Program / Course 9: Christology and Pneumatology / Lesson 4.1
What you will learn
- Describe what the Second Council of Constantinople (553) decided and why it was called.
- Explain the monoenergist and monothelite proposals and the reply of Maximus the Confessor.
- State what the Third Council of Constantinople (680 to 681) defined about the wills of Christ.
- Explain why Catholics and Orthodox treat the case of Pope Honorius differently from the other cases.
The big idea
Chalcedon did not end the debate. Two later councils at Constantinople applied its Definition. The Second, in 553, sought to reconcile those who rejected Chalcedon by condemning writings thought to favor Nestorius and by stating that the Son, one of the Trinity, suffered in the flesh. The Third, in 680 to 681, answered the proposal that Christ has only one will. It defined that Christ has two natural wills and two natural activities, divine and human, and that the human will follows the divine freely. The same logic runs through all three councils: whatever belongs to a nature must be kept.
Key terms
- Three Chapters
- Three items condemned in 553: the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, certain writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and a letter attributed to Ibas of Edessa.
- Monoenergism
- The teaching that Christ has only one activity or energy, the divine, working through his humanity.
- Monothelitism
- From Greek for one will. The teaching that Christ has only one will.
- Dyothelitism
- From Greek for two wills. The teaching, defined in 681, that Christ has a divine will and a human will.
- Natural will
- The capacity to want and choose that belongs to a nature, as opposed to a particular choice. Maximus argued that having a human nature means having a human will.
- Maximus the Confessor
- A monk and theologian, born about 580, who led the defense of two wills and suffered punishment for it. He died in 662.
- Theopaschite formula
- The saying that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh. It stresses that the subject of Christ’s suffering is the Son.
Background
After Chalcedon the emperors repeatedly tried to reunite the Oriental Orthodox with the churches of the empire. In the sixth century Justinian worked to find language that Cyril’s followers could accept while keeping Chalcedon. In the seventh century Heraclius faced Persian and then Arab attacks and wanted unity at home. Each effort produced a proposal that the next generation had to examine.
The councils discussed here are counted as ecumenical by the Catholic and Orthodox churches. They are not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox churches or the Church of the East. Many Protestants accept their Christology without giving them the same standing.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Constantinople II, 553
Justinian called the council, and Pope Vigilius, who was in the city, refused to attend. The council condemned the Three Chapters: it judged that Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret in his writings against Cyril, and Ibas in his letter, had taught what Nestorius taught. The aim was to show Oriental Orthodox Christians that Chalcedon could not be read as favoring Nestorius.
The council also gave a fuller reading of Chalcedon in Cyril’s language, saying the union is according to hypostasis. It affirmed that one of the Trinity, the Son, suffered in the flesh. Vigilius resisted, then yielded under pressure. Many in the West felt the condemnation of persons who had died in the church’s peace, and of a letter received at Chalcedon, undermined it. The result was a schism in northern Italy that lasted for generations.
Step 2: One energy, one will
In the early seventh century, the patriarch Sergius of Constantinople proposed that Christ’s divinity and humanity act through a single divine energy. The emperor Heraclius supported the idea, hoping it would bring the Oriental Orthodox back. When critics objected, Sergius turned to the language of one will. A statement of faith in 638, the Ecthesis, taught that Christ has one will.
The reasoning was an attempt to preserve the unity of Christ. If there were two wills, would they not be opposed, as in sinful humans? Supporters saw the one-will view as a safeguard against Nestorius. Opponents saw a denial of Christ’s human mind and freedom, and the Apollinarian shape of the idea.
Step 3: Maximus the Confessor
Maximus gave the reply. A will is a power of a nature, he argued. If Christ is truly man, he must have a human will, and if truly God, a divine will. To deny the human will would be to deny his humanity, as Apollinarius had done, and would also leave human will unhealed. The Gethsemane prayer, “not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42), shows both wills.
Maximus also taught that Christ’s human will was not in conflict with the divine will. It moved freely and fully in agreement with it. For this he was put on trial, mutilated (according to early accounts, by the removal of his tongue and right hand), and exiled, where he died in 662. He is honored as a saint by both East and West.
Step 4: Constantinople III, 680 to 681
The emperor Constantine IV called the Sixth Ecumenical Council after earlier synods, including the Lateran Synod of 649 under Pope Martin I, had condemned monothelitism. The council defined that in Christ there are two natural wills and two natural energies, without division, change, separation or confusion, and that his human will follows his divine will and is subject to it, not in opposition.
It anathematized Sergius and others, and also Pope Honorius I, who had written letters that seemed to speak of one will. The case of Honorius is treated differently. Catholic scholars argue that his letters were private and ambiguous and not an official definition, and that he was condemned for negligence or imprudence. Orthodox writers often cite the case as evidence against papal infallibility. Historians say the evidence supports both a mild and a strict reading.
Step 5: The pattern and the limits
One rule runs through Ephesus, Chalcedon and these councils: what belongs to a nature must be kept in full. A human nature without a human will would be a human nature cut short. The councils make an effort to protect both the unity of the person and the completeness of each nature.
