Saturday, April 25, 2026

The Pillar That Will Not Be Shaken


 

Bright Wednesday, April 15, 2026

Ecumenists propose that heretics and schismatics who have separated themselves from the Church have somehow remained her members and that the Body has not been divided. However, it is forbidden according to the Holy Fathers to allow those outside the Church to receive the Mysteries. Any decision contrary to this is arbitrary and violates the vow made by clergy to preserve the Mysteries from profanation. Nonetheless Orthodox clergy are communing Monophysites (Coptic Orthodox and others) without previously separating them from their heresy and uniting them to the Church.

Actions and statements throughout the world continue which contradict the decisions of the Holy Fathers defining the true unity of the Church. The ecumenical prayer performed in Iznik, Turkey on November 28th, 2025 by Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Monophysite and Protestant participants is confusing for the faithful and mocks the boundaries of the Church set by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. Recently in India, a greeting was sent to Monophysites by an Orthodox Patriarch supporting them by claiming that their heretical church is the same Church our Saviour spoke of when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. These and similar gatherings and statements only add to the confusion and scandal of the Faithful. Any attempt to clarify and defend the dogma of the Church is dismissed as “Romantic theology”.

We offer below a thoughtful essay in defense of the Orthodox position as encouragement for those who love the Truth and hunger and thirst for righteousness’ sake. 

+ Bishop Luke

 

Monophysite Heresies and Contemporary Apologetics

By NGT

 

The Church is from heaven while heresy is from the devil as proclaimed during the seventh council of Carthage in 258[1]. The pernicious nature of heresy is so dangerous that it can be considered the greatest threat to the faithful, and as such, the Church has instituted canons and anathemas to protect them. Few things are as persistent and pernicious as truth mixed with lies, and the persistence of ancient heresies is evident, as the spiritual descendants of the heresiarchs still exist to this day. Setting aside the never-ending hydra of heresy that is Protestantism, of particular interest is the group of heretics historically known as Monophysites who proclaim one incarnate nature of Christ. With the rise of the ecumenist movement, all the historical enemies of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church have combined their powers in what appears to be the heresy to end all heresies: the destruction of the boundaries and all theological differences and the mingling of all confessions into one heretical body where no one agrees on anything except to not upset one another. This larger heresy is drawing in the faithful, and recent movements are attempting to claim that those of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Chalcedonian) are the same as Monophysites (non-Chalcedonians). Because of some similar practices such as having a liturgical form of worship, priesthood, sacraments, and iconography, these two groups that have been at odds for over fifteen hundred years are claimed to be one and the same. The orthodox confessions of the church fathers, the witness of the martyrs, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, and the anathemas are ignored all for the sake of a false union with heretics whose Christology, soteriology, anthropology, theology, and metaphysics are all different. 

In this review of major “theologians” of the monophysite heresy, it must be noted that although Monophysitism is an umbrella term, and many of the “theologians” of the heretical monophysite confessions have opposing formulas and beliefs, their one unifying trait is that they all draw the same conclusion: Christ has one incarnate nature. This contrasts with “dyophysitism”, the belief that Christ has two natures. Chalcedonians (Orthodox), Nestorians (heretical), and a small Origenist variation invented by Evagrius of Pontus (heretical)[2] are all Dyophisites. The Orthodox Catholic Church will herein frequently be referred to as Dyophysites, in order to clearly distinguish them from the Monophysites.

The Monophysite heresy developed historically and continues to persist. The original monophysite was Apollinaris of Laodicea, the author of the mia physis formula: “Μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Λόγου σέσαρκωμένην,”[3] translated “One Nature of the Word Incarnate” which was condemned at the second Ecumenical Council.  His writings influenced Eutyches and Dioscorus, the original non-Chalcedonian Heresiarchs who brought the heresy to the forefront and provoked Chalcedon.

The Monophysites and many contemporary religious scholars in the 20th century claim that St. Cyril of Alexandria held monophysite beliefs, particularly because he used the mia physis formula. An understanding of St. Cyril’s Christology is an absolute necessity to see if any of the modern ecumenist and Monophysite apologetics have any grounding. St. Cyril is claimed by both Orthodox Dyophysites and Monophysites. A careful analysis of his Christology will unravel much of the contemporary apologetics for the heresy of Monophysitism.

The major heresiarchs of the Monophysites are Eutyches of Constantinople, Dioscorus of Alexandria, Timothy Ailuros, and Severus of Antioch. Each of these individuals are highly influential in the monophysite confessions and have differences between their Christological formulas. They formulate the bedrock of the heresy of Monophysitism; what they all share in common is their collective rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.

Contemporary apologetics of the Monophysite heresy include two Joint Agreement Statements in the ecumenical talks that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These are unique in that Dyophysite academics helped concoct these agreements. The Dietmar W. Winkler's “Miaphysitism a New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology”, which advocated for the renaming of the contemporary Monophysites as Miaphysites, an argument raised by Fr. Mebratu Gebru, an Ethiopian Monophysite clergyman and scholar, and Pope Shenouda III's booklet on the single nature of Christ are noteworthy monophysite apologetics. A sound understanding of the historical development and contemporary manifestations of the monophysite heresy are vital in understanding and refuting it.

Apollinaris of Laodicea and Apollinarianism

1.1 A Brief Historical Account of the Heresiarch and His Heresy

Apollinaris was a Bishop of the Northern Syrian seaport of Laodicea in the fourth century, now known as Latakia, Syria. He was born in Laodicea (c.310 AD–c.390 AD). His Father was also named Apollinaris and was from Alexandria, he moved to Beirut and then to Laodicea and became a priest and where he sired his son. Both Apollinaris the elder and the younger were highly respected and learned scholars in the Christian realm. Apollinaris the younger was in the Nicene camp during the Arian controversy, and his learning earned him the friendship and respect of many figures in the anti-Arian camp, such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria and St. Basil the Great.

Towards the latter half of Apollinaris’ life, he began to teach his infamous heresy; that the Incarnate Logos had only one nature, a human body and an animal soul that lacked the rational mind replaced with the divine Logos. Henry Chadwick explains this in his work “The Early Church”:

In an extreme anti-Arian reaction he asserted that Christ's human nature differed from that of other men in one all-important respect: the divine Word or Logos replaced the natural mind. For only so could one avoid thinking of Christ as a dual personality. Apollinaris had a high sacramental theology, a sharp mind, and a pungent pen. But he could not obscure the fact that he was denying the completeness and the genuineness of Christ's humanity.[4]

St. Basil was alarmed at the development and promulgation of Apollinaris’ teachings and informed Rome of his doctrines. He requested they discipline him along with others in the Nicene camps that were promulgating heresies. Apollinaris’ Christology was condemned by the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Alexandria around 377.[5] He was ultimately condemned in the First council of Constantinople in 381 AD, but the heresy persisted. In 388, emperor Theodosius outlawed Apollinarism in the harshest form in the Eastern Empire after its having been formally outlawed in the West and condemned by Rome. Yet, this heretical sect persisted until the early fifth century, where the heretics eventually reconciled with the church in Antioch.

There is evidence for [Apollinarianism’s] survival into the fifth century – only in 425 were the Apollinarians at Antioch officially reconciled under Bishop Theodotus – and it seems certain that it provided fertile soil for the nurture of the Monophysitism which was to trouble the church in that century.[6]

1.2 The Apollinarian Forgeries

As Apollinarianism was condemned by imperial edict, his teachings were openly censured; many of the writings of Apollinaris do not survive to this day. To navigate this censorship, followers of Apollinaris wrote their doctrines and ascribed them to others creating what is now known as the infamous Apollinarian forgeries. This caused much confusion in the Christian world, as respected orthodox figures had their names misattributed to heretical dogma:

Most of Apolinarius’s writings have not survived, and most of those that have did so because they were falsely attributed, presumably by the Apollinarians themselves, to “orthodox” writers. . . And as such claimed as “orthodox” authorities in the fifth-century Christological debates by both St. Cyril of Alexandria and his opponent Eutyches. The Kata meros pistis (“Confession of Faith in Parts”) was attributed to St. Gregory Thaumaturgus; De unione, De fide et incarnatione, and the first letter to Dionysius, to Pope St. Julius of Rome; and the letter to Jovian, to St. Athanasius. The spuriousness of these attributions became known, however, after about 450.[7]

These works cited above are critical texts that Monophysites initially used to support their heresy, particularly Eutyches and Dioscorus. A more detailed breakdown of this phenomenon is documented by Leontius of Byzantium’s Against the forgeries of the Apollinarists in the sixth century. In this work, the author cites various texts written by Apollinarian heretics and draws parallels between their dogmatic claims and the misattributed Apollinarian forgeries.

1.3 Apollinaris’ Christology

Apollinarism is truly the father of the non-Chalcedonian Monophysites. Apollinaris believed in the tri-partite soul of man, and that Christ, as God, came down from heaven and incarnated in a human body with an incomplete human soul. The Divine spirit of the Logos replaced the rational mind of the human soul, creating a hybrid human of two parts man and one part God, with only one person, nature, will and energy of God alone present. The following succinctly outlines Apollinaris’s’ Christology:

He is not a human being but is like a human being, since he is not coessential with humanity in his highest part. For he would not have been born in the likeness of a human being unless, like a human being, he was in fact an incarnate intellect.

If together with God, who is intellect, there was also a human intellect in Christ, then the work of the incarnation is not accomplished in him. But if the work of the incarnation is not accomplished in the self-moved and undetermined intellect, then this work, which is the destruction of sin, is accomplished in the flesh, which is moved from without and energized by the divine Intellect. The self-moved intellect within us shares in the destruction of sin insofar as it assimilates itself to Christ.

Therefore, the human race is saved not by the assumption of an intellect and of a whole human being but by the assumption of flesh, whose nature it is to be ruled. What was needed was unchangeable intellect which did not fall under the domination of the flesh on account of its weakness of understanding but which adapted the flesh to itself without force.[8]

Apollinaris believed that since the human intellect has fallen, Christ could not have assumed human intellect, because he would be subject to its fallen state, so instead he incarnated in a human body with an animal soul and replaced the rational intellect with his divine spirit.

In the following equation Apollinaris explains the properties of the Incarnate Word (bold added for emphasis):

The confession is that in him the creature is in unity with the uncreated, while the uncreated is commingled with the creature, so that one nature is constituted out of the parts severally, and the Word contributes a special energy to the whole together with the divine perfection. The same thing happens in the case of the ordinary man, made up as he is of two incomplete parts which together fill out one nature and are signified by one name; for at the same time the whole is called "flesh" without the soul's being thereby stripped away. and the whole is styled "soul" without the body's being stripped away (if, indeed, it is something else alongside the soul)[9]

Apollinaris advocates that Christ has one nature composed of both human and divine parts. Apollinaris mixes the divine and human natures into one. He himself exclaims this very point: “O new creation and divine mixture! God and flesh completed one and the same nature!”[10]

Apollinaris’ conception of divine nature is the vital component of his mia physis formula. He claims that:

[Christ] emptied himself after the fashion of a slave. But in his divine essence he is unemptied and unaltered and undiminished (for no alteration can affect the divine nature), neither is he decreased or increased.[11]

His belief that Christ's divinity is unalterable is consistent with Orthodox doctrine.

With no ambiguity Apollinaris proclaims: “Christ is one, moved only by a divine will, just as we know his activity is one, manifested in different marvels and sufferings of his one nature, for he is believed to be God enfleshed.”[12] This reveals that Apollinaris is the origin of the belief that Christ has only one energy and one will.

1.4 The Logical conclusions of Apollinaris’ Christology

Apollinaris’ single nature of Christ is an amalgamation of human and divine components, but if the divine nature cannot be altered, how can it mix into a single nature with created human nature and not undergo change? The principle of mixing two natures is described in detail by St. John Damascene:

One should know, moreover, that whenever a compound nature is produced, the parts must be coincident and a new thing made from other things. This new thing will not preserve the thing of which it has been composed as such, but will change and alter them. Thus, when the body has been made up from the four elements, a new thing has been made out of other things, and this new thing is neither pure fire nor any of the other elements, nor is it so called. It is the same with the mule, which is bred from a horse and an ass, for it is neither a horse nor an ass, nor it is so called. On the contrary, it is a new thing produced from others and which does not preserve unconfused and unchanged either one of those things of which it is composed[13]

 When two natures are combined into one, the original natures are lost, and a new nature is produced. In such a formulation, the divinity would experience change due to the mixing of natures. If the divinity experiences change, then Apollinaris contradicts his own doctrine on the features of divinity, and the product of the mixing is neither divine nor human. Within the Apollinarian framework, it logically becomes a tertium quid (a third thing). This would result in Christ being consubstantial with neither God nor man. This conclusion has overarching consequences for the Trinity, as Christ would no longer be consubstantial with the other two members, thus it would destroy the Triune God and make Him into a Dyad. If the divinity is subject to change, Apollinaris’ Triune God cannot qualify as God.

The ultimate logical conclusion of Apollinaris’ premise of the one nature of the Incarnate Logos is that Christ only has a divine nature. Any other conclusion would imply that Christ is not divine and is not God, and this is not what Apollinaris claims about divinity. The logical consequences of created natures mixing into a new third nature would not apply to divine nature, for divine nature defies all logical categorization. The union of divine nature with human nature would result in the absorption (or perhaps more fittingly, the destruction) of human nature. Apollinaris’ Christ is consubstantial with God alone; there is nothing human about Him.

If Christ is composed solely of divinity, and Apollinaris advocates that He truly experienced death, then the divinity died on the cross. Apollinaris has killed God. By killing God, he introduces change within the divine nature and thus reveals that divinity is not immutable and is subject to change. If the divinity can experience change in its essence and is subject to death, it is by definition not God. Apollinaris' mia physis formula ultimately destroys the Trinity no matter how it is formulated. 

If Christ is not consubstantial with humanity, His resurrection from the dead has no effect on humanity. If Christ has no human nature, he cannot have human attributes or accidents (non-essential properties), which means He cannot have a human body or soul. Since He is not human in any context, He cannot save humanity through His resurrection. This destroys the salvation of man, for the universal resurrection of the dead is founded on Christ’s redeeming and resurrecting common human nature by assuming humanity. Apollinaris’ incarnation has no relevance for mankind. Apollinaris not only kills God, he also kills man; dooming mankind to eternal perdition. 

1.5 The Link Between Apollinaris and St. Cyril of Alexandria

St. Cyril of Alexandria is the only Orthodox Church Father to utilize the mia physis formula. His use of the formula is the impetus for the conflict between the Chalcedonians Dyophysites and the non-Chalcedonian Monophysites.  St. Cyril cites an Apollinarian forgery falsely attributed to St. Athanasius[14] twice before the reconciliation of 433, revealing Apollinaris as the origin of the formula, and the true forerunner to the Monophysites.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:

2.1 A Brief Introduction

Eutyches and Dioscorus and all non-Chalcedonians after them claim to follow St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology to justify remaining in their heresy. St. Cyril, born in Egypt (376 AD - 444 AD) was the Patriarch of Alexandria and is known for his pivotal role in defeating the heresy of Nestorianism. St. Cyril began to directly oppose Nestorius’ Christology in 428, and in his polemical battle against the heresiarch, he employs a mia physis formula. This is why the Monophysites claim they receive their Christology from St. Cyril, but there is clear evidence that St. Cyril viewed the mia physis formula as an expression of a dyophysite christology that emphasized the single person of Christ. An examination of select entries of the Cyrillian corpus reveals that his understanding of Christ is dyophysite, he makes this explicitly clear in his comments about the Antiochene dyo physis formula, refusing to call it heretical.

2.2 The Nestorian Controversy

Nestorius (386c. – 451C AD) was the patriarch of Constantinople. He proposed that Christ was composed of two persons or hypostases: the divine Logos, the Son of God, Who existed before the ages and Jesus of Nazareth, the son of the Virgin Mary. He argued that the two natures of Christ were separate, and thus the incarnation was in reality two separate beings. Nestorius believed if the incarnation was composed of one being, that meant mixing the divine and human natures, which is impossible. Thus, Nestorius advocated for the term “Christotokos” (Christ Bearer) instead of “Theotokos” (God Bearer) for the virgin Mary, as according to him she gave birth to Jesus of Nazareth, not the Logos which indwelled him. Nestorius believed that the two persons in the Incarnation were united in “respect’ and “honor” alone, thus allowing Nestorius to worship the Incarnation without being idolatrous. This heretical form of dyophysitism was condemned by the third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431.

