Answer
The Third Council of Constantinople was a monumental event that took place from AD 680 to 681. This council, acknowledged as the sixth ecumenical council, was convened with the primary objective of addressing and resolving the monothelite controversy.
The monothelites had been a source of unrest in the Byzantine Empire and the wider Christian world for a considerable period. They taught that Jesus had two natures but only one will. The role of the Third Council of Constantinople in shaping the theological understanding of Christology for the Eastern and Western churches was significant. In its ruling, the council condemned monothelitism and upheld the orthodox doctrine of the two wills of Christ (dyotheletism).
The Third Council of Constantinople was a continuation of the Christological debates that had been ongoing since the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The central issue at the Third Council of Constantinople was the nature of Christ’s will(s) concerning His two natures: divine and human. The Council of Chalcedon had affirmed that Christ exists as one person with two natures, fully divine and fully human, without confusion or separation, and the debate at the Third Council of Constantinople continued that discussion.
However, while Chalcedon had resolved the question of Christ’s two natures, a new controversy, known as monothelitism, emerged in the seventh century. Advocates of monothelitism, including prominent theologians and emperors, argued that, while Christ had two natures, He had only one will (one thelema), namely, a divine will. They believed this teaching would help maintain unity in the empire by reconciling the Chalcedonian position with the lingering influence of the monophysites, who believed that Christ only had one nature (a divine one). Monothelitism thus seemed like a compromise to preserve the Chalcedonian formula of two natures but attributing only one will to Christ.
Opponents of monothelitism, including many theologians in the West, argued that, if Christ had two natures, He must also have two corresponding wills—a divine will and a human will—to maintain the integrity of His full humanity and full divinity. They contended that the absence of a human will would undermine the completeness of Christ’s human nature. If Jesus had no human will, His incarnation was incomplete, casting doubt on His ability to redeem humanity.
The controversy was both theological and political. The Byzantine emperors, particularly Heraclius (610—641) and his successors, saw monothelitism as a means to bridge the theological divide between the Chalcedonian Christians and the monophysites, especially in regions like Egypt and Syria, where monophysitism had strong support. Heraclius issued the Ecthesis, a statement of faith, in 638, promoting monothelitism, but it met resistance from the papacy and many Western bishops.
The papacy, under the leadership of Pope Martin I and Maximus the Confessor, strongly opposed monothelitism. Pope Martin convened the Lateran Council in 649 to condemn the doctrine, leading to a direct confrontation with the Byzantine Empire. This conflict escalated when Byzantine authorities arrested, tortured, and exiled Pope Martin and Maximus, seeing their opposition as political defiance.
By the time the Third Council of Constantinople convened, the theological and political landscape was deeply divided. However, the situation changed after Constantine IV became emperor in 668. Unlike his predecessors, Constantine sought reconciliation with the papacy and was open to resolving theological disputes.
In AD 680, Emperor Constantine IV called for an ecumenical council to settle the monothelite controversy once and for all. The council met in Constantinople with representatives from the Eastern and Western churches, including papal delegates sent by Pope Agatho. The emperor played a crucial role in the council, encouraging open debate and ensuring the voices of both sides were heard.
After extensive discussion, the council concluded in favor of the dyothelite position, affirming that Christ has two wills—one divine and one human—that operate in harmony. The council’s decree emphasized that Christ’s human will is not contrary to His holy or divine will but is submissive to it, reflecting Christ’s full humanity while preserving the unity of His person. The council declared, “We proclaim equally two natural wills in Him and two natural operations without division, change, separation, or confusion . . . but His human will follows and does not resist or oppose but rather submits to His divine and omnipotent will.”
