Hubbry Logo
MonothelitismMonothelitismMain
Open search
Monothelitism
Community hub
Monothelitism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Monothelitism
Monothelitism
Monothelitism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator
Concepts
Doctrines
Christological doctrines
By denomination

Monothelitism, or monotheletism, is a theological doctrine in Christianity that was proposed in the 7th century, but was ultimately rejected by the sixth ecumenical council. It held Christ as having only one will and was thus contrary to dyothelitism, the Christological doctrine accepted by most Christian denominations, which holds Christ as having two wills (divine and human). Historically, monothelitism was closely related to monoenergism, a theological doctrine that holds Jesus Christ as having only one energy. Both doctrines were at the center of Christological disputes during the 7th century.[1]

Monothelitism is from Greek: μονοθελητισμός, romanized: monothelētismós, lit. 'doctrine of one will'. Theological notions related to the oneness of Christ's will emerged as a result of some earlier Christological controversies that were related to monophysitism as formulated by Eutyches (d. 456) and miaphysitism as formulated by non-Chalcedonian followers of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). Since the notion of Christ's one nature implied the oneness of his will, ecclesiastical and political elites of the Eastern Roman Empire tried during the 7th century to promote monothelitism as a unifying doctrine that would reconcile divided Christian factions. In spite of strong imperial support, those attempts failed, and monothelitism was consequently rejected and denounced as heresy in 680–681 at the Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth ecumenical council.[2]

Monothelitism is still today taught by some Protestant Christian philosophers, including William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. However, the dyothelite view is mainstream in all major branches of Christianity.[3] Modern monothelitism is associated with a certain form of social trinitarianism.[4]

Background

[edit]
The ongoing debates about the nature of Christ caused controversy within the Church for centuries.

During the 5th century, some regions of the Church were thrown into confusion because of the debates that erupted over the nature of Jesus Christ. Although the Church had already determined that Christ is the son of God, his exact nature remained open to debate. The Church had declared heretical the notion that Jesus is not fully divine in the 4th century (see First Council of Nicaea), during the debates over Arianism, and had declared that he is God the Son who became human. However, in arguing that he is both God and man, there then emerged a dispute over exactly how the human and divine natures of Christ actually exist within the person of Christ.

The Christological definition of Chalcedon, as accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed churches, is that Christ remains in two distinct natures, yet these two natures come together within his one hypostasis. More simply, Christ is known as "both fully human and fully Divine, one in being with the Father". This position was opposed by the Monophysites who held that Christ possesses one nature only. The term Monophysitism of which Eutychianism is one type, held that the human and divine natures of Christ were fused into one new single (mono) nature. As described by Eutyches, his human nature was "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea", and therefore his nature is really divine.[5] This is distinct from Miaphysitism, which holds that, after the union, Christ is in one theanthropic (human-divine) nature and is generated from the union of two natures. The two are thus united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration, and with each having a particularity. Miaphysitism is the christological doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox churches.[6]

Nevertheless, the resultant debates led the Chalcedonians to accuse the non-Chalcedonians of teaching Christ's humanity to be of a different kind from our own. Meanwhile, the non-Chalcedonians accused the Chalcedonians of espousing a form of Nestorianism, a doctrine rejected in the preceding council that held that Jesus Christ was two distinct subsistences.

This internal division was dangerous for the Byzantine Empire, which was under constant threat from external enemies, especially as many of the areas most likely to be lost to the empire (which did happen as a result of the wars with the Umayyad Caliphate) were the regions that were in favour of Monophysitism, and who considered the religious hierarchy at Constantinople to be heretics only interested in crushing their faith.[7] In these provinces, the non-Chalcedonians were far more numerous than the Chalcedonians. In Egypt for instance, some 30,000 Greeks of Chalcedonian persuasion were ranged against some five million Coptic non-Chalcedonians.[8] Meanwhile, Syria was divided between followers of the Chalcedonian Patriarch Paul I and Miaphysite Patriarch Sergius I, and Mesopotamia between Syriac Miaphysities and Nestorian Church of the East, while the church of Armenia was wholly Cyrilline Non-Chalcedonian, and Palestinian Patriarch fully adhered to Chalcedonianism. Consequently, the Monothelite teaching emerged as a compromise position. The Byzantine emperor Heraclius tried to unite all of the various factions within the empire with this new formula that was more inclusive and more elastic.

