Third Council of Constantinople (680-681)

The Monothelite compromise

Monothelitism was born in the very concrete context of the seventh-century Byzantine Empire. After the fractures opened by Chalcedon, several emperors sought a formula capable of reconciling Chalcedonians and the groups opposed to Chalcedon. The idea seemed simple: without officially renouncing the two natures, they proposed speaking of a single operation, then of a single will in Christ.^[5]

This compromise claimed to be peacemaking, but it shifted the crisis to the very heart of the Incarnation. A human nature without a human will is no longer fully human. The will is not a weakness added by sin; it belongs to the rational nature created by God. That is why the defenders of the Catholic faith answer: if the Word assumes our humanity in order to save it, He also assumes a holy, obedient, non-rebellious human will.^[6]

The Ecthesis and the Type

In 638, Emperor Heraclius published the Ecthesis, written under the influence of Sergius of Constantinople. The text forbade speaking of two operations and promoted the formula of a single will. After further resistance, Emperor Constans II published in 648-649 the Type, which sought to silence the controversy by forbidding any discussion of one or two wills and one or two operations.^[7]

Rome refused this policy of silence. A dogma is not settled by forbidding the problem to be named. The Lateran Council of 649, convened by Saint Martin I with a strong presence of Greek monks and the theological influence of Saint Maximus the Confessor, condemned the Ecthesis, the Type and the promoters of Monothelitism.^[8]

Maximus the Confessor and Martin I

Saint Maximus the Confessor gave the controversy its theological depth. For him, the will belongs to nature, not to the person. In the Trinity, one single divine nature implies one single divine will; in Christ, two natures, divine and human, imply two natural wills in the one person of the Word.^[9]

This precision avoids two errors. To say two wills does not mean two persons: the human will of Christ belongs to the incarnate Word. To say one person does not mean one will: the hypostatic union (the union of the two natures, divine and human, in the one person of the Word) does not destroy what the Word assumes. Constantinople III would take up exactly this logic.

The hall of the Trullus

The council opened on November 7, 680 in a domed hall of the imperial palace at Constantinople, called the Trullus. The Catholic Encyclopedia reports about 100 bishops at the start and 174 in the final phase; the Roman legates presided over the assembly, while Emperor Constantine IV took an active part in the first sessions.^[10]

The place gave its name to the disciplinary council of 692, called in Trullo or Quinisext, which the East often associates with the disciplinary reception of the fifth and sixth councils. Constantinople III itself, in 680-681, is however the dogmatic council that settled Monothelitism.^[11]

Eighteen sessions

The council held eighteen sessions. The first ones read the Roman letters brought by the legates of Pope Agatho and examined the dossiers of the patriarchs of Constantinople. The central sessions confronted the sources, the patristic florilegia and the declarations of Macarius of Antioch. The eighteenth session, on September 16, 681, promulgated the definition of faith.^[12]

This procedure matters: the council did not settle for an imperial formula. It examined the texts, had the contested letters read aloud, confronted the dossiers with the recognized Fathers and asked the bishops to subscribe. The authority of the council comes from this combination of received tradition, episcopal judgment and Roman confirmation.

Constantine IV, the peacemaking emperor

Emperor Constantine IV convened the council to restore communion between Rome and Constantinople after several decades of crisis. The Catholic Encyclopedia stresses that the assembly was intended as a departure from the violent policy of Constans II, whose Type had suppressed debate instead of resolving the question.^[13]

Constantine IV did not dictate the dogmatic definition; he made a conciliar judgment possible. The nuance matters: the emperor opened the political space for discussion, but the doctrinal criterion remained the faith handed down by the previous councils, by the Fathers and by Agatho's letter.

Agatho and the Roman legates

Pope Agatho prepared the council with his personal dogmatic letter Consideranti mihi to the emperors, written during the Roman synod convened at Rome at Easter 680, accompanied by the synodal letter Omnium bonorum spes of the 125 bishops gathered at Rome. These texts were read at the fourth session, on November 15, 680. They affirm that the apostolic tradition requires confessing two wills and two operations in Christ.^[14]

“[...] where we confess in the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ, the mediator of God and men, two natures, namely the divine and the human, [...] we likewise confess His two natural wills and His two natural operations.” — Agatho, personal letter Consideranti mihi to the emperors (Roman synod, Easter 680), read at Constantinople III^[15]

Agatho died before the end of the council. It was his successor Leo II who confirmed the acts in 682-683. The council thus shows a Roman continuity: Agatho provided the rule of faith received from the Fathers; Leo II confirmed the final judgment.^[16]

Macarius of Antioch, the last defender of Monothelitism

The principal opponent in the assembly was Macarius of Antioch. Questioned by the emperor, he answered plainly that he did not profess two wills or two operations in the economy of the Incarnation, but one will and one theandric operation (a single activity at once divine and human).^[17]

This answer made the disagreement impossible to conceal. The debate was no longer about a nuance of vocabulary: Macarius maintained precisely what the council judged contrary to Chalcedon. He was deposed during the council, then anathematized with the other Monothelite leaders.^[18]

Two natural wills

The definition of faith of the eighteenth session takes up Chalcedon almost word for word: one and the same Christ, perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity (of the same divine nature as the Father) and consubstantial with us according to humanity (of the same human nature as ourselves), recognized in two natures without confusion, without change, without separation and without division.^[19]

Then the council adds the point specific to the case:

“We likewise proclaim in Him, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers, two natural wills or volitions and two natural activities, without division, without change, without partition and without confusion.” — Constantinople III, definition of faith, Denzinger §556^[20]

The word natural is decisive. The will is not here a competing person. It is the faculty proper to a rational nature. Christ therefore does not have a human will separated from the Word; He has a human will assumed personally by the Word.

