Talk:Monophysitism

This article was redirected to miaphysitism, and the redirect was reverted with the suggestion to have a merge discussion. This initiates that discussion. Vexations (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

There has been some discussion as to whether the Miaphysitism and Monophysitism pages need to be merged, and I would like to suggest that this is vital. There seems to be significant confusion on wikipedia as to what these terms mean (suggested by the inaccuracies in the article), which have seemed to have suggested that they are distinct positions. This is not true; monophysitism is simply an outdated term for miaphysitism, but they refer to identical christological positions^[1].

My previous edits to the miaphysitism page would already facilitate a merge. That page currently (02/03/2020 9:05) makes the old usage clear, whilst also explaining that miaphysitism is the correct term. It may be useful to move some information from the current monophysitism page to the miaphysitism page, as the pages are currently distinct, but these accuracy and comprehensivity changes can be made at a later date. For now, the top priority should be to merge these pages, to stop the confusion currently suggesting that the terms are distinct.

I support the merge as the articles are now basically identical and as is pointed out the difference is merely one of terminology. I will execute the merge. Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think the merge was too hasty. It is argued that, "from a practical and ecumenical point of view, the terms 'miaphysite', 'miaphysism' have an important function in helping to distinguish between two very different christological positions and thus to avoid serious misunderstandings about the christological teaching of the Oriental Orthodox Churches". Yes, "most literature about them labels them monophysites, although the Oriental Orthodox refer to themselves as miaphysites. In fact, the Oriental Orthodox Churches have always condemned the monophysitism of Eutyches and Apollinaris" (Duquesne University). They declare: "We are Miaphysite and not Monophysite." They say they "are wrongly termed 'Monophysites'".

It is wrong of neutral Wikipedia to enforce a disputed terminology that whole Churches explicitly reject. The obvious solution is to treat "Monophysitism" as a disambiguation page. It should certainly not be treated as a one-sense redirect. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I may be able to support the usage of 'monophysitism' as a disambiguation page, so long as it does not once again become an article. However, the debate is not as polar as may have been suggested; modern non-orthodox (as in not part of the orthodox church) theologians would use 'miaphysitism' to describe the Christological position in question. I would argue that 'monophysitism' exists only to add connotation to the term 'miaphysitism', and so 'monophysitism' is not useful as its own article. However, I support Bealtainemí's motion to turn the 'monophysitism' page into a disambiguation page, so long as 'miaphysitism' remains the page which discusses the Christological viewpoint. --BloatedPotato (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree. On the one hand, "monophysitism" does not just mean miaphysitism and shouldn't redirect solely to it. On the other hand, the usages of "monophysitism" are too ambiguous for an article devoted solely to it. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Woa woa woa wooooa there Wayne Jayes, Bealtainemí, hold your horses! BloatedPotato was not agreeing to a merge and neither do I. This needs thousands more Wikipedia editors to be broight into this discussion. Basically equating the two constitutes original research and synthesis.

Monophysitism is the belief that Jesus Christ although he appeared to be physically human in every way had only one divine nature and had no human side to him neither a composite of human nature plus divine nature nor a combination of human nature and divine nature. Monophysitism posits that Jesus Christ was only God alone and nothing else. Monophysites condemned Eutychians because Eutychians believed in a composite nature made up of a human nature and a divine nature. That was basicaly just a softer form of Nestorianism in the eyes of the Monophysites. But Monophysitism was condemned as heretical by the dominant majority Chalcedonian churches. Now the problem for the dominant majority Chalcedonian churches was that they had overlooked the comments of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril was a Monophysite but because he had used the feminine form of the word one which is Mia in a semantically correct context the Chalcedonians had only that usage to grab hold of to argue that the term Miaphysite allowed for a composite nature which was a combination of both a human nature and a divine nature. But that interpretation looks identical to eutychianism from the Monophysite point if view. That view of Cyril has always been denied by the Monophysites who insist that Cyril intended to mean no such thing. Thus the word Miaphysite is indeed ambiguous and could mean two different things depending upon whether one is a Monophysite or a Chalcedonian. But the word Monophysite is definitely not ambiguous.

The original Monophysite article must be restored to an earlier stable version and the Miaphysite page must be turned into a short disambiguation article.

All of the locations in wikipedia where the term Miaphysite has been used need to be restored to the unambiguous term Monophysite unless the source specifically uses the term Miaphysite and has certainly not been influenced in any way at all whatsoever by this mistaken Wikipedia merger. That means that anyone who wishes to use the term Miaphysite must do so with sources which are not subsequent to the influence of this wikipedian error.

No matter how much we might all wish that ecumenism and Christian unity might triumph over academic accuracy I find it shocking that the agreement of two editors was all that was required to decide on this issue of such colossal importantance. This issue must be taken further. Chouvrtou (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Whoa yourself, @Chouvrtou:, what made you think I was for merging? I came in too late, when the merging was already done, and said "monophysitism" should instead be disambiguated. The ground for merging, as I understand it (I think it was not sufficiently discussed and clarified), was that "monophysite" is very very commonly used to describe the theology of the Oriental Orthodox in spite of their rejection of the term. This fact, to my mind, means that the word needs to be disambiguated, not that Wikipedia should treat it, on the contrary, as unambiguous.