Towards the beginning of the Nestorian controversy, St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote refutations of Nestorius’ Christological heresy. What is noteworthy of the early years of St. Cyril’s writings against Nestorius is the complete absence of the mia physis formula. This formula did not appear in St. Cyril’s corpus until his work Five Tomes Against Nestorius (Contra Nestorius) written in 430 AD It is important to examine St. Cyril’s conception of Christ’s natures in works before and after Contra Nestorius to determine whether his Christology is monophysite or dyophysite.

2.3 Commentary on Christ’s Natures Unrelated to the Nestorian Conflict

To attest that Christ has both a divine and human nature makes one a dyophysite. In his biblical commentary, St. Cyril refers to Christ’s humanity as a nature several times; sometimes as His individual nature, or humanity’s common nature of which He partakes. The latter point reveals that St. Cyril’s is a realist[15] in his metaphysics.

In St. Cyril’s commentary on Leviticus, he explains the significance of the two doves given for sacrifice in the Old Testament law. Here, he likens the duality and purity of the doves to Christ’s two natures, divine and human. He is cautious to warn the reader that although Christ has two natures, there are not two Christs, but only one person:

Now the birds were clean. For the Lord is truly clean and undefiled, knowing no sin. Even though it says there were two birds, however, we are certainly not saying that we understand there to be two Christs. This matter brings us to a learned and necessary consideration. For the Only-Begotten, although he was God by nature, bore the flesh of the holy Virgin, and was indeed composed, as it were, of two, by which I mean his heavenly nature and his human nature, in a way that is ineffable and beyond understanding. Notwithstanding, the Lord Jesus Christ is one. The account, then, in these two birds gives consideration to the coming together of two into one.[16]

This is not an anomaly in his thinking, for he repeats this idea of Christ having two natures a few pages later in the same work:

For it prescribes that two living birds which are clean should be taken, so that through these birds you may understand both the heavenly man and God at the same time, these being in fact two natures, distinct with regard to the properties proper to each one.[17]

Here, he is not only saying Christ has two natures, but explains that each nature has properties that are tied to the natures. The logical conclusion of this idea is that Christ after the incarnation has energies and wills proper to each nature, in other words, two energies and two wills.

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, St. Cyril makes direct references to Christ sharing in the whole of human nature to redeem and save mankind. These refer to the common nature of humanity that Christ assumed for the salvation of man:

Therefore, the renewing Spirit, that is, the Holy Spirit, has been given to us. He is the cause of eternal life after the glorification of Christ, that is, after the resurrection. That is when he burst the bonds of death, showed himself superior to all decay and returned to life, having our whole nature in himself in that he was a human being and one of us.[18]

Once again, St. Cyril elaborates on this notion of a common nature within Christ that makes Him fully human and consubstantial with the rest of humanity. Thus, the saving work of the incarnation is revealed in Christ God, the second Adam:

If we examine as well as we can the account of the mystery concerning him, we will see that he died not merely for himself and not strictly for his own sake, but it was for all humanity that he suffered and that he carried out both the suffering itself and the resurrection that followed. He died according to the flesh, making his own life the counterweight to the life of all, and he who is worth everyone put together fulfilled in himself the force of the ancient curse. And he rose again from the dead to imperishable and unending life, raising our whole nature in himself.[19]

Christ’s having two natures, fully God and fully man, allows Him to suffer and die on the cross, for while His divinity is impassible, his humanity is passible. As such, the divinity is intact and resurrects His humanity, and all of mankind is elevated with it; for Christ’s human nature is a universal, common human nature that truly exists. All humanity participates in this common nature that has been sanctified and raised in Christ’s resurrection.

2.4 Anti-Nestorian Writings Prior to Contra Nestorium

In St. Cyril’s Festive Letter 17, written in 428AD, the first year of the Nestorian Controversy, St. Cyril explains his Christology, emphasizing that Christ has a human nature but is regarded as one being. He mentions that Christ’s two natures are not alike, even after the union, which occurred at incarnation. If there is a difference between the natures, that means they can both be numbered, which means there are two natures, even after they are united in Christ:

It is thus that we say, too, that he is worshiped both by ourselves and by the holy angels: not that we lower him to a bare humanity—that would be senseless—but we follow sacred Scripture both in binding into unity with our nature the Word sprung from God, and interweaving into something that is one that which is from both, in order that he may not be regarded simply as a human being who has borne God, but rather as God who has become a human being, and who, in the economic union, that with his own flesh, has put on the birth from the holy Virgin. The sole Christ and sole Lord may be regarded thus and not otherwise, not as being divided into part human being and part God after the ineffable interweaving; even if the nature of those which have come together into a union is regarded as different, he is received and regarded as being only one Son.[20]

Later, in the same letter, St. Cyril employs the concept of separating the natures in thought alone as being harmless, for it allows two distinct natures to be identified:

It is as with the most precious stones, where some beams of light elucidate the depths when they flash upon them, and if one wished to separate the mixture by thought, one would consider the stone in itself as one thing, and the light swimming therein as another, even though the subject which is from the two is regarded as one. But the act of cutting will quite destroy the principle governing the stone, separating as it does the things gathered into union, with ugliness resulting. And thus we say it is with Christ: divinity and humanity have come together ineffably, in a way that no one can conceive or speak of, into what is henceforth regarded as one, so that he is regarded at once as both a human being as we are, and God who is above us. Thus he is both only-begotten and firstborn.[21]

He uses the analogy of a stone or a gem, shining and reflecting light: the gem and the light are separated in thought, for they are two different properties tied to the same object. Cutting the two aspects from each other in reality destroys the principle understanding of the object, for the stone and its reflective properties are tied to the same object. They do not have individual existence without one another. Remove the luster of the gem and it becomes ugly, remove the gem from the luster and there is no basis for the luster to exist. Both properties truly exist, just as both of Christ’s natures truly exist; the “in thought alone” is not applied to the existence of each of Christ’s natures, but only to the separation. For separating the natures leads to Nestorius’ error, in which the natures necessarily become two separate beings.

St. Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius was canonized in both the third and fourth Ecumenical Councils. Here, St. Cyril mentions that Christ has two natures that are united yet remain distinct. He also introduces the concept of a “hypostatic union” in this letter. This term categorizes the concept of the unity of two natures in the one Christ, a single hypostasis:

We say rather that the Word by having united to himself hypostatically flesh animated by a rational soul, inexplicably and incomprehensibly became man. He has been called the Son of man, not according to desire alone or goodwill, nor by the assumption of a person only. We say that, although the natures are different which were brought together to a true unity, there is one Christ and Son from both. The differences of the natures are not destroyed through the union, but rather the divinity and humanity formed for us one Lord Jesus Christ and one Son through the incomprehensible and ineffable combination to a unity.[22]

St. Cyril consistently and unambiguously argues that Christ has two natures that are not alike refuting Nestorius who advocates for two natures in Christ.

2.5 Contra Nestorium and the appearance of the Mia Physis Formula

In 430AD, St. Cyril wrote Contra Nestorium, a treatise arguing against the heresies of Nestorius divided into five books. In book two of this work, St. Cyril presents a mia physis formula for the first time in his corpus, and this is its only appearance in Contra Nestorium. Alongside the mia physis formula is a brief explanation of what St. Cyril means by it:

For the Incarnate Nature of the Word Himself is after the Union now conceived of as One, just as will reasonably be conceived in regard to ourselves too, for man is really One, compounded of unlike things, soul I mean and body. But it is necessary now too to notify that we say that the Body united to God the Word is ensouled with a reasonable Soul. And I will for profit's sake add this too: other than the Word out of God is the flesh, in regard to its proper nature, other again Essentially the Nature of the Word Itself. But even though the things named be conceived of as diverse and sundered in diverseness of nature, yet is Christ conceived of as One out of both, the Godhead and manhood having come together one to another in true union.[23]

For St. Cyril, “one incarnate nature of the Word” is analogous to a human nature that is composed of two separate natures. The nature of the human body is distinct from the nature of the human soul, but they compose a single nature despite their differences. The quote ends with the emphasis that Christ is One out of both natures. It is important to note that with the appearance of this formula, St. Cyril is not denying that Christ is composed of two diverse natures and is not declaring either of them to exist in thought or contemplation alone, and he says that these natures are distinct. One can see that this mia physis formula is surrounded and explained by dyophysite terminology and concepts, and remains in line with the previous quotes examined from earlier Cyrillian works.

What is also noteworthy about Contra Nestorium in light of the appearance of St. Cyril’s mia physis formula is that throughout the work, St. Cyril never attacks Nestorius for saying that Christ has two natures.[24] His primary concern with Nestorius is the separation of the natures and the subsequent division in the person of Christ:

“Therefore confess One, not dividing the natures, at the same time knowing and holding, that of the flesh the count is one; of the Godhead again, that which beseems It alone: for we say that the flesh of the Word by no means became Godhead, but rather Divine, as being His own.”[25]

St. Cyril’s use of the mia physis formula will be examined in greater detail after reviewing at the letter of reconciliation that was written in 433AD, as he does not use it again until after writing that letter.

2.6 The Reconciliation Formula Between St. Cyril and John of Antioch

After the council of Ephesus concluded, there were tensions between Alexandria and Antioch, surrounding St. Cyril’s use of the mia physis phrase. This phrase originated from Apollinaris, and he was condemned as a heretic. Seeking peace, Bishop John of Antioch sent Cyril a Christological formula that confessed Christ to have two natures, asking St. Cyril to accept this formula as a sign that they share the same Christology. St. Cyril accepted this formula, sending it back to him in his reply as a recital and sign of agreement. The recital of the confession reads thus (bold added for emphasis):

Therefore we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and body, begotten before ages from the Father according to his divinity and that in recent ages he himself for us and for our salvation was born from the Virgin Mary according to his humanity, consubstantial to the Father himself according to divinity and consubstantial to us according to his humanity, for a union was made of his two natures. Accordingly we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. With this understanding of a union without fusion we confess that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, because God the Word was made flesh and was made man, and from his very conception he united to himself a temple taken from her. And we know that theologians regard some of the evangelical and apostolic sayings regarding the Lord as common, that is, as pertaining to one person, and that theologians divide others of the sayings as pertaining to two natures, and refer those proper to God to the divinity of Christ, but the lowly ones to his humanity.[26]

Here St. Cyril confesses that Christ is consubstantial with God and man, that both his divinity and humanity are natures, that both had been united without fusion (mixing) and that Christ is a single person. Lastly, St. Cyril confesses that some of the sayings in the scriptures pertaining to the one person of Christ, and others to either His divinity or His humanity. This does not contradict any of St. Cyril’s previous Christological quotes. St. Cyril always confessed that Christ had a human nature that was distinct from His divine nature.

Up until the reconciliation formula, St. Cyril only employed the mia physis formula in his writing once. He additionally provided two citations from an Apollinarian forgery without comment. In all, he utilized the formula only three times prior to his agreement to the dyophysite reconciliation formula. It is clear then, that the mia physis formula is not a significant element in St. Cyril’s Christology.[27]

2.7 Cyril’s Letters After the Reconciliation Formula.

After agreeing to the reconciliation formula, St. Cyril had discussions with others in his own camp who questioned whether they were making compromises with the dyo physis formula. In these exchanges, St. Cyril explains where the differences lie between the mia physis formula against the dyo physis formula, the concession that the reconciliation formula was intended to make, and the common rejection of Nestorius.

In St. Cyril’s letter to Bishop Acacius of Melitene, he explains that his primary Christological concern with Nestorius is not that Christ has two natures, but rather that the natures are said to be divided and thus split Christ into two separate people. He emphasizes that the Alexandrians (his camp) never had a problem distinguishing the two natures as different, provided they are united. He then illustrates the differences between the natures with the sayings in scripture, in which sayings on Christ’s person refer to either His divinity or His humanity:

But perhaps those on the opposite side might say: Behold, those who fashion the confession of the true faith clearly name two natures, but maintain that the expressions of those inspired by God are divided according to the difference of the two natures. Then, how are these assertions not opposite to yours? For you do not allow the attributing of expressions to two persons, that is, to two hupostaseis. But, my dear friends, I would say, I have written in the propositions:  If anyone attributes to two persons, that is, to two hupostaseis, the sayings and ascribes some to a man considered separately from the Word of God, and ascribes others, as proper to God, only to the Word of God the Father, let him be condemned. But in no way have we removed the distinctions between the sayings, even if we have made a worthless thing of separating them as attributed to the Son considered apart as the Word of God the Father, and to the Son again considered apart as a man from a woman.[28]

In the same letter, he reveals his preference for his mia physis formula, as it emphasizes the single person of Christ. He does admit that while he does not like the dyo physis formula, it is clear that the Antiochenes are not Nestorians as they have agreed to condemn and anathematize Nestorius, so logically they cannot share his beliefs:

“It is completely incredible that they intend to say that he is one and yet divide the one into two. They have not come to such a state of insanity that they themselves would reinstate the transgressors by imprudently rebuilding what they rightly had torn down. If they agree with the opinions of Nestorius, how do they anathematize them as profane and loathsome?”[29]

In his Memorandum to Eulogius, the priest, St. Cyril explicitly defends Nestorius’ references to Christ having two natures and clarifies that not everything a heretics says is heretical. He does this to display that the Antiochenes using a dyophysite formula is acceptable:

But it is necessary to say the following to those who are accusing me, namely, that it is not necessary to flee and avoid everything which heretics say, for they confess many of the things which we confess. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and Lord of all, does it follow that we avoid such confessions? Thus also is the case of Nestorius even if he says there are two natures signifying the difference of the flesh and the Word of God, for the nature of the Word is one nature and the nature of his flesh is another, but Nestorius does not any longer confess the union as we do.[30]

He then contrasts the acknowledgement of two natures in Christ with his own mia physis formula, once again drawing a parallel between the two natures found in man. Note that he never says that the difference of the natures is “in contemplation or thought alone”, merely that they are known by reason and speculation. The word “alone” is conspicuously absent. This is his primary explanatory tool for his mia physis formula and his goal is to display that while the Antiochene and the Alexandrians are emphasizing different aspects of Christ, they are confessing the same Christology:

For we, when asserting their union, confess one Christ, one Son, the one and same Lord, and finally we confess the one incarnate phusis of God. It is possible to say something such as this about any ordinary man, for he is of different natures, both of the body, I say, and of the soul. Both reason and speculation know the difference, but when combined then we get one human phusis. Hence knowing the difference of the natures is not cutting the one Christ into two.[31]

Later in the same letter, St. Cyril explains why the reconciliation formula was necessary; for the Antiochenes were accusing the Alexandrians of being Apollinarians, by mixing or fusing the natures into one. Here, St. Cyril makes it explicit that he picked up the mia physis formula from an Apollinarian forgery attributed to St. Athanasius. This justifies the Antiochene suspicion of Apollinarianism, and St. Cyril’s explicit acceptance of the dyo physis formula was enough to alleviate their fears.  St. Cyril once again stands his ground and emphasizes that the concession is not dividing Christ into two persons, but only that they are not mixing or confusing the natures of Christ:

But since all the bishops from the East think that we, who are orthodox, follow the opinions of Apollinaris and think that a mixture or a confusion took place, for such are the words which they have used, as if the Word of God had changed over into the nature of flesh, and his flesh had turned into the nature of divinity, we have yielded to them, not so far as to divide into two the one Son, far from it, but only to confess that neither a mixture nor a confusion took place, but the flesh was flesh as taken from a woman, and the Word as begotten of the Father was the Word, yet the Christ, Son and Lord, is one according to the saying of John, "The Word was made flesh," and to prepare them to pay heed to the reading of the letter of our blessed father, Athanasius.[32]

