Second Council of Constantinople

Section I

The Crisis that summoned Second Council of Constantinople

The apologetic argument: The Second Council of Constantinople completes the patristic Christological corpus. Read together, the five councils define everything that can be defined about the Incarnation: the Son is fully God (Nicaea, Constantinople I), born of a true Mother of God (Ephesus), in two complete natures united in one divine person (Chalcedon), with the full implications of that personal unity worked out (Constantinople II). The councils are not contradictory — they are cumulative.

The Second Council of Constantinople was convened by Emperor Justinian I in AD 553 — a hundred years after Chalcedon — to address the continuing Monophysite crisis. Many Eastern Christians, particularly in Egypt and Syria, had refused to accept Chalcedon, insisting that its two-natures language implied Nestorianism. They remained in schism from the imperial Church.

Justinian’s theological strategy was to condemn the “Three Chapters” — the writings of three theologians (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa) who had been associated with Nestorian tendencies but had died in communion with the Church. By condemning their writings posthumously, Justinian hoped to reassure the Monophysites that Chalcedon was not Nestorian.

The Council confirmed the condemnations over the resistance of Pope Vigilius, who eventually — under considerable imperial pressure — accepted the Council’s decisions. The Second Council of Constantinople is the least widely celebrated of the first five ecumenical councils, but its Christological clarifications complete the patristic definition of the Incarnation.

Section III

Key Canons

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

Canon 2

Authority of the Four Previous Councils

Tradition

This holy synod also professes that it holds fast to and proclaims the faith given originally to the holy Apostles and handed down by the Fathers, especially the holy Fathers of the four holy synods — Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.

The Council explicitly places itself in continuity with the four preceding ecumenical councils — confirming that the ecumenical tradition is cumulative and each council builds on the previous ones.

Apologetic Significance The principle of cumulative conciliar authority is formally stated: each ecumenical council stands in continuity with and confirms the previous ones. This is the patristic basis of the Catholic understanding of doctrinal development.

Canon 14

Condemnation of the Three Chapters

Doctrine

If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia… or defends the writings of Theodoret directed against the true faith… let him be anathema.

The condemnation of writings by theologians who had died in communion with the Church was controversial — but the Council judged that the content of their writings was incompatible with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

Apologetic Significance Shows the Church's teaching authority extending even to posthumous judgment of theological works — doctrinal authority is not limited by the death of the author.

Section IV

Key Figures

JI

Emperor Justinian I

Convoked the Council and drove its agenda. One of the most theologically active emperors in Christian history — also built the Hagia Sophia.

Imperial Authority

PV

Pope Vigilius

Bishop of Rome who initially resisted condemning the Three Chapters but eventually accepted the Council's decisions after significant imperial pressure.

Papal Authority — Rome (initially resistant)

Et

Eutychius of Constantinople

Archbishop of Constantinople and president of the Council.

Catholic — Orthodox

TM

Theodore of Mopsuestia

Theologian condemned posthumously — his writings were judged to contain Nestorian tendencies despite his dying in communion with the Church.

Condemned Posthumously

The Ecumenical Councils