Electronic version licensed for access by U. of T. users.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Toronto, 2009.
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-01, Section: A, page: 0215.
ROBARTS MICROTEXT copy on microfiche.
This dissertation examines the history of Theopaschite discourse between 451 and 533. While in its extreme forms Theopaschite discourse brought upon its proponents legitimate accusations of introducing suffering into the divine nature, it was also used in more moderate formulations for the purpose of emphasizing the unity of subject in Christ and the paradoxical nature of the mystery of the Incarnation. Cyril of Alexandria and his followers were fond of this type of discourse. The Antiochians, however, criticized Theopaschite discourse and mocked the paradoxes on which its legitimacy was bound to rely. The period leading up to the Council of Chalcedon (451) witnessed numerous conflicts on this subject. In the immediate aftermath of Chalcedon, however, Theopaschism nearly dissapeared from the stage of Christological controversy. The first generation of anti-Chalcedonians manifested great reservations in promoting Theopaschite discourse, despite the fact that, to them, it was the most appropriate type of discourse on the Incarnation. This reticence was most likely due to the fierce controversies in which this discourse had been involved before Chalcedon. In the late 460s Theopaschism re-entered the stage of doctrinal debates through the liturgy: the anti-Chalcedonians of Antioch were successful in adding to the Trisagion hymn "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" the Theopaschite phrase "who was crucified for us." Theopaschite discourse thus became more widely spread throughout the Eastern Empire. Imperial attitude favored this development. Theopaschite discourse then became progressively detached from the liturgical context and, through certain formulas that were used as battle cries, by anti-Chalcedonians at first and later by neo-Chalcedonians as well, it became more seriously embedded in the Christological controversies of ca. 490-520. It was eventually taken into the canon of orthodoxy of the Imperial Church under emperor Justinian.