And what made you think that "mia" (μία) is the feminine form of "Mono", by which you presumably mean monos (μόνος)? The feminine form of μόνος is μόνη (mone, or in the modern pronunciation of Greek moni). Monos/mone means "alone". Heis/mia means one. The Copts, for instance, before receiving Communion, profess their faith that the divinity and humanity of Christ was not separated from his humanity for even a moment ... Bealtainemí (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

My sincerest apologies Bealtainemi. Please do add any corrections you see fit. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have spent a lot of time with Oriental Orthodox and never found anyone shying away from the term Monophysite, quite the opposite in fact. If you have a source that makes it clear that Oriental Orthodox are supposed to reject this usage I would find it very interesting indeed. Thank you. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have corrected my typos/autocorrects/errors and struck through as per your correction. Chouvrtou (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for my misunderstanding of the archiving of text between that of the assessment heading and this section of the Discussion page: in my hurried intervention on being pinged here, I wrongly thought the text was simply deleted. I'm glad to see that Miaphysitism is again a Wikipedia article and not a redirect to Monophysitism, something I thought inappropriate. (Above, on 8 March, I did give above a couple of official sources showing Oriental Orthodox rejection of the description "Monophysite" and acceptance of "Miaphysite".) I am still too busy with other matters to make some in my opinion necessary adjustments of the Miaphysitism article, but I hope to find time for it after a few days. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Perfectly understandable. Also I agree. Miaphysitism must have its own article and should never redirect here again. Nor vice versa. Chouvrtou (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since I did not have time to search through all the history to find an older version of the article which might be acceptable I have made some changes to last week's article which focus it more on Monophysitism and Monophysite relevsnt issues. The Miaphysitism article needs to be turned into a discussion of the different perspectives on that term namely the Monophysite perspective and the Chalcedonian perspective. Chouvrtou (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am going to remove all references to Eutychius from the article because that is what the Miaphysite article is for. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following needs discussion before any part us re-inserted to the article because this article needs to be unambiguously about *single* nature and nothing ambiguous which could refer to a *compund* nature such as Eutychianism should be inserted in this article. Everything which pertains to compound nature needs to be taken to the Miaphysite article and does not belong here. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Removed from article for discussion:Reply

After the Council of Chalcedon, the monophysite controversy (together with institutional, political, and growing nationalistic factors) led to a lasting schism between what would become the Oriental Orthodox Churches, on the one hand, and the Eastern Orthodox and Western on the other. The Christological conflict between monophysitism, dyophysitism, and their subtle combinations and derivatives lasted from the third through the eighth centuries and left its mark on all but the first two Ecumenical councils.

The vast majority of Christians presently belong to the Chalcedonian churches (those that accept at least the first four Ecumenical Councils), namely the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, traditional Protestant churches; these churches have always considered monophysitism to be heretical, usually claiming that it implies Christ is neither "truly God" nor "truly man".

Monophysitism is also referred to as "monophysism".^[2]

Introduction

Monophysitism was born in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, which began its Christological analysis with the (divine) eternal Son or word of God and sought to explain how this eternal word had become incarnate as a man—in contrast to the School of Antioch (birthplace of Nestorianism, the antithesis of monophysitism), which instead began with the (human) Jesus of the Gospels and sought to explain how this man had become united with the eternal word in the incarnation. Both sides agreed that Christ was both human and divine, but the Alexandrians emphasized divinity while the Antiochines emphasized humanity. Individual monophysite and Nestorian theologians in fact rarely believed the extreme views that their respective opponents attributed to them (although some of their followers may have). Ultimately, however, the dialectic between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch produced Christologies that on all sides (notwithstanding ongoing differences between the Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonian churches) avoided the extremes and reflect both points of view.

Monophysitism was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which among other things adopted the Chalcedonian Definition (often known as the "Chalcedonian Creed").

[M]ade known in two natures without confusion [i.e. mixture], without change, without division, without separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature being preserved and coalescing in one prosopon [person] and one hupostasis [subsistence]—not parted or divided into two prosopa [persons], but one and the same Son, only-begotten, divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.

— Kelly 2000, p. 340 (bracketed language added).

Accepted by the sees of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch, the Chalcedonian settlement encountered strong resistance in Alexandria (and in Egypt generally), leading ultimately to the schism between Churches which would eventually combine into the Oriental Orthodox Communion (which reject Chalcedon), on the one hand, and the so-called Chalcedonian churches on the other. The Chalcedonian churches have always considered monophysitism to be heretical and have generally viewed it as the (explicit or implicit) position of Oriental Orthodoxy. However, since 20 May 1973, the Oriental Orthodox Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, declared to Pope John Paul^{[citation needed]} that the Oriental Orhtodox consider their own Christology, known as miaphysitism and based heavily on the writings of Cyril of Alexandria (whom all sides accept as orthodox), to be distinct from monophysitism and the Oriental Orthodox Christians often (but not always) object to being labelled monophysites.^[3][4]

Monophysitism vs Miaphysitism

In a Chalcedonian sense, Monophysitism is identical with Eutychianism.^[5] Some apply the term to all who do not accept the Council of Chalcedon, even if they reject the doctrine attributed to Eutyches. The Oriental Orthodox Churches object to the qualification of their Christology as Monophysite.