Lastly, in his letter to Bishop to Succensus, he makes it very explicit that saying that Christ is of two natures does not harm the union. He applies the dyophysite terminology to his mia physis formula, clearly showing that according to his interpretation they are not opposed to one another:

Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying that he was of two natures, but after the union we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one phusis of the Word [of God] made flesh.[33]

2.8 St. Cyril’s Mia Physis Formula

A proper understanding of St. Cyril’s mia physis formula can only be reached by considering all of his aforecited statements together. It is clear that the word “nature” in his mia physis formula does not actually mean “nature” in the traditional sense, as in, a secondary substance according to Aristotelian terminology. This oddity in expressing a dyophysite position through a miaphysite phrase is the result of St. Cyril unknowingly lifting this formula from a heretic and repurposing it to apply to a dyophysite Christology. As such, Hans Van Loon who performed an extensive review of St. Cyril’s Christology summarizes how the mia physis formula does not fit with the rest of St. Cyril’s metaphysics; it is an anomaly and is hardly the epitome of his Christology. He summarizes the true meaning of nature in St. Cyril’s mia physis formula to mean a reality composed of two natures:

The analogy suggests that the one nature of the incarnate Word also is a composition of two individual natures, the divine nature of the Word and the nature of his flesh. Since this composition is unique, and it is not one exemplar of a series of individuals that share a common nature, it cannot itself be called an individual nature. Cyril’s use of the word φύσις for it is an anomaly, which does not fit well within his metaphysics . . . He will have been induced to use it by the Apollinarian forgeries, which he took to be genuine works of Athanasius and other Church Fathers. The meaning of the word φύσις in the μία φύσις formula is not simply that of a separate reality, since as the composition of two individual natures it includes the essences of these components. It is thus not synonymous with ὑπόστασις in the ‘one hypostasis’ formula. The meaning of φύσις in the formula cannot be given by a particular term, but can only be described by phrases like ‘a separate reality which is the composition of two individual natures’.[34]

The difference between St. Cyril and the non-Chalcedonian Monophysites is that St. Cyril allows the natures to be distinct and numbered, while the Monophysites do not, hence their rejection of Chalcedon. Monophysitism has many different formulas, but they all lead to one to deny that Christ has two natures that can be numbered after the union. St. Cyril never had a problem distinguishing and numbering the natures. Future polemics that develop between the Orthodox Dyophysites and the Monophysites center around the phrasing “from two natures” and “in two natures” but it is ultimately a distraction, as they both can mean the same thing if one allows the natures to be distinct (numbered) but not separated after the union. That is why the Fourth Ecumenical Council condoned the phrase “in two natures” and the Fifth Ecumenical Council “from two natures”.

It is abundantly clear that St. Cyril’s Christology is dyophysite. Dyophysite language appears in his writings before and after Contra Nestorium. St. Cyril agrees to the reconciliation formula even after adopting the mia physis formula, demonstrating that his Dyophysite position never changed. When explaining the purpose of the formula of reconciliation to those in his camp in Alexandria, he repeatedly says that believing in two natures in Christ is acceptable as long as they are not separated into two different people, and explicitly says that the Antiochenes do not repeat the sin of Nestorius. The only conclusion one can drawn from this is that St. Cyril was always a dyophysite and that although his terminology corrupted by an Apollinarian forgery, he was not so stubborn as to allow this terminology divide him from others in the church.  He possessed humility and was willing to concede the truth, to which he always adhered, both before and after his use of the mia physis formula.

Eutyches of Constantinople and Dioscorus of Alexandria

3.1 A Brief Historical Overview of these Heresiarchs

Eutyches and Dioscorus are ostensibly the two people who are the originators of the non-Chalcedonian monophysite heresy, but they contribute little to the heresy by way of substantive theology. Eutyches was the first to publicly promote his version of what was apparently a misunderstanding of St. Cyril’s mia physis formula and refused to recant it under any circumstances. Dioscorus’ Christology was never formally examined at a Council; his significance is that he supported Eutyches’ heresy and had the imperial support to defend it. These two figures put forward a primitive form of non-Chalcedonian Monophysitism and serve as a bridge between Apollinarianism and the later, more complex non-Chalcedonian “theologians”. While contemporary Monophysites honor Dioscorus as a saint, they consider Eutyches a heretic. The Orthodox church rightly identifies their beliefs as the same supported by the Sixth Ecumenical Council which condemned the two of them together, calling Dioscorus “hated of God”.

In the mid fifth century, Eutyches (375AD – 454AD), the abbot of a monastery comprised of around three hundred monks in Constantinople was promoting heretical beliefs about the nature of Christ,  contradicting the 433 formula of reconciliation. He was summoned to a trial by ecclesiastical authorities presided over by St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople. When pressed to give a defense of his beliefs, Eutyches cited the Apollinarian forgeries (they had not yet been revealed as spurious) as the primary reason not to recant his beliefs:

Above all, he believed that his views were founded firmly on the opinions of the Fathers including Pope Julius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril. In failing to realise that the ‘papal letters’ that he so confidently produced were really Apollinarian forgeries he was no worse advised than most of his contemporaries, including Cyril. His please [sic], however, that ‘his Fathers of Rome and Alexandria’ did not enjoin him to speak of two natures was not accepted, and after the failure of considerable efforts by Florentius and the assembled clerics to get him to accept the two-nature formula he was condemned to deposition and loss of priestly status. In a letter to Leo, Flavian characterized his teaching as that of an Apollinarian and of a Valentinian Gnostic.[35]

Eutyches was condemned but appealed the decision to various bishops and emperor Theodosius II, who assigned Dioscorus (died 454 AD) to deal with the matter, then the patriarch of Alexandria. Dioscorus was formerly St. Cyril’s archdeacon and was his direct successor as patriarch of Alexandria. It is notable that Dioscorus persecuted St. Cyril’s family members and seized their inheritance, apparently due to St. Cyril’s adoption of the reconciliation formula. He viewed this adoption as a betrayal of Alexandrian interests against Antioch. It is ironic that Monophysites claim St. Cyril as a saint, but this heresiarch who persecuted his family is considered their primary confessor, donned with the monstrous title of “Dioscorus the Great”. Theophanes the Confessor recounts the incident as follows: 

But in Alexandria Dioskoros had from the very beginning set about ruining Cyril's family and plundering their property and deposed without cause his nephew Athanasios who was a presbyter, and entirely confiscated his goods.2 He behaved in this way out of opposition to Cyril's orthodoxy, being himself a heretic and holding the views of Origen from his earliest youth. And he was at loggerheads with Flavian because Flavian had provided some small support for the family of the blessed Cyril.[36]

Dioscorus held the council of Ephesus II to exonerate Eutyches, depose bishops whom he considered rivals of the mia physis formula and had the deposed bishops beaten, forcing the papal legate to flee. He replaced the deposed bishops with those he thought would align with his own political interests. St. Flavian was assaulted by soldiers on Dioscorus’ command, and he died a few days later on the road to exile most likely due to his injuries. The impact of the robber synod was monumental; in a single synod, Dioscorus had almost completely taken over the East, with Eutyches’ mia physis formula at the helm and with the imperial backing of Theodosius II.[37]

With the passing of Emperor Theodosius II in 449, his replacement, Marcian, called the council of Chalcedon. With Theodosius gone, Dioscorus had lost his imperial protection, and his conduct in the robber synod was too egregious for the Christian world to ignore. His position had dramatically worsened, and without Dioscorus’ might, Eutyches would in turn lose his protection. At the Council of Chalcedon, Eutyches was once again deposed and now exiled for the heresy that he had maintained at each of the synods. Dioscorus was also deposed and exiled for his egregious administrative abuses at Ephesus II and for failing to appear during the third session to defend himself against accusations of heresy and canonical misconduct. The hierarchs deposed during Ephesus II were reinstated and St. Leo’s Tome was read and proclaimed to be Orthodox, solidifying the dyo physis formula as the orthodox standard.

3.2 The Christology of Eutyches and Dioscorus

The primary beliefs of Eutyches and Dioscorus are best described as a modified, less articulate variation of Apollinarianism comprised of two primary tenants: first that Christ was comprised of two natures ‘before the union’ but after the incarnation He is comprised of one nature; second that He is not consubstantial with human beings after the union. It was for these statements that Eutyches was tired at the Council of Constantinople in 448, and he refused to anathematize these beliefs. Eutyches himself said at at the council: “‘I acknowledge that our Lord came into being from two natures before the union; but after the union I acknowledge one nature.”[38] When reading the minutes in Ephesus II, Dioscorus responded “We all agree with this.”[39]

It is necessary to provide the context of the Council of Constantinople of 448 to understand the key statements for which Eutyches was condemned. This council was convened specifically to put Eutyches on trial for his monophysite beliefs, but he refused to attend the council for the first six sessions. After being compelled to appear at the seventh and final session, Eutyches was evasive in answering questions about the specifics of his beliefs. He clearly did not want his beliefs put on trial and sought to escape as quickly as possible while saying as little as possible. His concessions were flipant and noncommital and ultimatley did not satisfy the council. When Eutyches was pressed on whether he believed Christ is consubstantial with humanity, he responded:

“Since I acknowledge my God and my Lord as Lord of heaven and earth, I have not until today allowed myself to inquire into his nature. But although up till now I have not described him as consubstantial with us, I now acknowledge it.”[40]

From his statement it is clear that he was being forced to admit a belief to which he did not adhere, and the council took note of this insincere repentance. When the council grew weary of these insincere responses, they pressed him to anathematize his beliefs that Christ is not consubstantial with humanity. Eutyches refused, saying (bold added for emphasis):

I have said to your sacredness that I did not say this before; but now, since your sacredness teaches it, I say it and follow the fathers. But I have not found it clearly stated in the scriptures, nor did all the fathers say it. If I anathematize, woe is me, because I anathematize my fathers.[41]

This double-speak is identified as a refusal to recant and the council condemned him.

Dioscorus’ reason for deposing Flavian and reinstating Eutyches along with his views on the miaphysite and dyophysite formulas reveal his true position:

Clearly Flavian was deposed for this reason, that he spoke of two natures after the union. But I have quotations from the holy fathers Athanasius, Gregory and Cyril saying in numerous passages that one should not speak of two natures after the union but one incarnate nature of the Word. I am being cast out together with the fathers. I stand by the doctrines of the fathers, and do not transgress in any respect. And I have these quotations not indiscriminately or in a haphazard form but in books.[42]

Like Eutyches, he cites the Apollinarian forgeries for his belief in the miaphysite formula, ignoring the Formula of Reconciliation. In essence, by disregarding the reconcilation formula, he was anathematizing St. Cyril. Lastly, he specifies the conditions under which he would accept the word “two” in any Christological formula: “I accept “from two [natures]”; I do not accept “two”. I am compelled to speak brashly: my soul is at stake.”[43]

Dioscorus does not give a detailed defense of his beliefs at Chalcedon because he refuses to show up to the third session where he is accused of heresy for supporting Eutyches, so he is condemned by default for canonical violations instead. Monophysites hold today that he had different beliefs than Eutyches. According to them, the entire controversy began with Dioscorus’ rehabilitation of the heretic Eutyches who’s beliefs the Monophysites claim Dioscorus did not share, and that Dioscorus then rejected the Council of Chalcedon alongside said Eutyches. This is not a convincing argument that Eutyches and Dioscorus have different Christologies. Contemporary Monophysites attribute Timothy Ailuros’ Christology to Dioscorus, which is no different from Eutyches in its logical conclusions, thus the point is moot and his condemnation at the fourth and sixth Ecumenical Councils is justified.[44] Contemporary ecumenist scholars attempt to focus on his deposition due to strictly canonical violations to argue that he was not a heretic, disregarding the sixth Ecumenical Council’s condemnation of him as a heretic. On is not dubbed “hated of God” for canonical violations. This argument is best answered by Leontius of Jerusalem:

Again they ask, ‘Why do you not accept Dioscoros if—as Anatolios of Constantinople avers— he was not deposed for reasons of faith?’ We respond in truth he was not deposed for reasons of faith. For this is why he did not come to the Synod, that his affairs might not be subjected to inquiry; but if he had come and an inquiry had taken place, he would have been deposed as a heretic, for this is what he was. Since he did not come after being summoned three times and they made this a reason for his deposition, this is why Anatolios said that he was not deposed for reasons of faith.[45]

3.3 The Logical Conclusions of Eutyches and Dioscorus’ Christology

The primary question presented by Eutyches’s Monophysitism is: If there were two natures before the union and one after it, when did the union take place? One would imagine that the union took place at conception. So using Eutyches’ logic, at what point was Christ’s humanity independent of His divinity? Was the body soulless, similar to what Apollinaris’ Christology proposes? Did the human nature also have its own hypostasis just as divine nature had its own hypostasis? If it did, what became of it when the two natures become one? Logically, one must conclude that there is only one nature before “the union” (incarnation) for Christ as the Logos was not incarnate and only had the divine nature that He shared with the other two Members of the Holy Trinity. It does not make sense to say he came from two before the union and one after in the context of a mia physis formula.

According to Eutyches own words, when the union took place, he did not believe that Christ was consubstantial with humanity. So the end result is exactly the same as Apollinarianism. Christ dies in His divinity on the cross, making His divinity passible and subject to change. Eutyches and Dioscorus have killed God once again. Since Christ is not consubstantial with humanity, humanity derives no benefit from His death and His resurrection, thus killing man. So, humanity is left bereft of salvation and redemption and is once again doomed to eternal perdition.

We can see that St. Flavian diagnosed Eutyches’ heresy accurately: He held the beliefs of Apollinaris and Valentines[46]. The conclusions are exactly same. Truly, Apollinarianism and Eutychianism are the same heresy, and can both be classified under the same umbrella term: Monophysitism.

4.1 Timothy Ailuros

Timothy Ailuros,[47] or “the Cat” (died 477 AD) is the link between Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch, his writings and rhetoric are the beginning of the development of thought behind monophysite Christology. It is Timothy who begins to contrast his belief against other Monophysites and thus the plurality of monophysite Christology begins. Severus of Antioch eventually triumph among the different formulas, being the most philosophically advanced; his beliefs directly build upon Timothy’s.

Timothy Ailuros was a hieromonk who was present at Ephesus II. He was consecrated a bishop secretly by two anti-Chalcedonian bishops when Holy Martyr Proterius became Patriarch of Alexandria after Chalcedon deposed and exiled Dioscorus. With the death of Emperor Marcian, the Non-Chalcedonians of Alexandria rioted and killed Patriarch Proterius in a baptistry then dragged his remains across the city streets. Timothy was credited for instigating the riot, and it is reported that the Egyptian bishops did not express any regret at the death of Patriarch Proterius.[48] Timothy was exiled and invited back to Alexandria several times, at some points being regarded as a legitimate patriarch of Alexandria by his contemporary Non-Chalcedonian heretics. He is venerated as a saint by the Monophysites titled “Timothy II”.

4.2 Timothy Ailuros’ Christology

Timothy Ailuros distinguishes himself by one major change to the configuration of the mia physis formula: he believed that Christ is consubstantial with both God and Man; perfect God and perfect man. This contrasts against to the followers of Eutyches’ doctrine, who did not believe Christ was consubstantial with humanity:

“On the fact that one must assert as one our Lord and God Jesus Christ with his flesh and must assign everything to him, what is divine and what is human, and that he became consubstantial with us according to the body but also remained God, and that it is godless to separate him into two [natures].”[49]

However, it becomes clear upon closer examination that Timothy does not know how he can logically claim that Christ is consubstantial with both God and Man while retaining a single nature. Here he insists that Christ never underwent any change in his incarnation:

“He is not that which he was not through a metamorphosis or a transformation (conversion); rather, he remained entirely God, consubstantial with the Father who begot him; because of the oikonomia [God’s free arrangement of salvation] and not because of his nature, he became human for us and our salvation.”[50]

Christ has one nature, and yet is consubstantial with both God and man, through oikonomia, which is to say, Timothy does not know how to define Christ’s humanity if not nature. Here we see how Timothy interprets the word nature:

“There is no nature that is not also hypostasis and no hypostasis that is not person (prosopon). Thus, if there are two natures, there are also with all necessity        two persons and even two Christs, as the new teachers proclaim.”[51]

Nature is the same as hypostasis and is the same as a person. This explains why Timothy does not advocate for two natures: because he believes it would mean two hypostases, but no explanation is provided for Christ’s consubstantiality with man.

