6.
2 St Cyril of Alexandria & Monophysite Heresy
e. St. Cyril in Alexandria
St. Cyril simply referred to Christ as one person in two natures
“…We must understand our Lord Jesus Christ in one person () As the Word he is
divinely born before all ages and times…but in these last times was born of a woman
according to the flesh. To the same one we attribute both the divine and human
characteristics.”1 And again he uses the term in this way: “He (Christ) is the one and only
son, not one along side another son, considered in this way to be one person…”2
Nestorius response was to dismiss Cyril as having, “a spirit sick with the madness of
Apolloinaris and Arius.”3 It is very clear from the beginning that while they are taking different
approaches the difference is much more than approach - they are very real – and very
fundamental. Little wonder they view one another as heretical. The central issue is not the term
Theotokos – that is the product of the issue. The central issue is the context and attributes of the
divine and human properties of Christ.
As previously noted, Nestorius views the properties of Christ as individual, differentiated
prosopa () ”subjects” rather than natures, and he speaks of this approach as
“prosopic,” and again, when combined (in Christ) they form a single prosopon () -
person. What he is attempting to do, as noted previously, is to isolate the impassible divinity and
passible humanity into a single person. But the only way he can do that without the impassible
mixing with the passible is to separate them to into two subjects – which means it really is bi-
personhood.
For Nestorius and the Antiochans, Christ was a man that had the divine impassible God
within him, and as such he was the man with God, or as Cyril would say of their belief: “s
s, a man chosen by God, and not God Incarnate.” Because of the rigid separation of the
two subjects, Nestorius did not say, and would not say, the Word became flesh, that the flesh of
Christ, his humanity, experienced any aspect of divinity. In his words:
“wherever mention is made of the Lord’s economy, the birth and the sufferings are not
passed down to us as applied to the Godhead, but to the manhood,”4
What Cyril was in fact teaching, was a clarification of the Patristic interpretation of the bible’s
teaching about Christ…He says:
1
St. Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, pg. 133
2
ibid. pg. 83
3
McGuckin. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, pg.366 (from the Second Letter of Nestorius
to Cyril).
4
ibid. 366
6.2 St Cyril of Alexandria & Monophysite Heresy
“Godhead is one thing, manhood quite another. So what are those things which we say have
come into unification? One cannot speak of things ‘united’ when there is only one thing to
start with;
there must be two or more…but they are not separated…in terms of individual
distinctiveness, so that they exist apart and distant from one another. On the contrary they
are brought together into
an indissoluble union, for as John says: ‘the Word became flesh.”5
The word Nestorius uses to describe the relationship of the properties of Christ is very
telling: “conjunction,” which is in stark contrast to St. Cyril’s use of the term “union.” This is
another very consistent and significant difference between them. For Nestorius the “subjects”
are conjoined in the “person” of Christ. As it implies, they are together but rigidly separate.
For St. Cyril however, there is a union of the natures within the one person that was
expressed as - a union according to hypostasis, or “Hypostatic Union” as it would come to be
known.6 He also employed other phrases clearly meant to convey the richness and complexity of
the Hypostatic Union, such as: “one out of two,” and “of two different things, of two complete
things.”7 And so from this we have the “what” of the incarnation, of the Logos becoming flesh;
the communion of properties is a hypostatic union of the natures of God and man in the person
of Jesus Christ.
St. Cyril of Alexandria:
“The Logos suffered impassibly”
“The whole mystery of the incarnation is in the condescension and humility of Christ.”
“His humanity belongs not to itself but to the Logos.” “...And to the Logos alone can be
attributed the authorship of and responsibility for, all (Christ’s) actions.”
“And, with this earthly body, which had become the body of the Logos, he was at once God and
man, and combined in himself what was by nature divided and separated.”
“He who was God by nature should, in the act of self emptying, assume everything that went
along with it. This is how he would be revealed as ennobling the nature of man in himself by
making it participate in his own sacred and divine honors.”