The 2014 Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission said: "The term 'monophysite', which has been falsely used to describe the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, is both misleading and offensive as it implies Eutychianism. Anglicans, together with the wider oikumene, use the accurate term 'miaphysite' to refer to the Cyrilline teaching of the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches, and furthermore call each of these Churches by their official title of 'Oriental Orthodox'. The teaching of this family confesses not a single nature but one incarnate united divine-human nature of the Word of God. To say 'a single nature' would be to imply that the human nature was absorbed in his divinity, as was taught by Eutyches."^[6]

Historical development

 

Monophysitism, and its theological antithesis Nestorianism, were extensively disputed and divisive competing tenets in the maturing Christian traditions during the first half of the 5th century, during the tumultuous last decades of the Western Empire. It was marked by the political shift in all things to a center of gravity then located in the Eastern Roman Empire, and particularly in Syria, the Levant, and Anatolia, where monophysitism was popular among the people; neither positions were of particular debate in the West beyond Rome.

There are several major doctrines that were derogatorily considered to be "monophysite, the most famous being Docetism, which considered the human appearance of Jesus Christ to have only been a Phantom. Although Eutychianism was condemned at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 as a type of Monophysitism, it was also condemned at the non-chalcedonian Third Council of Ephesus in 475. Unlike Eutychianism, Docetism could truly be considered truly Monophysite from the Monophysite point of view because it did not bring a human nature into the mix. Eutychianism is therefore considered Nestorian from the Monophysite point of view as it does also other doctrines often considered to be Miaphysite such as Apollinarism and Paulianism. Monophysites, while rejecting Eutychianism, also opposed the Chalcedonian Christology on accusations of seeming like Nestorianism.^[7] Eutyches was condemned by the Monophysite Christians at the anti-Chalcedonian Third Council of Ephesus in 475.

Besides Docetism, other heretical versions of Monophysitism included Tritheism and Sabellianism which though monophysite in basis were rejected by the Monophysite Christians as heresies.

Two opposing schools of thought in Monophysitism were the Severians who considered the human incarnation of God was identical to humans in all respects including in the corruptibility of the flesh. The Themistian branch of Severians also considered God's human aspect to have also been limited in knowledge. Opposing the Severians were was the Aphthartodocetism of the Julianists who argued that the body of Christ was incorruptible.

Many attempts were made to reconcile the Monophysite and Chalcedonian Churches. Emperor Heraclius thought that Monoenergism might be the solution. When the Monophysites rejected it he tried modifying it into monothelitism – the belief that Christ was two natures in one person except that he only had a divine will and no human will, or at least had one will in general – as an attempt to bridge the gap between the monophysite and the Chalcedonian position. However, it too was rejected and also by the members of the Chalcedonian synod, despite at times having the support of the Byzantine emperors and once escaping the condemnation of a pope of Rome, Honorius I. The Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I of Baghdad also supported Monothelites. Some^[who?] are of the opinion that monothelitism was at one time held by the Maronites; the contemporary Maronite community mostly disputes this, stating that they have never been out of official communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

See also

• Conference of Addis Ababa
• Dyophysitism
• Acephali
• Henotikon
• Three-Chapter Controversy
• Christ the Logos
• West Syriac Rite
• Empress Theodora
• Armenian Apostolic Church
• Pamphilus the Theologian

References

Notes

Citations

Sources

Further reading

External links

• Agreed State noments between representative of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches

1. Are there any reliable sources that the Oriental Orthodox Churches can still be considered Monophysite? If not then mention needs to be made in the article when exactly the Oriental Orthodox Churches first disowned the term. I believe it was in 1973.

2. Are the mainly Africa Christians who still boast Monophysitism Acephalic? Chouvrtou (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Chouvrtou (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I leave it to Chouvrtou and the others involved to fix this badly messed-up article. The essential first step is to clarify what it is about. It now presents a definition that seems self-contradictory: "that Jesus Christ has a single divine 'nature' alone which became human and did not unite or combine itself in any way with a human nature and that Christ's humanity has never been distinct from his divinity even for a moment." "Christ's divine nature became human": thereby ceasing to be divine? And therefore Christ was not divine, not God? That certainly is not the teaching of the ETOC or any other of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. And, in spite of saying his divine nature became human, the definition still speaks of his divinity. The OOC do not accept the definition that "Christ's humanity has never been distinct from his divinity even for a moment": they and the Chalcedonian Churches say that his humanity has never been separated from his humanity. Not the same thing. That unsourced definition seems even worse than this sourced definition: "The incarnate Christ possessed only one nature, neither quite human nor quite divine, but rather a mongrel of the two. No actual human being ever seems to have adhered to Monophytism ..." (The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions).

Would the definition in The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, p. 1016 be better? It reads: "Though the term 'Monophysite' occurs in dogmatic discussions of Miaphysitism from the 7th century onwards, it is technically inaccurate, being a heresiological label properly confined to the view in which the union of divine and human in Christ is seen to result either in the emergence of a distinct 'third' nature or the absorption of one nature into the other (usually the human into the divine) as in the profession of Eutyches (d. c. 554), whose emphasis on the singularity of Christ's incarnate nature appears to have led him to deny that Christ's body was consubstantial to human flesh." Bealtainemí (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

In answer to your subsection title question, monophysitism is the Christological view that Christ had a single divine nature which was also human.

It is not a compound nature which combines a created human nature with a divine nature in some way or another.

For Monophysites, there never was a time when the divine nature of Christ was not human.

