dynamicMonenergismMonothelitismofApollinarius.

1Grillmeier,ChristI431.

32

The scheme developed by Theodorewas implemented byNestorius1,

who reproducedTheodores conceptionofprosoponas the commongloryand

worship of Christs Godhead and manhood: The two natures have one

Lordshipandonepowerormightandoneprosopon in theonedignityand in

the same honour.2 As an appearance of both God and man in Christ, the

prosopon toNestoriusdenotedaspace,where their energeticalandvolitional

capacitiesmanifestthemselves.Therefore,Christhadoneenergeia3andwill4.

Inconclusion,theAntiochiantraditionlinkedtoTheodoreofMopsuestia

andNestorius5consideredthesingleactivityandwillofChristasaspectsofthe

commonprosopon,which isanappearance and revelationof the twonatures.

Theactivityandthewillconstituteacommonmanifestationofthetwonatures,

1SeeonNestoriusinE.Reichert,Nestorius,BBKlhttp://www.bautz.de/bbkl/n/nestorius_v_k.shtml[07/01/2003].

2adAlex1961517;ACO2I334910/Grillmeier,ChristI462.

3 See, for example: , , , ,

. , Sermo II223224;ACO2I3323538.

4See,forexample: , ,

Sermo IV 2241215;ACO2I33435.

5AflorilegiumcontainingrelevanttestimoniesfromtheworksofotherNestorianauthors,whichwere collected apparently byMaximus,was included into the acts of the Lateran Council(ACO2 I332334.)Asanadditionalexample,NestorianpatriarchTimothy Icanbementionedhere,forwhomhypostasisofthemanassumedbytheLogoshadasinglewillandactionwiththeLogoswhohadclothedhimself inhim.ep34 (CSCO75)127; (CSCO74)186.Herejectedonewillandanotherwill,foreverythingwasbroughttogetherintoanineffableunion.ep36(CSCO75)179;(CSCO74)258.

http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/n/nestorius_v_k.shtml

33

which do not appear separately, but only together. Therefore, the prosopon,

togetherwith thewill and the energeia, is one. This point of the Theodoran

Nestorian tradition was witnessed by Maximus the Confessor who in the

Disputation with Pyrrhus said that the Monothelites, while rejecting

Nestorianism,acceptedtheNestorianconceptionofthesinglewill:

Thosewhosayonewillvindicatehis(=Nestorius)teachings,fortheirEcthesistestifies, advocates, and decrees onewill,which is exactlywhatNestoriusadvocated:thedoctrineofonewillintwopersonswasinventedbyhim.1

DidnotNestorius,whoindeedmaintainedthatthereweretwopersons,rathersaythattherewasbutoneenergy?2

HereMaximususestheword notintheNestorian,butinthe

Cappadocian sense. The two natures of Christ, as theywere understood by

Nestorius,signifiedforMaximustwopersons.Thesetwopersonsarelinkedin

awayofrelativeunionthatisasourceofthesinglewillandenergeia:

But according to what you say, if persons be introduced along with theenergies, and vice versa, energies with persons, then you are compelled,followingthesameprinciples,eithertosaythatbecauseoftheoneoperationofthe Holy Godhead there is one person as well, or because of its threeHypostases that there are threeoperations.Oryoumightmaintain that theirunion is relational ( ),asNestoriussaidofChrist, for theoneenergywastheunion,asNestoriusandhispartymaintainedintheirwritings.3

Apparently,Maximusfirst,inthecontextoftheMonothelitecontroversy,

suggested that the Nestorian tradition presupposed Monenergism and

Monothelitismandmadean importantcontribution to the investigationof the

1Disputatio313b/JosephFarrell.ThedisputationwithPyrrhusofourfatheramongthesaintsMaximustheConfessor.SouthCanaan,Pa.:St.Tikhon sSeminaryPress,1990.

2Disputatio336d/Farrell,TheDisputation57.

3Disputatio336d337a/Farrell,TheDisputation56.

