www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Monothelitism?

What do you all think of the following proposal?

In my own philosophical work, I am attempting to show that the essence of personhood is will. From the point of view of orthodox christology, this may be a problem. Orthodox christology, following the sixth ecumenical council, holds that Christ is one person in two natures, divine and human. Since Christ has both a fully divine and fully human nature, then He has both a divine will and a human will. The monothelites denied that Christ had two wills. Rather, they seem to have held that Christ had only one divine will.

Here is a viewpoint that I think might reconcile monothelitism with the orthodox view. Traditional orthodoxy uses the language of two wills, one fully human and one fully divine but, would it be possible to talk about one will that is both fully human and fully divine, just as we can speak of Christ being one person, both fully human and divine? This would only be possible if we held that saying "one divine/human will" was equivalent to saying "two wills, one fully human and one fully divine." The claim here would be that monothelitism involves more than denying two wills. It involves the specific denial of a human will. A conclusive answer to my question necessitates a more thorough study of the controversy. But I offer this hypothesis as food for thought.

If it is possible to reconcile the Oriental Orthodox churches with the Chalcedonian Churches by pointing out that the distinction between non-Chalcedonian christology and Chalcedonian christology was merely linguistic, then could not it be the case that the same might apply to the monothelite controversy? The non-Chalcedonian Churches use the language of one divine/human nature, rather than the Chalcedonian language of two natures; one fully human and one fully divine. If these two formulas are considered equivalent, then it seems that the two formulas, "one divine/human will" and "two wills, one human and one divine" would also be equivalent. Such is my proposal.

http://orthodoxyphilosophyculture.blogspot.com/

I believe the term for non-Chalcedonians is Monophysitism.

Monothelitism is not very commonly held anywhere anymore, although it was a major theological position in Lebanon long ago.

Michael

Isn't there a theory that the Maronites are Monothelites that "resurfaced" and found their way into communion with Rome?

Yes.

Does the proposal I made seem heretical or orthodox to you all?

Joe

I know next to nothing about this stuff, but the question had me thinking. I'll give an opinion although honestly it's not a very good case.

Monothelitism is an artifical construct. It was a deliberate attempt to bridge two perceived ideas by an inventive compromise. In deliberately constructing compromises it seems to me we must choose which elements to modify, based upon our understanding of the opposing parties positions.

Now (for arguments sake) we are making the assumption that the perception of the opposing parties was false at the time this new formula was constructed. That makes the compromise false. It could only be true by accident, neither as revealed Truth or logically.

I have my doubts that Monothelitism has any hope of rehabilitation, for three reasons:

-1- It is based upon false premises, it was also rejected outright by the two parties it was supposed to bring together, therefore apparently not meeting the test of representing either of the perspectives that may have been misunderstood.
-2- It is not Apostolic, and not based upon received teaching.
-3- It perpetuates confusion

It is also essentially dead. It doesn't seem like there is anyone subscribing to the formula today.

Perhaps I am off-base, I need to study more. I often think that these questions should never have come between us. I realize that the early church was wrestling with all kinds of major heresies and the need to define the qualities of Christ was unavoidable at the time. But I wish these deep differences could have been relegated to theological opinions and not dogma. People like me are not capable of understanding the Divine and these ideas have kept Christians separated.

Michael

JSMelkiteOrthodoxy:

Yes, your proposal sounds heretical, but it also seems to beg the issue in terms of definition. What is human is not divine, and what is divine is not human. You have, in effect, attempted to resolve the tension by confusing the definition.

Remember that the two natures of Christ are "without comixture" and without confusion. You also seem to have developed a unique definition of what a person is -- a definition that leads to the problem you encounter.

Rather, a person is an individuated nature, not a unique will.

Work from that and I think you will find the resolution to the "problem" that you are trying to solve.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Monotheletism is a heresy, formally comdemned by an Ecumenical Council - any attempt to resurrect it is odious and "offensive to pious ears".

I suggest reading a good biography of Saint Maximos the Confessor and seeking his heavenly intercessions.

Fr. Serge

Dear Friends,

In actual fact, the Oriental Orthodox Churches deny they are "Monophysite" and consider that term offensive as they formally condemn both Monophysism and Monothelitism.

The term they use to describe themselves is "Miaphysite" as they accept St Cyril of Alexandria's affirmation of "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate.

In fact, the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Ecumenical Commission came to the conclusion that when the Miaphysites, during the entire unfortunate Christological controversy, used the term "Nature" - what they actually meant is "Person."

This is documented in a text published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press - the revelation came during a heated debate when the theologians stepped back and said, "What are we arguing about? We agree!"

In addition, there are signed agreements on Christology between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox Churches that show that, today, there is no longer any disagreement between those Churches on this score.

The anathemas between the EO and OO Churches have yet to be formally withdrawn ( I understand there are OCA parishes that have quietly dropped the anathemas against the OO saints and teachers during the annual Lenten anathema services).

There are other points of disagreement that have since been shown to be moot - based on a misunderstanding of each other's position e.g. the old condemnation of the Miaphysites for their Trisagion that was once said to confuse the Trinity with Christ (brought under the leadership of St Peter Mongus of Alexandria) cannot be valid since the Oriental Churches recite the Trisagion NOT to the Trinity, as obtains in the Byzantine and Roman traditions, but to CHRIST Himself.

In this case especially, I think we can trust the theologians of the Churches involved in this ecumenical debate to achieve agreement in the area of Christology.

(In addition, the Assyrian Church of the East has also signed an agreed Christological statement with Rome.)

Alex

Fr. Deacon, you are likely right. What I am trying to do is see if one can move away from the idea of a person as a "substance" and move toward an understanding of the person as activity. It may be that this is not possible. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Fr. Serge,

I am not trying to resurrect monothelitism. I was simply trying to see if a different understanding of person had implications for the monothelitist controversy. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Joe,

While such a movement may be possible, it suffers from the fact that you leave all previous work of the Fathers out of consideration. The concept of person as activity has been raised, but notably by much later philosophers in the humanist tradition.

Yet, does the concept of person as activity really define the entirity of the person? I don't think so. I think it introduces too many unresolvable questions -- questions that are simply beyond the scope of the concept of activity -- even as used by Aquinas.

Fr. Deacon Edward