Third Council of Constantinople

Section I

The Crisis that summoned Third Council of Constantinople

The apologetic argument: The Council's definition of two wills in Christ completes the Chalcedonian definition. Chalcedon defined two natures; Constantinople III defines two wills — one divine, one human — that operate in perfect harmony. The human will of Christ freely and perfectly conforms to the divine will, providing the theological foundation for Christ's genuine human obedience and his role as the second Adam.

The Third Council of Constantinople was convened by Emperor Constantine IV in AD 680–681 to resolve the Monothelite controversy — the question of whether Christ has one will or two. The Council defined that, since Christ has two complete natures (as Chalcedon had defined), he must also have two wills — divine and human — which operate in perfect harmony.

The Council is also notable for condemning Pope Honorius I posthumously for his failure to condemn Monothelitism during his pontificate. This case is frequently cited as a disproof of papal infallibility. The Catholic response is that Honorius’s letter was a private pastoral response, not an ex cathedra definition — precisely the kind of document that the Vatican I definition of infallibility explicitly excludes from the scope of the charism.

Section II

The Creed Defined

Defined at Third Council of Constantinople

We likewise define 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.

Section III

Key Canons

Click any canon to expand the full text, commentary, and apologetic significance.

Definition

Two Wills and Two Operations in Christ

Christology

We define that there are two natural wills and two natural operations in Christ, indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly; his human will following and not resisting his divine will, but rather subject to it.

The definition completes the Chalcedonian Christology: two natures (Chalcedon) entails two wills and two operations (Constantinople III). Christ's human will is genuinely free and genuinely human — but it freely and perfectly conforms to his divine will.

Apologetic Significance The definition is crucial for soteriology: Christ's obedience is a genuine human act of the human will. This genuine human obedience is what makes his sacrifice efficacious for human salvation.

Condemnation

Condemnation of Honorius I

Discipline

We decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things.

The condemnation of Honorius is the most discussed case in debates about papal infallibility. Honorius was condemned for failing to suppress heresy through negligence, not for formally defining a heresy. His letter was a private pastoral response — not an ex cathedra definition.

Apologetic Significance Far from disproving papal infallibility, the Honorius case confirms it by negative example: when a Pope fails to speak clearly and formally on a doctrinal matter, error can spread. The infallibility charism applies to formal ex cathedra definitions, not to private letters.

Section IV