34

Nestorian variant of MonenergismMonothelitism. In particular, to his

authorshipapparentlybelongstheflorilegiumofrelevantTheodorianNestorian

texts,whichwasincludedintheactsoftheLateranCouncil.

35

3.ANTICHALCEDONIANMONENERGISMANDMONOTHELITISM

A tradition affiliating itself to Cyril of Alexandria and rejecting the

Council of Chalcedon with its two natures formulas was developed as a

marginaloppositiontotheNestorianChristology.Althoughtherepresentatives

ofthisnonChalcedoniantraditionheavilycriticisedNestorianism,theytosome

extentretaineditsbeliefinthesingleenergeiaandwillinChrist.However,this

belief became more important for the antiChalcedonians than for the

Nestorians. In addition, itwas built ondifferent theologicalpresuppositions.

ThechiefrepresentativeofthistraditionwasSeverusofAntioch(465538).1

3.1.SEVERUSANDHISDISCIPLESADVERSARIES

3.1.1.MONENERGISMOFSEVERUSOFANTIOCH

The available testimonies allow us to say that Severus was the first

amongthemajorteachersofMonophysitismwhoinadirectwaydealtwiththe

issueof activities inChrist.This isnot strange, insofar ashewas the first in

manyother fieldsof theologicalresearch.2Hewascompelled todealwith the

1SeeW.A.Wigram.TheseparationoftheMonophysites.London:FaithPress,1923;JosephLebon.La christologie du monophysisme syrien. In Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte undGegenwart,editedbyAloysGrillmeierandHeinrichBacht,425580,1951;W.H.C.Frend.TheriseoftheMonophysitemovement:chaptersinthehistoryofthechurchinthefifthandsixthcenturies.London:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1972; RobertaChesnut. Threemonophysite christologies:SeverusofAntioch,PhiloxenusofMabbugandJacobofSarug,Oxfordtheologicalmonographs.London:OxfordUniversityPress,1976.

2AccordingtoA.Grillmeier,Hebecamethechallengerfortheentiresixthcentury.ChristII219.

36

issuebyhisadversarieseitherfromthecampoftheMonophysitesorfromthe

Dyophysiteparty.AmonghismainopponentswereJulianofHalicarnassusand

Sergius the Grammarian from the side of theMonophysites, and John the

GrammarianandNephaliusfromtheChalcedonians.Theproblemofenergeiaas

such, however, was not Severus target. He solved it within the wider

problematicofChristsessence(s)andproperty(ies).However, theconclusions

hecametobecameapatterntobefollowedbylatergenerationsofSeverans.

ForSeverus,theenergeiaofChristwasprimarilysingle:Thereisonlyone

singleactivity,onlyone singleoperativemotion.1Anyduality in regardof it

should be avoided, as he clarified in the survivingGreek fragment from his

third epistle to John the abbot: We understood and understand the one

composite (activity); itcannotbe interpretedother thanasarejectionofevery

duality.2Severusexploredtheonenessoftheenergeiaasanargumentinfavour

oftheonenessoftheChristsnature.Onenessoftheenergeiawasforhimmore

evidentthantheonenessofthenature.HeascribedthesingleenergeiaofChrist

exclusively toChristasanactingsubject. Itwasnowonder, therefore, thathe

condemnedPopeLeowholinkedtheenergeiaitothenatures3:

1contGramIII38(CSCO102)1756/Grillmeier,ChristII2163.

2adIoan3092022.

3Severusrefershere to the famous formula from theTomusofLeo: Agitenimutraque formacumalteriuscommunionequodpropriumhabuit,VerboquidemoperantequodVerbiest,carneautemexequentequodcarnisest,ethorumcoruscatmiraculis,aliudverosubcumbit iniuriis.adFlav281214.

