{{Short description|Christological doctrine}} {{Distinguish|Monophysitism}} {{Oriental Orthodox sidebar|expanded=history}} {{Christology|expanded=Doctrines}} '''Miaphysitism''' ({{IPAc-en|m|aɪ|ˈ|æ|f|ɪ|s|aɪ|t|ɪ|z|əm|,_|m|iː|-}}<ref>[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/miaphysitism "miaphysitism"]. ''Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary''.</ref>) is the Christological doctrine that holds Jesus, the Incarnate Word, is fully divine and fully human, in one nature or {{tlit|grc|physis}} ({{langx|grc|φύσις}}).<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ukmidcopts.org/coptic/universal/ |title=The Universal Church and Schisms |website=Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Midlands, U.K}}</ref> It is the position held by the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It differs from the dyophysitism of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East and major Protestant denominations, which holds that Jesus is one person with two natures (divine and human) as defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
While historically a major point of controversy within Christianity, some modern declarations by both Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches claim that the difference between the two Christological formulations does not reflect any significant difference in belief about the nature of Christ.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.trinityorthodox.ca/sites/default/files/Agreed%20Statements-Orthodox-Oriental%20Orthodox%20Dialogue-1989-1990.pdf |title=Agreed Statements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (June 1989 & September 1990) |author=Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103502/anglican-oriental-orthodox-agreed-statement-on-christology-cairo-2014.pdf |title=Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission |work=Anglican Communion |date=17 October 2014 |location=Cairo, Egypt |first1=Geoffrey |last1=Rowell |author2=Bishoy of Damietta |first3=Abba |last3=Gabriel |access-date=October 22, 2020}}</ref> Other statements from both Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches claim that such difference is indeed theological but has been "widened by non-theological factors".<ref>{{Cite web |title=Joint Declaration of the Holy Father Pope Paul VI and His Holiness Shenouda III (May 10, 1973) {{!}} Paul VI |url=https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1973/may/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19730510_dichiarazione-comune.html |access-date=2025-06-06 |website=www.vatican.va}}</ref>
== Terminology == The word ''miaphysite'' derives from the Ancient Greek terms {{lang|grc|μία}} ({{tlit|grc|mía}}, 'one') and {{lang|grc|φύσις}} ({{tlit|grc|phýsis}}, 'nature'). Miaphysites claim that the teaching is based on Cyril of Alexandria's formula {{tlit|grc|mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene}}, meaning 'One incarnate {{tlit|grc|physis}} of God the Word' (or 'One enfleshed {{tlit|grc|physis}}...').<ref>{{Citation |last=Crawford |first=Matthew R. |title=Cyril of Alexandria, Second Letter to Succensus |date=2022 |work=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings: Volume 3: Christ: Through the Nestorian Controversy |volume=3 |pages=740–746 |editor-last=DelCogliano |editor-first=Mark |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/cyril-of-alexandria-second-letter-to-succensus/5D07523DCC9E19AA9558AC93A6E1B22D |access-date=2026-04-24 |series=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781107449640.053 |isbn=978-1-107-06213-9}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=DelCogliano |first=Mark |title=Timothy Aelurus, Against the Council of Chalcedon |date=2022 |work=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings: Volume 4: Christ: Chalcedon and Beyond |volume=4 |pages=169 |editor-last=DelCogliano |editor-first=Mark |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/timothy-aelurus-against-the-council-of-chalcedon/9D5EB4115C88C536D4B713F517587BC3 |access-date=2026-04-24 |series=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781009057103.007 |isbn=978-1-316-51114-5 |last2=Forness |first2=Philip Michael |last3=Forness |first3=Philip Michael |last4=Ebied |first4=R. Y. |last5=Wickham |first5=L. R. |last6=DelCogliano |first6=Mark |last7=Storin |first7=Bradley K.