Monophysitism?

[Big_Dummy]

I encountered a person who (to get around the sinlessness of Mary) claims that Jesus had only a divine nature and human body – no human nature. In her thinking original sin is only passed on through the human father, representing Adam. She also believes that the soul is reproduced from physical reproduction. I think this teaching is known as Monophysitism.

How would you all go about refuting it?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I encountered a person who (to get around the sinlessness of Mary) claims that Jesus had only a divine nature and human body – no human nature. In her thinking original sin is only passed on through the human father, representing Adam. She also believes that the soul is reproduced from physical reproduction. I think this teaching is known as Monophysitism.

How would you all go about refuting it?

Ask her how Jesus shared in all things but sin with humanity. edit to add, he did not share in sin or ignorance

 

[steve_b]

I encountered a person who (to get around the sinlessness of Mary) claims that Jesus had only a divine nature and human body – no human nature. In her thinking original sin is only passed on through the human father, representing Adam. She also believes that the soul is reproduced from physical reproduction. I think this teaching is known as Monophysitism.

How would you all go about refuting it?

Jn 1:
14* And the Word became flesh **σάρξ ***sarx] *and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Definition of flesh
1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2) the body
a) the body of a man
b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship

1) born of natural generation
c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”
1) without any suggestion of depravity
2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
​

3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the** earthly nature of man** apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

That’ latter part “prone to sin, opposed to God” is why strawberryjam quoted Hebrews which said

Heb 4:
15 For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

 

[jimmy]

I encountered a person who (to get around the sinlessness of Mary) claims that Jesus had only a divine nature and human body – no human nature. In her thinking original sin is only passed on through the human father, representing Adam. She also believes that the soul is reproduced from physical reproduction. I think this teaching is known as Monophysitism.

How would you all go about refuting it?

Are you sure you heard her correctly? That sounds like Apolinarianism which denied that Christ had a human mind and soul. According to Apolinarius the Word took the place of the soul and mind in Jesus. He was concerned with the unity of Christ.

THe monophysites were accused of being Apolinarians because many of the quotes they attributed to St. Athanasius were actually from Apolinarius, but they didn’t support the ideas of Apolinarius. They would say there was ‘one nature of the the divine Word incarnate’ or other variations of this phrase. They (including St. Cyril of Alexandria) thought this phrase came from St. Athanasius but it was actually from Apolinarius. The monophysites affirmed that Jesus was fully human and had a human mind and soul, but to emphasize the unity in Christ they spoke of one nature. The human nature was perfectly united to the divine so that two can no longer be spoken of. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. In the above quote you should remember that even though it speaks of one nature, this is modified by the word ‘incarnate’.

The Oriental Orthodox Christians follow this view, so maybe your friend was Oriental Orthodox. Their Christology is perfectly orthodox from the Catholic perspective considering that Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III of the Coptics both signed a document affirming eachothers Christology. But as far as I know they have no problem with the sinlessness of Mary. The Coptic Orthodox patriarch, Shenouda III, has spoken of the sinlessness of Mary.

But if she is not part of the Oriental Orthodox then I would tell her that what wasn’t assumed wasn’t healed. If God didn’t assume the full human nature then he didn’t become man and we haven’t been redeemed and so we are still in our sins. To be a man includes having a soul and it was the whole man that needed healed.

I don’t necessarily think that it is a problem that she believes that the soul is produced from physical reproduction. I have heard (I haven’t done a study of this yet to confirm or deny it) that some of the fathers of the Church believed that our souls are a piece of our parents and we were all contained in Adam body and soul. The soul along with the body is recieved from the parents. If she is Oriental (Coptic, Syriac, Indian, or Ethiopian) Orthodox then it is possible that her church might have recieved this through tradition. This isn’t a denial that Jesus had a human soul or mind though.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, you could show this person that the early Church condemned this heresy at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. But then again, if you take this route, you may find yourself trying to defend Church councils in general.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Are you sure you heard her correctly? That sounds like **Apolinarianism **which denied that Christ had a human mind and soul. According to Apolinarius the Word took the place of the soul and mind in Jesus. He was concerned with the unity of Christ.

THe monophysites were accused of being Apolinarians because many of the quotes they attributed to St. Athanasius were actually from Apolinarius, but they didn’t support the ideas of Apolinarius. They would say there was ‘one nature of the the divine Word incarnate’ or other variations of this phrase. They (including St. Cyril of Alexandria) thought this phrase came from St. Athanasius but it was actually from Apolinarius. The monophysites affirmed that Jesus was fully human and had a human mind and soul, but to emphasize the unity in Christ they spoke of one nature. The human nature was perfectly united to the divine so that two can no longer be spoken of. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. In the above quote you should remember that even though it speaks of one nature, this is modified by the word ‘incarnate’.

The Oriental Orthodox Christians follow this view, so maybe your friend was Oriental Orthodox. Their Christology is perfectly orthodox from the Catholic perspective considering that Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III of the Coptics both signed a document affirming eachothers Christology. But as far as I know they have no problem with the sinlessness of Mary. The Coptic Orthodox patriarch, Shenouda III, has spoken of the sinlessness of Mary.

