They did this in 513, by advocating what has come to be known as the Theopaschite formula: Unus ex Trinitate passus est (meaning "One of the Trinity suffered"). They did this wanting to exclude both Nestorianistic and Monophysitistic tendencies, and at the same time seeking to have the works of Faustus of Riez condemned as being tainted with Pelagianism. Their views caused controversy to erupt in Constantinople. The monks felt that if one confesses their statement along with the deliberation of the Council of Chalcedon, then the Orthodox interpretation of the council is preserved, as the Theopaschite formula makes it clear that Logos (the unifying principle linking God and man) is the acting subject not only for the miracles of Christ, but also for his suffering.
|
|
Germanus and his colleagues remained in the east for another year securing the acceptance of the libellus outside of Constantinople. On 9 July 520, the emperor wrote to Pope Hormisdas to commend his legates. The Liber pontificalis credits Germanus with deftly handling the Theopaschite controversy, the calculation of the date of Easter and the reintegration of bishops deposed by the Emperor Anastasius I.
|
|
Trifolius was a Christian theologian of the sixth century. He is known for his Epistula ad beatum Faustum senatorem contra Ioannem Scytham monachum of 519/20, written to the Roman senator Faustus. It is a report on the beliefs of the Scythian monks, putting those in the context of other views condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church. It played a part in the rejection of the Theopaschite doctrine.
|
|
Augustine found that it is, and consists of "three: the lover, the beloved, and the love."Augustine (2002). 9.2.2. Tria ergo sunt: amans, et quod amatur, et amor. Reaffirming the theopaschite formula unus de trinitate passus est carne (meaning "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh"), Thomas Aquinas wrote that Jesus suffered and died as to his human nature, as to his divine nature he could not suffer or die.
|
|
The Scythian monks made an important contribution to christology, by advocating what has come to be known as the Theopaschite formula as a solution to controversies about the nature of Christ arising after the Council of Chalcedon. First formulated in 513, it was initially rejected by both the Eastern and Western branches of the Imperial church. Over time it was gradually accepted and the formula was vindicated at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. The problems between the adepts of different christologies arose with Pope Leo I's Tome (Latin text, a letter).
|
|
By the time the monks arrived in Constantinople, the political landscape changed and Emperor Justin's policies were directed more to the west than to the east where the Monophysites were dominant. This policy led him, in 519, to accede to Rome's demand that Chalcedon be the official christological confession of the empire. He received the emissaries from Rome in triumphal procession, and Patriarch John of Constantinople signed documents ending the thirty-five-year- old schism. Thus, when the Scythian monks arrived on the scene urging that the resolutions of Chalcedon needed to be supplemented with their Theopaschite formula, no one was willing to listen.
|
|
Eventually, the emperor's support of the "Theopaschite formula" finally paved the way for its vindication at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, of which canon 10 reads: "If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in flesh is true God and Lord of glory and one of the holy Trinity, let him be anathema". The Scythian monks made an important contribution to christology in the wake of the Chalcedon controversies by proposing their formula. The initial detractive movements disappeared as the views of the Scythian monks were strengthened by the wide acceptance of this formula. It served to refute the tendency of Nestor to subjectively interpret the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, as ascribing Christ's miracles to his divine nature while ascribing his suffering only to his human nature.
|
|
The first is a list of sixteen groups Timothy labels theopaschite and the second is a list of "the schismatics called diacrinomenoi", which contains twelve groups. Together the two lists name the Eutychians (including the Dioscorians and Petrites), Acephali (who are subdivided into three sects), Julianists (who are subdivided into three sects) and Severans or Theodosians, who are subdivided into eight factions (Agnoetae, Condobaudites, Niobites, two groups of Tritheists and the factions adhering to the patriarchs Damian, Peter and Paul).Theresia Hainthaler, "A Christological Controversy among the Severans at the End of the Sixth Century—The Conversion of Probus and John Barbur to Chalcedonism", in Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume 2: From the Council of Chalcedona (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604), Part 4: The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451 to 600 (Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 387–388. He recognized Jacob of Serugh as orthodox.
|
|