37

Ifhe (=Leo) inspiritwere toholdandconfess thehypostaticunion,hecouldnotsaythateachofthetwonatureskeepsitspropertywithoutdetraction,buthewould say, likeCyril, that theLogosnowand thenpermitted the flesh tosufferwhat isproper to itand tooperateaccording to the lawsof itsnature.Thus theLogoswouldbear thatas itsownwhich isof the flesh,andstillnotrelinquishwhathehasaccordingtohisessence( ),alsonotthesuperioritytosufferingandhishighestnobility.1

By ascribing the energeiai to two natures, Leo, for Severus, was

introducingtwosubjectsofactivityandthussplittingChrist.Oneenergeiawas

forhimthereforeaninevitableconditionoftheunityofChrist.Concerningthe

singleenergeia,itisnotonlyitssubject,whichisdivine,buttheenergeiaitselfis

mostlydivineaswell.2A.Grillmeiercharacterizesitasanactivity,whichflows

fromabove.3Severusstatedconcerningthis:

InfactwhentheGodLogosinhisaugustunionwithhumanityallowedthisto change, even transformed this, not indeed into his own nature for thisremained what itwas but into his glory ( ) and into his own power( ),how thencanyourefer to the teachingof theSynodofChalcedonandtheTomeofLeo..,whichhavedistributed(theoperationes,theactivityofthe )totheLogosandthehumanbeinginChrist?4


2AsGrillmeier remarks, TheLogos is always conceivedbeSeverus as agens, as ,always involved in theworksmentioned.He isnotonly the final,bearing subject, towhichaccording to the lawof the communicationof idiomataevenpurelyhumanactsareascribed,while the ability (facultas), which releases them from itself, would be the human nature.According to Severus, in every activity of the Emmanuel, that is, the incarnate Logos, thedivinity participates as facultas, as nature principle, and not only as final, bearing subject.Grillmeier,ChristII2165.

3Grillmeier,ChristII2163.

4 Philalethes (CSCO 134) 266282671/Grillmeier, Christ II2 83; also adOecum 18447. In thiswaySeverusinterpretedthefollowingpassageofCyril:NowwesaythatthecoalrepresentsforusthesymbolandtheimageoftheincarnateLogosOnecanseeinthecoal,asinanimage,theLogoswhohasproceededfromtheFatherandhasbeenunitedtothehumanity;buthehasnotceased tobe thatwhichhewas; ratherhehas transformed intohisdoxaandpower ( )whathadbeenassumed, i.e.united tohim. Justas the fireinformsthewoodandexpandsitselfinitasittakespossessionofit,withoutatallcausingthewood toceasebeingwood, ratherallowing it toblend into theappearanceandpowerof the

38

Thequestionhereiswhatshouldbetheplaceofahumancomponent,if

any,inthisactivity.ThehumanityofChrist,whichSeverusdesignatedasflesh

endowedwitharationalsoul,1 isan throughwhich theLogosacts.2

Thisinstrumentmustnotbeconsideredseparatelyfromitsconsummateunity

with the Logos. It is not detachable from the Christs single nature, but

constitutes an integral part of it. Severus made this clear in the following

passage:

Theincarnatehasdoneandsaidthis,foritisunitedhypostaticallytothebodyandthroughadheringtogether( )ithadthisasanorganforthedeeds,asthesoultoo,whichispeculiartoeachoneofus,haschosenitsownbodyasorgan; the Logos does not act through an extrinsically (united)Godbearinghuman being, as the ravings ofNestoriuswould have it, nor in theway inwhichanartisanusesatoolandthuscompletestheworkand(not)likethewayacitharaplayerstrikesthecithara.3

fire,asthis(=thefire)effectsinit(=thewood)whatispropertotheformerandthusappearstobecompletelyonewithit,so,also,representtoyourselfthethingswithChrist!ForGodhas,inan ineffablewayunitedwithhumanity,retainedwhatthiswasbutalsowhathewas;oncetruly united, it (the humanity) is one with him. For he has made his own what is its(humanitys)andnowpoursoutintoitthepowerofhisownnature( ).Scholia154ff./Grillmeier,ChristII282.