That approach was needed to win over the non-Chalcedonians since they already believed that Christ has a single nature and so necessarily believed that he holds a single will. However, it was unclear whether the Chalcedonians should believe in Christ's human and divine energy and/or will as well as his human and divine nature because the ecumenical councils had made no ruling on that subject. A ruling for the new doctrine would provide common ground for the non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonians to come together, as the non-Chalcedonians could agree that Jesus has two natures if he has only one will, and some Chalcedonians could agree that Jesus has one will if he has two natures.[9]

First attempt: Doctrine of one energy

[edit]
Emperor Heraclius, who defeated Persian King Khosrau II in this allegory, had a desire to secure internal harmony within his empire that made him adopt the doctrine of monothelitism.

Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople was the driving force behind this doctrine, with the full blessing of Emperor Heraclius.[10] Coming to the imperial throne in 610, the patriarch had long since converted the emperor to the new doctrine as by 622, Heraclius had communicated with Bishop Paul of Armenia where the emperor asserted that the energy, or the active force, of Christ was single. That doctrine of monoenergism was the precursor of monotheletism.[9]

Heraclius's interest then focused on Armenia, and it was probably then that the emperor decided to use monoenergism as a political weapon to reconcile the Non-Chalcedonian Church of Armenia with the Imperial Church.[9] To help bring that about, a synod was held in 622 at Theodosiopolis, called the Synod of Garin, where monoenergism was discussed. Over the next few years Heraclius was preoccupied with his prosecution of the war against the Sassanids, but by 626, he had issued a decree to Arcadius, Bishop of Cyprus, requesting him to teach the doctrine of "one hegumenic energy". By all accounts, that was met with notable success, particularly as there was then a large colony of Armenians on the island,[11] which encouraged Heraclius to attempt to seek a wider approval of his compromise. In 626, he asked Patriarch Sergius to approach Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, to secure his cooperation.

With the successful conclusion to the Persian War, Heraclius could devote more time to promoting his compromise, which was now more urgent because of the administration of the recovered monophysite (also referred to as "non-Chalcedonian" for rejecting of that particular council) provinces of Syria and Egypt. In 629, a meeting took place between the emperor and Athanasius the Jacobite at Hierapolis. An agreement was struck in which the Jacobites were to return to the Imperial Church on the basis of the single energy doctrine, and Athanasius was to be made Patriarch of Antioch. In 630, Bishop Cyrus was made Patriarch of Alexandria, who soon won over another non-Chalcedonian group. Very soon, three of the five patriarchates (Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria) were teaching Christ's "one theandric energy".[11]

Not everyone was convinced, particularly a monk of Palestine named Sophronius, who believed that there was something unsound in the doctrine and so became the champion of dyothelitism, the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. He was concerned that for the sake of ecclesiastical unity, doctrinal expressions were being compromised.[12] For the first few years, Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople managed to keep him silent, but when Sophronius was appointed as Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634, he used his newfound position of authority to challenge the validity of the doctrine of monoenergism.

Determined to prevent that formidable challenge to his Christological compromise, Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius I (625–638) at Rome to ask him to endorse a position that Church unity should not be endangered by having any discussions or disputes over whether Christ had one energy or two. Sergius added that the doctrine of two energies could lead to the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills.[13] Honorius's reply in 635 endorsed that view that all discussions should cease and agreed that Jesus has only one will, not two conflicting wills, since Jesus assumed not the vitiated human nature, tainted by Adam's fall, but human nature as it existed prior to Adam's fall.[14] In the meantime the epistola synodica of Sophronius appeared, the outcome of the Synod of Cyprus. It attempted to show that the new doctrine was inconsistent with orthodoxy. Sophronius declared that it was nothing more than a bastardised form of monophysitism, which went against the hard-fought achievements at Chalcedon. Suddenly, support for the doctrine began to subside, and soon, former supporters were busy finding flaws and inconsistencies in the proposal.[15] Soon, Sergius and Heraclius abandoned it as a doctrine.