This is in contrast with the relatively new and much more ambiguous Miaphysitism which the Oriental Orthodox Church had certainly adopted at least by 1973. If you have a historical record which shows that it was adopted prior to 1973 please do present it. As you correctly pointed out, but only from an ecumenical point of view, Miaphysitism can be considered more compatible with Chalcedonianism. However from the hard-line non-ecumenical point of view Miaphysitism is just another way of saying Monophysitism. Hence the word Miaphysitism is much more complex and worthwhile expanding in an article which reflects the historical arguments both for it and against it.

But the term Monophysitism is much more clear. Chalcedonians thought that various ideas about two natures uniting into one new nature were a Monophysite but from the Monophysite point of view all such dual nature unions, compounds or mixtures were all tantamount to Nestorianism. Hence the Monophysites condemned Eutyches.

Monophysitism says that Christ is the divine human part or aspect of God the Father, not just like God but God from God, etc., same being (homoousion) with the father through whom all things were made. The original image of Adam that Adam was made in. There never was a time that it was not human and divine. It is God's nature constricted into human likeness. Just as Severius says it limited itself and set aside its glory to be just like a common human being in all respects during his time on earth, only revealing His glory to Simon Peter, James and John and after the resurrection in visions to Paul on the road to Damascus and John on the Island of Patmos. It is not very difficult to understand. It is very self-explanatory. A Single divine nature from the Father in human aspect which set aside its glory to become exactly like a created human in all respects while able to restore His former glory at whim for three disciples and which he did again following the ascension. Chouvrtou (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I do have to take issue though with your Ecumenical Chalcedonian definition of "has never been separated" not meaning "distinct from his divinity even for a moment". From the Chalcedonian point of view you are correct, but not from the Monophysite point of view where the interpretation you object to is most certainly correct.Chouvrtou (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

All that is your opinion, unsourced.

Your rewriting of the articleThe rewriting of the article after you removed almost all its previous content also needs sourcing.

The New World Encyclopedia, being a rewriting of Wikipedia articles, probably isn't reckoned a reliable source in Wikipedia. Bealtainemí (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have no opinion on the subject. The New World Encyclopedia ref can be removed. Chouvrtou (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Joe9y's New World Encyclopedia ref has been removed as per your objection User:Bealtainemí and his deletion of the sources you provided has been undone. Please continue to make suggestions here. Chouvrtou (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what you mean by "undoing of deletion of the sources that I provided". I did provide a source that gives a clear definition of Monphysitism. I have not bothered to see whether it had been deleted. I do see that it is now inserted, but why have you inserted it, seeing that you treat it as false?! False simply because it does not agree with the ideas that you have insisted on in your version of the article. In it you repeat several times that Monophysitism is not Eutychianism, but have provided no sourced definition of either. The source that you cite but unsourcedly reject (the one I contributed to the discussion) states clearly (and it isn't the only one) that the word "Monophysitism" has been and still is used in two different senses: one that includes but is not limited to Miaphysitism, the other that excludes Miaphysitism and practically identifies it with Eutychianism. It is a radical fault in an article to give one's own non-expert views without any authoritative definition of what it is one is talking about. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bealtainemí Thank you for your contributions, I wholly agree with you in your concern that User:Chouvrtou is not sourcing their edits and keeps insisting on "Monphysitism is not Eutychianism" when all references I can find do not support this. See the "Lack of references and balance" section at the bottom and feel free to weigh in.Joe9y (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article is currently balanced inasmuch as it expresses the historical and the ecumenical and the non ecumenical and the modern Oriental Orthodox points of view with equal weight. Please ensure it remains balanced and do not bring different arguments out of their sections to cause imbalance. Thank you. Chouvrtou (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

At some point the Miaphysite and Eurychian sections need to be shortened and moved to their respective pages for expended discussion there instead. Chouvrtou (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will be removing any opinions and unreferenced inferences. What one sect claim the other to believe in does not count as reliable evidence. It is an opinion or interpretation. "Modern Oriental Orthodoxy" does not, historically (from the references - see reference to the notes from the councils), seem to be different from Historical Oriental Orthodoxy. What seems to have changed is how they are labelled by the Chalcedonians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe9y (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will also be removing your synthesis of sources to support your bias. Please feel free to play around with the Miaphysite article as you like. This article need not get complicated. If you have a source that gives a historical example of Monophysites calling themselves Miaphysites before 1973 please present it.Chouvrtou (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

DO your research. As things stand your edit IS biased to labelling miaphysites as monophysites. The burden is on you to find any Oriental Orthodox source pre-1973 that says Oriental Orthodox are monophysite. Moreover If we look at what these terms actually mean you will find that i have already sourced for you the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great which affirms a Miaphysitie theological position, not a monophysite one. What you have done is take all the text I have added and re-arranged it to say what you want it to say when that does not match the references. If you want me to add more references, its my pleasure, but don't change what the text says if it is referenced to say something else. That is misleading.

Just so you know the term "Mia Physis", comes from the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. when Cyril of Alexandria refuted Nestorianism by saying "Mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene". This is the Christological formula upheld by both Oriental and Eastern. So the term Miaphysis not only exists from before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. but was also ratified and accepted by the worldwide church at that council. The catch is, that Eutyches went too far and spoke only of one nature,, which differs from the formula of Cyril, thereby making Eutyches a Monophysite and Cyril a Miaphysite. Dioscorus refuted Eutyches and monophysitism, as I referenced in the article. If you read the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon you will see the deposition of Dioscorus does not make mention of any error in theology or faith but rather in behaviour.

