Monophysitism and Its Apollinarian Roots: Heresies on Chr...

In the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Church sought to accurately express the mystery of the Incarnate Word, controversies arose that would leave a lasting mark on Christian history. Among them, Monophysitism occupies a unique place. This heresy asserts that after the union of the Word and humanity, only a single nature remains in Christ, as if the divine nature absorbed the flesh assumed in the womb of Mary.

But this doctrinal deviation did not arise suddenly. It was part of a process that had already begun a century earlier with Apollinarianism, which, in order to preserve the dignity of the Son of God, refused to recognize in him a true human soul. By thus diminishing the integrity of Christ’s humanity, Apollinarianism paved the way for even more radical interpretations, in which the union of the divine and the human ceased to be a fruitful mystery and slipped into an indistinct union in which Christ’s humanity was, as it were, absorbed.

To address Monophysitism and its Apollinarian roots is thus to trace the origins of the most profound debates on the identity of Christ. It means understanding how the Church, faced with these temptations to oversimplify, had to refine its language to defend the truth of the Incarnation: one Lord, in two natures, without confusion and without separation.

The Origins: From the Debate on the Incarnation to Apollinarianism

In the early centuries, several movements had already undermined a proper understanding of the Incarnation. Docetism and certain Gnostic movements had denied the reality of Christ’s humanity. Conversely, Arianism called into question the divinity of the Son, and Nestorianism overemphasized the distinction between the natures.

It was against this backdrop—complicated by opposing extremes that sometimes dissolved Christ’s true humanity and at other times distorted his divinity—that Apollinarianism emerged in the 4th century. Apollinaris of Laodicea, eager to defend the transcendence of the Word, ended up diminishing Christ’s humanity. For him, the Son of God had assumed a human body, but not a rational soul: his intellect, consciousness, and will were solely divine. This view, by denying the full integrity of the Savior’s humanity, compromises salvation, for, as Gregory of Nazianzus stated, “what is not assumed is not healed.”

Although condemned at the end of the fourth century, Apollinarianism nevertheless left a lasting mark. Its tendency to diminish Christ’s human nature paved the way for other unbalanced interpretations, in which the union of the Word and man ceased to be a true communion. It was in this climate—already weakened by numerous excesses—that Monophysitism emerged in the following century: a radical attempt to recognize only a single nature in Christ, as if the humanity he had assumed were dissolved into his divinity.

The Monophysite Doctrine: “A Single Nature” After the Union

Monophysitism emerged in the fifth century as an attempt to simplify the mystery of the Incarnation by asserting that, after the union of the Word and humanity, Christ possesses only a single nature. According to Eutyches, an influential monk from Constantinople, Christ’s humanity is, as it were, absorbed by the divinity: it no longer truly subsists, neither in its own substance nor in its integrity. Jesus thus remains truly God, but is no longer fully human.

This view stems from a desire to protect the greatness of the Son of God, but it profoundly distorts the Christian faith. To assert that only a single nature remains after the union is tantamount to denying that Christ fully shared our condition —except in sin. His growth, his human intelligence, his own will, his suffering, and even his Passion then become problematic or illusory, as if his humanity were nothing more than a temporary instrument of divinity.

By insisting in this way on a single nature after the union, Eutyches’ Monophysitism diverges radically from the teaching received by the Church, which has confessed from its very origins the full reality of Christ’s divinity and humanity. The stakes are high: if Christ is not truly human, he cannot assume, transfigure, and save humanity. It is this rupture with the very heart of the Christian faith that will lead the Church to respond.

The Church’s Response: From Ephesus to Chalcedon

Faced with the errors of Eutyches and the tensions they provoked, the Church found itself compelled to clarify more precisely the mystery of the union of the two natures in Christ. The Council of Ephesus in 431 had already affirmed, against Nestorius, the unity of the incarnate Son. But this affirmation was misunderstood by some. It therefore became necessary to clarify what this unity meant, without ever sacrificing the truth of the two natures.

It was in this context that the Council of Chalcedon was convened in 451. The bishops at the council forcefully reaffirmed that Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, but that he exists in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. These four adverbs became the foundation of Orthodox Christology: they safeguard both the unity of the person and the real distinction of the natures.

The council then received with great fervor the Tome sent by Leo the Great, in which the Bishop of Rome clearly set forth the faith in one Christ existing in two natures; its formulation was hailed by the Fathers as the authentic expression of the apostolic tradition.

Through this dogmatic definition, the Church condemned Eutyches’ Monophysitism as incompatible with the apostolic faith. The decision of Chalcedon would have profound repercussions: it put an end to certain doctrinal ambiguities, but also caused lasting rifts with certain communities. Nevertheless, it remains the clearest expression of the Christian faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man, perfectly united without losing the fullness of what he assumes.

Legacy and Challenges for the Christian Faith

After Chalcedon, Monophysitism did not disappear immediately. Some communities rejected the conciliar definition, believing it betrayed the legacy of Cyril of Alexandria. From these misunderstandings arose the so-called non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches, whose tradition, though distinct, is not to be confused with the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches.

The legacy of Monophysitism also reveals just how central the Christological question remains. Any alteration of either of Christ’s natures undermines the faith itself: if Christ is not fully God, he cannot save or heal; if he is not fully human, he cannot reach out to humanity in its entirety. By seeking to resolve the mystery through simplification, Monophysitism falls into certain recurring temptations already glimpsed in other heresies: downplaying the flesh, as in Docetism; pitting the material against the divine, as in Manichaeism; or fragmenting the unity of Christ, as in Nestorianism.

In the centuries that followed, some attempted to heal the divisions by proposing an intermediate solution, known as Monotheletism. This doctrine did indeed recognize the two natures of Christ, but asserted that he possessed only a single will, which was essentially divine. By denying the Savior’s human will in this way, it contradicted the very reality of his filial obedience, as shown in the Gospel when Jesus declares: “Not my will but yours” (Luke 22:42). This compromise, rejected by both the defenders of Chalcedon and the Monophysites themselves, was ultimately condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681), which forcefully affirmed that Christ acts according to two wills—divine and human—united without being confused or opposed.

The Church, through Chalcedon and the centuries that followed, would constantly reaffirm that the Incarnation is a mystery of balance: in Jesus, two natures remain fully real, united without confusion or division in the one person of the Son. This balance is not merely a theological distinction: it is the very guarantee of Christian salvation. For the faith confesses that it is by taking on our entire humanity that the Son of God raises us to divine life, fulfilling in his person the perfect union to which every human being is called.

With Hozana, deepen your faith every day!

On the Hozana website, numerous prayer communities are available to accompany you on your journey of faith. Among them, be sure to explore, in particular:

these daily Gospel meditations to get to know Jesus better,

this community that sends you a daily loving word from our Father,

and this novena to Saint Anthony of Padua for spiritual growth