}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite book |title=The Dialogue between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches |date=2016 |publisher=Volos Academy Publications |isbn=978-618-81264-5-9 |editor-last=Chaillot |editor-first=Christine |location=Volos |pages=39-54}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Citation |last=DelCogliano |first=Mark |title=Apollinarius of Laodicea, Selected Letters |date=2022 |work=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings: Volume 3: Christ: Through the Nestorian Controversy |volume=3 |pages=308–321 |editor-last=DelCogliano |editor-first=Mark |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/apollinarius-of-laodicea-selected-letters/E2C8B5F664504A494421131A93354DA9 |access-date=2026-04-24 |series=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781107449640.024 |isbn=978-1-107-06213-9 |last2=Storin |first2=Bradley K. |last3=Jovian |first3=Emperor |last4=Storin |first4=Bradley K. |last5=Tome |first5=Synodical |last6=Terentius |first6=Serapion |last7=DelCogliano |first7=Mark}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=McGuckin |first=John Anthony |title=St. Cyril of Alexandria: the Christological controversy: its history, theology, and texts |last2=Cyril |date=2004 |publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press |isbn=978-0-88141-259-8 |location=Crestwood, N.Y |pages=359-363}}</ref> The word {{tlit|grc|sesarkomene}} (meaning 'enfleshed') is given in the nominative feminine case, and hence is describing the {{tlit|grc|physis}} as incarnate. This is often incorrectly translated as 'One {{tlit|grc|physis}} of God the incarnate Word', which would require the genitive masculine case {{tlit|grc|sesarkomenou}}.<ref name=":0" /> In his Second Letter to Succensus, Cyril clarifies that the nature ({{tlit|grc|physis}}) is incarnate:
<blockquote>For if we say that the Only Begotten Son of God, who was incarnate and became man, is One, then this does not mean as they would suppose that he has been 'mixed' or that the nature of the Word has been transformed into the nature of flesh, or that of the flesh into the Word's. No, each nature is understood to remain in all its natural characteristics for the reasons we have just given, though they are ineffably and inexpressibly united, and this is how he demonstrated to us the one nature of the Son; though of course, as I have said, it is the '''<nowiki/>'incarnate nature'''' I mean.<ref name=":2" /></blockquote>Early miaphysite Christians (including Cyril and his successor, Dioscoros) claim such terminology was furthermore present in early patristic writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius I of Rome, and Gregory Thaumaturgus.<ref>{{Cite book |title=The acts of the Council of Chalcedon |date=2011 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-1-84631-100-0 |editor-last=Price |editor-first=Richard |location=Liverpool |pages=190 |editor-last2=Gaddis |editor-first2=Michael}}</ref> This is disputed, with the scholarly consensus suggesting that this formula originated from the writings of the Apollinaris of Laodicea, who espoused a form of monophysitism called Apollinarism.<ref name=":1" /> Apollinarism was condemned in the First Council of Constantinople,<ref>{{Cite web |title=CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) |url=https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm#:~:text=Apollinarians |access-date=2026-04-24 |website=www.newadvent.org}}</ref> and was also explicitly rejected by Cyril in his First Letter to Succensus,<ref>{{Citation |last=Crawford |first=Matthew R. |title=Cyril of Alexandria, First Letter to Succensus |date=2022 |work=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings: Volume 3: Christ: Through the Nestorian Controversy |volume=3 |pages=731–739 |editor-last=DelCogliano |editor-first=Mark |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/cyril-of-alexandria-first-letter-to-succensus/DFB3B5748F0853F6B0FFDBEED8296C62 |access-date=2026-04-24 |series=The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781107449640.052 |isbn=978-1-107-06213-9}}</ref> though Cyril does support the {{tlit|grc|mia physis}} formula in the same letter.