I am happy to reference more if you would like me to. But, I will reverse any unreferenced inferences. At least, my edits are referenced. Joe9y (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article is not about the term Miaphysitism. It is about how Monophysitism has been used throughout history. It has been used to refer to many people and many sects. We don't want to give undue weight to just two of those things like Eutychians or Miaphysites because those articles already exist elsewhere. Religious and political topics often raise the temperature a bit but I really don't think insults are the way forward. The wiki consensus has rejected the idea that Monophysites and Miaphysites are the same thing and the articles will not be merged. So please don't carry on trying to push that idea. The Miaphysite article is free for you to explore if you prefer to deal with Miaphysitism. The confusion of the two things throughout Wikipedia is a very large project which needs to be cleaned up. It starts here. Chouvrtou (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

PS Eutyches did not speak of one nature but the absorbtion of the human nature by the divine nature. The Monophysites tried to rehabilitate him but failed to do so. That is why they rejected him. The fact that non-monophysites still call him a Monophysite has no baring on the Monophysite point of view. Chouvrtou (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Where have I insulted you? I absolutely do not agree with merging Monophysitism and Miaphsyitism pages together as they are two completely different Christologies. Where have I said that I want to? What I absolutely reject and will not accept is any stipulations without any credible references. It is fair enough you removed a reference to another encyclopaedia but you can't then go and reference another encyclopaedia yourself to support your own view.

Study Eutyches and you will find that he truly spoke of "the absorption of the human nature but he divine which leaves us with only one nature, i.e. the divine". I don't think you understand that a lot of your edits ARE confusing monophysitism with miaphysitism. If we truly wish to make it clear that these are two different Christologies then it is useful to make this clear on the page, which with your edits at the moment is not clear. Joe9y (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It was removed as per User:Bealtainemí's request.

This is not directed to any specific user just a general comment to anyone with a religious bias who wants the article to predominantly present the ecumenical view. Any attempt to pretend that Monophysitism means only either Eutychianism or Miaphysitism and to pretend that the word Miaphysitism has always been used throughout history will be corrected when I have time. So please don't try to do that when no one is here to check on your ecumenical POV bias. Some articles need a disinterested secular overview to prevent wishful thinking from smothering historical fact. This article is one of them. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Recent edits have disrupted the balance of the article.Thus must be rectified at earliest possible convenience. The article is not about Eutychianism nor the historically recent term Miaphysitism. Moreover, any references to Oriental Churches prior to the 20th century as Miaphysite must be proven by an historical source. Chouvrtou (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You have got to be joking. You are not doing precisely what you are accusing others of. Just because historical references are there that you don't like, doesn't mean you can ignore them. Minutes and letters from the councils and epistles circulated between the churches are all historical references that were added. The Liturgy of Basil of Caesarea is a historical reference. The Original Greek transcript of Cyril of Alexandria is a historical reference, which you can see is where the word "mia" and "physis" are from. The article had the most balance it has ever had before your edits today. Proof is in the fact that those historical references are cited plus BOTH Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian sources. WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES?!Joe9y (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think youbare confusing this article with the Miaphysitism article. There was mo reference to Monophysite in the texts. If it is about Miaphysites then go ahead and use it in the Miaphysite article. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chouvrtou Can you please reference and justify this section please: Monophysitism arose from the Catechetical School of Alexandria^{[1][verification needed]} and was represented by groups such as the Severians^{[2][verification needed]} (known also as Verbal Monophysites, because they disagreed with the wording of the Council of Chalcedon, not with its substance, unlike the Eutychians, who are also called Real Monophysites)^[3] and Agnoetae. Moreover, many Monophysites (e.g. Pope Damian of Alexandria) were accused of being Sabellian.^{[citation needed]} Appreciated. Joe9y (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I did not write all of it but the justification is in the references. Chouvrtou (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chouvrtou I've just checked out this reference for "Monophysitism arose from the Catechetical School of Alexandria" - in the reference given ^[4], I can't find anywhere that actually links the origins of Monophysitism to the School of Alexandria. This reference on page 509 says Monophysitism stemmed from Eutyches. This reference is not really a historical one (19th century) so it would be better if you replaced it or removed the claim. Joe9y (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing that mistake out. I had just copied and pasted that reference and had thought that I had copied a new ref but pasted the old one nstead by accident. The ref should be to this line here [1] I will correct ASAP. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually looking at that old book again there is a very good reference in it too which compliments the one I wanted to use so I will put it back in. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature: Me-Nev", John McClintock (1876), p.509 Chouvrtou (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chouvrtou Would you mind quoting the part of the reference you wished to cite? And I still would say this reference is not really a historical one (19th century). Thank you Joe9y (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have removed this clause about Severians from the article for discussion:

(known also as Verbal Monophysites, because they disagreed with the wording of the Council of Chalcedon, not with its substance, unlike the Eutychians, who are also called Real Monophysites)cite book|author=John D. Hannah|title=Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=daamDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA153%7Cdate=26 March 2019|publisher=Kregel Academic|isbn=978-0-8254-2775-6|p=153

Despite the request to distinguish from Eutychianism and to avoid giving any more weight to Eutychianism it was inserted apparently in the face of thise requests. If however it can be established in a reliable source that Docetism and Julianism were not "really" come from Monophysites then we can put it back in.