This reveals that Timothy does not believe in a distinction between primary and secondary substances. His metaphysics are different from that of St. Cyril, because St. Cyril did not collapse primary substances (person) into secondary substances (nature); otherwise, he would have never agreed with the reconciliation formula. This also makes Timothy an implicit nominalist, for there is no avenue for universals to exist separate from particulars.

Timothy does not understand the consequences of advocating for a single nature, while also arguing that he is doubly consubstantial with God and Man. Timothy declares that Christ did not die in His divinity, despite only having a divine nature:

It is impossible to call the life-giving flesh of our Lord the second nature of the God Logos or his second essence. Indeed, it is written that he who was crucified, the Lord of glory [cf. 1 Cor 2,8], suffered in his flesh. No one can say that the Lord of glory suffered in his nature or essence [i.e., in his divinity]. But if the God Logos appropriated himself another nature, that is, united himself with a perfect human being, and if Christ is of two natures, as he seems to be for those who speak of two natures, then it follows that they say that he suffered in his nature [i.e., in his divinity] – which is a godless assertion – and that they assert that the divine nature is capable of suffering. For the nature of Christ is only divinity, which also became flesh without transformation for our salvation and so that he might appear in the flesh, according to the scriptures [cf. 1 Tim 3,16b].[52]

This analysis would be incomplete without Timothy’s explicit condemnation of the 433-agreement formula of reconciliation accepted by St. Cyril. It seems that the difference in metaphysics is lost on Timothy as his condemnation assumes that St. Cyril betrayed the faith by confessing Christ had two natures; implying he was Nestorian. At least Timothy Ailuros tells the truth and says St. Cyril spoke of Christ having two natures; contemporary Monophysites simply lie about it. How they venerate both St. Cyril and Timothy is beyond reason; if they were consistent, they would follow Timothy’s lead and admit St. Cyril professed two natures in Christ:

“Cyril is the Bishop of Alexandria; for this man, having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two natures in Christ.”[53]

4.3 The Logical Conclusions of Timothy Ailuros’ Christology

The logical conclusions of Timothy’s assertion that Christ has only one divine nature reveal the inconsistancies in his thinking. If Christ only has a divine nature, than he only consubstantial with God, not man. If Christ does not have a human nature, nothing about Him is human. Timothy’s claim of Christ’s humanity existing due to "oikonomia" is irrelevant as this oikonomia is not grounded in a human nature, so it is not human. One must be able to elaborate the ontological status of such an “oikonomia” and ground it in human nature, but that would make Timothy a Dyophysite, so he refuses.

Following this logic, Christ indeed must have suffered in His Divinity because there is no human nature to suffer. So once again Christ’s divinity undergoes change because His divinity dies, and when one kills God, God undergoes change. By the same logic, since there is no human nature present in Him, humanity is not redeemed, because He has not assumed anything human. Timothy Ailuros’ mia physis formula has the same conclusions as Apollinarianism.

There is also in his thinking the introduction of nominalism, for Timothy equates nature with person; he does not believe a person to be distinct from his nature, and thus one person can only have one nature. If the concept of person is collapsed into nature, then Christ would be consubstantial with no one, be it the other Members of the Holy Trinity or humanity. Without a metaphysic of realism, no particular has anything in common with any other particular. So even if Christ had a human nature under this scheme, He still would not be consubstantial with humanity and humanity would thus be doomed. This also introduces a tritheism into the trinity (three separate gods). He claims that one person has one nature and any other arrangement is impossible; this means each individual member of the Trinity would have His own unique nature. If They do not share the same nature, they are three gods. This problem becomes more prominent when Severus of Antioch adopts these metaphysical terms in his own system and John Philoponus builds upon it.

5.1 Severus of Antioch’s Christology

Severus of Antioch, a Greek native born in Sozopolis of Pisidia (465AD-538AD), was the former patriarch of Alexandria until he was dethroned by St. Justinian the Great. Severus is the primary theologian of the non-Chalcedonian Monophysites. He is venerated by the Monophysites as a saint but the Orthodox condemned him at the sixth Ecumenical Council. He used Aristotelian philosophical terms (incorrectly) to explain his mia physis formula and argued against Chalcedon.

Severus defined “hypostasis” as “particularity”, and “essence” as “generality” (universal); thus, being and nature become interchangeable, so the key to understanding Severus is to categorize his subjects as particular and general:

But now also we will come to what is required, and, we will again say, that ‘essence’ signifies a generality, and ‘hypostasis’ a particularity, but ‘being’ and ‘nature’ introduce sometimes a general signification, sometimes a partial or particular one. This is stated on account of the varying use that is found in the holy fathers: for you knew both that ‘essence' is sometimes employed in the particular signification of ‘hypostasis ‘, and occasionally also ‘hypostasis’ is found employed in place of ‘essence’. For this reason we decline to use such a signification as being unscientific.[54]

In what follows Severus uses these terms to define Peter and Paul as particularities in a larger essence (or genus):

The set of properties of Peter is one; the fact that he is from the little village of Beth-Saida, the son of John, the brother of Andrew, and a fisherman of skill, and after these things, an apostle, and because of the orthodoxy and firmness of his faith had been newly named 'Rock' by Christ. But another is the set of properties of Paul, the fact that he is from Cilicia, that he used to be a Pharisee, that he was taught and learned the law of the fathers at the feet of Gamaliel, and that after having persecuted, he preached the Gospel ... and all these other things that are written concerning him in a history. In the same way hypostasis does not deny genus or ousia or abolish it, but it sets apart and limits in particular icons the one who subsists. For in ousia and in genus Peter is a man as is Paul; but in propriety he is distinguished from Paul.[55]

There are two different kinds of hypostases (particulars) for Severus; self-subsistent hypostases and non-self-subsistent hypostases. As Severus puts it: “A self-subsistent hypostasis is a 'hypostasis existing in individual subsistence'; a non-self-subsistent hypostasis is a 'hypostasis that does not exist in individual subsistence'.”[56] Roberta Bondi, author of Three Monophysite Christologies illustrates these points by using Peter and Paul as an example; Peter is a composite hypostasis, composed of a body (first hypostasis) and a soul (second hypostasis). The union of these two hypostases creates a self-subsistent hypostasis in the form of Peter. The body is non-self-subsisting, and the soul could be considered non-self-subsistent or self-subsistent (Severus considered both non-self-subsistent)[57]. A self-subsistent hypostasis can be simple (composed of one self-subsistent hypostasis, such as God the Father or the Holy Spirit) or composite (made up of a “union” of multiple hypostases). Composite hypostases can be made of a union of non-self-subsistent hypostases with self-subsistent hypostases or multiple non-self-subsisting hypostases.

For Severus, ‘prosopon’ always refers to a self-subsistent hypostasis that bears a name and has a ‘history’; examples include Peter, Paul and Christ. Non-self-subsistent hypostases are not called prosopon by Severus.[58]Generally, when Severus uses the word ‘nature’ he means “self-subsistent hypostasis”, which is why he fought so vociferously against Chalcedon; he believed Chalcedon was advocating for the Nestorian position of two prosopon in Christ with the dyo physis formula.[59] Energy (operation) and will are proper to prosopon (self-subsistent hypostasis). With this scheme, hypostasis, nature and prosopon can be synonyms. This alone should display the deficiency of Severus’ terminology and justify the Antiochene terms solidified in the council of Chalcedon. St. Maximos the Confessor is right to criticize Severus for his terminology, “Severus knavishly says that hypostasis is the same as nature.”[60] As discussed previously the originator of this terminology was Timothy Ailuros.

Severus believes universals are merely an aggregate of particulars; universals have no unique existence in and of themselves, thus making him a nominalist. The “hypostatic union” that composes his formula for Christ’s prosopon also confirms this, as he argues that the hypostatic union that makes up Christ is a union of particulars and not of universals:

“Accordingly, we say that from it and the hypostasis of God the Word the ineffable union was made: for the whole of the Godhead and the whole of humanity in general were not joined in a natural union, but special hypostases.”[61]

This is the consequence of collapsing primary substance into secondary substance: it makes one a nominalist by necessity. As the Chalcedonian formula is two universal natures bound in one person, this indicates that Severus had both a different metaphysic and theology than St. Cyril and the Chalcedonians.

Prosopic unions and hypostaic or natural unions differ from one another, distinguishing these two exposes Severus’ Christological formula. In a prosopic union, taking Peter and Paul as an example, the prosopon remains countable even after the union. To be comprised of countable entities is characteristic of self-subsistent hypostases. As stated previously, each prosopon has its respective will and energy. Bondi points out that this is another reason Severus objects to the Tome of St. Leo “The two distinct operations of the two natures of Christ within the union are to Severus one of the more obnoxious features of the Tome of Leo.[62]” Lastly, the prosopic union can be disbanded and is not an “iconic union” with the other, these are called by Severus “partnership” “union of brotherhood” and “conjunction in honor” or merely “presence”[63].

Accordingto Severus’ thinking the union that makes up Christ’s divinity and humanity is a hypostatic union–the Orthodox use this term as well, but according to Severus, Christ’s prosopon is a composite self-subsistence hypostasis composed of a non-self-subsistence hypostasis with a self-subsistent hypostasis.

... the peculiarity of the natural union is that the hypostases are in composition and are perfect without diminution, but refuse to continue an individual existence so as to be numbered as two, and to have its own prosopon impressed upon each of them, which a conjunction in honour cannot possibly do.[64]

Specifically for Christ, according to Severus, His divinity is a self-subsistence hypostasis, but his humanity is non-self-subsistence hypostasis. Christ’s divinity is a simple self-subsistence hypostasis while His humanity is a composite non-self-subsistence hypostasis. This is the justification for Severus’ formula that the Incarnate Word has one nature, one hypostasis and one prosopon. One must note how the prosopon of Peter is composed of two non-self-subsistence hypostases (body and soul) to create a self-subsistence hypostasis, but Christ’s humanity which is supposed to be identical to Peter’s does not create a self-subsistence hypostasis. This would indicate that something about Christ’s human hypostasis is not the same as other humans, something that Severus does not and cannot address. The lack of universals displays its weakness in this formula.

In his mia physis formula, Severus attributes one operation (energy) to Christ, which is logically consistent with his system as only a self-subsistence hypostasis can generate energy, and his mia physis Christ only has one of them:

Thus one also sees Immanuel [as one sees the builder] for the one who acts is one-this is the Word of God Incarnate-and the operation is one efficient cause, but the things done are different . . . Thus let no man separate the Word from the flesh, and thus he cannot divide or separate the operations.[65]

Likewise, Severus also attributes one will to Christ, which is logical for the same reason:

The teacher of divine dogmas [Athanasius] has characterised very well the request (of Christ) to avert suffering as ‘will’; in this way he shows that it occurs for us against the inclination and will to have fear and trembling in the face of danger, but Christ took this over voluntarily. Thus there was really a will (as intention) present, no involuntary suffering. He [Athanasius] immediately showed that he acknowledges the one Christ from two and does not divide up into two wills what belongs to one and the same, namely the incarnate God, by adding this after the passage cited: ’He suffers from weakness, but He lives from the power of God’ (2 Corinthians 13.4). The power of God is, however, the Son Who suffered from weakness, that is from union with the flesh, as a human being He prayed to be freed from suffering; He lives, however, through His power.[66]

Christ has the appearance of two wills and two energies, but He actually has only one will and one energy tied to His divine prosopon. What appears to be human energy and will are nothing but a convincing illusion. Similar to his heretical predecessors, Eutyches, Dioscorus and Timothy Ailuros, Severus stresses that all of Christ’s properties are “out of two natures” and not “in two natures”. This means, while Christ is composite, he has only one self-subsistence hypostasis out of the union, which is His divinity, and all His properties, will, and energy come from that self-subsistence hypostasis:

Therefore when we anathematize those who say Emmanuel has two natures after the union, and (speak of the) activities and properties of these, we are not saying this as subjecting to anathema the fact of speaking of, or naming, natures, or activities or properties, but speaking of two natures after the union, and because consequently (those natures) attract their own activities and properties which are divided along with the natures completely and in everything.[67]

Severus completely disregards St. Cyril’s acceptance of the reconciliation formula of 433 thus continues the trend of disobeying the holy man he claims to follow, in lockstep with his heretical predecessors, Eutyches, Dioscorus and Timothy Ailuros.  Severus admits this himself: “The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they by Cyril’s”[68] The most influential and sophisticated monophysite heretic must publicly disregard Cyril’s dyophysite formula, revealing that their supposed devotion to the saint is a lie. Like Timothy Ailuros, Severus admits that St. Cyril used the dyophysite formula, while modern Monophysites deny that he did.

5.2 The Logical Conclusions of Severus’ Christology

The first problem with Severu’s mia physis formula is the emphasis that Christ has only one nature. If there is a distinction within Christ that is real, then logically, it must be enumerated. Divinity and humanity are different natures; they cannot be considered one because of their differences. The lack of division in the product of Christ’s hypostatic union under Severus implies one of the natures vanishes. Leontius of Jerusalem points out the logical error of this insistence on one nature:

Furthermore, difference is difference between certain things. The definition of difference, after all, belongs to things involved in some difference, and not to things understood in and of themselves. Since you’re people who speak of a difference, then, you’d grant that there also are things that differ in Christ. As for how many of these there are, you’d have to say there are at least two. If you were driven to say what these differing things are, you would, as I see it, identify divinity and humanity. If you were cross-examined about which of the classes of beings you recognize these as belonging to, and if they’re not qualities, or quantities, or states, or something of that kind, you’d have to confess that they are, without question, substances. It follows that you do speak of two substances because of the difference in Christ.[69]

Another problem is determining whether Christ’s one nature is created or uncreated. These two attributes are opposed to one another, and a nature cannot be both at the same time. If Christ’s nature is uncreated, he cannot be man. If it is created, he cannot be God. Leonius of Jerusalem also argued this point:

Everything that exists is either created or uncreated, for ‘even those who invent goat-stags aren’t going to grant that there’s a mean between them’[70], as the father says. If, then, there’s one nature of Christ, and if it really is uncreated, what’s the nature from the Holy Virgin? If, on the other hand, Christ’s one nature is created, what’s the nature that’s consubstantial with the uncreated Father? Likewise, if this one nature is ungenerated, and if it’s independent of time, what’s the nature that’s born of a virgin, and what’s this entity which, when the fullness of time arrived, existed in later times? If there was a temporal hour of birth, too, what nature is it through which all things came to be, and through which the Father made the ages? How is Christ, who has no beginning for His life nor end of His days, said in the same text to be made like Melchizedek? What’s one and the same in relation to something won’t admit the predicates of its opposites in the same respect, as is often said.[71]

The only logical explanation for Christ being a composite hypostasis composed of an uncreated and created nature is to say that he has two natures, and has faculties proper to each nature, meaning two wills and two energies. This dilemma is answered by the Chalcedonian formula, where there is a distinction between hypostasis and nature, Christ having two natures and a single divine hypostasis that the natures are rooted in without confusion.

This is displayed in one of Severus’ disputes with another monophysite, Julian of Halicarnassus, who held an apthartodocetist belief about the nature of Christ. He called Severus a secret dyophysite, because Severus argued that Christ had genuine human accidents, (i.e. properties) all the while Severus maintained that Christ did not have a human nature. Julian was correct to call Severus out on this inconsistency, for Christ cannot have any human properties if he has only one nature that is contrary to created things:

For the false accusers, attempting to introduce the abominable and polluted teachings of Nestorius, and seeking by every means to set up division by making judgement about the duality of the properties set corruptibility and passibility and mortality against incorruptibility and impassibility and immortality; and they lead him who is into two Christs and two Sons, since they falsify the inexpressible and incomprehensible union.[72]

Severus wanted to have the consequences of dyophysite Christology while not submitting to a dyophysite formula. Julian’s Apthartdocetist belief in Christ was that His divine and human nature were one and the same, so Christ only appeared to suffer and die. While this is obviously heretical and has problematic soteriological and anthropological implications, it is far more logically consistent than Severus’s mia physis formula.