1contGramIII33(CSCO,102)134.

2SeecontGramIII33(CSCO,102)1361720;adSergI(CSCO120)62821.

3contGramIII33(CSCO,102)135210/Grillmeier,ChristII2168.Severusbasedhisconceptionofflesh as on the teaching of Athanasius: .

. contArian 389ab; see contGram III 33 (CSCO, 102) 1352022; see also in

Athanasius:

.deIncarn8.3710.

39

ThisclarifiestheplaceofahumanaspectintheactivityofChrist,which

canberegardedasavehicleofthedominatingdivineenergeiahelping ittobe

manifestedintheworld.Thisvehicleisanintegratedpartofthesingleactivity,

thoughnotassignificantasthedivineone.Severusillustratedthisbyreferring

totheGospelstoryaboutthehealingoftheleper:

WhiletheincarnateGodspokewithhumantongueandsaidwithhumanandclear voice to the leper: Iwill, be clean (Matt 8, 3),he showed through theeffectthatthevoice,inkeepingwiththemixingworthyofGod,hasgoneforthfrom the incarnateGod; for the healing of the leperwent togetherwith theheardword.1

ThisisanillustrationofhowSeverusunderstoodtheprocessofChrists

action,whichwasreconstructedbyA.Grillmeier: Theactivitystarts from the

divinityastherealsource;itmixesitselfwiththehumanvoice(oraswellwith

thetouchofJesushand)andproducesthemiraculouseffectinthesickperson.

Thehumanvoiceisonlythevehicleofthedivineflowofwill.2

Anticipating the laterMonenergists,Severusbuilthisconceptionof the

single energeia upon the famous formula from the fourth epistle of ps.

DionysiustoGaius:

For,even,tospeaksummarily,Hewasnotaman,notasnotbeingman,butasbeingfrommenwasbeyondmen,andwasaboveman,havingtrulybeenbornman;andfortherest,nothavingdonethingsDivineasGod,northingshumanasman,butexercising forusa certainnew theandricenergyofGodhavingbecomeman.3


2Grillmeier,ChristII2164.

3 CorpDionys II 161; PG 3, 1072bc/Transl. by John Parker (modified), The Saint PachomiusLibraryhttp://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/diolet4.html[23/07/2003].

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/diolet4.html

40

Severus was the first theologian who interpreted the formula in the

Monenergistway.Hewrotesomescholia to this text. Inoneof them,which is

foundinthelettertoJohntheabbot,hestated:

Aswehavealreadydevelopedinfullbreadthinotherwritings,weunderstoodand understand the statement of the utterlywiseDionysius theAreopagite,who says: SinceGodhasbecomeahumanbeing,heperformedamongusanewtheandricactivity,oftheonecomposite(activity);itcannotbeinterpretedother than as a rejectionof everyduality; andwe confess the incarnateGod,whooperated inthisnewmanner,astheonetheandricnatureandhypostasisandalsoas theone incarnatenatureof theGodLogos.Because thereasonofsalvation, which has established new natures, together with them hasestablishednewappellations.SothatifChristisone,thanweascend,sotosay,toahighmountainandprofessonebecausehe isonenature,hypostasis,and energeia, (whicharealso)composite;alsoweanathematizeall thosewho,concerning this (question), teachsaboutadyadofnaturesandactivitiesaftertheunity.1

Thispassageprovidesrichmaterialforconclusions.2Firstly,Severusonce

againrepeatedthattheenergeiaofChristissingle,andthisisbecauseChristis

one. It is single also because thenaturehypostasis3 ofChrist is single.Apart

from this, he showed us that the energeia is closely linked to the nature

hypostasis.ThemodeoftheirunityandtheirexistenceaftertheIncarnationare

identical.Therefore,theycanbecharacterizedinasimilarway.4Forinstance,as

1adIoan309310.