Second attempt: Doctrine of one will

[edit]
Main article: Ecthesis

However, Sergius and the emperor refused to give up. Three years later, the patriarch came up with a slightly-modified formula, which Heraclius released as the Ecthesis in 638. The edict was considered to be the official response to Sophronius's letter.[16] It forbade all mention of Christ possessing one or two energies; instead, it now proclaimed that Christ has two natures but a single will. This did not deny Christ human volition, but insisted that this volition could never be in opposition to the divine will; but the opponents of one will misinterpreted the doctrine as denying Christ any human volition whatever. Sophronius had died before the release of the new doctrine, and his replacement, Bishop Sergius of Jaffa, as Patriarch Abraham I of Jerusalem, approved the modified formula. Sergius died by the end of 638, and his replacement, Pyrrhus, was also a devoted monothelite and a close friend of Heraclius. The two remaining patriarchs in the East also gave their approval to the doctrine now referred to as monothelitism and so it looked as if Heraclius would finally heal the divisions in the imperial church.[17]

Unfortunately, he had not counted on the popes at Rome. During the same year, 638, Pope Honorius I had died as well. His successor Pope Severinus (640) condemned the Ecthesis outright and so was forbidden his seat until 640. His successor, Pope John IV (640–42), also rejected the doctrine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the Chalcedonian Church. When news reached Heraclius of the Pope's condemnation, he was already old and ill, and the news only hastened his death. He declared with his dying breath that the controversy was all due to Sergius and that the patriarch had pressured him to give his unwilling approval to the Ecthesis.[18]

Conflict with Rome

[edit]

This state of schism remained for the next few years. The death of Heraclius in 641 had thrown the political situation in Constantinople into chaos, and his young grandson Constans II (641–668) succeeded him. Meanwhile, in Africa, a monk, Maximus the Confessor, carried on a furious campaign against monothelitism, and in 646, he convinced the African councils to draw up a manifesto against the doctrine, which they forwarded to the new pope, Theodore I (642–649), who, in turn, wrote to Patriarch Paul II of Constantinople to outline the heretical nature of monothelitism. Paul, another devoted monothelite, replied in a letter directing the pope to adhere to the doctrine of one will. Theodore, in turn, excommunicated the patriarch in 649 and declared Paul a heretic.[19]

Constans II was only 17 and was indifferent to the religious debates convulsing the Church.[20] However, he was concerned about the effect that the debate had on the Roman Empire and so he issued an imperial edict, the Type of Constans. The edict made it illegal to discuss in any manner Christ possessing either one or two wills or one or two energies. He declared that the whole controversy was to be forgotten: "the scheme which existed before the strife arose shall be maintained, as it would have been if no such disputation had arisen".[20] However, he would soon discover that the controversy would not die down.

In Rome and the West, opposition to monothelitism was reaching fever pitch, and the Type of Constans did nothing to defuse the situation but indeed made it worse by implying that either doctrine was as good as the other.[20] Theodore planned the Lateran Council of 649 to condemn the Ecthesis but died before he could convene it, which his successor, Pope Martin I (649–653), did. The council condemned the Ecthesis but also the Type. After the synod, Pope Martin wrote to Constans to inform him of its conclusions and to require him to condemn both the monothelite doctrine and his own Type. However, Constans was not the sort of emperor to take such a rebuke of imperial authority lightly.[21]

Even while the Lateran Synod was sitting, Olympius arrived as the new exarch of Ravenna, with instructions to ensure that the Type was followed in Italy and to use whatever means necessary to ensure that the Pope adhered to it.[22] He was unable to complete his mission and soon died, but his successor, Theodore I Calliopas, seized Pope Martin and abducted him to Constantinople, where he was imprisoned and tortured before he was condemned for breaking the imperial commands and banished before he died from his treatment at the hands of the emperor.[23]

The emperor continued to persecute any who spoke out against monothelitism, including Maximus the Confessor and a number of his disciples. Maximus lost his tongue and his right hand in an effort to have him recant.[24] Nevertheless, his brutality had an effect, with the patriarchs, including the popes, remaining silent throughout the remainder of his reign.

Condemnation

[edit]
See also: Third Council of Constantinople
Emperor Constantine IV, who convened the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 678

After Constans's death in 668, the throne passed to his son Constantine IV. Pope Vitalian (657–672), who had hosted the visit of Constans II to Rome in 663, almost immediately declared himself for the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. In response, Patriarch Theodore I of Constantinople and Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, both pressed Constantine to take some measures against the pope. Constantine, however, decided to let the monothelite question be decided entirely by a church council.[25]

He asked if the pope (now Pope Agatho, 678–681) would be willing to send delegates to an ecumenical council to be held at Constantinople so that the question could be firmly ended. Pope Agatho agreed but first held a preliminary synod at Rome 680 to obtain the opinion of the western theologians. Other synods were also held at Milan and at the Council of Hatfield in 680, convoked by Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury.[26] All of the western synods condemned monothelitism, and a report of the Roman synod's acts was sent to Constantinople, along with the western delegates to the council.