Severus falls into yet another heretical trap along with Timothy Ailuros: he ties nature to person. Just as with Timothy, Severus’ metaphysics logically imply that the Trinity has three natures.  If the Trinity has three natures, then the Trinity loses its unifying principle and becomes three gods. Severus implies that there is a real distinction between the three hypostases of the Trinity when he said the entirety of the Trinity is not present within the incarnation. Thus, Severus’ mia physis formula turns him into a tri-theist, and the Monophysite Philosopher John Philoponus took Severus metaphysics and came to this very same conclusion and advocated for it.

The same principle also makes mankind’s salvation impossible even if Christ had a human nature under Severus’ system. In a nominalist framework, universals only look like they are composed of particulars that share a common essence, but universals do not actually exist. There is no such thing as a common human nature (or common nature of anything for that matter). This proves that one cannot be a nominalist and a Christian, for nominalist presuppositions destroy Orthodox Christology.  Just like Timothy, Severus has a completely different metaphysic from St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Chalcedonians.

How connected is Severus’ Monophysitism to Apollinaris’ heresy? Can one argue that God experienced change in this scheme? While there are many violations of logic in Severus’ formula, if one takes his words at face value and believes that Christ has only one divine nature, then one must conclude that Christ died in His divinity. This is the result of collapsing nature into hypostasis instead of distinguishing between the two. So logically, under Severus’ theology Christ’s divinity died on the cross and experienced change. Likewise, the redemption of man cannot occur with this arrangement, either because of the single divine nature, the incomplete non-self-subsistence humanity that Severus’ Christ possesses that cannot be numerated and which humanity does not have, or because Severus is a nominalist and universals don’t exist; thus, there is no way for the redemption to be communicated to humanity. Despite Severus’ efforts to rehabilitate and provide metaphysical justification for Monophysitism by expanding upon Timothy Ailuros’s broken Christology, the key errors present in Apollinarianism remain. He had only succeeded in creating nonsensical terminology in order to justify his “godless and most abominable heresy.”[73]

6.1 First and Second Agreed Statement Between the Orthodox and Monophysites from the Joint Commission of Theological Dialogue.

In 1989 and 1990 there were two meetings between academic “theologians” belonging to the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite confessions. Monophysites rebranded their ancient heresy in 1965 using the misnomer “Oriental Orthodox.” Eager to overturn the Ecumenical Councils and defile the memory of the saints, Eastern Orthodox academics looked to find “common theological ground” with enemies of the church that have been repeatedly condemned for over a millennium.

6.2 A False Start: The Mia Physis Formula as Common Ground

In the first meeting in 1989, the participants stated that the basis of their shared belief comes from mia physisformula that St. Cyril used, “mia physis (hypostasis) tou Theou Logou sesarkomene”[74]There are several problems with this starting point for reconciliation: the mia physis formula does not come from St. Cyril, it comes from Apollinaris, and both confessions are now aware of this. Additionally, the formula is not central to St. Cyril’s Christology, showing up late in his career, and he wrote it only one time to combat Nestorius. The meaning of this formula was unclear even when St. Cyril made use of it, where “physis” does not actually mean “nature” in the traditional sense (secondary substance), and they acknowledge this by inserting the word “hypostasis” in parentheses after physis. They fail to provide a definition of terms, for the Orthodox and the Monophysites share neither the same terminology, nor the same metaphysics. Contemporary Monophysites use Severus’ Christology as the basis of their beliefs, and he is a nominalist, while St. Cyril is a realist. Furthermore, hypostasis in contemporary Orthodox terminology is akin to a “primary substance” and nature is a “secondary substance” in Aristotelian terms, but this distinction is absent for Severus, both terms are equivocal. The entire basis of the disputes between the Orthodox and the Monophysites is the interpretation of this mia physis formula from St. Cyril and they declare that the formula is the basis for common ground absent any discussion of its interpretation.

Furthermore, the Orthodox church already has an official interpretation of the “one incarnate nature of the Word” in the eighth canon of the eighth session of the fifth Ecumenical Council. It is worth reproducing this canon in full (bold added for emphasis):

If anyone professing that the union took place from the two natures of Godhead and manhood or saying ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’ does not so take it, as the holy fathers taught, to mean that from the divine and the human natures, after the hypostatic union, one Christ was constituted, but attempts from these statements to introduce one nature or essence of the Godhead and flesh of Christ, let him be anathema. For when we say that the only-begotten Word was united to the flesh hypostatically we do not assert that there occurred some mingling of the natures with each other, but we understand that the Word was united to the flesh with each of them remaining instead what is. Consequently there is but one Christ God and man, the same consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the manhood; for both those who divide or cleave into parts and those who merge the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ are equally rejected and anathematized by the church of God.[75]

Thus, the Orthodox interpretation explicitly anathematizes the Monophysites, and the interpretation of St. Cyril’s mia physis formula is not up for debate by the Orthodox. The question is already answered, the starting point for this “agreed statement” relies on ignoring this canon from the fifth Ecumenical Council, which is a violation of the dogmatic Christology of the Orthodox Church. To rephrase the issue here, they are stating that their ground for mutual agreement is the very issue that initiated the separation.

6.3 Betraying Orthodox Christology

This terminological confusion continues throughout the paper. They speak of “one composite (sythetos) hypostasis”[76] in Christ and they go to great lengths to clarify that this does not mean they are saying Christ is two persons. In Severan terms, a composite hypostasis can mean “nature” and the terminology used in the rest of the paper point to this as the intended meaning. For example, it says “the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only.”[77] This is in contrast with St. Cyril’s use of “in contemplation only” with the two natures in Christ. He said one can divide the natures in thought alone; he never said one can differentiate between them in thought alone.[78] This is a very subtle deception that has massive repercussions, as it confesses a single nature in Christ. With this statement, the “Orthodox” academics responsible for this document have relinquished their Orthodox Dyophysite Christology and have confessed Monophysitism.[79] They are condemned according to both the fourth and fifth Ecumenical Councils and would need to confess their apostasy, repent, and return to the Church. More on this later, as it shows up again in the Second Agreed Statement in a more egregious form.

There is a paragraph that mentions that Christ’s divinity and humanity have wills and energies proper to one another; it is said in a rather round-about manner:

This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.[80]

What is noticeable here is there are no numberings of the wills or the energies. Does Christ have one will, or two? This document doesn’t bother to number them, and it cannot, because that is where key Christological differences exist between the two camps. Just as the number of ontological natures is not explicitly mentioned, nor the meaning of hypostasis and nature, the modus operandi of this paper is to obscure the key issues separating both confessions.

Next, they state that both confessions condemn the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies, and that neither shares in the beliefs of those two heretics. Dioscorus and Severus are conscpicously absent from this discussion. Both of them fall under the anathemas of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils; yet their heresy is not even examined by the comittee.

6.4 The Second Agreed Statement: Blaspheming St. Cyril

The second agreed statement repeats these same vague, undefined Christological comments and throws in some commentary on the Ecumenical Councils. They once again explicitly ignore the Fifth Ecumenical Council and pretend that all who interpret that St. Cyril’s mia physis formula results in a single nature of Christ after the union have not been condemned. They accomplish this by saying:

The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of “one nature of the incarnate Logos” (“mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh”), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is “in thought alone” (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184–201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224–228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228–245).[81]

Here, the comitee staunchly persist in their misuse of “in thought alone” regarding the differences between the natures in Christ, but now they falsely attribute it to St. Cyril and reference some of his letters written after the reconciliation formula was accepted. A review of citations from the said letters inlcuding the aformenetioned citation from the letter to Eulogius.[82] will reveal the shameless mendacity of this document. There is only one passage in the letter to John of Antioch that discusses the differences in the natures of Christ. Quite fittingly, after St. Cyril mentions the difference between natures without any reference of “in thought alone”, he laments to St. John of Antioch that people are attributing to him false beliefs of mixing or confusing the natures of Christ. The irony is that well over fifteen hundred years later, people are still attributing the same false beliefs to him (bold added for emphasis):

For the Lord Jesus Christ is one, even if the difference of the natures, from which we state the ineffable union has been made is not ignored. Let your holiness deign to control the mouths of those saying that a mixture or confusion or blending of God the Word with the flesh took place, for it is likely that some are babbling these ideas also about me, as if I have thought or said them.[83]

In his letter to Acacius of Melitine St. Cyril discusses the differences between the natures and does not use the phrase in contemplation alone, but says they are not the same in natural quality. (bold added for emphasis):

But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. [84]

In St. Cyril’s letter to Eulogius regarding the differences of the natures, once again in thought alone is absent, but rather he refers to a difference according to nature. What is more incriminating is that he clarifies that it is two natures coming together and not one. (bold added for emphasis):

And let those accusing me not be ignorant of this, namely, that when there is mention of a union, it does not signify the coming together of one thing, but of either two or more which are also different from each other according to nature. If, then, we speak of a union we are confessing a union of flesh animated with a rational soul and the Word, and those who speak of two natures are thinking thus also.[85]

In St. Cyril’s first letter to Succensus,the phrase in thought alone finally makes an appearance applied to the presence of two natures in Christ. There is no specification as to whether this applies to the differences between the natures or the division between the natures. However, capturing the quote in full context, St. Cyril uses his favorite example of two natures composing man as an analogy. He does not say that man’s natures are different only in thought, but rather, that having two natures does not make man two separate persons. Taking this quote along with the earlier presented quotes reveals the true position of St. Cyril; the differences between the natures is in reality and has ontological presence (bold added for emphasis):

“Therefore, as far as concerns our understanding and only the contemplation by the eyes of the soul in what manner the only begotten became man, we say that there are two natures which are united, but that Christ the Son and Lord is one, the Word of God the Father made man and incarnate. And, if it seems best, let us accept as an example the composition in our own selves by which we are men. For we are composed of soul and body and we see two natures, the one being the nature of the body and the other the nature of the soul, but there is one from both in unity, a man. And because man is composed of two natures, this does not make two men be one, but one and the same man through the composition, as I said, of soul and body.”[86]

 In St. Cyril’s second letter to Succensus, thought is brought up regarding differences in the natures; however, one must discern that the phrase “alone” is missing here. What is being said is that men are drawn in thought to the fact that Christ has two different natures that have been united. This passage does not mean that differences between the natures exist in thought alone (bold added for emphasis).

“But although the body united to him is not consubstantial to the Word begotten of God the Father, even though it is united with a rational soul, still our thought certainly presents to our mind the difference of the two natures which have been united, and yet we confess one Son, Christ and Lord, since the Word was made flesh. And whenever we say flesh, we are saying man.”[87]

Lastly, in the same letter, St. Cyril emphasizes that the differences between the natures are quite substantive. He specifies that the differences between the natures are more than simply speculative, but in “every manner separately into diversity”. Then he uses the example of a human being and his two natures, using in thought to divide the human being making the difference between the natures more identifibale to our minds. Once again, Cyril does not say man is not composed of two natures, but rather, he is one despite the differences of the natures and uses that example to illustrate that natures in Christ (bold added for emphasis):

“But they have ignored the fact that those things which are usually distinguished not just according to speculation, completely and specifically differ from one another in every manner separately into diversity. Let a man like unto us be an example for us again. For we know that there are two natures in him, one the nature of the soul and the other the nature of the body. But when we divide him merely in thought and conceive the difference in subtle speculations or the presentations of thought to the mind, we do not posit the natures one apart from the other, nor indeed do we at all impute to them virtual existence through the division, but we conceive of them as the natures of one man, so that the two no longer are two, but through them both the one living being is produced.”[88]

This concludes the exhaustive review of St. Cyril’s passages on the differences between the natures in Christ in all letters the Joint Commission cited. There is not a single example of the differences being in thought “alone”; and several examples of him saying they are different by nature and more than just speculation.[89] As proven earlier St. Cyril is an Orthodox Dyophysite, one can only consider him a monophysite by taking him out of context and falsifying his position as the Joint Commission does here. Non-Chalcedonian Monophysites have always lied about St. Cyril’s beliefs, but here we see that “Orthodox” representatives follow suit, falling under the very anathemas of the councils to which they turn a blind eye. By specifically attributing the in thought alone fallacy to Cyril, they add the crime of slandering and blaspheming a saint to their concession to heresy in the previous agreement.

6.5 A Betrayal with No Profit

The next paragraph in this document is quite revealing. It states that both confessions agree to the first three Ecumenical Councils. The “Orthodox” participats state that the earlier concessions to the Monophysite heresy allow them to reinterpret the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Ecumenical Councils in a way that the Monophysites can accept.  The Monophysites disagree, then they say they respond to the reinterpretation of the Ecumenical Councils “positively”, while still not accepting them.

Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.[90]

The “Eastern Orthodox” Academicss apostatized from the faith in an attempt to re-interpret the Ecumenical Councils so that the ancient heretics would accept them, and the heretics still reject them. This is informative, as it shows that despite agreeing with these joint statements, their refusal to accept the councils means they know the Orthodox Dyophysites and the Monophysites do not share the same beliefs. In this they unintentionally reveal the truth. They seem to know that the “Orthodox” academics they are conversing with are telling lies about the Orthodox faith.

By stating that they respond to it “positively”, the Monophysites seem to say that they do not care whether both confessions accept the same councils. They are not interested in the truth; they only want to stop being called heretics by the Orthodox. If the truth mattered to them, they would never tolerate having separate lists of accepted councils, and they would stop claiming St. Cyril as a Monophysite. Sharing the same councils means both confessions share the same dogmatic faith which is essential to any real union.

6.6 The Intrinsic Link of the Ecumenical Councils

There is an additional paragraph from the Second Agreed Statement that directly follows the above quoted paragraph. The Monophysites comment that they accept the basic theological premise of the seventh Ecumenical Council; however, they maintain that they do not accept it regardless. The paragraph is worth reproducing in full:

“In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.”[91]

Out of the four Ecumenical Councils they reject, they only comment on the final one; their silence on the others speaks volumes. What goes unstated in this passage is that the first three councils they reject explicitly condemn their beliefs. The reason why they accept the general theology of the seventh Ecumenical Council but refuse to adopt it is because it ratifies the condemnation of their heresiarchs, Dioscorus and Severus, and of the Monothelite and Monoenergist doctrines. This is the true reason why the Monophysites reject all the Ecumenical Councils despite the lies of the “Orthodox” academics, because each council explicitly condemns their beliefs and their heresiarchs. No amount of lying and obfuscation could ever reinterpret the councils that were designed to be explicit and precise in teaching Orthodox doctrine. The Joint Commission’s task was always doomed to fail for the Ecumenical Councils were never shy about anathematizing Monophysites. Eucharistic communion can only occur with the acceptance and practice of all Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church. The following is a quote from the seventh Ecumenical Council condemning the Monophysites and their beliefs:

Along with these synods, we also confess the two natures of the one who became incarnate for our sake from the God-bearer without blemish, Mary the ever-virgin, recognizing that he is perfect God and perfect man, as the synod at {4}Chalcedon also proclaimed, when it drove from the divine precinct the foul-mouthed Eutyches and Dioscorus. We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at {5}Constantinople. Further we declare that there are two wills and principles of action, in accordance with what is proper to each of the natures in Christ, in the way that the sixth synod, that at {6}Constantinople, proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, those uninterested in true holiness, and their likeminded followers.[92]

6.7 The Destruction of Orthodox Ecclesiology and Faith

The document should have ended there and the project declared a failure if the members of the Joint Commission were honest, but instead it continues to proclaim that both confessions have shared the same beliefs from the beginning (despite refusing to accept each other’s dogmatic councils). Then the document advocates that both confessions lift the mutual anathemas against each others’ fathers and councils. Words fail to capture the audacity of this three-page document that attempts to obscure the truth of a schism that is fifteen hundred years old, while simultaneously blaspheming and slandering a saint, and lastly obliterating the tradition and ecclesiastical structure of the Orthodox Church.