The 451 Council of Chalcedon used {{tlit|grc|physis}} to mean a set of properties appropriate to an {{tlit|grc|ousia}} ('essence'), and defined that there is in Christ one ''hypostasis'' but two {{tlit|grc|physeis}} ('natures'). It is disputed whether Cyril used {{tlit|grc|physis}} in that sense. John Anthony McGuckin says that in Cyril's formula "{{tlit|grc|physis}} serves as a rough semantic equivalent to ''hypostasis''{{-"}}.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://classicalchristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/St.-Cyril-of-Alexandria%E2%80%99s-Miaphysite-Christology-and-Chalcedonian-Dyophysitism.pdf |first=John |last=McGuckin |title=St. Cyril of Alexandria's Miaphysite Christology and Chalcedonian Dyophysitism: The Quest for the Phronema Patrum |pages=38}}</ref> The 431 Council of Ephesus used {{tlit|grc|physis}} to signify the single subjecthood of Christ and also condemned speaking of two {{tlit|grc|physeis}} ('natures') in various homilies contained within the official minutes.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Frenkel |first=Luise Marion |title=Thedotus of Ancyra's homilies and the Council of Ephesus (431) |date=2015 |publisher=Peeters |isbn=978-90-429-3147-3 |series=Studia patristica |location=Leuven}}</ref>
Others interpret the miaphysite term {{tlit|grc|physis}} in line with its use by the Council of Chalcedon and speak of "miaphysitism" as "monophysitism", a word used for all forms of denial of the Chalcedonian doctrine. However, they add that "miaphysitism" is "the more accurate term for the position held by the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian churches".<ref>{{cite book|title=The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity |first=Ken |last=Parry |date=2009 |isbn=978-1-4443-3361-9 |pages=88 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fWp9JA3aBvcC&pg=PA88}}</ref> The Second Council of Constantinople,<ref>{{Cite web |title=CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) |url=https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm#:~:text=Canon%201,Apollinarians. |access-date=2026-04-24 |website=www.newadvent.org}}</ref> held in 553 following Chalcedon, accepted Cyril's phrase but warned against misinterpreting it.<ref>[http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxp#bfj Denzinger in Latin, 429]; [http://patristica.net/denzinger/ English translation of an earlier edition, 220]</ref>
Etymologically, {{tlit|grc|mia‑physis}} and {{tlit|grc|mono‑physis}} both mean 'one nature'. However, {{tlit|grc|mia‑physis}} has come to denote the specific Severian theology that understands the union of Christ's natures as a single nature by composition, interpreted by Miaphysites as Cyrillian (the formula {{tlit|grc|mia physis}} being drawn from his writings), rather than the Eutychian view of union by mixing or other forms of 'one‑nature' (monophysite) theology (e.g., one purely human nature, one purely divine nature). Strictly speaking, by meaning alone, Miaphysites (Severians) are a type of monophysite, but a distinct kind and not to be confused with other non‑miaphysite monophysites (such as Eutychians or Ebionites). In recent times, Miaphysites have adopted "miaphysite" as a self‑designation; conversely, "monophysite" has been used to label non‑miaphysite monophysites (especially Eutychians) and is considered by many miaphysites to be pejorative and inaccurate to describe their theology.{{Citation needed|date=October 2025}}
The broad term "dyophysitism" covers not only Chalcedonian teaching but also interpretations like Nestorianism which held that Jesus is not only ''of'' two natures but is in fact two centers of attribution, which may imply two persons, a view nominally rejected by Chalcedonians. Likewise, "monophysitism" includes both Oriental Orthodox teaching and Eutychianism, the latter maintaining that after the union, the eternal Son possessed a single synthesized nature, neither purely divine nor purely human, identical with neither.<ref>{{cite book |last=Grudem |first=Wayne A. |author-link=Wayne A. Grudem |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2uKmBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT276 |title=Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith |publisher=Zondervan |year=2014 |isbn=978-0-310-51587-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Newman |first=John Henry |author-link=John Henry Newman |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V2KysK_jhqAC&pg=PR32 |title=John Henry Newman Sermons 1824–1843 |publisher=Clarendon Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-19-920091-7 |editor=Francis J. McGrath |volume=IV: ''The Church and Miscellaneous Sermons at St Mary's and Littlemore'' |location=Oxford}}</ref> Miaphysites reject Eutychianism: they hold that the incarnate Christ has one nature that is fully divine and fully human, retaining the properties of both without mingling, confusion ("pouring together"), or change.