2 For a theological interpretation of the text seeA.Grillmeier,Christ II2 170171; J.Lebon, LeMonophysitisme319320,451453;LepseudoDenys893895.

3Asitisknown,SeverusconsideredthetermsnatureandhypostasisinapplicationtoChristassynonyms(see,forinstance,Grillmeier,ChristII2150152).

4 See another fragment from the epistle to John the abbot:

.adIoan310811.J.Leboncommentsonthesepassages: Lanatureet lhypostaseduVerbe incarnesontdans lesmmesconditionsquesonactivit:si londitque lactivitestunique,thandriqueetcompose, ilest logiquededonnercesqualificatifslanatureetlhypostase.LeMonophysitisme320.

41

the single energeia of Christ is theandric so is the naturehypostasis: We

confess one theandric nature and hypostasis.1On the other hand, the single

energeiaofChristisoneandcomposite,asisthenaturehypostasis.Thus,what

Severus meant when speaking about the single composite nature and

hypostasis can help us to reconstruct his idea about the single composite

activityofChrist.

TheusagebySeverusof the term with respect toChristhad

been formally justifiedbyCyrilofAlexandria2andGregoryofNazianzus3 to

whom he refers. However, the expression one composite nature and

hypostasis had never been used before.4 The expression is synonymous at

leastforSeveruswiththeclassicalformulaoneincarnatenatureoftheWord.

The theologian opposed the to the mixing ( ) and made it

synonymouswith the unity ( ).Byusing theexpression,hewanted to

avoid two extremes, that of a division and that of amixture in Christ.As

A.Grillmeier remarks, for Severus was not so much a static

ontologicalendresult,asratherthecharacterizationofthehistoricalprocessof

1 adIoan30924.

2Severus,adSergium II (CSCO120)80.Herefers to the followingworksofCyril:adSuccen II;QuodUnus689ab.

3SeeSeverusadSergII(CSCO120)8486.

4This is theconclusionof J.Lebon: En somme,Svreest le seul tmoinde la formule: ( ) , quil emploie dans une passage de sa 3e lettre Jean

lhigoumne.LeMonophysitisme319.

42

the assumptionof the fleshby theLogos according to the hypostasis.1 It also

signifiedanew statusofexistenceof thenatureofChrist.Thehumanityand

divinity of Christ exist only in the status of the composition (

).OutofChrist, they existon the entirelydifferent levelofbeing

independentmonads ( ).2All thesecharacteristicsof

the composed naturehypostasis can be applied to the composed energeia of

Christ.Thus,theenergeiaisnotamixture,butadynamicunityofitsdivineand

human components. In fact, it is an entirely new and different modus of

activity,which can be identified neitherwith purely divine norwith purely

humanactivities.

ApartfromemphasisingtheunityofthesingleChristsenergeia,Severus

alsoallowedcertaindiversityinit.Thus,hedrewadistinctionbetweentheone

actingChrist, one activity, and result(s) of this activity: Hewho acts is one

thing,andactivity isanother,andanother thatwhichwasenacted,and these

thingsarequiteremoved fromeachother.3Theactivity isnotsomething that

1ChristII2128.

2LeontiusofJerusalemascribedtheexpressionstoSeverus(contMonoph1848a;seeJ.Lebon,Lachristologie 476 n. 59; Grillmeier, Christ II2127). J.Lebon: Svre declare quil ne peutcomprendre cetteexpression,sicenestdans le sensduneactivit compose ( )maisrigoureusementune( ).Lpithte nelseenrienlunitdactivit;elleindiqueseulementquecetteactivitdungenrenouveau,queleVerbeexerceaprsstrefaitchair,estle rsultat de la composition. Or, cette dernire carte la division aussi bien quelle vite lemlangedes choses composes.Lepatriarchepeut ainsi conserverdans leChristune activitunique,malgr laqualificationde thandriquequellereoitde lAreopagite.LeMonophysitisme319320.