These two documents are the basis for all ecumenical dialogue between the two confessions and it is woefully obvious that they have no depth. All the Christological points made in the first agreement are repeated in the second agreement without elaboration, and the second agreement all but states that the councils are meaningless. If that is the case, then the anathemas placed on each confession are also equally meaningless, there is logically no need to lift them. According to the Joint Commission, Christology does not matter, the councils do not matter, the saints do not matter, the anathemas do not matter. The hieromartyrs do not matter; it must be stated here that the Orthodox have three patriarchs from three different sees martyred at the hands of Monophysites, and in these joint statements, they are not even mentioned.[93] The confessors of the faith, St. Martin Pope of Rome and St. Maximus the Confessor are trampled upon and their memory dishonored by these farcical theological treatises. These documents are a betrayal of the Orthodox faith, and they cannot be the basis of any sound theological discussion; they exist to prevent such a discussion from occurring.

7.1 Dietmar Winkler’s Advocacy of the Term “Miaphysitism”

Dietmar W. Winkler wrote an article in 1997 advocating that contemporary Monophysites be refered to as “Miaphysites” after the mia physis formula, citing theological and ecumenical research as the justification that the Christian world mischaracterized the beliefs of Severus of Antioch.

7.2 Like is categorized with Like

Winkler provides a historical account of the Nestorian controversy, the council of Chalcedon and its aftermath. After the Council of Chalcedon, the Byzantine emperors made various attempts to pacify the Monophysites who were feuding with the orthodox, and amongst themselves as they had competing variations of their own heresy. The author corectly explains that the term monophysite is an umbrella term that houses a group of beliefs. “During this period extreme Monophysite positions split from the miaphysite movement: Eutychians/Phantasiasts, Akephaloi/Aposchistai, Aphartodocetae (Julian of Halicarnassus).”[94] What can be added to this list are the Tritheists that emerge from John Philoponus taking Severus’ Christology to its logical conclusion.

This raises the question: if the branches that broke away from Severus’ group are “extreme Monophysites” wouldn’t that make Severus’ group “moderate Monophysites”? Logically, this must be the case, for if there is an extreme, there must be a moderate. In this one short passage, Winkler unwittingly makes an admission that refutes his entire case to rebrand these ancient heretics, implicitly admitting the Severans to be “Monophysites”. Similar to the Joint Commission of Theological Dialogue that produced the Agreed Statements, Winkler is only interested in rebranding the Severan Monophysites to distance them from their historical identity as heretics.

7.3 A List of Monophysite Formulas and their Logical Conclusion

Winkler mentions that the term monophysite arose in the seventh century to classify the non-Chalcedonians, but he contends that this term is “technically incorrect and misleading”. He produces a list of Monophysite formulas:

  1. The divinity and the humanity are mixed into a tertium quid (third entity);
  2. The humanity is the principle of the union and the divinity is absorbed into it;
  3. The divinity is the principle of the union and the humanity is absorbed into it;
  4. There is one united nature with the dynamic continued existence of the divinity and the humanity.[95]

He then comments that the third point is considered monophysitism, the first two points follow the same logic but the fourth point should not be called monophysitism. He cites several scholars to support his opinion, in particular Joseph Lebon who wrongly argued that Severus’ Christology is the same as St. Cyril of Alexandria. This assertion displays the contemporary conception of what is often cited as the belief of Severus and contemporary Monophysites, and therefore, provides the opportunity for theological reflection.

Uncreated and created natures cannot be mixed, due to the properties of divine nature being unchangeable.[96]Point four is a claim that the two natures become one but do not mix, which is logically impossible; either they are two different natures or they become one and mix.[97] Logically, point one and point four both inevitably lead to point three. This is to say that all monophysite heresies logically lead to point three: the divine nature absorbs (or destroys) the human nature. What is strange about Winkler's commentary on Severus is that he implies Severus believes in point four, but Severus admits he believes in point three, which would classify him as a Monophysite even by Winkler’s standards. When accused of mixing the natures later in his career, Severus said that Christ’s humanity exists “in thought alone”[98]; that is to say, it does not truly exist, so he made a distinction without a difference. It is noteworthy that contemporary Monophysites claim to believe in point 4, diverging from Severus, but Winkler himself does not clarify this in his paper.

The Monophysites received their historical moniker because the heresy is a many headed hydra with all heads sharing the same root and leading to the same logical conclusions. The fact that believing in one incarnate nature of Christ leads to at least six different heretical groups that cannot agree with one another points out its incoherency. Severan Monophysitism does not even have the privilege of being the most logically consistent of the family of heresies, that title would most likely belong to either the Aphartodocetae, or the Tritheists. It is for this reason all should staunchly reject rebranding contemporary Monophysites as Miaphysites. Likewise, titling them “Oriental Orthodox” should be rejected. They are heretics, not Orthodox.

8.1 “In Two Natures” Within Patristics Prior to Chalcedon.

Fr. Mebratu Kiros Gebru, PhD, is a Monophysite priest in the Ethiopian Tewahedo Confession. He wrote his master’s thesis explaining contemporary Monophysite Christology, called Miaphysite Christology: an Ethiopian perspective. In his book, Gebru gives a historical and theological overview of the development of Ethiopia’s Christology up until the current day and ends his book by encouraging the ecumenical talks between the Eastern Orthodox and the Monophysite confessions that have been criticized above. Gebru’s book reveals that Ethiopian’s Christology is essentially the same as Severus’, with the exception that they claim Christ’s single nature encompasses both his divine and human natures while remaining one (point four in Winkler’s list of Monophysite formulas)[99]. Both positions have been covered already, but Gebru provides one new argument that is worthy of refutation.

Gebru presents the opinion of Admasu Jembere, author of a Balance of Faith that the term “in two natures” was never stated by the church fathers before the Council of Chalcedon. This is the justification for why the Ethiopian Monophysits view the concessions from the Orthodox as a positive development but still refuse to accept the council of Chalcedon itself:

In his logical and theologically sound comment on the definition of the council of Chalcedon, the Ethiopian scholar Jembere asserts that most of the points in the definition are biblically justified, and they agree with the teachings of our fathers as the definition claims. But the phrase “in two natures” cannot be found in any writings of the fathers prior to Chalcedon, so that it is not acceptable to the EOTC.[100]

This claim is easily refuted. It presents the opportunity to show that universal character of the dyophysite formula within the Orthodox Church. The first use of the term “in two natures” is by St. Vincent of Lerins, who died in 444 AD. Very fittingly, he is writing against Apollinaris in the quoted passage. Note that substance is synonymous with nature (Bold added for emphasis):

For, denying that there are two substances in Christ, one divine, the other human, one from the Father, the other from his mother, he holds that the very nature of the Word was divided, as though one part of it remained in God, the other was converted into flesh: so that whereas the truth says that of two substances there is oneChrist, he affirms, contrary to the truth, that of the one divinity of Christ there have become two substances.[101]

This refutes Gebru and Jembere’s position. In his Oration 38 St. Gregory the Theologian, who reposed in late fourth century, explicitly states that Christ has two natures:

Conceived by the Virgin, Luke 1:35 who first in body and soul was purified by the Holy Ghost (for it was needful both that Childbearing should be honoured, and that Virginity should receive a higher honour), He came forth then as God with that which He had assumed, One Person in two Natures, Flesh and Spirit, of which the latter deified the former.[102]

St. Ambrose of Milan, a saint who was quoted in the Council of Ephesus I, accepted by the Monophysites says: 

Let us take heed to the distinction of the Godhead from the flesh. In each there speaks one and the same Son of God, for each nature is present in Him; yet while it is the same Person Who speaks, He speaks not always in the same manner. Behold in Him, now the glory of God, now the affections of man. As God He speaks the things of God, because He is the Word; as man He speaks the things of man, because He speaks in my nature.[103]

In his work against Nestorius, St. John Cassian, who reposed in 435 AD, writes of Christ being in two natures (Bold added for emphasis):

For it was not God the Father who was made man, nor the Holy Ghost, but the Only Begotten of the Father; and so we must hold that there is one Person of the Flesh and the Word: so as faithfully and without any doubt to believe that one and the same Son of God, who can never be divided, existing in two natures (who was also spoken of as a "giant" ) in the days of His Flesh truly took upon Him all that belongs to man, and ever truly had as His own what belongs to God: since even though He was crucified in weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God.[104]

Lastly, St. Augustine of Hippo, another pre-Chalcedonian Father, says:

“Let us then love Him, for He is sweet. Taste and see that the Lord is sweet. He is to be feared, but to be loved still more. He is Man and God; the One Christ is Man and God; as one man is soul and body: but God and Man are not two Persons. In Christ indeed there are two substances, God and Man; but one Person, that the Trinity may remain, and that there be not a quaternity introduced by the addition of the human nature.[105]

The dyophysite doctrine and the terms “in two natures” is present in prominent Church fathers in both the East and the West before Chalcedon; it is the Orthodox Christology. As stated earlier, the distinction between “from two” and “in two” for the Orthodox church has become redundant, for both terms are acceptable as long as they are used in a dyophysite context. Now that Gerebu and Jembere’s argument has been thoroughly refuted, there should be no obstacle to prevent Ethiopian Monophysites from accepting Chalcedon. Sadly, evidence, logic, and sound Christology are not what keep the Monophysites in their heresy; it is merely stubbornness.

9.1 Pope Shenouda III’s Defense of the Mia Physis Formula

Pope Shenouda III (1923AD–2012AD) was the international head of the Coptic Monophysite Community. Located in Egypt, he wrote many pamphlets as an authoritative figure for the monophysite Coptic heresy. In his pamphlet The one nature of Christ he provides several unique arguments that are worthy of refutation.

9.2 The Misattributed Origins of the Mia Physis Formula

In his introduction into the topic, Pope Shenouda claims that the mia physis formula  finds its origin in St. Athanasius. (Bold lines are from the original publication):

As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human- inside the Virgin's womb, one naturewas formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it. The Holy Church did not find an expression more reliable, deep and precise than that which was used by St. Cyril the Great, and which St. Athanasius the Apostolic used before him. Both of them were true leaders in the theological field worldwide.[106]

This is a surprising claim from Shenouda, as it is well accepted by theological scholars and even contemporary Monophysites that the works attributed to St. Athanasius featuring the mia physis formula are Apollinarian forgeries. Pope Shenouda’s statement is either grossly negligent or an outright lie.

9.3 Neo-Severanism; a New Take on an Old Heresy

Next, Pope Shenouda explains the contemporary mia physis equation the Coptic Monophysites who advocate for one nature that is both divine and human referencing St. Athanasius’ book, The Incarnation of the Word

This misinterpretation continued along history as though we believed in one nature of Christ and denied the other nature. We wonder which of the two natures the Church of Alexandria denies? Is it the Divine nature? Certainly not, for our Church was the most fervent defender against the Arian heresy in the Council of Nicea, held in the year 325 AD, as well as before and after that. Or is it The Lord's human nature that the Church of Alexandria denies? St. Athanasius of Alexandria resolved this entirely in the oldest and greatest book on this subject The Incarnation of the Word, The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Logos".[107]

It is curious that this work by St. Athanasius’ is referenced by name because St. Athanasius does not use the mia physisformula in it (he never used it at all in any of his writings). Furthermore, the quoted phrase “The Nature of the Incarnate Logos” does not appear in the book either. He is apparently providing a false citation (Pope Shenouda actually does not provide a single proper citation in this work).

As stated previously, Severus of Antioch advocated for a single divine nature, not for a mix of two natures. The answer to Pope Shenouda’s rhetorical question is that the Monophysite mia physis is the divine, since if the two natures were combined into one, only the divine would remain as it is impassible while the created nature is passable.[108]

In their attempt to develop Severus’ Christology, contemporary Monophysites have made an equation that is even less logically coherent than his. This was probably concocted in response to criticism that Severus’ Christology lacked a justification for Christ having human properties while lacking a human nature. The only thing this new formula produces is another logical error, and Christ still does not have a justification for having human properties. It would be appropriate to call this mia physis formula a type of “Neo-Severan” formula, since everything else the modern Monophysites believe is the same as Severus.

9.4 St. Cyril Defends Orthodox Dyophysitism Against Pope Shenouda

Pope Shenouda invokes St. Cyril of Alexandria and claims “St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity.”[109] This statement is incorrect; quotes from St. Cyril after the reconciliation that explicitly refute this claim have already been provided.[110] Additionally, in St. Cyril’s On Orthodoxy to Theodosiusdescribing to the emperor the basic problem of Nestorianism, he explicitly refuses to say that one cannot distinguish the two natures, only that one cannot separate the two. This was written in 430, before the reconciliation formula:

So there is no way there can be any division, especially if it involves talking of “two” after the union or thinking of each separately. It is appropriate for one’s mind to sense a distinction between the natures (after all, human and divine natures are not identical), but at the same time as this acknowledgment, the mind must also accept the concurrence of the two into a unity. So, it was as God that he issued from God the Father, and as man that he issued from the Virgin.[111]

Next, Pope Shenouda attacks the council of Chalcedon with the classic Monophysite claim that it was Nestorian and divides Christ into two persons.

In spite of the fact that the Council of Ephesus had excommunicated Nestorus, the Nestorian roots extended to influence the council of Chalcedon where the trend to separate the two natures became so apparent that it was said that Christ is two persons, a God and a human being; the one works miracles and the other accepts insults and humiliation.[112]

 What is curious is the naked claim that Chalcedon accepted that there are two persons in Christ while the Chalcedonian definition of faith explicitly condemns Nestorius and the belief that Christ is two persons. In the definition of faith, it declares:

And because of those who attempt to destroy the mystery of the dispensation, shamelessly blathering that he who was born of the Holy Virgin Mary is a mere human being, the council has accepted as in keeping [with these creeds] the conciliar letters of the blessed Cyril, then shepherd of the church of Alexandria, to Nestorius and to those of the Orient, for the refutation of the madness of Nestorius and for the instruction of those who with pious zeal seek the meaning of the saving creed.[113]

Regarding the doctrine of two persons, Chalcedon declares: “For the council sets itself against those who attempt to dissolve the mystery of the dispensation into a duality of sons”[114]. If Chalcedon explicitly rejects the heresiarch and the heresy itself, how can the Council be Nestorian? Pope Shenouda and the rest of the Monophysites make this claim because their metaphysics are derived from Severus of Antioch, who collapses nature, person, and hypostasis into a “particular”. They all mean the same thing. To properly analyze the Chalcedonian definition would require them to address and attack the Orthodox Church’s metaphysics.

St. Cyril adheres to Orthodox metaphysics while the Monophysites do not, yet they claim him as their father. If he had their Severan metaphysics, he would have been in one accord with the Monophysites and never agreed that the Antiochenes were not Nestorian. This entire controversy could have been avoided if they simply followed the words of St. Cyril when he asked Bishop Acacius of Melitene how the Antiochenes shared Nestorius’ heresy when they anathematized him.[115] To further reinforce his point, St. Cyril repeats this clarification that the Antiochenes are not Nestorians for believing in two natures in his letter to priest Eulogist. This clearly displays that St. Cyril’s terminology is at odds with Severus; for St. Cyril, person does not equate to nature:

Yet once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his phusis is one as the Word made flesh. The bishops from the East confess these doctrines, even though they are somewhat obscure concerning the expression. For since they confess that the only begotten Word begotten of God the Father was himself also begotten of a woman according to flesh, that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, that his person is one, and that there are not two sons, or two christs, but one, how do they agree with the teachings of Nestorius?[116]

9.5 The Category Error: Confusing Substance with Accidents

Pope Shenouda then gives an analogy of two natures combining into one. Here, he uses the concept of using fire to heat iron, so that both natures combine into one. He says that this analogy is used by St. Cyril and Dioscorus, but he does not give a citation:

St. Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say "God and man". In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement, but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire.[117]

This is a particularly interesting analogy, as both the subjects and their natures remain numbered in their union. The fire heats the iron, and the iron’s accidents are changed accordingly, but at no point does either of them lose their distinction, as the Monophysites argue in the case of their mia physis formula. In a strange oversight by Pope Shenouda, he uses this example once again to illustrate how Christ does not die in his divinity. This time around, he actually acknowledges that there are two natures present, but in the previous analogy, he said there was only one:

The holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched though it bends with the iron.[118]

If the hammer hits the iron and not the fire, they neither share the same nature nor are they the same object. The fire does not bend when it is struck with a hammer; heated iron is the only thing that bends, the temperature of the iron changing as well as its shape and color are accidents of the iron, they are only augmented by the presence of the fire. They are not tied to the fire by nature. This is a category error; he is confusing the accidents of the iron affected by the fire, with the fire itself. There are two objects with distinct natures and accidents present; this example Pope Shenouda presents applies to a dyo physis interpretation of Christ, for He has two natures that are united, but not turned into a single nature.