“..one out of two”
5
Florovsky, G. Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century, pg.77
Early in the debate he used s the one incarnate s of God the
6
Word. Much of course has been made of this axiom because Monophysites would later use it to substantiate their
belief in a single divine nature of Christ. However Cyril explained the use of the term and later abandoned it for the
concept he meant to convey from the beginning: one person – s
7
Florovsky, G. Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century, pg.188, 191
6.2 St Cyril of Alexandria & Monophysite Heresy
“...of two different things”
“...of two essences”
“One nature of God the Word incarnate” 8
“He (Cyril) starts from contemplation and not ideas. Here is where his power lies.”
- G. Florovsky
St. Cyril’s Terminology
Communicatio Idiomatum Communion of properties”
Impassible/Impassibility The absolute “otherness” and separation of God by nature
from all that is not God
The state of all creatures to be affected by conditions outside
Passible/passibility themselves
The impassible nature of God within the Holy Trinity. Used by
God-in-Himself Cyril to explain how the Trinity remained impassible while
Christ as the Logos suffered and died
God-in-man Cyril’s phrase to explain how Christ as God suffered & died
Ousia () The essence of God, the term was used as “nature” or
“substance,” “genus.” Usually in context of the Trinity
Hypostasis (s) Used early as “nature.” Cyril will replace physis with this as “the
actual concrete reality of a thing” or existence.”
Prosopon () Historically used as “face/ mask,” Nestorius uses as “the
observable character,” or “defining properties” with non-
ontological “mask” connotation
prosopa () Nestorius’ term for the individual subjects within the prosopon
- divided into “divine” and “human.”
Henosis (s)
“Union.” Cyril’s term for the relationship between the divine
and human natures of Christ
kenosin ()
“Self emptying” of the Logos to become true man while
remaining God
s the one incarnate s of God the Word. Much of course has been
8
made of this axiom because Monophysites would later use it to show Cyril taught a single, divine, nature in Christ.
However He explained the use of the term and later abandoned it for the concept he meant to convey from the
beginning: one person (s) of God the Word incarnate.
6.2 St Cyril of Alexandria & Monophysite Heresy
Two Subjects Implication of Nestorius’ teaching of two prosopa, bi-
personhood of Christ
“God bearing Man”, Condemned teaching of Nestorius to separate the divinity and
humanity of Christ into separate subjects, “God in Temple”
Christotokos Term adapted by Nestorius to show Logos remained “Christ
bearer”- ontologically separate from man
s “bearer of
Nestorius’ preferred term for Christ, also to avoid popular
man”
term “Theotokos “God bearer”
Hypostatic Union Cyril’s term for the ontological union of divine and natures in
human Christ, the Logos of God
f. Monophysitism
Monophysitism was an even more serious Christological heresy. It originated in the 5th
century A.D. Its chief proponent was the monk Eutyches, who stated that in the person of Jesus
Christ the human nature was absorbed into the divine nature like a cube of sugar dissolves in a
cup of water. Therefore, Christ was left with only one nature, the Divine (Greek mono-
one, physis - nature).
Eutyches' position on monophysitism went beyond the Christology as expressed by Cyril
of Alexandria and is also anathematized by non-Chalcedonians who accept the faith of Cyril.
Eutyches formulated this doctrine in response to the heresy of Nestorianism, which divided the
person of Christ almost to the point of having two separate persons (not two natures, as the
Orthodox believe).
Monophysitism (particularly Eutyches' variety) was condemned at the 4th Ecumenical
Council9, held in Chalcedonin the year 451. Apollinarianism had previously been condemned at
the Second Ecumenical Council in 381.
9
The Fourth Ecumenical Council took place in in Chalcedon in 451 AD, and is also known as the Council of
Chalcedon. It ruled that Jesus Christ is "in two natures" in opposition to the doctrine of Monophysitism. The
council also issued canons dealing mainly with the organization of the Church. The respective acceptance and
rejection of this council led to the break between the Chalcedonian Orthodox (the "Eastern Orthodox Church") and
the Non-Chalcedonians (the “Oriental Orthodox Church").
6.2 St Cyril of Alexandria & Monophysite Heresy
MONOPHYSITE VIEW OF CHRIST
(COPTIC, ARMENIAN, SYRIAN JACOBIAN, MALANKRA, ETHIOPIAN)