3adSergI(CSCO119)81/IainTorrance.ChristologyafterChalcedon:SeverusofAntiochandSergiustheMonophysite.Norwich:CanterburyPress,1988,152.

43

exists detached of the acting subject. It has no an independent existence,

becauseitisjustamovementoramotion:Activityissomethinginthemiddle,

thatis,anactivemovement,betweenhimwhoactedandthatwhichwasacted

upon.1 Severus formulated the ontological status of activity as beingnot a

hypostasis.Ontheotherhand,theresultsoftheactivity,beingconcretethings,

arehypostases:(Activity)isnotahypostasis,butthethingswhichareenacted,

whicharebroughttocompletionasaresultofthisandexist,(arehypostases).2

Inthis,Severusfollowsps.BasilsfourthbookContraEunomium3,inwhichthe

samedistinctionwas employed.4BothChrist andhis activity for Severus are

single. The latter could be attributed neither to the Godhead nor to the

humanity, but to the single Christ. The results of the activity, however, are

diverseandcanbeclassifiedeitherasdivineorhumanworks:

Thereisonewhoacts( ),thatistheWordofGodincarnate;andthereisoneactivemovementwhich isactivity ( ),but the thingswhicharedone ( ) are diverse, that is, (the things) accomplished byactivityAnd it isnot that, because these thingswhichweredonewereofdifferentkinds,we say that conceptually therewere twonatureswhichwere

1adSergI(CSCO119)82/Torrance,Christology152153.


3Abouttheauthenticityofthebooks4and5seeClavisPatrumGraecorum(CPG)2837.

4Theauthorof the4thbookcontEunomwrites: .

. .contEunom689c.

44

effecting those things, for aswehave said, a singleGod theWord incarnateperformedbothofthem.1

Inorder to illustratehowChristacted,Severususedthemodelofman.

He said that there are intellectual and corporeal humanworks that can be

clearlydistinguished.Eachsortofworkscorrespondseithertobodyortosoul.

However,theactivityisstillone:

Thereforegodlessarethose,whowithregardtoChristteachtwonatureswhichact;for it isnecessarythateachnaturehasanactionwhichispropertoitanddifferent,thatis,anactingmovement/motion.IfweconfessChristasonefromtwo,andasoneperson,onehypostasisandonesingle incarnatenatureoftheLogos, consequently itwillbeonewho acts andonemovementwhichbearshim in action, although the works are different, that is, the completelyperformed deedswhich come from the action. For some fitGod, others thehuman being; but they are performed by one and the same, by God whowithout alteration has become flesh and a human being. And this is notsurprising, (but) similar to theworks of a human being, ofwhich some areintellectual, theothersvisibleandcorporeal It is,however,asinglehumanbeing,composedofabodyandasoul,whodoesthisandthat,andthereisonlyonesingleworkingmovement.Hence,whenChristisconcerned,werecognizea change ofwords. Some suit God, others the human being But on thisaccountwedonot say that there theybelong to thatnatureandhere to thisnature. For theywere expressed indistinguishably of the one and the sameChrist.2

Thus, the activity and its results, deeds, do not always correspond to

each other. The unity of the activity, fromwhich neither purely divine nor

purelyhumanenergeiaicanbeextracted,becomesdispersedintomultipledeeds

thatcouldbedescribedeitherasdivineorashuman.

1adSergI(CSCO120)6033619/Grillmeier,ChristII2165.HerepeatedthesameideaincontGram:There isonlyone singleactivity,onlyone singleoperativemotion,as there isalsoonlyonespeaking of the incarnate Logos, be it that the actions and thewords have been different.contGram III 38 (CSCO 102) 17567. J.Meyendorff remarks about this point of Severus: Theagentsunity(Christssinglehypostasisnature)entailstheunityofenergeia,withoutmakingitimpossible for theworks, corresponding to the natural qualities of the human and divinenatures,tobedistributed intovariouscategories,divineandhuman.JohnMeyendorff.ChristinEasternChristianthought.2nded.Crestwood,N.Y:St.Vladimir sSeminaryPress,1975,43.