9.6 The Differences Between Christ’s Uncreated and Created Natures

Next, Pope Shenouda presents his strongest argument: if man is a composite hypostasis, constituted of two opposing natures and are considered one nature, why would Dyophysites not grant the same logic to Christ and his two opposing natures?

Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature?! If we go into details we would find ourselves before three natures in Christ!!! the Divinity, the soul and the body, and each of them has its distinct entity and essence... Of course, this is unacceptable on both sides. When we accept the union of the soul and the body in one nature in Christ, and when we use the expression theologically, it becomes easier for us to use the expression “One Nature of Christ" or "One Nature of God, the Incarnate Logos".[119]

This is a sophisticated metaphysical and anthropological question: for man indeed has two natures within him, and Christ is likewise in some sense, composed of the three natures that Pope Shenouda claims. He has the uncreated divine nature, as well as the created natures of the human body and the human soul, the latter two are considered one. St. John of Damascus specifies that when discussing the collective man’s nature shared by the human race, he is said to have one nature. However, when speaking of an individual person, it is not appropriate to say that he is composed of a single nature, for the body and the soul are not alike in composition. He clarifies that the unlike natures in man are proven upon his death.

It is possible, however, for one compound hypostasis to be made from diverse natures, which is how man is made up of body and soul. Now, even though men are said to have one nature, the individual man is not said to be of one nature. This is because, on the one hand, the one nature of man is said to be compound, since all the compound hypostases of men come under one species; whereas, on the other hand, the individual man is not said to be of one nature, since each human hypostasis is made up of two natures-soul and body, I mean-which it preserves unconfused in itself, to which fact the separation caused by death bears witness.[120]

In one aspect, Christ is said to have two natures due to sharing a common human nature of mankind. Mankind is specifically designed to have a compound hypostasis, and when numbering Christ among humanity, for He is consubstantial with humanity, His human nature is accounted for as one. For mankind’s body does not make for a hypostasis, neither does mankind’s soul, but both natures are enhypostata; this means they are not meant to be separate and cannot subsist alone. It is due to the two natures status of enhypostata that they are considered one proper nature only when they are conjoined. St. John of Damascus describes this:

. . .[enhypostaton] is that which is compound with another thing differing in substance to make up one particular whole and constitute one compound hypostasis. Thus, man is made up of soul and body, while neither the soul alone nor the body alone is called a hypostasis, but both are called enhypostata. That which consists of both is the hypostasis of both, for in the proper sense hypostasis is that which subsists of itself by its own subsistence, and such this is called.[121]

Alternatively, Christ’s divinity is simple and constitutes a hypostasis in and of itself; it is a simple complete nature that makes up the hypostasis of the second member of the God head. The two natures (the simple divine nature and the compound human nature) are found in the Incarnation.  This is further delineated by the fact that one nature is uncreated, and the other is created. What makes Christ’s human divinity unique is that it was never fully hypostatic on its own, for the hypostasis of the Logos assumed the created human nature, making that nature enhypostatic, as St. John Damascene describes:

“Again, that nature is called enhypostaton which has been assumed by another hypostasis and in this has its existence. Thus, the body of the Lord, since it never subsisted of itself, not even for an instant, is not a hypostasis, but an enhypostaton. And this is because it was assumed by the hypostasis of God the Word and this subsisted, and did and does have this for a hypostasis.”[122]

Because of Christ’s unique arrangement, being an uncreated hypostasis that assumes another nature that is opposed to His own, it is both inappropriate and incorrect to combine His opposing natures into one. Combining the two into one would force a change; that change would inevitably destroy the human nature because of the impossibility of divinity experiencing change, while created nature cannot withstand the endless abyss of divinity. The human body and soul are designed to be parts of a whole, but they are not designed to combine with divine nature; for divine nature is a whole in and of itself. That is why the Orthodox do not refer to Christ as having three natures (although technically that is in a certain respect true) and that is why the mia physis formula is rejected.

9.7 The Separate Sayings of Christ

Pope Shenouda uses the compound human nature to further elaborate upon his mia physis formula. He describes how when a person performs certain actions, one does not separate the body and the soul from one another. He then argues that just as men do not separate the soul from the body in their sayings, one should not separate the divinity from the humanity in Christ.

Hence, if we accept the idea of the unity between the soul and the body in one nature, why do we not accept the unity of the Divine and the human into one Nature?!Although man is formed of these two natures, we never say that He is two, but one person. All man's acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul alone or to the body alone. Thus when we want to say that a certain individual ate, or became hungry, or slept, or felt pain, we do not say that it is his body which ate, or became hungry, or got tired or slept or felt pain. All man's acts are attributed to him as a whole and not only to his body. Similarly, all the acts of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not to His Divine nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone.[123]

This analogy fails on both fronts: while most actions are attributed to a whole man, there are times where it is appropriate to divide between the body and the soul and attribute an action or passion to one specific nature of man. Human beings often make references to one of their two natures being affected by an incident, for example, one might perform stretches and light exercise and say that his body has been “warmed up”. One might catch an illness and complain that his entire body is aching. Conversly, one might return from a pilgrimage and say that his soul feels refreshed. One might perform or witness a terrible sin and complain that his soul has been wounded. These sayings reveal a truth; that man is a composite being, made of two different natures.

The same follows for Christ, and St. Cyril himself says this refering to this phenomenon as the “difference of the sayings”. He specifies that the scriptures make various claims about Christ, and some of the claims refer to Christ’s divinity, others to His humanity, and others are proper to both. He condones this practice as long as it is not used as a pretext for separating Christ’s natures from one another and spliting Him into two persons. References on this topic have already been provided.[124] St. Cyril specifically illustrates this point in his defense for the Antiochene dyo physis formula in his letter to Acacius, Bishop of Melitene:

Neither do [the Antiochians] admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the Son, the Word of God the Father, and others are proper to another son again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to his divinity and others again are proper to his humanity . For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look toward both, I mean both the divinity and the humanity. What I am saying is the same as this.[125]

It is permissible to talk about the separate natures of a human being just as it is for Christ, provided in both cases the natures are not divided into separate persons.

9.8 The Neo-Severan Mia Physis Formula and Apollinarianism

Pope Shenouda then makes his defense of his mia physis formula, emphasizing that both natures in Christ keep their properties but are combined into one. Note that his Severan metaphysics is laid bare as he identifies the “nature” as an “entity”.

It is One Nature (one entity) but has all the properties of two natures: It has all the properties of the Divine nature and all those of the human nature. In this One Nature, the. body was not transmuted to the Divine nature but remained as a body, the body of God the Logos. The Logos, also was not transmuted to be a human nature but remained as it is the Divine nature though united with a body. His Divine nature is not susceptible to death while His human nature is liable to die. Both the Divine and the human natures united in essence in the Hypostasis and in nature without separation.[126]

While this Neo-Severan equation has already been criticized for its logical impossibility, this is a good opportunity to check its equation against the two classic errors of Apollinarianism: The killing of divine nature and destroying man’s salvation. If there is only one Nature of Christ, and He truly experienced death, then both natures experienced death as they are one. This is confirmed since Pope Shenouda expresses: “No separation occurred between the Divine nature and the human nature at Christ's death”.  If a person pours wine and water into the same cup and then pours that cup onto the ground, the combined liquids both hit the ground because they are combined into one. In his defense of this concept, Pope Shenouda cannot explain how the divinity of Christ does not die with the humanity, because they are one and the same nature in the mia physis formula. The contemporary Monophysites once again kill God. If the divinity dies, it is not impassable and it cannot save humanity. While there is some minor development of the Severan doctrine for the Monophysites, they have not and cannot escape the two basic errors of the heresy of Apollinarianism.

He then makes an incorrect statement about the nature of a union:

“We are not dealing here with two natures: God and a man, for this expression signifies two and not one, and the term "Two" does not ever denote unity. A Union, actually, cannot be separated into two.”

This is contradicted by St. Cyril when he specifies that a union must be made of two or more and is not the coming together of one thing.[127]

9.9 The Attack on St. Leo’s Tome

Lastly, Pope Shenouda makes the claim that the dyo physis formula originates from Chalcedon, and attacks St. Leo’s tome, accusing him of Nestorianism. It would be negligent to not mention the hatred Monophysites have for St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome. He is an`athematized by their heretical confession, and they hold him in contempt in contemporary times. He was a vociferous opponent of Dioscorus for his actions at Ephesus II. Pope Shenouda’s critique of the Tome of Leo is as follows:

It is very dangerous, for our salvation, to separate between the two natures. Perhaps some would say 'who declared such separation? Is it not the Council of Chalcedon that declared the belief in two united natures?! Yes, it did but the Tome of Leo says also that Christ is two: God and man, the One astonished us with miracles and the other received disgrace and suffering!

Previously, a collection of five saints, both from the East and West that mention two natures in Christ before Chalcedon have been referenced.[128] As for the Tome of Leo, Pope Shenounda must be referring to the two types of natures that Leo references in his Tome, where he refers to the natures as “form”:

Accordingly He who while remaining in the form of GOD made man, was also made man in the form of a slave. For both natures retain their own proper character without loss: and as the form of GOD did not do away with the form of a slave, so the form of a slave did not impair the form of GOD.[129]

And further with the sentence: “One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.”[130] These comments are in line with what St. Cyril describes as “the saying” meaning certain sayings apply to either one of Christ’s natures, or both.[131]

Perhaps his accusation against St. Leo would have some merit if St. Leo did not explicitly say that Christ was a single person; however, St. Leo makes this point explicitly at least twice. “For it must again and again be repeated that one and the same is truly Son of GOD and truly son of man.”[132] And even more explicitly in the following line:

“For although in the LORD Jesus Christ GOD and man is one person, yet the source of the degradation, which is shared by both, is one, and the source of the glory, which is shared by both, is another.”[133]

What is most startling about this critique is how similar the language St. Leo uses for his tome is to St. Paul’s description of Christ’s two natures in his epistle to the Phillipians. It is abundantly clear that is where St. Leo took inspiration for his use of the word “form”. The basis for the dyophysite formula is divine scripture and this fact reveals how distant the Monophysites and Pope Shenouda III are from the true faith (Bold added for emphasis).

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of menAnd being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.[134]

Pope Shenouda III’s booklet on the mia physis formula provides valuable insight into contemporary apologetics for the Monophysites. One can see that the Monophysites have not developed past Severus in any meaningful way. The only change they have made to his faulty Christology was for the worse, being less logically consistent than his already faulty beliefs. If there was ever going to be a reconciliation between the Monophysites and the Orthodox, it should be through the entire corpus of St. Cyril of Alexandria. If they followed his words, they would come to share his beliefs that the Orthodox Dyophysites are not Nestorian, and thus Chalcedon is not Nestorian. They would understand that Dioscorus of Alexandria, Timothy Ailuros, and Severus of Antioch never shared his beliefs, and their condemnation is justified. They could humbly admit that they were wrong to turn their back on St. Cyril and come under the omophorion of the Orthodox Catholic Church in repentance, where they would be received with joy. For Orthodox Christians to lie to their faces and to pretend that they share the faith of St. Cyril is an act of hatred, while telling them the truth is an act of love.

Conclusion

All configurations of the mia physis formula involving divinity ultimately lead to Christ having only a divine nature. Any claims to the contrary contradict the immutability of divinity that all Monophysites claim to believe. This concludes in Christ dying in His divinity on the cross which destroys the concept of divinity no matter what route the mia physis formula takes. If it is not rooted in dyophysitism, it kills God. Since all monophysite formulas have an exclusively divine nature, the resurrection has no effect on man, leaving man bereft of salvation and doomed for all eternity. Eutyches and Dioscorus posited that Christ is from two natures but not in two natures, which leads to a strange and undefined status for Christ’s humanity, implying it existed before His incarnation. Timothy Ailuros and Severus posited that Christ has human accidents but has no human nature, which is a logical contradiction. Timothy and Severus were also nominalists, which means Christ does not share a nature with any other particular, destroying the possibility of man’s salvation and turning the Trinity into three separate gods. The non-Chalcedonian Monophysites claim to follow St. Cyril but they rejected his acceptance of the reconciliation formula. Lastly, Monophysites have a history of maintaining their influence through violence and murder.

The history of the monophysite heresy is a complex one, with several different heretics with their own compositions and arrangements for what amounts to the same heresy that began with Apollinaris of Laodicea. Although every single monophysite formula has not been discussed, it should be clear that one cannot escape the errors of Apollinaris no matter how one arranges the mia physis formula if it is not compatible with the dyo physis formula. It was never an adherence to philosophical reasoning and logic that kept the Monophysites from true faith, it was rank stubbornness most likely rooted in ethnic pride. How else does one justify making Dioscorus a “saint” after he murdered St. Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople? Where is the Christian sanctity in murdering one’s theological opponents, especially for someone who is supposed to be an archpastor?

This historical and doctrinal examination justifies the decisions of the fourth, fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils revealing the sound logic behind the doctrinal truth of the Orthodox Church’s dogmatic teachings. St. John Damascene said the monophysite accusations against Chalcedon are “clumsy and stupid”[135], as their Christology proves.  The contemporary ecumenical movement only serves to attempt to obfuscate the differences between the monophysite heresy and the true dyophysite Orthodox faith, presenting half-truths and pernicious subtle lies to cover up the outrageous errors that date back as far as the fourth century, before the council of Chalcedon.

Worst of all, they blaspheme and tarnish the good name of St. Cyril of Alexandria, falsely attributing to him beliefs that he went to great lengths to prove he never held. If one is credulous of the decisions of the councils, then the saints, the hieromartyrs, and the confessors that combated this heresy are the most reliable guides to the truth; they did not care for worldly praise and power, and they suffered for Christ’s sake. They also accepted all the councils that the Monophysite rejected, which is proof of those councils’ validity. All would do well to follow the example of the saints, and all should denounce “orthodox” academics who contradict the holy saints and the holy councils. The stubbornness and illogical reasoning of the monophysite heretics and their supporters gives credence to St. Cyril’s proclamation that heretics are worse than pagans, and his criticism suits no better a target than those who falsely claim they are his disciples:

[T]hey who have become inventors of unholy heresies, profane and apostate and enlarging their unbridled mouth against the Divine glory and uttering things perverted, will be caught as having of their folly slipped into charges not slighter than those of the infatuation of the Greeks or haply into charges even surpassing theirs. For it were better for them not to have known the way of truth than having known it to turn back from the holy commandment given to them: for the true proverb hath come to them, The dog returned to his own vomit, and, The washed sow to the wallowing in the mire.

“For they parted amongst themselves the charges of blasphemy against Christ and like fierce and bitter wolves they waste the flocks for which Christ died, and despoil what is His, multiplying to themselves that which is not theirs, as it is written, and weighting their yoke heavily, of whom may be said with much reason, They went out from us but they were not of us.[136]

 

Bibliography

Roberts, A, and J Donaldson. THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY the ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME 5.

“The Teaching of Apollinaris.” Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule (1904), earlychurchtexts.com/main/apollinaris/apollinaris_teaching.shtml. Accessed 20 June 2025.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Penguin, 1993.

Of, Gregory, and Robin Orton. Anti-Apollinarian Writings. The Catholic University Of America Press, 2015.

Richard Alfred Norris. The Christological Controversy. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2013. On The Union In Christ of the Body with the Godhead by Apollinaris of Laodicea.

