Talk:Monothelitism

Failed "good article" nomination

I reviewed this article for GA status and I have some comments that could help to improve the article: -I found it hard to read. For example, in the history section, the paragraph breaks come at unnatural points, breaking a single chain of thought into multiple paragraphs. -I think that the intro assumes too much background knowledge from the reader. -A GA is normally backed up by a greater amount of verifiable references. -There is no picture, but I don't think this is a problem. It is hard to imagine what an appropriate picture would be, unless you can find a work of art that relates to this concept.

I hope this article continues to improve so it can reach GA status. ike9898 02:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving the article a look. As this is a fairly technical concept in the Chistological debates of the 5th/6th cent., I am not quite sure how to make it more accessible and would appreciate any suggestions. Again, thanks for looking, my main goal was to get another set of eyes on the article now that its not a stub. I'll give it a pass with more references at a later date, and see what I can do about paragraph syntax. Pastordavid 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

orthodox position

I know this is an ignorant question, but what's the orthodoxy that monothelitism contradicts? What is it about monothelitism that's wrong? Does Jesus have two natures and two wills, or what? Jonathan Tweet 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I answered that by saying "The Christological definition of Chalcedon stated that Jesus was one person with two natures (the diphysite position)." But I can see that the article should be clearer that the Christ was 1 person with two complete natures (i.e., both a human and divine will). Thanks, I'll get on that ... maybe once I get through the holidays. 07:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, my problem was that I didn't understand the significance of the council of Chalcedon. You learn something new every day.Jonathan Tweet 00:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem anyway: It was NOT a monophysite idea to propose monotheletism. After all it was Heraclios and "his" patriarch Sergios that came up with the idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.176.202 (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who cares?

What does it mean to have "two natures"? What does it mean to have "two wills"? What actions of Jesus (historical or fictional) are used to prove or disprove any assertions about how many "wills" or "natures" he had? I'm sorry, this article gives lots of facts about which groups of people supported which views, but no information whatsoever about what these views actually mean! Why was there ever any debate at all? Imagine what the heliocentrism article would be like if it talked about Aristarchus and Copernicus, but never mentioned the earth, the Sun, or the Solar System. It would be a lot like this article. Useless.

The significance is that people were trying to determine exactly what it meant for Christ to be both God and man. You don't think it is significant for Christians to know about Christ? Jhobson1 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess the problem is with salvation: If Jesus had had only one will, this one being of course the divine, where is the human "yes" to dying on the cross?

Not all believers in one will believe in a simply divine will, no. As the article mentions there is some belief in one "theandric will" meaning one will that is both divine and human. This latter view happens to be the most common view among the Oriental Orthodox, for instance. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The basic controversy is over Christ's humanity. The church teaches that Christ is fully human (without sin, thought), and to deny the fact of Christ's two wills would make His humanity less than complete. 173.3.122.107 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, as the Third Council of Constantinople expressed, "we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.122.107 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Pope Honorius

The article says "Pope Honorius I — Condemned at Constantinople for his failure to combat Monothelitism". That is weasel-worded, I suspect by some Catholic who refuses to admit that a pope was in error. Honorius did more than just "fail to combat Monothelitism", he actively supported it. Jhobson1 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Honorius tried to gloss over the difference between the orthodox and monothelite doctrines, and he did fail to combat it, but he did not agree with Monothelitism to the point of defining it. Although he may have agreed with Sergius, he did not define monothelitism as dogma.

So, in synopsis, although he may have done a little more than nothing in favor of Monothelitism, he did not define it ex cathedra and therefor this incident does not disprove Catholic doctrine on the popes athourity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.122.107 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Added on some Important Information

I added on a phrase to the first sentence that explains the origins of Monothelitism.

"Monothelitism (a Greek loanword meaning "one will") is a particular teaching about how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus, known as a Christological doctrine, that began in Armenia and Syria in 633 C.E. "

I just thought it would be important.

Source

Gray, Patrick The Defense of Chalcedon in the East. Leiden, the Netherlands: E. H. Brill, 1979.

This source primarily focuses on the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon in the Eastern Orthodox Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.215.30 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradicting sentiments in header

The header says that Monothelitism was a doctrine that espoused two natures and one will. Later it says that Monothelitism was a development of Monophysitism. These seem to be contradictory statements, seeing as how Monophysitism espouses one nature, not two. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Although it does not agree with Monophysitism either, it was an attempt to compromise with the monophysites and is closer to monophysitism than Catholicsim is to monophysitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.122.107 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of text from lead section

The lead section has two paragraphs. The first which I largely wrote around two years ago, and a second which is just a horrid attempt to explain what someone sees as bias in the article. I have removed the second paragraph, but am placing it here below just in case someone wants to salvage it and include it in the article as an alternate viewpoint (although sources and citations would be nice). Oatley2112 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In reading the following article, it should be borne in mind that most western scholarship rejects the view that monothelitism was a quasi-Apollinarian heresy that denied Christ a human will. A typical monothelite statement is that of Bishop Theodosius of Caesarea in Bithynia, who in dispute with St Maximus the Confessor (the champion of dyothelitism) asserted, 'We too acknowledge the natures and different operations, namely divine and human, and that his Godhead is endowed with will and his manhood endowed with will, since his soul was not without a will. But we do not say two, lest we present him as being at war with himself' (Disputation at Bizye, CCSG 39, p. 109, 387-92). It appears that both sides agreed that Christ has a human will, obedient to this divine will, but differed over whether it is best to speak of one 'theandric' (divine-human) will in Christ, or of two wills. In this case, the disagreement was merely terminological. St Maximus was condemned at the Council of Constantinople of 662 for going so far as to deny the validity of eucharists celebrated by monothelites. His extreme position needs to be evaluated critically. See the article in Wikipedia on the Third Council of Constantinople, which is up to date. Oatley2112 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

New article needed

This article is based on old and out-of-date sources. It ignores the long-standing debate over whether the 'monotheletes' really did deny Christ a human faculty of will (or 'natural will'). See my article 'Monotheletism: A Heresy or a Form of Words?' in Studia Patristica 48, (2010), 221-32, which argues that the difference between monotheletism and dyotheletism was merely terminological. For a good statement of the contrary position see Demetrios Bathrellos, 'The Byzantine Christ' (Oxford 2004), 60-98. Prof. Richard Price. 29 July 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Meredith (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please contribute. You cannot cite your own article, but you can cite whatever reliable sources you cited in that article. Esoglou (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)