To avoid confusion with Eutychians, the Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the label "monophysite". The Coptic Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette declared it a misnomer to call them monophysites, for "they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Non[e] of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term 'mia physis' denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term 'monophysites' [...] The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine-human nature."<ref>{{citation|author=Bishoy of Damiette |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040722082531/http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CHRSTAGR.doc |archive-date=2004-07-22 |format=DOC |url=http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CHRSTAGR.doc |date=3 February 1998 |title=Interpretation of the Christological Official Agreements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches}}; cf. [https://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=918&catid=279 Coptic Orthodox Church of the Southern United States], [https://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/dogma/monodyo.html The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church].</ref>
The Agreed Statement by the Anglican–Oriental Orthodox International Commission in 2014 also declared:
{{blockquote|The term 'monophysite', which has been falsely used to describe the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, is both misleading and offensive as it implies Eutychianism. Anglicans, together with the wider oikumene, use the accurate term 'miaphysite' to refer to the Cyrilline teaching of the family of Oriental Orthodox Churches, and furthermore call each of these Churches by their official title of "Oriental Orthodox". The teaching of this family confesses not a single nature but one incarnate united divine-human nature of the Word of God. To say "a single nature" would be to imply that the human nature was absorbed in his divinity, as was taught by Eutyches.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103502/Anglican-Oriental-Orthodox-Agreed-Statement-on-Christology-Cairo-2014.pdf?year=2014|title='Agreed Statement by the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission' (Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenia 5–10 November 2002. Revised. Cairo, Egypt 13–17 October 2014}}</ref>}}
== Conflict == thumb|left|upright=1.5|Christological spectrum {{c.}} 5th–7th centuries (miaphysitism in red)
The conflict over terminology was to some extent a conflict between two renowned theological schools. The Catechetical School of Alexandria focused on the divinity of Christ as the Logos or Word of God and thereby risked leaving his real humanity out of proper consideration (cf. Apollinarism). The stress by the School of Antioch was on the humanity of Jesus as a historical figure. Layered onto this theological rivalry was political competition between Alexandria on one side, and Antioch and Constantinople on the other.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8OJCa6euw5gC&q=catechetical |first=Thomas P. |last=Rausch |title=Who Is Jesus?: An Introduction to Christology |publisher=Liturgical Press |date=2003 |pages=153|isbn=9780814650783 }}</ref>
The condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus (431) was a victory for the Alexandrian school, but acceptance required compromise: the Formula of Reunion agreed by Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch in 433. Cyril died in 444, and under his successor, Dioscurus I of Alexandria, a Constantinople‑based archimandrite named Eutyches, whose responses were judged heretical by Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, accused Flavian himself of heresy. The emperor convoked another council in Ephesus and placed Dioscurus as the presiding bishop. This Second Council of Ephesus (449) rehabilitated Eutyches after his confession was deemed orthodox by the bishops, and condemned & deposed Flavian and other bishops. They appealed to Pope Leo I, who denounced the assembly as a ''latrocinium'' (robber council) instead of a regular ''concilium,'' declaring it null and void. Today the Oriental Orthodox Churches recognize that council as valid.{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}}
The Council of Chalcedon (451) annulled the earlier council presided over by Dioscurus. It was not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, who do not defend Eutyches and instead accept his implicit condemnation by the Third Council of Ephesus (475).{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}} Chalcedon accepted by acclamation Leo's Tome — the letter by Pope Leo I setting out, as he saw it, the Church's doctrine on the matter — and issued the Chalcedonian Definition. The clause most relevant to miaphysitism states:"{{Blockquote|Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.|{{cite book|editor-last=Bindley |editor-first= T. Herbert |title=The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith |publisher=Methuen |location=London |date=1899 |url=https://archive.org/details/MN41552ucmf_1/page/n241}}}}
Dissent from this definition did not at first lead to a clean break between what are now the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. While in the West, Rome tended to uphold steadfastly the text of Leo's Tome and of the Chalcedonian definition, the situation in the East was fluid for a century after the council, with compromise formulas imposed by the emperors and accepted by the church and leading at times to schisms between East and West (cf. Acacian Schism, Henotikon, Monoenergism).{{Citation needed|date=January 2021}} Initially, before the campaigns of Justin and Justinian against the miaphysites, they comprised the majority of the East at the time.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wigram |first=William Ainger |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0OTYAAAAMAAJ |title=The Separation of the Monophysites |date=1978 |publisher=AMS Press |isbn=978-0-404-16115-6 |pages=63,132 |language=en |quote=Monophysites were no more than a party every where (except in Egypt, where they were all-powerful), but that party was the majority in Palestine and Syria, and was not negligible in the Capital, and in Asia Minor. .. There were plenty of laity and monks among the Monophysites; there was a fair supply of clergy; Chalcedonians were negligible in Egypt, and a minority in all the Orient, though they were a considerable minority, perhaps even a local majority, in Palestine.}}</ref> The situation then hardened into a fixed division between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonian churches, the latter which later split into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church (and its Protestant offshoots).