“CHURCH FATHERS: Letters, Division I (Gregory Nazianzen).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/3103a.htm.

Cyrillus (Alexandrinus. Letters 51–110. 1987. Letter 53

[Epistle XXXVII, to Theognostos, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXVII, Col. 169C; quote in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p.41, 1996 Vol 46, No. 6

W H C Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. James Clarke & Co, 2008.

Theophanes, The Confessor, and Harry Turtledove. The Chronicle of Theophanes : Anni Mundi, 6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813). University Of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 2005.

From A Letter Of The Blessed Dioscorus The Archbishop of Alexandria To The Monks Of The Hennaton,

De Sectis 6 (PG 86.1:1233B-1237D); critical edition in Franz Diekamp (ed.), Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi: Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed. (Münster: Aschendorff, 1981)

Orthodox Life, Vol. 46, No 6, 1996. The Non-Chalcedonian Heresy. P.42. Epistle to Kalonumos, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXVI, Col. 276

“Severus of Antioch: A Collection of Letters from Numerous Syriac Manuscripts (1915). Letters 1-61.” Tertullian.org, 2025, www.tertullian.org/fathers/severus_coll_2_letters.htm.

Bondi, Roberta C. Three Monophysite Christologies. Oxford University Press, USA, 1976.

Orthodox Life, Vol 47, No. 1, 1997, p. 30; Patrologia Graeca, Vol XCI, Col. 40A.

The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Letter 2

Aloys Grillmeier and Theresia Heinthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition: Volume 2, Part 2 (Louiseville, KY: Westminster/John KNox, 1995), 167

Iain R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon (Canterbury Press, 1988), 151

Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D., Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p.41 in Orthodox Life Vol 46, No. 6.

Leontius Hierosolymitanus and Gray Patrick T R., Leontius of Jerusalem: Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)

Pauline Allen and Robert Hayward, Severus of Antioch (London: Routledge, 2004)

Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One by way of Dispute with Hermias (c. 431), trans. P. E. Pusey in A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, Translated by Members of the English Church. Volume 47 (Oxford: James Parker, 1881).

“Leontius of Byzantium: Against the Forgeries of the Apollinarists (2013). Translation.” Tertullian.org, 2025, www.tertullian.org/fathers/leontius_byzantinus_adversus_fraudes_apollinistarum_02_text.htm. Accessed 5 June 2025.

‌Saint, Cyril,. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, Volume 2 : Exodus through Deuteronomy. The Catholic University Of America Press, 2019.

Cyril, et al. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on John: Volume 1. Intervarsity Press, 2013.

Saint, Cyril, et al. Commentary on John. Volume 2. Ivp Academic, 2015.

Saint, Cyril, et al. Festal Letters 13-30. Catholic University Of America Press, 2013.

Saint, Cyril, and John I. Mcenerney. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Catholic University Of America Press, 1987.

“First Agreed Statement (1989) – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches.” Ecupatria.org, 2025, www.ecupatria.org/documents/first-agreed-statement-1989/. Accessed 30 July 2025.

“Second Agreed Statement (1990) – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches.” Ecupatria.org, 2025, www.ecupatria.org/documents/second-agreed-statement-1990/. Accessed 30 July 2025.

‌Winkler, Dietmar W. “Miaphysitism a New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology.” Gorgias Press EBooks, Gorgias Press, Dec. 2012, pp. 191–98, https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463232993-026.

‌“Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D. - Papal Encyclicals.” Papal Encyclicals, 24 Sept. 787AD, www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum07.htm.

‌ Allen, Pauline, et al. Severus of Antioch. London; New York, Routledge, 2004.

“CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm.

‌Mebratu Kiros Gebru. Miaphysite Christology. Gorgias PressLlc, 2010.

“CHURCH FATHERS: Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm.

‌“CHURCH FATHERS: Oration 38 (Gregory Nazianzen).” Www.newadvent.org, www.newadvent.org/fathers/310238.htm.

‌“CHURCH FATHERS: Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book II (Ambrose).” Newadvent.org, 2023, www.newadvent.org/fathers/34042.htm. Accessed 2 Aug. 2025.

‌Cassian, John. SEVEN BOOKS on the INCARNATION of the LORD, against NESTORIUS General Index S PREFACE. www.documenta-catholica.eu/d_0360-0435-%20Cassianus%20-%20Institutes%20of%20the%20Coenobia%20and%20the%20Remedies%20Vol%201-%20EN.pdf. Accessed 2 Aug. 2025.

‌“CHURCH FATHERS: Sermon 80 on the New Testament (Augustine).” Newadvent.org, 2023, www.newadvent.org/fathers/160380.htm. Accessed 2 Aug. 2025.

‌Saint, Cyril, and Daniel King. Three Christological Treatises. The Catholic University Of America Press, 2014.

Price, Richard. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 1, General Introduction, Documents before the Council, Session I. Liverpool Univ. Press, 2010.

Of, John, and Frederic Hathaway Chase. Writings (the Fathers of the Church, Volume 37). Catholic University Of America Press, 1958.

Shenouda, Alexandria Patriarch. The Nature of Christ. Putty Coptic Orthodox St Shenouda Monastery, 1997.

“Leo - the Tome Of.” Earlychurchtexts.com, 2025, earlychurchtexts.com/public/leo_tome.htm. Accessed 8 Aug. 2025.

Leo Donald Davis. The First Seven Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Wilmington, Del.: M.Glazier, 1987.

Price, Richard. The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: Sessions VI- VIII, Vigilius Constituta, Appendices, Maps, Glossary, Bibliography, Indices. 2009.

Alois Grillmeier, and Theresia Hainthaler. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2,4. Mowbray, 1965

“Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes against Nestorius (1881) Book 2. Pp.38-80.” Tertullian.org, 2025, tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_nestorius_02_book2.htm. Accessed 20 July 2025

Hans Van Loon. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Brill, 2009

“Tome of Leo” (Letter of Leo to Flavian. Letter 28) Earlychurchtexts.com, 2025, www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/leo_tome.htm. Accessed 13 Sept. 2025.

 

[1] Roberts, A., and J. Donaldson. THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY the ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME 5.1164

[2] Leo Donald Davis. The First Seven Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Wilmington, Del.: M. Glazier, 1987. 247.

[3] Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule (1904), Ad Iovianum, 1, 250

[4] Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Penguin, 1993. p.148

[5] Of, Gregory, and Robin Orton. Anti-Apollinarian Writings. The Catholic University Of America Press, 2015. 18-19.

[6] Anti-Apollinarian Writings, 27

[7] Anti-Apollinarian Writings, 4

[8] Apollinaris of Ladoacia. Richard Alfred Norris. The Christological Controversy. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2013. On The Union In Christ of the Body with the Godhead by Apollinaris of Laodicea. 109

[9] Ibid.104.

[10] Ibid. 108.

[11] Ibid. 104

[12] The Christological Controversy. 110

[13] John Damascene. Of, John, and Frederic Hathaway Chase. Writings (the Fathers of the Church, Volume 37). Catholic University Of America Press, 1958. 105.

[14] Apollinarius’s Letter to Jovian

[15] Realism professes that universals have ontological being. This is in contrast to nominalism, which professes that universals exist in contemplation only.

[16] Saint, Cyril,. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch, Volume 2 : Exodus through Deuteronomy. The Catholic University Of America Press, 2019. 143-4

[17] Ibid. 156-7

[18] Cyril, et al. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on John: Volume 1. Intervarsity Press, 2013. 310.

[19] Saint, Cyril, et al. Commentary on John. Volume 2. Ivp Academic, 2015. 135.

[20] Saint, Cyril, et al. Festal Letters 13-30. Catholic University Of America Press, 2013. Festive Letter 17. 62-3.

[21] Ibid. 63

[22] Saint, Cyril, and John I. Mcenerney. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Catholic University Of America Press, 1987. Letter 4. 39.

[23] “Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes against Nestorius (1881) Book 2. Pp.38-80.”Tertullian.org, 2025

[24] Hans Van Loon. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Brill, 2009. 382.

[25] Cyril, Five Tomes. Book 2.

[26] Saint, Cyril, and John I. Mcenerney. St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Catholic University Of America Press, 1987. Letter 39. 149.

[27] Hans Van Loon. Dyophysite Christology. 523-524

[28] St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Letter 40. 161.

[29] St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Letter 40. 165.

[30] St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Letter 44. 186.

[31] St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Letter 44. 186-7.

[32] St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Letter 44. 187.

[33] St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Letter 45. 193.

[34] Hans Van Loon. Dyophysite Christology. 389-390.

[35] W H C Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. James Clarke & Co, 2008. 33

[36] Theophanes, The Confessor, and Harry Turtledove. The Chronicle of Theophanes: Anni Mundi, 6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813). University Of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. 154

[37] The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 43.

[38] Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 2005. 222.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 221.

[41] Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 223

[42] Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 190

[43] Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 194

[44] Since Timothy Ailuros’s metaphysics introduce nominalism and tritheism in the monophysite heresy, it would arguably mean his formula is more problematic than Eutyches’. That might make Dioscorus even worse than Eutyches if the Monophysites are taken at their word. Either way, Dioscorus is a condemned heretic.

[45] De Sectis 6 (PG 86.1:1233B-1237D); critical edition in Franz Diekamp (ed.), Doctrina Patrum de

Incarnatione Verbi: Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed. (Münster:

Aschendorff, 1981), 177-179.

[46] According to Richard Price and Michael Gaddis in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Valentinus denied Christ is a physical body. Essentially a type of gnostic dualism.

[47] from the Greek Αἴλουρος,

[48] Alois Grillmeier, and Theresia Hainthaler. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2,4. Mowbray, 1965., 11

[49] Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2,4. 13

[50] Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2,4. 32

[51] Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2,4. 33

[52] Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2,4. 32

[53] Orthodox Life, Vol. 46, No 6, 1996. The Non-Chalcedonian Heresy. P.42. Epistle to Kalonumos, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXVI, Col. 276

[54] “Severus of Antioch: A Collection of Letters from Numerous Syriac Manuscripts (1915). Letters 1-61.” Tertullian.org, 2025, letter 5.

[55] Bondi, Roberta C. Three Monophysite Christologies. Oxford University Press, USA, 1976. 11

[56] Ibid. 10

[57] Ibid. 10

[58] Ibid. 11

[59] Ibid. 12

[60] Orthodox Life, Vol 47, No. 1, 1997, p. 30; Patrologia Graeca, Vol XCI, Col. 40A.

[61] Severus of Antioch: A Collection of Letters, Letter 2

[62] Three Monophysite Christologies. 13.

[63] Ibid. 13

[64] Ibid. 14

[65] Ibid. 31

[66] Aloys Grillmeier and Theresia Heinthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition: Volume 2, Part 2 (Louiseville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1995), 167

[67] Iain R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon (Canterbury Press, 1988), 151.

[68] Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D., Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p.41 in Orthodox Life Vol 46, No. 6.

[69] Leontius Hierosolymitanus and Gray Patrick T R., Leontius of Jerusalem: Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 179.

[70] St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 31

[71] Leontius of Jerusalem and Gray Patrick T R., Leontius of Jerusalem: Against the Monophysites: Testimonies of the Saints and Aporiae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 177.

[72] Pauline Allen and Robert Hayward, Severus of Antioch (London: Routledge, 2004), 102

[73] Of, John, and Frederic Henry Chase. Writings. Ex Fontibus Co, 2015. P. 139, On Heresies by St. John Damascene.

[74] “First Agreed Statement (1989) – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches.” 

[75] Price, Richard. The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553: Sessions VI- VIII, Vigilius Constituta, Appendices, Maps, Glossary, Bibliography, Indices. 2009. 122-123.

[76] First Agreed Statement (1989).

[77] Ibid.

[78] See note 22.

[79] Professor Vlassios Phidas and Prof. Fr. John Romanides; other than Vlassios and Romanides, the authors of this paper did not produce their full names, therefore, cannot be identified. .

[80] First Agreed Statement (1989)

[81] “Second Agreed Statement (1990) – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches.”

[82] See note 31

[83] St. Cyril, Letters 1-50. Letter 39. 151.

[84] St. Cyril, Letters 1-50. Letter 40. 162.

[85] St. Cyril, Letters 1-50. Letter 44. 187.

[86] St. Cyril, Letters 1-50. Letter 45. 193.

[87] St. Cyril, Letters 1-50. Letter 46. 199.

[88] St. Cyril, Letters 1-50. Letter 46. 203.

[89] Cf. Hans Van Loon. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Brill, 2009. Loon goes to great lengths to prove this point within his book. His conclusions on EO and Monophysite ecumenical dialogues based on a false understanding of St. Cyril’s mia physis formula are summarized in 577.

[90] “Second Agreed Statement (1990) – Ecumenical Patriarchate Permanent Delegation to the World Council of Churches.” 

[91] Ibid.

[92] “Second Council of Nicaea – 787 A.D.

[93] Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople, Patriarch Proterius of Alexandria and Patriarch Stephen II of Antioch (+479). Bishop Stephen is venerated in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on April 25 (o.s.)

[94] Winkler, Dietmar W. “Miaphysitism a New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology.” Gorgias Press EBooks, Gorgias Press, Dec. 2012, 36.

[95] Ibid. 37

[96] See section 1.4.

[97] See section 5.2

[98] Allen, Pauline, et al. Severus of Antioch. London; New York, Routledge, 2004. 34, 36.

[99] See section 7.3.

[100] Mebratu Kiros Gebru. Miaphysite Christology. Gorgias PressLlc, 2010. 94-5.

[101] Commonitorium (Vincent of Lerins). 12.34.

[102] “Oration 38 (Gregory Nazianzen‌). 13.

[103] “Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book II (Ambrose). 77.

[104] ‌Cassian, John. SEVEN BOOKS on the INCARNATION of the LORD, against NESTORIUS. 1.5.

[105] Sermon 80 on the New Testament (Augustine).3.

[106] Shenouda, Alexandria Patriarch. The Nature of Christ. Putty Coptic Orthodox St Shenouda Monastery, 1997. 8.

[107] Ibid. 9.

[108] See section 1.4

[109] Shenouda. Nature. 1997. 10.

[110] See notes 30 and 31.

[111] Saint, Cyril, and Daniel King. Three Christological Treatises. The Catholic University Of America Press, 2014. 59-60.

[112] Shenouda. Nature. 1997. 13.

[113] Price, Richard. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 1, General Introduction, Documents before the Council, Session I. Liverpool Univ. Press, 2010. Vol 2. 203.

[114] Ibid.

[115] See note 29.

[116] St. Cyril of Alexandria: Letters 1-50. Letter 44. 187-8

[117] Shenouda. Nature. 1997. 16.

[118] Ibid. 27.

[119] Ibid. 17.

[120] Of, John, and Frederic Hathaway Chase. Writings (the Fathers of the Church, Volume 37). Catholic University Of America Press, 1958. The Philosophical Chapters. Ch41. 66.

[121] John Damascene, Writings. 1958. 68-9.

[122] Ibid. 69.

[123] Shenouda. Nature. 1997. 18.

[124] See notes 26 and 28.

[125] St. Cyril, Letters 1-50. Letter 40. 162-3.

[126] Shenouda. Nature. 1997. 23.

[127] See note 85.

[128] See section 8.1

[129] The Tome of Leo. (Letter of Leo to Flavian. Letter 28) Earlychurchtexts.com, 2025, 3.

[130] Ibid. 4.

[131] See section 9.7

[132] Tome of Leo. 4

[133] Ibid.

[134] Philippians 2: 5-11 (NKJV)

[135] Of, John, and Frederic Henry Chase. Writings. Ex Fontibus Co, 2015. 139

[136] Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One by way of Dispute with Hermias (c. 431), trans. P. E. Pusey in A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West, Translated by Members of the English Church. Volume 47 (Oxford: James Parker, 1881), 238.

 

Source: https://jordanville.org/news/1355/the-pillar-that-will-not-be-shaken

The Pillar That Will Not Be Shaken

  Bright Wednesday, April 15, 2026 Ecumenists propose that heretics and schismatics who have separated themselves from the Church ha...