Heresy of the week

I'm resuscitating a series from way back dealing with heresies. My opinion is that heresies force us to better enunciate our faith by winnowing the grain of truth from the chaff of false teachings. So, while heresy (literally: picking and choosing) is a bad thing, I think studying heresies makes for a more informed believer and a more successful apologist for the faith. Being able to say, "That heresy is 12 centuries old." to someone spouting silliness is quite effective.

---

Today we spotlight: Aphthartodocetism

Why? Because the saint commemorated today, St. Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople (582), wrestled with it.

What is it? I take this answer partially from here, here, and here.

(Greek αφθαρτος, “incorruptible” + δοκέω, "to judge"), a Christian heresy of the 6th century.

With Aphthartodocetism, the implications of Monophysitism (“Christ had but one nature and that divine”) were brought to a new extreme. This teaching claims that the body of Christ was divine, therefore incorruptible and imperishable. Still, Christ was free to will his sufferings and death voluntarily, which is also what he did.

The Aphthartodocetist doctrine was originally espoused by Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus (modern Bodrum, Turkey). His teaching was strongly opposed by Patriarch Severus of Antioch, who also was also a condemned Monophysite. Severus vigorously challenged Julian on the ground that the doctrine of salvation was meaningless unless Christ’s body was truly human. Their two parties emerged into a schism that would last until the 7th century.

In his personal life, St. Justinian was strictly pious, and he fasted often. During Great Lent he would not eat bread nor drink wine, but lived on only water and vegetables. He is also remembered for promoting the idea of "symphony" between church and state.

However, Justinian is often criticized by secular sources as a despot. Even some dissent occurs in Orthodox Holy Tradition. For example, the hagiography of St. Eutychius paints a more complicated portrait of the Emperor:

He was born to devout and noble parents in Phrygia. Though his father was a prominent officer, he entered monastic life when young, and became abbot of a monastery in Amasea at the age of thirty. In 553 he was sent to the Fifth Ecumenical Council as the representative of the Metropolitan of Amasea. At the Council, he was one of those who argued, successfully, that heretics could be anathematized after their deaths. The most prominent case in point was Origen, the brilliant Christian philosopher who had written that all will eventually be saved. Eutychius' position thus earned him the enmity of the Origenists, who still made up an influential group in the Church. Saint Eutychius became a trusted confidante of the Emperor Justinian, and when Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople, reposed, Eutychius was chosen to replace him. Eutychius ruled in peace for twelve years, but was then cast into controversy when he boldly opposed one of the most hard-to-pronounce heresies in the history of the Church: Aphthartodocetism, the belief that Christ, before his resurrection, possessed an incorruptible body, not subject to hunger, thirst or pain (though the scriptures plainly speak of Christ being weary, hungry, thirsty, weeping). The Emperor Justinian for a time fell into this variant of the Monophysite heresy, and exiled Eutychius to his monastery for twelve years. During these years Eutychius showed himself to be a wonder-worker, healing many of their diseases through his prayers. Justinian repented shortly before his death, and his successor, Justin II, called Eutychius back to the Patriarchal throne, where he served the Church in peace until his repose at the age of seventy.

However, Father Asterios Gerostergios in his book Justinian the Great: The Emperor and Saint, refutes the assertion that Justinian succumbed in his last years to the heresy of aphthartodocetism. It is commonly accepted that, after a lengthy reign in which Justinian spared no effort to try to bring the Monophysites back into the fold of the Orthodox Church, people were weary of the aged emperor. Thus, it is commonly asserted that Justinian adhered to the aphthartodocetist heresy, which was essentially an extreme form of Monophysitism, and deposed Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople for his supposed refusal to conform to this teaching.

Justinian's supposed decree imposing aphthartodocetism was not preserved, and the only contemporary source that refers to it is the testimony of the historian Evagrius. Most historians have accepted the information of Evagrius as true, reasoning that Justinian had either converted to the heresy at the end of his life or had succumbed to senility. These scholars thus relate the decree to the depositions of both Eutychius and Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch. Father Gerostergios states:

That they were deposed because of their refusal to accept the edict we do not believe to be true because of the following reasons:

1. The bishop of Northern Africa, Victor, an enemy of the Emperor, mentions the deposition of Eutychius in his Chronicle, but does not give any reasons for the deposition. If he really knew anything about a new edict, and if, further, he knew of Justinian's acceptance of the aphthartodocetistic heresy, not only would he certainly have mentioned it, but he would also have emphasized the event, in order to defame Justinian's exiling and imprisoning him.
2. If Eutychius had been deposed for this reason, his successor, John the Scholastic, would have had to accept such a decree. We have absolutely no information concerning his acceptance of the edict, nor any testimony that he accepted aphthartodocetism. On the contrary, Pope [Saint] Gregory the Great, who was then the papal representative in Constantinople, praises the new patriarch, John, for his holiness and Orthodoxy.
3. The same Pope Gregory praises Justinian for his Orthodoxy and he makes no mention of the edict. He says that Patriarch Eutychius was an Origenist. For this reason, W. H. Hutton and A. Knecht have stated: this was the cause for Eutychius' deposition.
4. When Patriarch Eutychius returned to the throne of Constantinople in 577, he did not mention the reasons for his dethronement.
5. Bishop John of Ephesus, contrary to Evagrius, makes no mention of what transpired in Antioch concerning the deposition of Anastasius. …

For all the above reasons, we can only conclude that Justinian never issued or planned to issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism. Such an act would have been in antithesis to his whole previous theological work, and it is clear that it would not have helped the overall purpose of unification. Moreover, such a complete change at such an advanced age, we believe to be a totally unnatural thing. With regard to the deposition of the two mentioned Patriarchs, we believe that it was not related to such an edict, because there is no basis for such a conclusion from the contemporary sources. We are of the opinion that their deposition was due to other reasons, probably to their failure to obey the old Emperor.

Aphthartodocetism found acceptance in the Armenian Church and was espoused by John Nelson Darby and other early dispensationalist writers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.