Chouvrtou (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

What have Docetism and Julianism got to do with this question? The examples given by John D. Hannah (Invitation to Church History: World: The Story of Christianity) were Severians (Verbal Monoophysites) and Eutychians (Real Monophysites). The same distinction is mentioned by Bischoff and Lapidge (Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian, p. 11) and Hans van Loon (The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, p. 33). None of them mention Docetists or Julianists in this regard. Reliable sources, not our personal opinions, are what counts on Wikipedia. Do you perhaps deny that Eutychians are considered Monophysites? Do you perhaps imagine that the only people who have been or should be called Monophysites are those who are also called Moderate Monophysites and, indeed, Miaphysites? Bealtainemí (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

As already mentioned in the article (but not very clearly) from the Chalcedonian perspective Eutychianism is monophysite but from the strictly literal and monophysite pov Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature. It is actually two natures mixed into one. It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism. However, as it is there is already way too much weight on Eutychianism in the article and not enough to the other examples of Monophysitism. So the last thing we need is another Eutychianism reference. Especially not one which does not bring any clarity to the already confusing naming. As I am sure you are aware, Miaphisitism has been used interchangeably with monophysitism by sloppy authors so there is no way to tell whether the author actually meant Eutychianism is Miaphysite rather than monophysite which certainly from the linguistic point of view would be the case. Lets drop the Eutychianism business now and focus on Docetism, Julianism, historical monophysites etc.. We dont want to be guilty of WP:FORK. There is already a Eutychian article, so leave it all there. Likewise Miaphysitism. There is plenty more for us to focus on which is unambiguously monophysite in this article. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature. It is actually two natures mixed into one. It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism." How have you worked this out Chouvrtou? Christology basics - Eutyches taught the human nature was consumed by the divine, essentially leaving only the divine. Miaphysities believe “His divinity united with His humanity without mingling without amalgamation and without alteration” ~ Liturgy of Basil of Caesera. Eutychianism is completely different to Miaphysitism. Please, if you're going to contribute to this article, take some time to understand the basics first. Joe9y (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I worked it out because one human nature + one divine nature = one new mixed nature. How do you see it? I think your definition of "consumed" is not conveying what I feel you are trying to say which I feel from you is actually "obliterated". Please try not to be so condescending. It is rude. Now you say Eutychianism is different from Miaphysitism. However the fact is that the word Mono does not allow for any kind of composite which is what would be the case if one nature consumed the other. Mia on the other hand allows for such a composite. So what you appear to be saying is that Mono actually means Mia because Eutyches. But Eutyches doesn't mean Mia. Whichever author wrote that (if indeed you are reporting the Author's ideas correctly) well, honestly, seems a bit mad. 20:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Chouvrtou (talk)

In your opinion, Chouvrtou, "Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature ... It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism". Many disagree with you and state that Eutychianism is a form of Monophysitism: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Does anyone agree with you? Bealtainemí (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that Bealtainemi but the problem is that we can not make the article mean Eutychianism because that would create a fork. So we have to avoid those authors on this page. But of course all such mention of equating Eutychianism and Monophysitism can and should be mentioned on the Eutychianism page. But we must not make this page into a fork of Eutychianism because of WP:FORK so since there are plenty of other things about monophysitism which we can write about other than just its possible yet controversial identification with Miaphysitism on the one hand and Eutychianism on the other. (and indeed in the references you just posted there is no way to tell whether the authors meant Miaphysitism rather than Monophysitism because of the ubiquitous cloudiness surrounding those terms.) And since there are so many other things to write about while avoiding Eutychianism and Miaphysitism we should because currently there is far too much WP:WEIGHT given to Eutychianism and Miaphysitism. The article need not grow into a monster. It should be short and sweet giving links to all things associated with Monophysitism not just 2 things. But I encourage you to post every reference you have about Eutychianism on the Eutychianism article and likewise everything you have about Miaphysitism post on the Miaphysitism page. Just not here. Post other things about Monophysites here because there are plenty of other things yet to be included. Chouvrtou (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mentioning the Eutychianists in this article is not creating a fork, any more than mentioning the Miaphysites creates a fork. Both these groups are of such importance in the context of Monophysitism that exclusion of mention of them is what constitutes a problem of WP:WEIGHT. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You misunderstand me, they should be, and have been mentioned, and that is enough. There is no need to discuss them here. To do so would create a fork. All discussions or elaboations on them need to be kept to their own articles not here. This article is not about them. Chouvrtou (talk)