The council met from 680 to 681. Apart from the Roman representatives, it also hosted representatives from the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch were present in person. With the exception of two individuals, it condemned the monothelite doctrine as one that diminished the fullness of Christ's humanity and asserted dyothelitism to be the true doctrine, with Christ possessing "two natural wills and two natural energies, without division, alteration, separation or confusion".[27] It also anathematised the chief representatives of the discredited doctrine, including Pope Honorius. The churches condemned at Constantinople included the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Maronite Church[citation needed], but the Oriental Orthodox have denied that they ever held the monothelite view and describe their own Christology as Miaphysite, and the Maronites accept the Chalcedonian formula[citation needed] since they are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. That brought to an end the controversy over monothelitism.

Controversy over Honorius I

[edit]
Pope Honorius I

A side issue over the statements of Pope Honorius I and his condemnation by the council arose in discussions concerning papal infallibility. In the view of historians such as John Bagnell Bury, Honorius, with a traditional Latin dislike for dialectics, did not fully comprehend the issues.[12] The question of Monoenergism, as presented by Patriarch Sergius, seemed to Honorius to be a matter of grammar, rather than theology. Though he used the expression "one will", he was no Monothelite, for he placed "one energy" and "two energies" on exactly the same footing. Further, his second letter to Sergius was by and large orthodox.[12] Maximus the Confessor, in his Disputation with Pyrrhus, interprets the statement "one will" as referring to the integrity of Christ's human will, in contrast to the fallen human will, which seeks diverse and contradictory goods.

The Third Council of Constantinople posthumously anathematised Honorius as a heretic: "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines" (13th session) and "To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!" (16th session).

However, Pope Leo II's letter of confirmation of the Council interprets the council as intending to criticise Honorius not for error of belief but for "imprudent economy of silence".[12] Leo's letter stated: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,... and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."[28]

Contemporary Monothelitism

[edit]

Some contemporary theologians such as Alvin Plantinga have controversially argued that the council of Chalcedon allowed for two positions on Christology, an abstractist view where Jesus only assumed the property of being a human, while in the concretist view, he assumed concrete human nature, with a human soul, mind, and will. He argued that the abstractist position implies monothelitism within the incarnation, while the concretist position is dyothelitism. This monothelite view has been also held by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Craig has offered his own of Christology, where he argues that Jesus did not assume a human soul in the incarnation, but the soul of Jesus was instead the Logos, thus teaching that the will and rationality of Christ were divine. This is similar to the teaching of Apollinarius, whose Christology was condemned as a heresy by the first council of Constantinople. However, they sought to revise the doctrines of Apollinarus by arguing that Christ in eternity already possessed those properties necessary for human personality in archetypal form. However, these new Monothelite proposals are highly controversial, and all major branches of Christendom affirm dyothelitism as in the statements of the third council of Constantinople.[3]

William Lane Craig's social trinitarian model in which all three persons are to be distinguished by having their own centers of consciousness and will lead one to view will as an attribute of hypostasis instead of nature, thus implying monothelitism.[4]

See also

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Hovorun 2008, p. 1-3.
  2. ^ Ostrogorsky 1956; Meyendorff 1989; Hovorun 2008.
  3. ^ a b Stamps 2014, p. 24-32.
  4. ^ a b Craig 2022.
  5. ^ Norwich 1988, p. 155.
  6. ^ Stefon 2011, p. 275.
  7. ^ Norwich 1988, p. 156.
  8. ^ Bury 1889, p. 249.
  9. ^ a b c Bury 1889, p. 250.
  10. ^ Brauer 1971, pp. 568–569.
  11. ^ a b Bury 1889, p. 251.
  12. ^ a b c d Bury 1889, p. 252.
  13. ^ Hefele 1896, p. 25.
  14. ^ Hefele 1896, pp. 29–30.
  15. ^ Norwich 1988, p. 306.
  16. ^ Bury 1889, p. 253.
  17. ^ Norwich 1988, p. 309.
  18. ^ Norwich 1988, p. 310.
  19. ^ Bury 1889, p. 292.
  20. ^ a b c Bury 1889, p. 293.
  21. ^ Norwich 1988, p. 318.
  22. ^ Bury 1889, p. 294.
  23. ^ Bury 1889, p. 296.
  24. ^ Norwich 1988, p. 319.
  25. ^ Bury 1889, p. 314.
  26. ^ Bury 1889, p. 315: see Bede 1969, Book IV, Chapter XVII (XV), pp. 384–387. Council of Hæthfeld
  27. ^ Bury 1889, p. 317.
  28. ^ Chapman 1913.

