Council of Constantinople II (553)

JULIA KONSTANTINOVSKY

The Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), was the culmination of Justinian’s (527–65) ecclesiastical policy in his struggle to heal imperial Christian divisions. The council’s concern was twofold: the con­demnation, firstly, of the so-called “Three Chapters” and, secondly, of Origenism.

The appellation “Three Chapters” refers to three 4th- and early 5th-century theolo­gians: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa, widely believed to be adherents of Nestorius’ “two-sons” and “two-natures” Christology, sharing with Nestorius an aversion to the title Theotokos applied to the Virgin Mary. In condemning these figures, Justinian sought to reconcile dissident parties with the Chalcedonian definition (451), whereby Christ was “one person in two natures.” Chalcedon’s monophysite opponents claimed to follow only St. Cyril of Alexandria’s theological formula of “one incarnate nature of God the Logos.” To achieve the unification of the imperial Chalcedonian church with the anti-Chalcedonian ecclesiastical bodies of Syria and Egypt, Justinian procured the anathemas of the person and writings of Theodore, the writings of Theodoret, and one letter by Ibas. Justinian’s intention was to demonstrate to the non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon’s “in-two-natures” Chris- tology was no avowal of Nestorius, but that it was to be apprehended in the light of Cyril’s “one-incarnate-nature” formula and as proclaiming the single hypostatic synonymity of Christ and the divine Logos. Yet, because these condemnations were of persons long dead and since Chalcedon had deemed Theodoret orthodox and the letter of Ibas beyond reproof, they were perceived as controversial and caused hostilities in the West. Moreover, in the East, they failed in their purpose of reconciling Chalcedon’s opponents with its supporters.

The condemnations of Origenism com­bated the following ideas allegedly traceable to Origen of Alexandria and further devel­oped by Evagrios Pontike: that bodiless minds were fashioned first, while bodies for them were made second and as a conse­quence of their delinquency (the double cre­ation); that numerically and ontologically the human Christ was not the divine Logos, but was created and united with the Logos in a moral union (a type of adoptionism); that the end of things will be just like the pri­mordial beginning and that all will inevita­bly be saved, including the Devil (the apokatastasis belief). Far from being a counterbalance to the condemnation of the Three Chapters, the condemnation of

Origenism can be seen as its amplification, since it too targets a specific kind of adoptionist Christology. Anti-Origenist anathemas have likewise been seen as an attack upon pagan Neoplatonism. Notwith­standing, Origenist ideas showed vitality among more independently minded monastics of Palestine. Books of Origen and Evagrios, although proscribed, contin­ued to be popular. In the East the Fifth Ecumenical Council promoted a Cyrilline theopaschite understanding of the incarna­tion and the development of the cult of the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos.

SEE ALSO: Council of Chalcedon (451); Monophysitism (including Miaphysitism); Nestorianism; Pontike, Evagrios (ca. 345­399); St. Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378–444); Theotokos, the Blessed Virgin

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Grillmeier, A. (1995) Christ in Christian Tradi­tion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Hussey, J. M. (1986) The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, J. N. D. (1977) Early Christian Doctrines. London: A. & C. Black.

Shepard, J. (ed.) (2008) The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500–1492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Council of Constantinople III

(680–681)

STAMENKA E. ANTONOVA

Emperor Constantine III (668–85) recog­nized the problem that the heavily Monophysite territories of the empire had been lost to the Muslims, and feared the future threat that the Arabs posed for the empire. Accordingly, he decided to conv­ene a great council in order to conciliate the pope and gain support from the West by reaffirming commonality of faith. The main objective was to reopen the issue of Christology and the relative significance of Chalcedon 451, for which a new settlement had been favored by Emperor Justinian and his pro-Monophysite Empress Theodora at the Council of Constantinople II in 553, in an effort to pacify the Monophysite churches and to win back the eastern provinces (without much success). After that time the emperors pursued a variety of strategies, including Monoenergism and Monotheletism, the notion that Christ had but one operative and divine will since he, as a morally perfect human being, could never conceivably go against the divine will. This was meant to be a christological compromise with the Monophysite party, a “moving away” from Chalcedon without actually saying so openly, and it had roused the opposition of the West, as well as many of the leading Orthodox fathers of the day, including St. Maximos the Confessor. Although Emperor Constans II (641–68) and Sergius II, Patriarch of Constantinople, supported the Chalcedonian party, they nevertheless saw Monotheletism as a pos­sible way to conciliate the Monophys- ites. Pope Martin I, however, opposed this christological formula vehemently, and as a result he was arrested in 653 and died in exile. The harsh treatment of the pope by the emperor had strained Byzantine relations with the West, a fact that now prompted Emperor Constantine III to act for conciliation in the face of the empire’s Islamic invaders, whom many took to be a scourge from God.

At the Council of Constantinople which the emperor convened, the conciliar fathers asserted the doctrine that Christ was at one and the same time both fully human and fully divine, complete man and God. They emphasized the importance of his full humanity and the importance of never diminishing this aspect of the person of Christ in favor of a sense of the great power of divinity that “absorbed” or “occluded” the human nature. The defini­tion regarding the will of Christ pointed to two faculties, two wills, pertaining to Christ’s two natures, whose goals were not directed against each other, since the human will was in all things subject to the divine will. As such, the council was a clear reaffirmation of the enduring significance of Chalcedon 451. In addition to the main focus of the council on the christological question of the will of Jesus, important rules and canons were later added with a view to reforming the discipline of the church. It is classed as the Sixth Ecumenical Council of the church.

SEE ALSO: Council of Chalcedon (451); Council of Constantinople II (553); Ecumen­ical Councils; Monophysitism (including Miaphy-sitism); St. Maximos the Confessor (580–662)

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Davis, L. D. (1987) The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology.

Wilmington: M. Glazier.

Frend, W. C. H. (1979) The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meyendorff, J. (1975) Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, revd. edn. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Norris, R. A. (1980) The Christological Controversy.

Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Schroeder, H. J. (1937) Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Texts, Translation and Com­mentary. St. Louis: Herder.

Tanner, N. P. and Albergio, G. (eds.) (1990) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. London: Sheed and Ward.

Wigram, W. A. (1978) The Separation of the Monophysites. New York: AMS Press.