theological movement. Those who supported a one-person, non-Trinitarian view of the nature of God in order to preserve the unity of God. “Dynamic Monarchians” were those who understood that Jesus was a man who became the Son of God during his baptism and “Modalist Monarchians” were those who affirmed that he had complete divinity in himself. For them, the incarnation of God the Father was an effort to maintain the divinity of the Son and the unity of God. The latter professed the ® SABELIANISM.
Tertullian (3rd century) coined the term “monarchian”.
Source: Dictionary of Religions Denominations and Sects
Heretics who denied the Trinity of persons in God, under the pretext of defending divine unity. They rejected the Christian interpretation of the divine reality of the Son and the divine reality of the Holy Spirit, in very varied ways and with different languages, but converging on the idea that only a monolithic and indisputable divinity could be adopted.
Many doubts remain about the statements attributed to authors classified as monarchianists, such as Teodoto Coriario or Pablo de Samosata, especially since they are known more for the rejection made by important figures such as Tertulliano and Origen than for their own writings, mostly lost. .
Furthermore, in the West this heresy hardly had any resonance because of the general acceptance of the Trinitarian mystery. However, some forms were well known, such as that of the adoptionists, who considered Jesus as adopted by God the Father, not as a Son of the same nature as him; or that of the Patripassians, who attributed the painful redemption and the incarnation to the Father, the only God.
Pedro Chico González, Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy, Editorial Bruño, Lima, Peru 2006
Source: Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy
Trinitarian heresy, quite widespread in the 11th and 3rd centuries, characterized by the denial to the three divine Persons of their own distinct existence, in favor of a radical monotheism.
Monarchianism sinks its roots in that Judeo-Christianity scandalized by the announcement of the divinity of Christ. From this point of view it can be considered, therefore, as the typical heresy of the Jewish soul of Christianity.
It had a double conformation: adoptionist monarchianism (or adoptionism), for which Christ -according to various orientations- would be an angel (Engelchristologie) or a simple man (Jesus), adopted by God through the descent of Christ on him at the moment of baptism .
The defender of this doctrine was Theodotus of Byzantium, who acted in Rome at the end of the 11th century. The proclamation of Christ as a simple man seems to have served to mitigate the seriousness of the apostasy that he had incurred during a persecution, denying that Christ was God.
Theodotus found followers in Theodotus the Banker, Asclepiodotus, and Artemas. Traces of this adoptionism will be found in the IU-IV century, in the thought of Paul of Samosata, Photinus of Sirmium and Marcellus of Ancira.
Very different is the patripassian or modal monarchianism (see modalism), for which the only God manifests himself in three different ways: as Father, as Son and as Holy Spirit. In that case, since the incarnation AND the passion were produced by the – (Father = God), it is easy to understand that this current could also be called patripassianism (the Father-God who suffers).
Modalism was spread by Noetus of Smyrna (late 11th century), condemned by the presbyters of the city. As Hippolytus observes, for Noetus “Christ is the Father himself; the Father is the one who became incarnate, suffered and – died” (Contra Noetum, 1).
From the third century, modal monarchianism also took the name of Sabellianism, from the heretic Sabellius, who, directly or through his disciples, spread it in Libya and Egypt. Condemned in Rome around 220, Sabellius presented himself as a rigid defender of the “divine monarchy”. Tenaciously linked to monotheism, he presented the divinity as a monad that expanded into three different operations: Father in the Old Testament, Son in the incarnation, Holy Spirit in Pentecost. It was, however, a single prosopon and a single hypostasis.
Sabellianism -precisely because of its diffusion in Libya and Egypt- affirmed itself in opposition to the theology of the Logos supported by Origen and by the school of Alexandria, where the discourse on the Christian God was increasingly articulated.
L. Padovese
Bibl.: M. Simonetti, Monarquianos, in DPAC, 11, 1467-1468: S, del Cura Elena, Modalism – Subordinationism in DCDT 916-922 and 131 1-1317. A, Orbe, introduction to the theology of the centuries II and III Follow me, Salamanca 1988: W Kasper The God of Jesus Christ, Follow me, Salamanca ‘1990, 331-340.
PACOMIO, Luciano, Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary, Divine Word, Navarra, 1995
Source: Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary
This is the term usually applied to the natural concern in the early church to safeguard the unity (“kingship”) of the Godhead. Of course there is such a thing as legitimate monarchianism, since acknowledging the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not mean that this involves tritheism. But because this aspect was emphasized too much, then two forms of monarchianism were produced that are mutually exclusive, but equally unacceptable. The first is dynamic monarchianism, the one associated with Theodotus, and possibly Paul of Samosata. If the matter is approached from a Christological point of view, rather than a Trinitarian angle, then the inferiority of the Son as a man absorbed into the Godhead will be taught (see Adoptionism). The second is a modal monarchianism, represented by Noetus, Praxeus and Sabellius (see Sabellianism). This form does not deny the complete divinity of Christ or the Spirit, but takes them as mere modes or functions of the one God, in such a way that it can be said that the Father suffers in the Son (see Patripassionism) and lives in us by the spirit. Hence Tertullian’s crushing comment that Praxeus puts the Spirit to flight and crucifies the Father.
William Kelly
Harrison, EF, Bromiley, GW, & Henry, CFH (2006). Dictionary of Theology (406). Grand Rapids, MI: Challenge Books.
Source: Dictionary of Theology