2Hom109,758760.

45

Another important question, which is closely linked to the issue of

energeia, is that ofChrists natural property(ies). Severus developed a special

andquiteinnovativeconceptionofthenaturalproperties.Thisconceptionwas

articulated mainly in his correspondence with Sergius the Grammarian.1

Severusused theword propertyboth in thesingularand theplural. Inboth

cases,he called them natural. In the caseofpropertiesintheplural,healso

spokeofpropertiesoftheflesh,propertiesofthehumanity,andpropertiesof

thedivinityoftheWord.2Inrespecttothepropertyinthesingular,heasserted

itsoneness.Hecondemned the ideaof twopropertiescoexisting inChrist,as

wellasoftwoenergeiai.Heprobablyreferredtothecorrespondingteachingof

hisopponentsamongtheDyophysites:

IfsomeoneshouldwrongfullydivideEmmanuelwithadualityofnaturesafterthe union, there also occurs a division at the same time, along with thedifferenceofthenatures,andthepropertiesaredividedineveryrespecttosuitthe(two)natures.3

TwonaturesofChristwouldnecessarilyintroducetwoproperties.Thisis

because his property (propertyinthesingular) corresponds to the nature. In

another part of the same letter, Severus spoke of a complete fitting of the

propertytothenature:Thosenaturesattracttheirownactivitiesandproperties

which are divided along with the natures completely and in everything.4

1SeeaspecialresearchofTorrance,Christology;seealsoA.Grillmeier,ChristII2111128.




46

However, the propertyinthesingular is not monolithic. It reflects the

wholeness of Christs nature, which includes divinity and humanity.1 The

Godheaddoesnotturn intothehumanity,andthehumanitydoesnotbecome

divinity. The single Logos retains both of them unchangeable as his natural

characteristicsandnaturalproperties:

Wearenotallowedtoanathematizethosewhospeakofnaturalproperties:thedivinityandthehumanitythatmakethesingleChrist.Thefleshdoesnotceasetoexistasflesh,evenifitbecomesGodsflesh,andtheWorddoesnotabandonhis own nature, even if he unites himself hypostatically to the fleshwhichpossessesarationalandintelligentsoul.Butthedifferenceisalsopreservedaswellastheidentityundertheformofthenaturalcharacteristicsofthenatureswhichmake up the Emmanuel, since the flesh is not transformed into theWordsnatureandtheWordisnotchangedintoflesh.2

Thesespecialcharacteristicsofdivinityandhumanity,whichareretained

by thesinglenatureof theLogos,werecalledbySeverus particularities.The

naturalpropertythatremainssinglerevealsthesetwoparticularities:

Weareobliged toacknowledgeaswell theparticularitiesof thenatures fromwhichEmmanuelis.Andwecallthisaparticularityandnameit:(thisis,)thatwhich (lies) indifferenceofnaturalquality,which (definition) Iwillnotceaserepeatingmany times, and not that (which lies) in (independent) parts, andnaturesinindependentexistenceareimplied.3

Moreover, the two particularities should be ascribed primarily to the

propertyofChristandmuchlesstohisnature.Insuchaway,Severusfoundan

effective solution to the antinomy which he was always facing: how is it

possible to speak simultaneously about the unity and a certain duality of

1Severusremarked:Naturalqualityistheprincipleofhow(athing)is.adSergI(CSCO119)7778/Torrance,Christology150.

2adOecum2176177/Meyendorff,Christ4041.

3adSerg (CSCO119)80/Torrance,Christology152.

