Politics is not about the pursuit of morality nor what's right or wrong
Its about self interest at personal and national level often at odds with the above.
Great politicians pursue the National interest and small politicians personal interests
The Severian Monophysites, who promoted the "monophysitismus nominalis" (i. e. nominal monophysitism, as it is called by the Catholic theologians) had acctualy the same belief in two natures of Christ as did the Catholic Church, but they rejected the Chalcedon because they thought it promotes Nestorianism and contradicts the teachings of Cyrill of Alexandria. Moreover, the position of Catholic theology (G. S. Assemani, E. Renaudot, Martin Jugie) says that this sort of monophysites was in conflict with the Catholic Church only because of name, but not the dogma itself. Therefore François Nau suggested they should be called diplophysites, and not monophysites. I myself agree with another theologian, Joseph Lebon, who said that monophysites (the Severians) made a mistake by translating the word "φύσις" (fisis) as "person" insted of "nature".
The nominal Monophysites were really firm in their belief that the Christ had one nature, even though they acctualy recognised the exsistance of two "unmixed, unconverted, undivided, inseparable" natures - like the Chalcedonians did. They just refused to admit that Christ acctualy has two natures because such consent would "negate their monophysitism", as said by Leontius of Jerusalem. Never earlier was the term "miaphysite" used, but only "monophysite", therfore, once nominal monophysites saw they went wrong, the term "miaphysite" was created to soften the condemnation by the Chalcedonians.
@londontsi - the nominal Monophysites condamned the real Monophysites ("monophysitismus realis"), who were followers of (saint) Eutichius. The real Monophysites claimed there is one nature of Christ which is mixed nature of God and human, while nominal Monophysites (i. e. Mihaphysites) claimed there are rather two natures "unmixed [...]" in one nature. That is the difference, though indeed "mono" and "mia" have the same meaning.
Though, the term "monophysite" is gone now in modern theology books, you can still find it in late 20th century books and is used by some "extreme" theologians who want to derogate the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church has a "soft" point of view regarding the miaphysites, as they recognised their beliefe is orthodox (as writen by theologians I mentioed above). Morevoer, the Catholic Church celebrated some miaphysite writers like Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite as they considered his writings are orthodox.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)