Practical effects of monothelitism's triumph/survival?

So, in our timeline, there was a big scuffle at one point between the Byzantine establishment and the Papacy over the doctrine of monothelitism. How could we see monothelitism winning out over Chalcedonian dyothelitism, and what would be the practical effects of its victory?
 
You'd need either moophysites or dyophysites - ideally both - to actually regard it as a workable compromise, instead of utter nonsense. And I'm not really sure how you do that without changing some stubborn men.
 
Would it be workable with an early enough POD while still having monothelitism be recognizable? Or would the entire debate just get butterflied out of existence?
 
Would it be workable with an early enough POD while still having monothelitism be recognizable? Or would the entire debate just get butterflied out of existence?

I'm not sure its a matter of early or late as much as the men of the time rejecting it. It is a pretty screwy bit of theological compromise - trying to cram in the views of two opposite positions.
 
You'd need either moophysites or dyophysites - ideally both - to actually regard it as a workable compromise, instead of utter nonsense. And I'm not really sure how you do that without changing some stubborn men.

Iirc, the Monophysite establishment generally was fairly supportive of the Monothelite compromise, viewing it as a triumph over the Chalcedonian heretics. The trouble came from the bishops of the West, and the Palestinian monks. The latter could probably have been dealt with with a good old bit of repression, but the former are a much more intractable problem.

The trouble was, as Justinian and his successors found, by the middle of the sixth century the feud had attained something of a self-fulfilling nature: bishops did not want to compromise because to do so would be to betray the memory of their famous predecessors, regardless of whether those predecessors were actually reasonable or learned men. This was a problem endemic on both sides: the bishops and clerical hierarchy simply did not want to end the feuding. Add to that the issue of the Western clergy being particularly unhelpful (after all, there were only Arians to deal with in the West), and you have the recipe for a pretty much endless set of problems.
 
Iirc, the Monophysite establishment generally was fairly supportive of the Monothelite compromise, viewing it as a triumph over the Chalcedonian heretics. The trouble came from the bishops of the West, and the Palestinian monks. The latter could probably have been dealt with with a good old bit of repression, but the former are a much more intractable problem.

The West seems to have never understood the East's position on the various theological controversies. Not to say the reverse wasn't true, but it's remarkable how consistent that is.

The trouble was, as Justinian and his successors found, by the middle of the sixth century the feud had attained something of a self-fulfilling nature: bishops did not want to compromise because to do so would be to betray the memory of their famous predecessors, regardless of whether those predecessors were actually reasonable or learned men. This was a problem endemic on both sides: the bishops and clerical hierarchy simply did not want to end the feuding. Add to that the issue of the Western clergy being particularly unhelpful (after all, there were only Arians to deal with in the West), and you have the recipe for a pretty much endless set of problems.

And while the Emperor's authority was pretty immense, actually cracking down on the clergy never really ended well - sure, you can replace any given asshat, but his successor will see the same precedents and same predecessors.

Does this mean there isn't a workable solution? Without a major attitude shift, that is.
 
Top