Mentioning is enough, thank you. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chouvrtou I apologise for seeming condescending, but your interpretation of "Eutychianism can not truly be considered single-nature ... It is a perfect example of Miaphysitism" is so unfounded based on the historical references available that are overwhelmingly against you in this matter. Remember that the miaphysites excommunicated Eutyches... Take a moment now. There is a clear distinction as regardless of using the word consume or obliterate for Eutychianism does not fit with Miaphysitism's belief in "His divinity united with His humanity without mingling without amalgamation and without alteration". Mia simply means fully divine and fully human in one hypostasis, Eutychianism denied His full humanity as it was consumed /obliterated by the divinity. I think you know exactly what I'm saying and have been saying. I'm also quite concerned that you think these persons are monophysites when the historical references and accounts I've seen of them say they are miaphysites: -Pope Damian of Alexandria -Severus of Antioch -Jacob Baradaeus Any references from the Chalcedonian side need to be understood in the context of their common (incorrect) labelling of Oriental Orthodox as monophysites rather than the individual theological beliefs of these people. Joe9y (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chouvrtou, the fact that Eutychians are called Real Monophysites is triply sourced, at least. Your objection is only your opinion. WP:OR. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thinking and communicating on talk pages is not original research. It is very bad faith if you to try and dismiss communication and not engage. Chouvrtou (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is a norm of Wikipedia and of good manners to assume good faith. I assume yours. Without cited sources, no matter at what length and how persuasively one argues on talk pages, one cannot get one's original research inserted in Wikipedia. For such arguments there are blogs and discussion groups. See WP:NOT Bealtainemí (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Until todsy i did as everyone can see. I have bent over backwards trying to accommodate you ans support your ideas. But what you did today shows very bad faith on your part. And instead of carrying on you should have rather engaged with the discussion.s below. Bulgarios (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is there such a thing? Who says there is? It sounds as impossible as "prolix brevity". Bealtainemí (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Considering the ambiguity I would suggest that every reference to eutychianism as monophysite might equally as well be intended to mean Miaphysite, i.e. unclear. Why? Because Eutyches unlike the Docetists or Julianists for example actually brought a human nature into the mix while others were truly single-nature christologies. No one can know for certain. It is only a matter of Religious dogma that decides otherwise, but there is no historical factual basis to distinguishing it one way or the other. As far as I can see it is as bad as picking and choosing at whim.Chouvrtou (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Compound "one" nature Eutychianism which mixes the human into the divine is very possible but Single-nature Eutychianism is really the impossibility but the more powerful religious authoqrities at the time were able to promote this oxymoron of an identification. It is very probable they had in mind the eventual condemnation oqf Cyril as the originator of the problem in their minds very much like Mopsuestia was eventually condemned at the 5th council as the originator of the Nestorian problem. But fate would not let them succeed in their plans so we end up with this oxymoron and really rather babyishly ignorant definition of "real" single-nature-ism meaning mixed nature eutychianism. A perfect example of new-world-speak politics in action.Chouvrtou (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know of any sources that agree with your (to my mind abstruse) argument. Sources are not lacking that speak of the two as not only not identical but as opposites: 1; 2; 3. Surely on Wikipedia we must follow what reliable sources say rather than put forward original ideas about a supposed Eutychian Miaphytism. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here is one certain Miaphysites came close to Apollinarius' views, as emerges especially from the accusations made against Eutyches by Diogenes of Cyzicus. The fact is, the simple reading is that mia is compound one and mono is not. Eutyches promoted a compound/ one. (Since outside of chemistry one thing mixed with another thing is commonly and naturally understood by all understood as a compound or mixture and I really don't believe anyone woukd think that is abstruse) But the names Miaphysite and Monophysite have been used interchangeably especially by people who had reasons to fog the linguistic clarity. That really is all there is to it. I think it is time to drop this issue. I have been more than supportive of your ideas and have even created a redirect for you. The matter has been discussed in the present article 3 times and once extensively. Eutyches or his doctrine are mentioned already 18 times on a page which is not even about them! Any more and it will become a Fork on Eutychianism. Why are you not comfortable with putting all your ideas there instead of here? Has someone been bullying you there? I am willing to help you out and put a stop to it if that has been the case. If you want to argue Eutychianism on every page related to it you will certainly end up indeep water. Now let's move on and focus on other things. Can we draw a line under this now please? Chouvrtou (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

That source says certain Miaphysites came close to the views of Apollonarius, who was explicitly condemned by Eutyches. You have thus cited yet another source that declares Eutychianism and Miaphysitism to be opposites. To speak of a form of Miaphysitism that can be called "Eutychian Miaphysitism" is an absurdity, and should be dropped. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

No that is not what it says. You are reading too much into it. User:Bealtainemí, I see that you and I have very different ways of reading the same sources and you are not inclined to WP:AGF with regards to anything I have written on thr page. Would you like to call in an independent arbitrator? Chouvrtou (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively if you are able to try steelmanning where you think I am coming from so I can try and identify where the problem in our communication lays. Chouvrtou (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing. Period. Joe9y (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is just your opinion. Chouvrtou (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chouvrtou, doesn't the source say that certain Miaphysites came close to the views of Apollonarius? Yes or No? Doesn't it also say that Eutyches condemned Apollonarius? Yes or No? If yes, how can you claim that the source shows that the doctrine of Miaphysitis and that of Eutyches (rather than of Apollinarius) are alike? As for your statements about other views of yours, they are of no importance for Wikipedia, which does not accept original research. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that there are a few conflicting opinions all stemming from different understandings of the words Mono and Mia.

1) One position is the semantic position or simple reading position would be that since Mono means 'single/alone/solitary" it should be taken literally to mean that and therefore any kind of Christology like Apollinarius or Eutychianism which allows for a drop of another nature to be incorporated in the original divine nature can not truly (even if practically) be called Mono phusitism because such Christologies in reality incorporate some kind of mixing. The rational mind allows us to see that Docetiam is an example of this position.

2) Another position is the practical position that although Mono means single/alone/solitary it should not be taken literally to mean that and therefore allows for a more mixed sort of nature as described by Eutyches and Apollinarius. This mixing occurred at a specific point in time i.e. when the divine nature came down from Heaven and took some element of humanity from creation and absorbed it thereby changing (even if only as a drop of oil or vinegar into the sea) its original purely divine nature. Any rational brain could call this a practically Monophysite position which is also open to criticism as a kind of Semiarianism since the nature was changed slightly from the father's at a specific point in time and was not always existing in the same condition. However 20th century ecumenical politics has lobbied to get this referred to as "real" Monophysitism (although Mia is a better word for this sort of "one") in order to scapegoat momophysitism and unite the churches on the basis of a Chalcedonian interpretation of the word Miaphysitism.

