Heresy of the Week: Monophysitism

This heresy begins a three week series on related heresy.  First up: one of the larger "ancient" heresies.

Monophysitism teaches that after the union of divine and human in the incarnation that there was only one nature in Christ—either divine (generally emphasized) or a synthesis of divine and human (as taught in Miaphysitism). This came into being after some rejected the 451 Council of Chalcedon, where Christ’s two natures were formally codified by the church. Members of the Oriental Orthodoxy Church, who believe in Miaphysitism, split from the main church over this distinction after the Council’s affirmation of two natures. Apollinarianism and Eutychianism are two major Monophystite heresies (although Apollinarianism predates Monophysitism), and Monophysitism is considered an overreaction in response to Nestorianism and their teaching that Christ was two separate people (the man and the divine), but really it is almost a better juxtaposition with Arianism’s denial of Christ’s divinity. It was condemned at the 680 Third Council of Constantinople, along with the two “compromised” composed as a “middle ground” to Monophysitism: Monoenergism and Monothelitism.

Heresy of the Week: Apollinarianism

This week's heresy is one of the most detailed of which we still have surviving documentation.

Apollinarianism (also known as Apollinarism) is a 4th century heresy that teaches Jesus could not have had a human mind, but rather that Jesus had a human body and “lower soul” (the seat of emotions), but a Divine mind. Apollinaris, for whom this heresy is named, taught that the two natures simply couldn’t coexist, and so the “lesser form” (His human nature) gave way to the “greater form” (His Divine nature). This, along with Eutychianism, is a form of Monophysitism, which errantly teaches Christ only had one nature. Some at the time considered this an overreaction in response to Arianism, whose teachings were that Christ was simply not divine in nature. Polemianism and Antidicomarianism are considered to be “sub-Apollinarianism” heresies. At the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the followers of this heresy were accused of attempting to create a “tertium quid” (a “third thing” that is neither God nor Man). Apollinaris also taught in the same vein as Tertullian that the souls of men were propagated by other souls as well as their bodies (also known as Traducianism).

Heresy of the Week: Antidicomarianism

With Christmastide upon us (happy second day of Christmas and Feast Day of St. Stephen!), it seemed appropriate for this week's heresy to have something to do with the Nativity of Christ.  There are lots of "good" options, from denying the divinity of Christ to denying the virginal birth, etc., but my favorite heresy to say the name of won out.

Antidicomarianism is considered to be a sub-Apollinarianism heresy. By the 3rd century, it was considered an Orthodox teaching that Jesus’ siblings, mentioned in the Bible, were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, or cousins. The Antidicomarianites, a word literally meaning “Adversaries of Mary”, taught that the brothers and sisters of Christ from the New Testament were actually the younger children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus. They were not, contrary to what the name implies, “against Mary”, but rather, were against the perpetual virginity of Mary. This thought was prevalent from the 3rd to 5th centuries and often considered a heresy, as it was found in the writings of known heretics Tertullian and Origen. Other Antidicomarianism heresies are Bonosianism, Helvidianism, and Jovinianism. Most protestant churches are Antidicomarianites, however in confessional Lutheranism, there seems to be a mix of Antidicomarianites and those who subscribe to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

A few brief notes on this one:

1. Until I started researching heresies earlier this year, I didn't actually know any Lutherans believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.  I knew Luther held to that belief, but I was surprised to find out that many confessional Lutherans do as well, particularly Pastors.  I honestly never gave it much thought previously.  I don't fall one way or the other on this, and since it is an issue of adiphoria (not of doctrinal consequence or having effect on one's salvation), I don't feel a particular need to worry about it.  I think I tend to lean on the side of the Antidicomarianites, but as one Pastor I spoke to about this put it... why on earth would we care about the sex life of the mother of our Savior?
2. Because it doesn't affect salvation and is an issue of adiphoria, I don't know if this can be considered a heresy other than loosely (heresy meaning anything that departs from orthodoxy), but because it was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as one, I've included it in my listings.
3. What would be a heresy and would affect salvation to some degree would be denying the virginal birth.  To be clear, Antidicomarianism doesn't do that.  Other heresies do.