== Thoughts of resolution == [[File:H.H. Pope Shenouda III smiling while giving a word.jpg|thumb|290x290px|Pope Shenouda III, Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, was among the forerunners of ecumenical dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Church and other Christian communions]] In recent decades, a number of Christological agreements between Miaphysite and Chalcedonian churches have been signed by theologians and church leaders, including with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, the Anglicans and other Protestant churches.
=== Catholic Church === On 20 May 1973, Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and Pope Paul VI of Rome jointly signed a common declaration that explicitly distinguishes Christ's divinity and humanity without necessarily using the phrase "two natures":<ref>{{cite web|title=Common declaration of Paul VI and Shenouda III |url= http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html |access-date= 2020-09-16 | publisher = Vatican |archive-date=14 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200214123730/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html }}</ref>
{{Blockquote|We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.|Common Declaration of Pope of Rome Paul VI and of the Pope of Alexandria Shenouda III}}
At that meeting they agreed to establish an official theological dialogue between the two Churches. On 12 February 1988 the commission conducting that dialogue signed "a common formula expressing our official agreement on Christology", which had already been approved by the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church on 21 June 1986. The brief common formula was as follows:<ref>{{cite web|title=Coptic Church Common Formula on Christology | place = AU | publisher = CAM |url= https://www.cam.org.au/Portals/66/Resources/Documents/OrientalOrthodoxChurches/Coptic_Church_Common_formula_on_Christology_1988.pdf}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate-Logos, is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity one with His Divinity without mixture nor mingling, nor confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.
At the same time, we anathematize the doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches.|Mixed Commission of the Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church: Common formula on Christology}}
A "Doctrinal Agreement on Christology" was signed on 3 June 1990 by Baselios Mar Thoma Mathews I, Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and Pope John Paul II, in which they explicitly spoke of "divine and human natures":<ref>{{cite web | work = Christian community | publisher = Vatican |title=1990 Accordo dottrinale sulla cristologia tra Giovanni Paulo II e Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews I |language=it |trans-title=1990 Doctrinal agreement on Christology between John Paul II and Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews I |url=http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/it/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-orientali/relazioni-bilaterali/chiesa-malankarese-siro-ortodossa/accordi/1990-doctrinal-agreement-on-christology-jp-ii-mar-baselius-marth/en.html}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, perfect in his humanity and perfect in his divinity – at once consubstantial with the Father in his divinity, and consubstantial with us in his humanity. His humanity is one with his divinity – without change, without commingling, without division and without separation. In the Person of the Eternal Logos Incarnate are united and active in a real and perfect way the divine and human natures, with all their properties, faculties and operations. ... It is this faith which we both confess. Its content is the same in both communions; in formulating that content in the course of history, however, differences have arisen, in terminology and emphasis. We are convinced that these differences are such as can co-exist in the same communion and therefore need not and should not divide us, especially when we proclaim Him to our brothers and sisters in the world in terms which they can more easily understand. |Doctrinal Agreement on Christology approved by Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Mar Baselius Marthoma Mathews I of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, 3 June 1990}}
Similar accords were signed by the head of the Catholic Church and the heads of the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church.<ref>{{cite web | publisher = Vatican |title= Dichiarazione Comune di Giovanni Paolo II e del Patriarca Siro d'Antiochia Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas |language=it |trans-title= Joint Declaration of John Paul II and the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Moran Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas | work = Christian community |url= http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/it/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-orientali/relazioni-bilaterali/patriarcato-siro-ortodosso-dantiochia-e-di-tutto-loriente--damas/dichiarazioni-comuni/1984-papa-giovanni-paolo-ii-ed-il-patriarca-siro-ortodosso-danti.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= Common Declaration of John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin I | work = Christian community | publisher = Vatican |url= http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/it/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-orientali/relazioni-bilaterali/chiesa-apostolica-armena/chiesa-apostolica-armena--sede-di-etchmiadzin--armenia-/dichiarazioni-comuni/1996-giovanni-paolo-ii-e-karekin-i/testo-in-inglese.html}}</ref>
In 1984, John Paul II and the head of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I, signed a declaration allowing, "in certain circumstances", the faithful to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from either Community. Another 1994 agreement permitted Catholics and members of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church to receive the sacrament of matrimony from either church.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Wooden |first=Cindy |title=Pope: Catholic, Oriental Orthodox should look at more sacramental sharing |url=https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-catholic-oriental-orthodox-should-look-more-sacramental-sharing |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=National Catholic Reporter |language=en}}</ref>
Ecumenical dialogue between the two churches was suspended following Rome's declarations on ''Fiducia supplicans'' (same‑sex blessings) and further statements by Pope Francis on homosexual unions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pentin |first=Edward |date=2024-03-11 |title=Copts Halt Ecumenical Talks Over Rome’s ‘Change of Position’ on Homosexuality |url=https://www.ncregister.com/blog/coptic-orthodox-suspend-theological-dialogue-change-of-position |access-date=2025-10-30 |website=NCR |language=en}}</ref>
=== Eastern Orthodox === Although unofficial dialogue between individual theologians of the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox began in 1964, official dialogue did not begin until 1985.<ref>Bishop Youssef, "The Agreed Statements: Oriental Orthodox Responses" in ''St Nerses's Theological Review'' (1998), pp. 55-60, as reported in the [https://suscopts.org/resources/literature/161/the-agreed-statements-oriental-orthodox-responses/ Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States]</ref> By 1989 the two sides reached agreement on Christology, stating that in Cyril of Alexandria's formula the word ''physis'' refers to the hypostasis of Christ{{Mdash}}the one eternal Person (one of the three hypostases) of the Trinity{{Mdash}}who "became incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary, ''Theotokos'', and thus became man, consubstantial with us in his humanity but without sin. He is true God and true man at the same time, perfect in his divinity, perfect in his humanity. Because the one whom she bore was at the same time fully God as well as fully human, we call the Blessed Virgin ''Theotokos''. When we speak of the one composite hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. Rather, the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature, uniting it with his own uncreated divine nature to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine‑human being, the natures being distinguished from each other only in contemplation."<ref name="Gros_etal_2000">{{cite book |url=http://archive.org/details/wccfops2.194 |title=Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations at World Level 1982–1998 |date=2000 |publisher=World Council of Churches |editor=Jeffrey Gros |location=Michigan |editor2=Harding Meyer |editor3=William G. Rusch}}</ref>
A second agreed statement was published in the following year, 1990, declaring:<ref name="Gros_etal_2000" />
{{Blockquote|The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), 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" (τῇ θεωρίᾳ μόνῃ). ... we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.|Joint Commission Of The Theological Dialogue Between The Orthodox Church And The Oriental Orthodox Churches, Second Agreed Statement (1990)}}