47

Christsnature?Tohim,itwaspossiblebecausethedualityisretainedmainlyin

thepropertyofthenature.Byascribingparticularitiestotheproperty,Severus

withdrew them from thesinglenatureandsoprotected it frombeingsplitby

particularities. In addition, the fact that Christs single naturehypostasis is

compositecouldbeexplainedbythedualcharacterofthenaturalproperty.1

ItisnowpossibletoconcludethatthedualityofthepropertyforSeverus

wasstrongerthanthedualityeitherofthenatureoroftheenergeia.Thismeans,

in turn, that thepropertydidnot correspondas closely to thenature,as, for

example, the Chalcedonians believed. Thus, Severus allowed certain

incoherenceanda gapbetweenthenatureand itsproperty.Sucha gapalso

existsbetweenthepropertyandtheactivity,whichismorecloselyrelatedtothe

nature than the property.However, even so the property remains single. In

order toprove this,Severus impliedanargument that laterwouldbeusedby

theMonenergists.Hesaidthatifoneacceptstwoproperties,thenamultiplicity

ofthemmustbeassumed,becauseboththedivinityandthehumanityofChrist

havevariousproperties:

Howisitnotabsurdtospeakoftwopropertiesortwoactivities?Fortherearemanypropertiesandnotjusttwo,ofeachnature.Forexample,ofhishumanitythereisperceptibility,andvisibility,andmortality,andbeingsubjecttohungerand to thirstand toother things like it.And therearemanypropertiesof thedivinenature:invisibility,intangibility,beingbeforetheages,beingunlimited.

1 SeeMeyendorff: These two categories or qualities, divine and human,within the singlenature (or concrete being) areundoubtedlywhatmakes this composite nature inevitable.Christ41.

48

Thethingswhicharedonearesimilarlymanyandvarious,andalltheseareasmanyasthehumananddivineactionsthatamancanrecount.1

Severususedinthispassagethewordpropertyintheplural.Hemadea

clear distinction between the single property and themultiple properties of

Christssinglenature.Heplacedthepropertiesinthepluralonthesamescale

as the deeds of Christ. They are, so to speak, deeds either of the single

propertyorofthesinglenature.Themultiplicityofthepropertiesintheplural

canbegroupedintotwocategories:divineandhuman.Somepropertiesretain

theirdivinecharacter,othersthehumanone.However,thisdistinctionbetween

theproperties isconditional.Becauseof theirunity inoneChrist, theycanbe

characterizedneitheraspurelydivinenoraspurelyhuman.Thedivineones

canalsobenamedhumanandviceversa:

Whenahypostaticunionisprofessed,ofwhichthefulfilmentisthatfromtwothere isoneChristwithoutconfusion,oneperson,onehypostasis,onenaturebelongingtotheWordincarnate,theWordisknownbymeansofthepropertiesof the flesh,and thepropertiesof thehumanitywillbecome thepropertiesofthe divinity of the Word; and again the properties of the Word will beacknowledgedasthepropertiesoftheflesh,andthesameonewillbeseenbymeans of both (sets of properties), both touchable and not touchable, andvisible andnotvisible, andbelonging to time and frombefore time, andweshallnotattributethepropertiesofeachnature,dividingthemup.2

3.1.2.MONOTHELITISMOFSEVERUS

SeverusdidnotpayasmuchattentiontotheconceptionofwillinChrist

ashedidinthecaseoftheenergeia.Wehaveafewgeneraloutlinesofhisviews



49

onthequestionofwill.DeaconOlympiodore1,anAlexandrianexegeteordained

by thePatriarch John IINicaiotes (505516), tellsus thatSeverus taughtabout

onewillofChrist.2Indeed,Severusallowsaresearcherofhisviewstoconclude

thathepreferred to speak of the singlewill inChrist. Severus linkedwill to

activity.An activity is an impetus of awill (in other passages, however, he

impliesthat,rather,awillistheimpetusofanactivity).InChristthereisnogap

betweenwillingandactinghewillsandimmediatelyacts:

Hewhoacts ishewho is impelled towardsdoingsomething,but theactivity(is) likeanactivemovementand impetusofthewillwhich isdirectedonandindicatesdoingsomething,andissetinmotionatonce.Inthecaseo

Documents

Hovorun Theological Controversy in the Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ - 2004-Libre