3) Similar to the previous position, another position is the anti-historical position that literal Monophysitism (e.g. Docetism) never really existed and that every Oriental Orthodox Church has always been called Miaphysite throughout history. Just like the word Mia refers to a type of one which might not only mean single but could also mean a compound one so we should also understand that Mono was used no matter how inaccurately in the same general and practical sense meaning that anything called Monophysite can also be called Miaphysite but the word Monophysite is to be reserved for types of that sort of Christology which have clearly and unequivocally been condemned while the word Miaphysite should be used for those types of the same which have not been condemned and are not likely to be under the current divided but ecumenical nature of the Church. Very simply, Mono = bad but Mia = good. Don't call anything good Mia call it Mono and vice versa.

4) Similar to the preceding position is the non-ecumenical position that the two words are synonymous for the same set of heresies but there is no such thing as a good Miaphysitism or Monophysitism. Both words should be mreged into one article because they are the same thing.

5) Another position is that Monophysitism should be merged with Eutychianism because it is the same thing.

6) another anti-historical position is the categorically-semantic position which would say that Eutychianism and Apolinarianism and any kind of Chalcedonian Miaphysitism can never be considered Monophysite because they allow for a human nature to be present which negates the whole meaning of using the word Mono. All such sects could be called by the more ambiguous term Miaphysite (which can also apply to the word Monophysite) instead but only Christologies like Docetiam shoul be called Monophysite.

Is there still yet another position which I have failed to notice? Of these 4 and 5 have been abandoned. I think Joe9y is 3 and Bealtainemí is 2. For this reason we should all abandon our positions and choose a compromise neutral position of either 1 or 6 or re-visit the merging option for the article. I will certainly oppose position 5.Chouvrtou (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

That is all original research, for which there is no place in Wikipedia: WP:OR. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nothing on the talk pages comes under the category of original research. It is called thinking and communication. It is very bad faith of you not to have engaged with my attempt to communicate with you. I suppose from now on I just have to take a heavy handed approach. :( Chouvrtou (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Even if on a talk page you were to convince all others, you cannot then insert your original research thoughts in the relative article. What you need are reliable sources that actually state what you want to have included, not arguments about what the sources "really mean". Bealtainemí (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please engage with the discussion. Do you think that that ai have categorised your position correctly or is there another position other than the 6 outlined that you can see. This is an attempt to communicate and understand where each editor is coming from and find common ground upon which we can build a general concensus. Bulgarios (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Bulgarios:, are you Chouvrtou under another name (since you speak of having yourself categorised someone's position correctly)? Whether you are or not, wouldn't it be a good idea to make some concrete proposal that we could discuss for or against? Bealtainemí (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, working on my partner's mobile during lock-down didn't realise they had logged in. Chouvrtou (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

From now on all Bad Fath edits will be reverted. Bad faith means ignoring repeated requests concerning (for example) WP:WEIGHT and WP:FORK and WP:OVERKILL. If you have a problem with it either engage with thoughts in the comments or bring in an independent mutually approved mediator. Chouvrtou (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see that part of what you reverted without attending to the reasons given included a serious typing error by me, for which I apologize. Before repairing the damage, I intend to pause for at least a day. Perhaps it would be good if you did the same. OK? Bealtainemí (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I will only be protecting the page from reinsertion of old rejected edits from now on until someone engages with the discussion here to get us out of this rut.

@Bulgarios:, do please join in the discussion. A fresh voice would surely be helpful. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you User:Bealtainemí for your recent edits and for taking on board my criticisms. The current form of the article is very good. There are just a few sentences which I think are POV-pushing (not enough emphasis that single-nature Monophysites with no kind of admixture have always existed because Christ's humanity has been considered by such as entirely divine in origin) which can be addressed later on. Also Heraclius needs to be included so I will insert a sentence now which needs to be backed up later but I am focussed on other things this week so not going to do that now. Nevertheless, I will try to defend the current version of the article from any idiots who decide to come along and mess it up so please notify me if someone tries to destabilise the hard-won consensus that we have achieved. Keep an eye on it. I will be watching too. Chouvrtou (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure but it seems that Monophysitism is being described as a heretic, or non orthodox, or at least somewhat different belief to ? ? orthodox, ? mainstream, ? popular, etc Christianity. If so then what is the difference? I think that the article should have near the start an explanation of difference between Monophysitism and mainstream/orthodox Christianity.

Unless I'm missing something, the introductory paragraph seems to not be grammatically correct, and ends with a quotation mark despite having no opening quotation mark.

Omitting the etymology, the introduction currently reads: 'Monophysitism [...] is a Christology that states that the person of the incarnated Word (that is, in Jesus Christ) there was only one nature—the divine".'

Should this read: '...is a Christology that stays that IN the person of the incarnated Word...'?

Or alternatively: '...is a Christology that states that the person of the incarnated Word (that is, in Jesus Christ) was OF only one nature—the divine".'

Secondly, where, if anywhere, does the opening quote begin that ends '... —the divine".' at the end of the paragraph? 121.200.4.64 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply