Help Needed: Miaphysitism and Monoenergism

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m posting this here, because I believe that eastern Catholics - who inevitably straddle multiple worlds, practically speaking - are probably best able to help me answer this one.

I apologize in advance for any amateurish or ambiguous things I might say. I’m not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, so if anything I say fails to be clear enough, on an academic level, for a reply to make sense, then please just help me along with patience as best you can.

I’m hoping particularly that knowledgeable Oriental Catholics - like Marduk - may be able to help me with this one. Knowledgeable Oriental Orthodox - like dzheremi - would probably be able to help me, too.

So, when I was first learning about Miaphysitism, it became incredibly obvious right away that it’s nothing like Monophysitism, since the Miaphysites profess that there is no mingling, confusion, or mixture between the two natures that were united in the one Person of Jesus/the Eternal Word at the Incarnation.

Then, however, someone showed me a quotation from Severus of Antioch, a Syriac Orthodox saint and patriarch. I loved this quotation, as it seemed to summarize the Ephesian/Cyrillian position with such pithy elegance. Basically, St. Severus of Antioch was explaining why it makes no sense to say that our Lord sometimes acts as God and other times as man, as though there’s somehow two of Him in some weird way.

His example was Jesus’ walking on water. Did He perform this act “in His divine nature” or “in His human nature”? The question is impossible to answer. He couldn’t have done it “in His divine nature,” since it’s not in the divine nature to walk at all, have feet, etc. But He couldn’t have done it “in His human nature,” since it’s not in our human nature to be able to walk on water miraculously. This event, therefore, is an example of the way we must simply recognize that Jesus Himself, our Lord, the Word Incarnate, takes the actions He takes, experiences all He experiences, knows what He knows, teaches what He teaches, eats what He eats.

Now, obviously that way of speaking of the Incarnation contradicts the Tome of St. Leo, but I don’t mind that. On this level, the distinction seems like a mere theologoumenon. Severus of Antioch has me persuaded about our Lord’s walking on water, yet I also find myself simultaneously persuaded by St. Leo the Great’s assertion that Jesus’ raising Lazarus reveals His divinity more clearly than His humanity, whereas His weeping at the tomb of Lazarus reveals His humanity more clearly than His divinity.

I don’t see any contradiction there - nor should I, if there’s no dogmatic contradiction between Miaphysitism and Chalcedonian Dyophysitism. And obviously I don’t believe there is any such dogmatic incompatibility, or else I wouldn’t be in a communion - the Catholic Church - in which autonomous churches who believe each of these different theologies maintain full communion with each other.

But,

I do find one problem that bothers me that I’m hoping others can help me with: monoenergism. Obviously I accept the ecumenical and definitive teaching that monothelitism and monoenergism are heretical.

Perhaps I don’t understand monoenergism, but don’t “energies” (I learned this from Byzantines) refer to action on the most initimate level? The existential rather than essential aspects of one’s being? For instance, when hesychasm was explained to me, I learned that due to God’s transcendence, we can never penetrate or perceive the essence of God, but that we can receive God’s nature as our own in the sense that His energies (His divine activity that’s inherent to His being, namely, His perfect and selfless eternal and divine love) are made our own.

Based on that, anyway, I found myself assuming that “monoenergism” would be the belief that within Christ, our Incarnate Lord, there is only one “sphere of activity” or active, existential manifestation of His nature, so to speak.

That’s also what St. Severus of Antioch’s teaching about Jesus’ walking on water seemed to suggest to me: that what He does (existence/action/energy) is both divine and human to the extent that no distinction is correct.

Thus I realized that that sounded monoenergist to me. Am I wrong in thinking that monoenergism is what I said it is?

If not, how does Miaphysitism, as expressed by this non-Chalcedonian Syriac Father, avoid being implicitly monoenergist?

if you’ve read this far, please, please, please, I beg you, read these three caveats of mine:

(SEE BELOW)

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

(1) I’m well aware that my terminology is, academically speaking, haphazard and therefore not possessive of any professional philosophical precision. I’m simply a layman, formally untrained in philosophy except to a minor degree, trying to understand important Christology. If, therefore, I’ve said anything that’s too vague to really be meaningful when discussing these complex matters, just tell me. Tell me my words don’t indicate a specific enough understand even to respond to, and we’ll move from there.

(2) I am not saying - nor do I believe - that St. Severus of Antioch is a monoenergist heretic. That’s not for me to say: I’m neither holy enough to do so, nor wise enough to do so, nor well-educated enough to do so, nor well-read enough to do so, nor do I have the authority to do so, nor would I want to be able to do so on any of these levels.

Rather, this is an honest thought that occurred to me, based on my limited understanding, and it presented a problem that I sincerely seek an answer to.

(3) My own instinct, if anyone is still suspicious that I am somehow looking to condemn or sit in judgment , is that when I get an answer, that answer will show me that St. Severus of Antioch and his Christology are not in any way equivalent to, expressive of, or guilty of adhering to, the heresy of monoenergism.

Thank you.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If St. Severus is a monoenergist, so is St Cyril, Doctor of the Church, perhaps its time to popularize “miaenergism” as a Oriental alternative.

Read God’s Human Face: The Christ-icon by (Cardinal) Christoph von Schönborn:

http://s13.postimg.org/6i0a6srnr/Cyril_Miaphysite.jpg

 

[mardukm]

I don’t have access to the text in the original language, but, according to a translation I’ve read (going off of my bad memory here) I believe the Tome of St. Leo does not say that Christ acts “in his Divine nature” in one instance and/or “in his human nature” in another instance, as if he was switching back in forth constantly in some sort of multiple-personality type of condition. Rather, it says that the acts He did are at times “proper to his divine nature” and other acts done that are “proper to his human nature,” That’s a huge difference imo.

As I said, I’m just going off of memory, which is oftentimes bad. All I’ll say right now is that I find nothing un-Orthodox about the Tome of Pope St. Leo, properly understood. Sorry, but that’s all I have time for right now.

Blessings

 

[dzheremi]

That’s also what St. Severus of Antioch’s teaching about Jesus’ walking on water seemed to suggest to me: that what He does (existence/action/energy) is both divine and human to the extent that no distinction is correct.

Aye, there’s the rub…if you do not distinguish between two natures after the incarnation (and miaphysitism does not), how can you say there are two wills? It is perhaps rather simplistic, but that is as it is put, for instance, in HH Pope Shenouda’s book “The Nature of Christ”, in which HH states plainly “We believe in one will and one act”. This again is not mono anything, as our understanding of the will of Christ (such that we can speak of it, because others have made heresies based on this, such as monoenergism, that must be opposed) is obviously directly related/descending from our Christology, which likewise never says that Christ is ONLY human, or ONLY divine, but rather that He is completely and perfectly both. And just as we recognize this without distinction between the natures, as we believe it to be impossible, we likewise say that He has ONE will – not Human OR Divine, but Human AND Divine. In the same way that the Chalcedonians will stress that He has two wills that are not in any way in conflict with one another, we likewise say (and here I am basically quoting HH again) that as long as we consider that His nature is one (and we do), then His will and acts must also therefore be one, as there is no conflict between the human and the divine in Christ our Lord. (It’s just the Chalcedonians still consider them separately even after the incarnation, whereas we do not.)

 

[soneijan]

more people in the world are overweight an undernourished to be city levels are rising I’m Jack Pretty and in this series on go to trace those responsible for a revolution canal treaty I’ll be looking at how decisions made Superior Muscle X behind closed doors transformed food into an addiction people have a hard time controlling their weight that brings RB hijack how business change the shape of nation from a marketing standpoint as I visited curtail our anchor you and the negative way you will find spin at how.

 

[mardukm]

(It’s just the Chalcedonians still consider them separately even after the incarnation, whereas we do not.)

I’m not sure that is a correct representation of the Chalcedonian position. I think what diophysites would say is that they consider the natures “distinctly,” but I don’t believe they would say that they consider the natures “separately.” It’s a fine, but important distinction (no pun intended).

What would my diophysite brothers say? Do you guys think that the statement “the Chalcedonians consider the natures separately” is an appropriate or acceptable representation of your beliefs?

Don’t worry, I know that the rephrase offered above is not sufficient for miaphysite hardliners.

Blessings

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think it really matters. If the consideration of two natures can occur only in contemplation, then to consider separately or in isolation is no different than considering one as distinct from the other.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Cavaradossi,

Thank you for your reply. My gut reaction as a miaphysite is that there is an important difference between “separation” and “distinction.”

Think of it this way. Though I can conceive or contemplate of the Father and the Son as distinct, I cannot even begin to conceive or contemplate of them as separate. That is the same way miaphysites understand the human and divine nature of Christ.

However, you stated you are using “separate” in the same way as “distinct.” I know that you, together with us, confess that the human and divine natures are not separated even for an instant. So I take you at your word that you are using “separate” in the same way as “distinct,” and won’t make any more issue about it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thank you, everyone, for your responses. I appreciate them and am still mulling them over.

If I ever really want to explore this question seriously, I’ll have a lot of reading and additional prayer to do.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hey, everyone! If anyone is still reading this, I’ve come to a tentative conclusion.

Honestly, I’m not absolutely convinced that a learned, thorough, and competent Chalcedonian and neo-Chalcedonian perspective would not condemn or at least be suspicious of Severus of Antioch’s explanation as dabbling in monoenergism - although I’d like to think so!

However…

I now think I have legitimately good reason to find Severus’ explanation dogmatically compatible with traditionally Chalcedonian dyoenergism.

Take a look at the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on these controversies. Note that this is an unapologetically Chalcedonian and dyoenergist source - even to the extent (probably due to the time period) of calling Miaphysites “Monophysites” (extra confusing because the article certainly acknowledges in several places that they are not Eutychian, but I guess that’s 1913 for you…).

I’m providing a somewhat lengthy selection for context’s sake, but the most critical part are the numbered points describing the three classes of Christ’s actions and how they relate to his two faculties-of-action (energeia), the human and the divine.
Old Catholic Encyclopedia:

Operation or energy, activity (energeia, operatio), is parallel to will, in that there is but one activity of God, ad extra, common to all the three Persons; whereas there are two operations of Christ, on account of His two natures. The word energeia is not here employed in the Aristotelean sense (actus, as opposed to potentia, dynamis), for this would be practically identical with esse (existentia), and it is an open question among Catholic theologians whether there is one esse in Christ or two. Nor does energeia here mean simply the action (as Vasquez, followed by de Lugo and others, wrongly held) but the faculty of action, including the act of the faculty. Petavius has no difficulty in refuting Vasquez, by referring to the writers of the seventh century; but he himself speaks of duo genera operationum as equivalent to duo operationes, which introduces an unfortunate confusion between energeia and praxeis or energemata, that is between faculty of action and the multiple actions produced by the faculty. This confusion of terms is frequent in modern theologians, and occurs in the ancients, e.g. St. Sophronius. The actions of God are innumerable in Creation and Providence, but His energeia is one, for He has one nature of the three Persons. The various actions of the incarnate Son proceed from two distinct and unconfused energeiai, because He has two natures. All are the actions of one subject (agent or principium quod), but are either divine or human according to the nature (principium quo) from which they are elicited. The Monophysites were therefore quite right in saying that all the actions, human and divine, of the incarnate Son are to be referred to one agent, who is the God-man; but they were wrong in inferring that consequently His actions, both the human and the Divine, must all be called “theandric” or “divino-human”, and must proceed from a single divino-human energeia. St. Sophronius, and after him St. Maximus and St. John Damascene, showed that the two energeia produce three classes of actions, since actions are complex, and some are therefore mingled of the human and the divine.

(1) There are Divine actions exercised by God the Son in common with the Father and the Holy Ghost (e.g. the creation of souls or the conservation of the universe) in which His human nature bears no part whatever, and these cannot be called divino-human, for they are purely Divine. It is true that it is correct to say that a child ruled the universe (by the communicatio idiomatum), but this is a matter of words, and is an accidental, not a formal predication - He who became a child ruled the universe as God, not as a child, and by an activity that is wholly Divine, not divino-human.

(2) There are other Divine actions which the Word Incarnate exercised in and through His human nature, as to raise the dead by a word, to heal the sick by a touch. Here the Divine action is distinguished from the human actions of touching or speaking, though it uses them, but through this close connexion the word theandric is not out of place for the whole complex act, while the Divine action as exercised through the human may be called formally theandric, or divino-human.

(3) Again, there are purely human actions of Christ, such as walking or eating, but these are due to the free human will, acting in response to a motion of the Divine will. These are elicited from a human potentia, but under the direction of the Divine. Therefore they are also called theandric, but in a different sense - they are materially theandric, humano-divine. We have seen therefore that to some of our Lord’s actions the word theandric cannot be applied at all; to some it can be applied in one sense, to others in a different sense. The Lateran Council of 649 anathematized the expression una deivirilis operatio, mia theandrike energeia, by which all the actions divine and human are performed. It is unfortunate that the respect felt for the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita has prevented theologians from proscribing the expression deivirilis operatio altogether. It has been shown above that it is correct to speak of deiviriles actus or actiones or energemata. The kaine theandrike energeia, of Pseudo-Dionysius was defended by Sophronius and Maximus as referring to the Divine energeia when producing the mixed (formally theandric) acts; theandric thus becomes a correct epithet of the Divine operation under certain circumstances, and that is all.

Commentary follows. But quick note: check out the enthusiastic endorsement of the communicatio idiomatum.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Okay.

Specifically, note #2 and even #3, which actually concede that “the word theandric is not out of place for the whole complex act,” even going so far as to specify that "the Divine action as exercised through the human may be called formally theandric, or divino-human."

It even concedes that seemingly purely human actions, like eating, may be called “materially theandric” or “humano-divine” because they are nonetheless done “under the direction of the Divine” and “in response to a motion of the Divine will.”

My conclusion, therefore, is that my initial query pushed the implications of genuine dyoenergism too far, since whatever else I can say about this dyoenergist elaboration from the old Catholic Encyclopedia, it’s also true that the portions I’ve identified seem no less monoenergist than Severus of Antioch’s treatment of Christ’s walking on water, from the perspective of the attitude and assumptions I labored under in my original post.

In short, I believe I was confusing energeia in some sense with hypostasis. Not an unforgivable mistake, since the concept of concrete subsistence seems awfully existential to me and therefore intimately related to the concept of one’s “faculty/sphere/principle of action.” But they are most definitely different, or else a dyoenergist source like the Catholic Encyclopedia could not have said what it did.