Ecumenical council VI

The Third Council of Constantinople

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople

The council that confessed two natural wills and two natural operations in Christ, against monothelitism. It also condemned a bishop of Rome by name, which has been discussed ever since.

Read aloud. Your browser speaks the page using the voices installed on this device. Nothing is uploaded — the text never leaves your computer. Voice quality varies by browser and device.

Date
680-681
Location
Constantinople
Convoked by
The Emperor Constantine IV
Attendance
Around 170 bishops at the closing sessions

Overview

Monothelitism was a seventh-century attempt at reunion: if the non-Chalcedonians would not accept two natures, perhaps everyone could agree that Christ has one will, or one operation. It was politically attractive and theologically unstable.

The council rejected it and confessed two natural wills and two natural operations in Christ, not contrary to one another, the human will following and subject to the divine will without opposition. The argument is a direct consequence of Chalcedon: a nature that lacked a will would not be a complete nature, and a Christ without a human will would not have assumed a complete humanity.

The soteriological point is the one that matters pastorally. If Christ has no human will, then human willing is not healed in him. The council's confession says that what Christ did not assume he did not heal, and that he assumed a human will and made it obedient.

The controversy

The chief defender of two wills was Maximus the Confessor, who was tried, mutilated and exiled for his resistance and died in 662, nearly twenty years before the council vindicated his position. Sophronius of Jerusalem had opposed the monothelite formulas earlier. Pope Martin I was arrested for condemning them at the Lateran Synod of 649 and died in exile.

The council examined evidence with unusual care, including checking manuscripts for interpolated patristic citations. The acts record the examination; it is one of the clearest ancient instances of a council doing something recognisable as source criticism.

The positions in play

The monothelites
Held one will in Christ, following imperial formulas issued to secure unity. Sergius of Constantinople and his successors are the principal names.
Maximus the Confessor and the dyothelites
Held two natural wills, on the ground that will belongs to nature and that a complete humanity must include a human will.
Agatho of Rome
Sent a letter, archived in Percival's edition, setting out the dyothelite position, which the council received.

What the council issued

The definition confirms the five preceding councils and confesses two natural wills and two natural operations, indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly — the same four adverbs Chalcedon had used of the natures, now applied to the wills.

The Definition of Faith

The council's central text, as printed in Percival's edition.

Conciliar text, as printed in the edition cited

The Definition of Faith.

(Found in the Acts, Session XVIII., L. and C., Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1019.) The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows.

The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man in all things like unto us without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel, “I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” And again, “My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.” Our most gentle Sovereign, the champion of orthodoxy, and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having convened this our holy and Ecumenical assembly, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318 holy Fathers who assembled in Nice against the raging Arius; and the next in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired men against Macedonius the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first in Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened against Nestorius the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of 630 Godinspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and Ecumenical Synod inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of every soul-destroying heresy.

The Nicene Creed of the 318 holy Fathers.

We believe, etc.

The Creed of the 150 holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople. We believe, etc. The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were ArchThe Definition of Faith.

bishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, “has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber,” until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod; for, according to the sentence spoken of God, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” the present holy and Ecumenical Synod faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands as well the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of ancient Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and one operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who is our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the Council holden under the same most holy Pope, composed of 125 Bishops, beloved of God, to his God-instructed tranquillity, as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and to the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same old Rome, which was directed to St. Flavian, which also this Council called the Pillar of the right faith; and also agrees with the Synodal Epistles which were written by Blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental Bishops. Following the five holy Ecumenical Councils and the holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be very God and very man, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human body subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages according to his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation made man of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the same Christ our Lord the only-begotten Son of two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably indivisibly to be recognized, the peculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each nature being preserved, concurring in one Person and in one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, according as the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us; defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: “For each form (μορφὴ) does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.”

For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly. Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race. These things, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized.

Henry R. Percival (ed.), The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900). Public domain.

Canons

This council issued no disciplinary canons. The canons attributed to the Fifth and Sixth Councils are the canons of the [Council in Trullo](/councils/trullo-692/), which met in 692 for that purpose.

Who was there

The emperor presided in person at several sessions. Roman legates were present and carried Agatho's letter. Macarius of Antioch defended monothelitism and was deposed. The council also condemned by name a number of deceased patriarchs of Constantinople, and Honorius, a former bishop of Rome, for a letter he had written.

Reception

Received as the sixth ecumenical council by the Eastern Orthodox Church and by Rome. The Oriental Orthodox churches do not receive it, having not received Chalcedon.

Monothelitism briefly returned under Philippicus in the early eighth century and was again rejected. The Maronite Church's historical relationship to monothelitism is a contested question and is not settled here.

Reception outside the Eastern Orthodox Church

Oriental Orthodox churches
Do not receive it.
Roman Catholic Church
Receives it as the sixth ecumenical council, including its condemnation of Honorius, which Catholic theology has interpreted in various ways.

Consequences

The council completed the Christological work of Chalcedon: Christ is confessed as complete in divinity and complete in humanity, including a human will and a human operation. There was no further ecumenical council on Christology.

It also vindicated a man the empire had mutilated and exiled. Maximus the Confessor is one of the sharpest illustrations in Church history that the Church's judgement and the state's judgement are not the same thing, and that the interval between them can be long.

Liturgical commemoration

Commemorated with the Fathers of the first six councils in July. Maximus the Confessor is commemorated in his own right in January and August.

  • Maximus the Confessor

    The theologian of Christ's two wills, mutilated and exiled for refusing an imperial formula, and vindicated by the Sixth Ecumenical Council nineteen years after his death.

    Father or writer

  • The Council of Chalcedon

    The council that confessed Christ in two natures, unconfused and undivided, in one person. Its definition is the classic Christological statement of the Church, and its reception divided the Church permanently.

    Council

  • The Council in Trullo

    The council that supplied disciplinary canons for the Fifth and Sixth Councils, which had issued none. Its 102 canons are the backbone of the Orthodox canonical tradition, and Rome never received them.

    Council

  • Jesus Christ, God and man

    One person in two natures: the four councils that worked it out and the four adverbs that guard it.

    Theme

Your notes

Stored in this browser only. Never uploaded, never visible to anyone else, and marked as your own words if you add this page to a study packet.

Sources for this page

  1. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Definition of Faith annotated edition of conciliar texts Archived in full. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  2. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Sentence Against the Monothelites, Session XIII annotated edition of conciliar texts Source record (opens in a new tab)
  3. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Letter of Pope Agatho annotated edition of conciliar texts Source record (opens in a new tab)
  4. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) Excursus on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius annotated edition of conciliar texts Source record (opens in a new tab)
  5. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor annotated edition of conciliar texts Source record (opens in a new tab)

Tiers are explained in the methodology. No page on this site has been reviewed or approved by any bishop, priest, synod or seminary.