Some Protestant theologians see this as an example of the church working faithfully from Scripture. Others, more cautious about conciliar authority, ask whether the later councils added to the earlier ones. The churches that did not accept Chalcedon did not recognize these councils.
- Why did the Three Chapters matter to those seeking reunion with the Oriental Orthodox?
- What is the difference between a nature having a will and a person making a particular choice?
- Why would someone fear that two wills would mean two opposed wills?
- What does Luke 22:42 show about the wills of Christ?
- How do Catholics and Orthodox read the case of Honorius differently?
- How does the logic of Maximus echo the argument against Apollinarius?
Examples
Gethsemane
In the garden Jesus prays that the cup pass from him, yet adds “not my will, but thine, be done.” Maximus read this as a human will that naturally shrinks from death and freely agrees with the Father. If there were only one will, he asked, whose will is speaking?
The trial of Maximus
Maximus was tried in Constantinople as a traitor and a heretic, partly because of his opposition to the imperial policy. The story shows how closely doctrine and politics were joined and why later churches honor him as a confessor.
A constructed analogy
A student says that a person with a hand and a mind has two kinds of power, to move and to think, and yet acts as one person. The analogy points toward two natural capacities in one agent but cannot capture the divine and human case. (A constructed illustration.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching accepts Constantinople II and III as ecumenical and the definition of two wills as part of the faith. On Honorius, Catholic scholars generally hold that he did not teach heresy ex cathedra, a point tied to the doctrine defined at the First Vatican Council.
Orthodox
The Orthodox Church honors Maximus as a central teacher and treats the two wills as essential to its understanding of salvation as union of the human will with God’s. Orthodox writers often cite the condemnation of Honorius in discussions of papal authority.
Oriental Orthodox
These churches do not accept the councils after Ephesus. They affirm that Christ has a human will and mind, and say that their teaching is compatible with the substance of the two-wills teaching, though not with Chalcedonian terms.
Protestant
Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican confessions generally affirm the two wills of Christ, and some cite Maximus. Protestants differ on the standing of the later councils, treating them as testimony to Scripture and not as binding in themselves.
Historians
Historians stress the political setting of the monothelite controversy and the persecution of Maximus. They disagree about how Honorius should be judged and about how much the councils of 553 and 681 were driven by imperial policy.
Why it matters
These councils show that the Chalcedonian principle had consequences for the will, for suffering and for the freedom of Christ. They also show how councils responded to proposals made in good faith for peace. Understanding this helps a student see Chalcedon as the start of a long discussion and not the end.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Two wills means Christ was divided against himself.
Correction: The council taught the reverse: his human will follows the divine will freely. Two wills means two natural capacities, not two opposing persons.
Misunderstanding: Monothelites denied that Christ is human.
Correction: They affirmed his full humanity in general terms. Their opponents argued that denying a human will undermined it in effect. Fair study states both the intention and the consequence.
Misunderstanding: The condemnation of Honorius settles the question of papal infallibility.
Correction: It is a matter of dispute. Orthodox and some Protestant writers see it as evidence against infallibility. Catholic writers argue that Honorius did not teach definitively. Historians and theologians continue to discuss it.
Knowledge check
What was the purpose of the Second Council of Constantinople?
It aimed to reconcile those who thought Chalcedon favored Nestorius. It condemned the Three Chapters, gave a Cyrillian reading of the union according to hypostasis and affirmed that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh. Its treatment of persons who had died, and Pope Vigilius’s reluctant assent, were controversial.
What did Maximus the Confessor argue?
He argued that will is a power of a nature, so a truly human Christ must have a human will and a truly divine Christ a divine will. Denying the human will would deny his humanity. He held that the human will was free and agreed with the divine will, as shown in Gethsemane.
What did Constantinople III define?
It defined that Christ has two natural wills and two natural energies, divine and human, without division, change, separation or confusion, and that the human will follows the divine will and is subject to it. It condemned monothelitism and its leaders, including Sergius and Pope Honorius I.
Why is Honorius a disputed case?
He wrote letters that seemed to speak of one will, and the council condemned him afterward. Catholic scholars say his letters were private and imprudent but not a definitive teaching. Orthodox writers often cite the case against papal infallibility. Historians read the evidence in more than one way.
Think it through
- What does the story of Maximus suggest about the cost of doctrinal fidelity?
- Is a proposal made for the sake of unity ever justified when it risks the substance of doctrine?
- Why might a will matter to the doctrine of salvation?
- How should a church treat people condemned long after their deaths?
Independent assignment
The argument for two wills
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. State the argument of Maximus in four steps, beginning with the claim that will is a power of nature. Cite Luke 22:42 and one other passage. Then state the monothelite concern in its best form and your own judgment on whether the council answered it. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. 14) Read the documents of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, where included.
- John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Read the chapters on the two wills of Christ.
- Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, The Orthodox Church Read for the Orthodox view of Maximus and the councils.
- First Vatican Council, Decrees of the First Vatican Council (including Pastor Aeternus on papal primacy and infallibility) Compare with the decree on papal teaching, mindful of the case of Honorius.
- Luke 22:42 Not my will, but thine, be done.
- John 6:38 I came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
- Hebrews 5:8 He learned obedience by the things which he suffered.