Implementing the recommendations of these two Agreed Statements would theoretically restore full communion between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but as of 2021 they have not been enacted. Among the Eastern Orthodox, only the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Romania have accepted the Statements; among the Oriental Orthodox, the Coptic, Syriac, and Malankara Churches have accepted them. The Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) has requested clarification on some points, and the monastic community of Mount Athos rejects any form of dialogue, whether with the Oriental Orthodox or others.<ref>A. Rofoeil, [https://www.academia.edu/40176808/What_Hinders_the_Full_Communion_between_the_Coptic_Orthodox_and_the_Eastern_Orthodox "What Hinders the Full Communion between the Coptic Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox"], pp. 10–11.</ref>
==See also==
* Incarnation (Christianity) * ''Communicatio idiomatum'' * Documenta Monophysitarum * Arianism * Soteriology * Ecumenism * East–West Schism * Schism of 1552
== References == {{Reflist}}
== Further reading == {{refbegin|2}} * {{Cite journal |last=Brock |first=Sebastian P. |author-link=Sebastian P. Brock |title=Miaphysite, Not Monophysite! |journal=Cristianesimo Nella Storia |year=2016 |volume=37 |number=1 |pages=45–52 |isbn=9788815261687 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TwKJDAEACAAJ}} * {{Cite book |last=Chesnut |first=R. C. |date=1976 |title=Three Monophysite Christologies |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0198267126 |oclc=2913844}} * Davis, Leo Donald, ''The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787): Their History and Theology'', 1983 (Michael Glazier, Wilmington DE), reprinted 1990 (Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN, Theology and Life Series 21, 342 pp., {{ISBN|978-0-8146-5616-7}}), chaps. 4–6, pp. 134–257. * {{Cite book |last=Frend |first=W. H. C. |date=1972 |title=The Rise of the Monophysite Movement |location=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=0521081300 |oclc=516379}}
* {{Cite book |last=Kavvadas |first=Nestor |chapter=Severus of Antioch and Changing Miaphysite Attitudes toward Byzantium |title=Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times |year=2016 |location=Leiden-Boston |publisher=Brill |pages=124–137 |isbn=9789004307995 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rrS9CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA124}} * {{Cite book |last=Meyendorff |first=John |author-link=John Meyendorff |year=1989 |title=Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. |location=Crestwood, NY |publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press |isbn=9780881410563 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6J_YAAAAMAAJ}} * {{Cite book |last=Ostrogorsky |first=George |author-link=George Ostrogorsky |title=History of the Byzantine State |year=1956 |location=Oxford |publisher=Basil Blackwell |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Bt0_AAAAYAAJ}} * {{Cite book |last=Severios |first=Mathews |date=July 2020 |title=Word Became Flesh: The Christology of Philoxenos of Mabbug |publisher=LIT Verlag Münster |isbn=978-3-643-91301-2}} * {{Cite book |last=Tannous |first=Jack |chapter=You Are What You Read: Qenneshre and the Miaphysite Church in the Seventh Century |title=History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East |year=2013 |location=Oxford |publisher=Oxford University Press |pages=83–102|isbn=978-0-19-991540-8 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OkX8g2hRnVsC&pg=PA83}} * {{Cite journal |last=Winkler |first=Dietmar W. |title=Miaphysitism: A New Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology |journal=The Harp |year=1997 |volume=10 |number=3 |pages=33–40 |url=https://www.academia.edu/15344445}} * {{Cite journal |last=Winkler |first=Dietmar W. |date=January–April 2016 |title=Miaphysitismus. Anmerkungen zur ökumenischen Sinnhaftigkeit eines Neologismus |trans-title='Miaphysitismus'? Comments on the Ecumenical Meaning of a Neologism |url=https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.17395/82927 |language=de, en |journal=Cristianesimo Nella Storia |volume=37 |number=1 |pages=19–29 |doi=10.17395/82927 |isbn=9788815261687}} * {{Cite book |last=Zachhuber |first=Johannes |year=2018 |chapter=Personhood in Miaphysitism: Severus of Antioch and John Philoponus |chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/25704705 |title=Personhood in the Byzantine Christian Tradition: Early, Medieval, and Modern Perspectives |location=London |publisher=Routledge |pages=29–43}} {{refend}}
{{Christian theology}} {{Authority control}}
Category:Christian terminology Category:Christianity in the Byzantine Empire Category:Christianity in the Middle East Category:Eastern Orthodox theology Category:Heresy in Christianity Category:Nature of Jesus Christ Category:Oriental Orthodox theology Category:Schisms in Christianity