Talk:Monoenergism

Christianity: Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled[edit]

Monoenergism would be that Christ has two natures and one energy, as opposted to monothelitism which is two natures and one united will. Exactly what an energy is, I'm not sure. Is it the operation/energy (energeiai?) of the will, or is it something else? This page is clearly confused with Monothelitism, but I don't know what to change it into. 68.171.249.134 19:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monoenergism, as described here, seems to be the same thing as Monothelitism. What's the difference? -- Monoenergism states that Christ had one 'energy' or operation (that is, that both his Godhead and his manhood were involved in all his actions), while monotheletism states that Christ had 'one will' (meaning that his human will always willed in harmony with, and under the guidance, of his divine will -- though its opponents, ancient and modern, misinterpreted it as a denial of a human faculty of will in Christ). RP 28.11.2012.

Errors galore[edit]

Every sentence in this account, save one (on the Chalcedonian context of monoenergism), is erroneous or contains error. Monoenergism is not 'often paired' with monophysitism but with monotheletism. It was neither suggested by Heraclius or ever adopted by him. The meaning of the term was not 'left deliberately vague', but had a clear meaning deriving from Dionysius the Areopagite (and his expression 'a new theandric operation').It was not accepted by the patriarchs of Antioch or Constantinople. Heraclius could not 'abandon' monoenergism since he had never embraced it, and neither did he 'declare the doctrine of monotheletism', though it is true that his Ekthesis of 638 (concerned to exclude any definition of the number of energies or operations in Christ) takes unity of will in Christ for granted. Finally, the formal condemnation of monoenergism and monotheletism occurred not in 680 but in 681. RP 28.11.2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.87.7 (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contadiction with article on Monothelitism[edit]

The warning "contradict-other|Monothelitism" has been appended at the top of the article page, and an inline warning "Contradict-inline|article=Monothelitism" has been appended to the phrase "Monoenergism was [not] accepted by Pope Honorius I", because in contrast with article Monothelitism, in particular sections First attempt: Doctrine of One Energy, Condemnation of Monothelitism and Controversy over Pope Honorius I.
Miguel de Servet (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]