A perfectly obedient human will

The council immediately specifies that the two wills are not opposed. The human will of Christ "follows" His divine will, does not resist it and submits to it. Christ is not inwardly divided like the sinner; He is fully man without the revolt of sin.^[21]

This affirmation sheds light on the Gospel. At Gethsemane, Jesus can say: “not my will, but yours” without this word introducing two subjects. On the contrary, it reveals the real existence of His human will, freely attuned to the Father even to the Passion.^[22]

Two natural operations

The council also defines two natural operations or activities. The divine activity accomplishes what is proper to God; the human activity accomplishes what is proper to man. But both belong to the same Christ. It is the same Lord who walks, weeps, suffers, forgives, heals and rises again.^[23]

“Each nature does in communion with the other what is proper to it, the Word performing what belongs to the Word, and the body executing what belongs to the body.” — Leo the Great, Tome to Flavian, quoted by Constantinople III^[24]

This sentence shows the continuity between Chalcedon and Constantinople III. The sixth council does not replace the fourth: it protects the same doctrine against a new reduction.

The Eastern promoters of Monothelitism

The council notably condemns Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter of Constantinople, as well as Macarius of Antioch. The acts reproach them for having taught a single will or a single operation in Christ, against the apostolic and patristic tradition.^[25] Macarius, who defended the error even within the assembly, is named among the anathematized and deposed by the council.^[26]

The Honorius case

The Honorius case must be treated without evasion or simplification. The council declares that it rejects his letters to Sergius and strikes him with anathema, justifying its sentence thus: it found in Honorius's letter to Sergius that Honorius "followed in everything the opinion of the latter" and "confirmed his impious teachings".^[27]

The Roman reception shifts the emphasis to the failure of doctrinal governance. Leo II confirms the council and anathematizes Honorius, holding against him that he did not purify the apostolic Church by the teaching of the apostolic tradition.^[28]

“[...] likewise [We anathematize] Honorius, who did not purify this apostolic Church by the teaching of the apostolic tradition, but attempted to subvert the immaculate faith by an impious treason.” — Leo II, confirmation of Constantinople III, Denzinger §563 (the Greek text reads: "allowed the immaculate Church to be stained by an impious treason")^[29]

In the Catholic reading, the Honorius affair therefore does not contradict the pontifical infallibility defined at Vatican I: Honorius did not engage an ex cathedra definition imposed on the whole Church. It nevertheless remains a severe warning about the pope's doctrinal responsibility when an ambiguity threatens the faith.^[30]

Confirmation by Leo II

Leo II confirmed the decisions of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and declared that the synod had adhered without fail to the apostolic preaching, in agreement with the five preceding councils. His letter stresses that Constantinople III does not add an arbitrary novelty: it advances along the "royal and evangelical way" by making explicit what Chalcedon implies.^[31]

This confirmation matters because Agatho died during the council. The final judgment was therefore received by Rome under his successor, then integrated into the list of the ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches.

A shared reception in East and West

The Orthodox Church in America summarizes the Eastern reception by linking the council to Saint Sophronius, Saint Maximus and Saint Martin: their doctrine "prevailed" at Constantinople III, which condemned the Monothelite patriarchs and restored communion between Rome and the Eastern Churches.^[32]

This point gives the council a strong ecumenical scope. Constantinople III belongs to the common dogmatic core of Catholics and Orthodox: Christ is one divine subject, but His humanity is complete, active, voluntary and free.

A safeguard of the true humanity of Christ

Constantinople III protects a very concrete spiritual truth: Jesus did not save man by bypassing human freedom, but by assuming a true human will and attuning it perfectly to the Father. His obedience is not mechanical; it is the holy human act of the incarnate Son.^[33]

This doctrine gives its full force to the Passion. Christ does not merely undergo externally a divine plan: He humanly offers His life, with a human will entirely united to the divine will. That is why the obedience of Christ heals the disobedience of Adam.

A key for reading Gethsemane

Monothelitism makes the scene at Gethsemane difficult. If Christ has no human will, the prayer “not my will, but yours” becomes almost theatrical. Constantinople III allows it to be read in its full truth: the human will of Christ truly experiences the horror of the Passion, but it never rebels against the Father.^[34]

Christian holiness finds its model here too. Union with God does not destroy the human will; it heals it, elevates it and unites it. The more man is united to God, the more he becomes truly man.

A lesson on doctrinal compromises

The sixth council finally shows the danger of ambiguous compromises. Monoenergism and Monothelitism seemed to offer a formula of peace; they prolonged the crisis because they did not name the mystery correctly. The unity of the Church is not built by diminishing the truth about Christ.^[35]

This lesson remains timely. Whenever a doctrine seeks to be acceptable by removing an essential element of the Incarnation, Constantinople III recalls the Catholic rule: Christ saves all that He assumes. If He fully assumes our nature, He also assumes a human will capable of obeying, loving and offering itself.

• Read first Chalcedon and Constantinople II: Constantinople III presupposes their Christological definitions.
• Remember the key formula: one person, two natures, two wills, two operations.
• Do not confuse two wills with two persons: both wills belong to the same Christ.
• Read the Honorius case from both texts: the sentence of the council (following Sergius's opinion and confirming his teachings, §552) and the Roman reading of Leo II (failure of doctrinal vigilance, §563) — not as a heretical pontifical definition.