But if she is not part of the Oriental Orthodox then I would tell her that what wasn’t assumed wasn’t healed. If God didn’t assume the full human nature then he didn’t become man and we haven’t been redeemed and so we are still in our sins. To be a man includes having a soul and it was the whole man that needed healed.

I don’t necessarily think that it is a problem that she believes that the soul is produced from physical reproduction. I have heard (I haven’t done a study of this yet to confirm or deny it) that some of the fathers of the Church believed that our souls are a piece of our parents and we were all contained in Adam body and soul. The soul along with the body is recieved from the parents. If she is Oriental (Coptic, Syriac, Indian, or Ethiopian) Orthodox then it is possible that her church might have recieved this through tradition. This isn’t a denial that Jesus had a human soul or mind though.

newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm

I agree these doctrine groups overlap. And, I am not really sure which label to use myself, so you may be right.

Dissent from the Creed
By: Richard Hogan

The World of the Early Christians
By: Joseph F. Kelly

Heretics for Armchair Theologians
By: Justo L. Gonzalez, Catherine Gunsalus Gonzalez

Heretics
By: G.K. Chesterton

Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy
By: Martin Mosebach

Christianity and its Competitors: The New Faces of Old Heresy
By: James E. McGoldrick

Contending for the Faith: The Rise of Heresy and the Development of the Truth
By: Herman Hanko

Knowing Christ in the Challenge of Heresy
By: Steven Tsoukalas

The Cruelty of Heresy
By: C. FitzSimons Allison

Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church
By: Harold O.J. Brown

Heresies and How to Avoid Them
By: Ben Quash, Michael Ward

Which of the above books would most likely deal with this doctrines?

 

[Big_Dummy]

Well, you could show this person that the early Church condemned this heresy at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. But then again, if you take this route, you may find yourself trying to defend Church councils in general.

What arguments would one use to defend creeds? I am thinking a good starting point would be that council in Acts. Maybe ask if their church has a “statement of faith”.

 

[jimmy]

newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm

I agree these doctrine groups overlap. And, I am not really sure which label to use myself, so you may be right.

Dissent from the Creed
By: Richard Hogan

The World of the Early Christians
By: Joseph F. Kelly

Heretics for Armchair Theologians
By: Justo L. Gonzalez, Catherine Gunsalus Gonzalez

Heretics
By: G.K. Chesterton

Heresy of Formlessness: The Roman Liturgy and Its Enemy
By: Martin Mosebach

Christianity and its Competitors: The New Faces of Old Heresy
By: James E. McGoldrick

Contending for the Faith: The Rise of Heresy and the Development of the Truth
By: Herman Hanko

Knowing Christ in the Challenge of Heresy
By: Steven Tsoukalas

The Cruelty of Heresy
By: C. FitzSimons Allison

Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church
By: Harold O.J. Brown

Heresies and How to Avoid Them
By: Ben Quash, Michael Ward

Which of the above books would most likely deal with this doctrines?

I don’t know any of those books. The only one of those authors I have heard of is GK Chesterton. The Chesterton book wouldn’t deal with this subject. The Hogan book, Dissent From the Creed looks like it would be the best probably.

If you want to find more information on this subject read about the theology of Cyril of Alexandria and the councils of the Church; particularly Ephesus, Chalcedon and II Constantinople. Read books about Christology (there are many of them). Here are a few books that are good and would cover these issues.

The Christological Controversy This is a collection of documents from the early Church that discuss the nature of Christ.

On the Unity of Christ, by St. Cyril of Alexandria. This is a short book, about 100 pages that deals with the question of the unity of natures in Christ. I am sure you can find this somewhere online.

Cyril of Alexandria, by Norman Russell. This is both an explanation of the theology of Cyril along with some of translated texts. You could find most of the texts online somewhere.

Jesus the Christ, by Thomas Weinandy is a history of Christology. I haven’t read the book yet, but the author is a good theologian. If you don’t want to purchase the book you can check out google books which will give you a preview of parts of it. Read from page 65 and read as far as they will let you. They limit the number of pages you view, but I think you can choose the ones you view so make sure to start as close to page 65 as you can. I was able to view up through page 94.

You can preview the Hogan book on google books as well.

You can get most of the information online if you want.

 

[diggerdomer]

I encountered a person who (to get around the sinlessness of Mary) claims that Jesus had only a divine nature and human body – no human nature. In her thinking original sin is only passed on through the human father, representing Adam. She also believes that the soul is reproduced from physical reproduction. I think this teaching is known as Monophysitism.

How would you all go about refuting it?

If she wants to know what the Catholic faith believes, the Catechism would be a good place to start as well. You could refer her to the universal one, or the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults, or any number of other good catechism-based works (there’s a very good one by Bishop Wuerl, can’t recall the title offhand).

 

[Big_Dummy]

Thanks all, she struck me as the type that wanted “only the bible” and does not even realize that her pastor interprets the bible or creates the lens that she reads the bible through.