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Monothelitism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Monothelitism was a 7th-century Christological doctrine asserting that Jesus Christ, while possessing two natures—divine and —had only one will, specifically a divine will that subsumed any distinct human will. This position emerged as an attempted theological compromise to unify the Byzantine Empire's divided Christian factions, particularly reconciling Chalcedonian with Monophysite dissenters amid existential threats from Persian and Arab invasions. Promoted initially through by Patriarch Sergius I of in the 610s and formalized as monothelitism in Emperor Heraclius' Ecthesis decree of 638, the doctrine received tentative endorsement from but faced immediate resistance from figures like , who viewed it as compromising Christ's full humanity and obedience. The controversy intensified under subsequent emperors, leading to imperial edicts like Constans II's Typos in 648, which suppressed debate, and resulting in the persecution and martyrdom of opponents including Pope Martin I and theologian Maximus the Confessor, who argued that a single will undermined the reality of Christ's human nature and redemptive work. Monothelitism's defining characteristic was its prioritization of ecclesiastical and political unity over strict adherence to dyothelitism—the orthodox affirmation of two wills in Christ, divine and human, operating in harmony. Ultimately, the doctrine was rejected as heretical at the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681), convened by Emperor Constantine IV, which explicitly condemned monothelitism and its proponents, including Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Honorius, while affirming two natural wills and operations in Christ without confusion or division, in accord with prior ecumenical councils and Pope Agatho's letter. This resolution marked a triumph of theological precision over compromise, restoring dyothelitism as normative but highlighting enduring tensions between imperial authority and doctrinal purity in early medieval Christianity.

Definition and Core Doctrine

Theological Essence

Monothelitism asserts that Jesus Christ, fully divine and fully human in two distinct natures as affirmed by the in , possesses only one will (thelēma) and one mode of operation (energeia), united in his single person without division or confusion. This single will is characterized as theandrikē (divine-human), whereby the human nature's volition is not independent but fully integrated with the divine, ensuring the unity of Christ's actions and avoiding any duality that might suggest opposition or autonomy in his humanity. Proponents viewed this as a logical extension of Chalcedonian , preserving the Incarnation's integrity by positing that all of Christ's deeds—miracles, sufferings, and obedience—stem from one volitional source, reflective of his . The doctrine emerged as a refinement of earlier , shifting focus from a single energy to a single will while rejecting any implication of absorption of the human into the divine nature. In the Ecthesis of Emperor , promulgated on 3 638, the formula explicitly states the confession of "one will of our Lord Jesus Christ" for the two natures, with their "one theandrikē operation," drawing on patristic precedents like the writings of to argue for harmony in Christ's volition. This formulation aimed to reconcile Chalcedonian orthodoxy with miaphysite sensibilities in the East by emphasizing functional unity over potential dualism, though it implicitly subordinates human volition to divine without positing conflict, as evidenced in scriptural accounts of Christ's and agony where the human experience aligns seamlessly with divine purpose. Critics of monothelitism, including , contended that a single will undermines the completeness of Christ's humanity, as inherently includes volitional capacity distinct from divine essence, potentially rendering the illusory in its salvific implications. Nonetheless, the doctrine's essence rests on a metaphysical commitment to Christ's personal oneness, where the divine assumes and elevates such that its operations manifest through a unified principle, supported by appeals to Cyrillian emphasizing the one subject acting in two natures. This view persisted in imperial theology until its formal repudiation at the Third Council of (680–681), which defined as requiring two natural wills in Christ, consonant with two natures. Monothelitism affirmed the of two natures—fully divine and fully human—united without confusion, change, division, or separation in the one person of Christ, but posited a single will operative in that union, typically understood as a divine-human composite will rather than a purely divine one dominating the human. This distinguished it from , the orthodox later enshrined at the Third Council of (680–681), which maintained two distinct wills—one divine and one human—in Christ, with the human will freely submitting to the divine without opposition or absorption. The council explicitly condemned monothelitism as incompatible with the integrity of Christ's , arguing that a single will undermined the reality of his full humanity and voluntary obedience, as evidenced in scriptural accounts like the agony in Gethsemane where Christ prays, "not my will, but yours, be done" (Luke 22:42). In contrast to , which rejected the Chalcedonian two-nature formula in favor of a single nature (either strictly divine, as in , or a unified divine-human physis as in ), monothelitism retained while compromising on the will to foster unity. Promoted in the 7th century by figures like Patriarch Sergius I of , it emerged as an imperial strategy to reconcile Chalcedonian orthodoxy with non-Chalcedonian groups, particularly Severian monophysites in and , who viewed Chalcedon's emphasis on distinction as implying a Nestorian-like separation. By unifying the will, monothelitism aimed to demonstrate the hypostatic union's inseparability without merging natures, though critics like argued this effectively attenuated the human nature's autonomy, echoing monophysite tendencies toward absorption. Monothelitism also differed from earlier monoenergism, a related but antecedent emphasizing one divine-human (energeia) in Christ, which some proponents like Sergius initially favored as a less contentious bridge; however, resistance from figures like prompted a shift to explicit monothelitism, framing the single will as the outcome of harmonious energies rather than a denial of human volition. This evolution underscored monothelitism's role as a pragmatic within Chalcedonian boundaries, distinct from Nestorianism's positing of two separate persons (and thus potentially two independent centers of will), which had already rejected in 451 for compromising the unity of Christ's person. Ultimately, these distinctions highlight monothelitism's intermediate position: orthodox on natures but heterodox on operations, leading to its repudiation as undermining the personal subsistence of Christ's humanity.

Historical Context and Origins

Post-Chalcedonian Christological Debates

The in proclaimed Christ as one person subsisting in two natures—divine and human—without confusion, change, division, or separation, yet this formulation left unresolved questions about the interplay of these natures in Christ's actions, volitions, and operations. Subsequent debates centered on whether the implied a single composite energy (energeia, or operation) or will (thelēma), or distinct operations corresponding to each nature, as Miaphysite critics of argued that two separate operations risked implying two subjects or persons, akin to . Chalcedonians, in turn, countered that affirming only one operation or will subordinated or absorbed the human nature, echoing Eutychian , thereby threatening the integrity of Christ's full humanity and its salvific role in assuming and redeeming human weakness. These controversies exacerbated ecclesiastical divisions across the , where Miaphysite communities in , , and persisted in rejecting Chalcedonian , viewing it as a of Cyril of Alexandria's of "one incarnate nature of God the Word." Imperial efforts at reconciliation, such as Justinian I's in 482 (revived in spirit post-Chalcedon) and the 553 Second Council of Constantinople's anathematization of the "Three Chapters" to appease Miaphysites by condemning perceived Nestorian remnants in , Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of , achieved only partial and temporary gains while alienating Latin West churches over perceived concessions to . Justinian's later enforcement of aphthartodocetism—insisting on Christ's incorruptibility even after the Incarnation—further inflamed tensions, leading to riots in in 610 and underscoring the political stakes of unresolved amid Persian incursions. By the early seventh century, as reclaimed eastern provinces from Persia between 622 and 628, alliances with Miaphysite leaders highlighted the empire's vulnerability to disunity, prompting theological overtures toward derived from patristic sources like , who described Christ's operations as a "theandric" (divine-human) unity without specifying duality. In 633, , Chalcedonian , negotiated a union with Egyptian Miaphysites by positing one composite energy in Christ, mirroring Cyril's language and securing subscriptions from nine non-Chalcedonian bishops, though this pact unraveled under scrutiny from Antiochene theologians emphasizing distinct natural operations to safeguard against modalism or monophysite absorption. , upon his elevation in 634, vehemently opposed this as compromising Chalcedon's , arguing from scriptural examples—like Christ's agony in (Matthew 26:39)—that a divine will alone could not account for genuine human obedience and temptation, thus necessitating two wills in harmonious submission. The debates thus pivoted from natures to wills and energies, with proponents of unity positing a single divine-human will to preserve personal oneness, while dyothelite defenders, drawing on of Byzantium's earlier distinctions, insisted that each nature's properties—including volition—must operate naturally yet without division, prefiguring the formal monothelite doctrines that would emerge under imperial edict. These exchanges, documented in synodal letters and patristic florilegia, revealed underlying causal tensions: monistic formulations risked causal dominance of the divine over the human, undermining the Incarnation's purpose of divinizing humanity through assumed human agency, whereas upheld causal realism in Christ's dual subjectivity without人格分裂.

Imperial and Patriarchal Initiatives

Following the Byzantine Empire's triumph over the Sasanian in 628, Emperor (r. 610–641) pursued ecclesiastical reconciliation to consolidate control over recently recovered territories populated by non-Chalcedonian Christians, viewing theological unity as essential for imperial stability amid exhaustion from prolonged warfare and looming threats from Arab forces. 's strategy emphasized compromise doctrines that preserved Chalcedonian —affirming Christ's two natures—while accommodating Monophysite sensitivities regarding Christ's unified operation, thereby aiming to prevent further schism and bolster loyalty in provinces like and . A key imperial action occurred in 631, when appointed Cyrus, formerly Bishop of Phasis in , as Chalcedonian Patriarch of to negotiate union with local Monophysites; Cyrus's "Pact of Union," promulgated on June 3, 633, secured temporary adherence from Egyptian by endorsing two natures alongside a single theandric (divine-human) energy in Christ, effectively introducing as a unifying . This initiative, however, provoked resistance from figures like , who insisted on distinct divine and human operations corresponding to the two natures. Patriarch Sergius I of (610–638), a close advisor to , advanced these efforts by advocating a single divine-human energy in Christ's , drawing on earlier consultations with Theodore of Pharan to extend the concept implicitly to one will, as a means to sidestep divisive terminology without abandoning . In response to Cyrus's pact and mounting opposition, Sergius issued the Psephos (decree) in late 633, binding the Constantinopolitan and other to silence on the number of energies or wills in Christ, thereby enforcing doctrinal ambiguity to preserve unity and imperial policy. This patriarchal maneuver, circulated widely including to in 634, prioritized harmony under state auspices over precise theological definition, foreshadowing formalized imperial edicts.

Doctrinal Developments

The Ecthesis of Heraclius

The Ecthesis was an imperial decree promulgated by Byzantine Emperor Heraclius in late 638, during the twelfth indiction, formally defining the doctrine of one will (monothelema) in Jesus Christ as compatible with the two natures (physis) established by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Drafted by Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople following consultations and in response to the synodal letter of Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem—who had insisted on two wills and two energies corresponding to the divine and human natures—the document aimed to suppress divisive terminology and restore ecclesiastical unity amid the empire's military pressures from Persian and emerging Arab forces. The decree explicitly prohibited teaching or disputing "one energy" or "two energies" (energeiai), terms that had fueled accusations of on both sides of the post-Chalcedonian divide, substituting instead an affirmation of Christ's unified operation through the Incarnate . It confessed the of divinity and humanity in one person without confusion, change, division, or separation, asserting that all of Christ's divine and human acts—such as miracles and sufferings—proceed voluntarily from a single divine-human will, in harmony with the first five ecumenical councils. This formulation drew on earlier Monothelite initiatives, including Sergius's 634 letter to , whose cautious reply against "two contrary operations" was cited as tacit endorsement, though Honorius urged avoidance of novel phrases rather than explicit doctrinal commitment. Publicly displayed in locations such as the of in , the Ecthesis was ratified by multiple Eastern patriarchs and enforced as imperial orthodoxy, with dissenters facing deposition or exile. Its intent was pragmatic reconciliation, particularly with Monophysite-leaning groups in and , by framing the single will as a safeguard against implying conflicting volitions in Christ, yet it alienated Dyothelite (dyothelema) advocates like Sophronius and failed to sway non-Chalcedonians, who viewed it as insufficiently rejecting Chalcedon's dyophysitism. The edict's text, preserved in the acts of the 649 Lateran Synod, spans detailed scriptural and patristic references to and Athanasius, emphasizing operational unity over speculative enumeration.

The Typos of Constans II

The Typos (Greek: τύπος, "type" or "pattern"), issued by Byzantine Emperor in 648, represented an attempt to suppress escalating Christological disputes by imposing ecclesiastical silence on the question of whether Christ possessed one or two wills (thelēma) and operations (energeia). Promulgated through Patriarch Paul II of , the edict explicitly revoked the Ecthesis of from 638, which had advanced monothelitism as imperial orthodoxy, but refrained from endorsing either or monothelitism outright. Instead, it prohibited , monks, and laypersons from debating, teaching, or composing texts on the topic under penalty of or deposition, framing such restraint as essential for preserving doctrinal harmony amid external threats like Arab invasions. The decree's content emphasized pragmatic unity over theological resolution, invoking scriptural precedents for avoiding contentious speech and warning that unchecked disputation eroded imperial authority and ecclesiastical order. It mandated that all parties adhere to the definitions of the (451) regarding Christ's two natures, while extending a general amnesty to prior offenders provided they ceased agitation. Enforced initially in the East through patriarchal synods, the Typos implicitly favored the monothelite status quo by shielding it from challenge, as dyothelite proponents like viewed the ban as perpetuating heresy under guise of peace. Reception in the West proved hostile; Pope Martin I convened the Lateran Synod of 649, where 105 bishops anathematized the Typos alongside the Ecthesis and key monothelite figures, asserting that silence equated to complicity in doctrinal error. This defiance prompted imperial retaliation, including Martin's arrest in 653 and exile, underscoring the Typos' role in heightening East-West tensions rather than resolving them. The edict's text survives primarily in conciliar acta, such as those of the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681), which later condemned it as a tool of imperial caesaropapism.

Key Figures and Positions

Proponents: Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Emperors

Sergius I of (served 610–638) initiated the doctrinal formulation of monothelitism as a compromise to reconcile Chalcedonian orthodoxy with Monophysite dissenters amid the Byzantine Empire's military crises against Persia and Arab invasions. In correspondence with Emperor , Sergius advocated for Christ possessing two natures but a single divine-human (theandric) will and energy, drawing from earlier monoenergist ideas to avoid implying conflict between natures. He drafted the Ecthesis in 638, an imperial edict issued under that officially endorsed monothelitism, prohibiting discussion of two energies while affirming one will in Christ. Sergius's successor, Pyrrhus I (patriarch 638–641, and briefly 654), staunchly upheld monothelitism as a close ally of and continued enforcing the Ecthesis through synods in . Pyrrhus defended the doctrine in debates, including a public disputation with in around 645, where he initially appeared to concede (two wills) but later reaffirmed monothelitism upon returning to in 654 amid imperial restoration. His writings and patriarchal actions reinforced the view that a single will preserved Christ's unity without subsuming the , aligning with Sergius's theological framework. Emperor (r. 610–641) actively promoted monothelitism to consolidate ecclesiastical unity and bolster imperial legitimacy during territorial losses, incorporating Sergius's ideas into the Ecthesis of 638 after consultations in and . His grandson (r. 641–668), facing ongoing schisms, issued the Typos in 648–649, which banned debates on wills or energies altogether, effectively upholding monothelitism by suppressing dyothelitist opposition and enforcing imperial through exile and persecution of dissenters like Maximus. Both emperors viewed the doctrine as a pragmatic tool for political cohesion, prioritizing state stability over unresolved Christological precision, though it exacerbated divisions with the Western Church.

Opponents: Maximus the Confessor and Sophronius

(c. 560–638), elected patriarch on October 28, 634, and serving until his death on March 11, 638, led the initial Eastern resistance to , viewing it as a veiled denial of Christ's distinct human operations as defined at in 451. In 633, as an , he protested Patriarch of Alexandria's enforcement of one divine-human energy, contending that it subsumed human actions into the divine, thereby impairing the full reality of Christ's incarnate nature. His objections to and subsequent appeals to Patriarch Sergius I of influenced Sergius to pivot toward monothelitism—one will in Christ—but Sophronius rejected this as equally deficient, insisting on two wills corresponding to two natures. At his enthronement synod, Sophronius promulgated a formal defense of dyenergism (two energies), compiling patristic testimonies and invoking Pope Leo I's Tome to affirm distinct yet united operations in Christ, without confusion or division. This synodical letter of 634, circulated to Eastern bishops, systematically rebutted monoenergist formulas by arguing that Christ's human nature required its own operative capacity, as evidenced in scriptural instances of suffering and obedience proper to humanity alone. To rally Western support, he dispatched Bishop Stephen of Dora as envoy to Pope Honorius I and successors, detailing Eastern deviations and seeking condemnation. Though imperial edicts like the Ecthesis of 638 outlived him, Sophronius's letter furnished the primary textual basis for later dyothelitist (two wills) critiques, read aloud at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680–681. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662), a monastic disciple influenced by Sophronius's circle, systematized and propagated amid escalating imperial enforcement of monothelitism. From exile in after 642, he publicly debated deposed Patriarch Pyrrhus in circa 645, employing scriptural —such as Christ's prayer ("not my will, but yours")—to demonstrate two natural wills: divine and , the latter free of gnomic deliberation (personal hesitation) yet integral to humanity's deification without sin. Maximus contended that one will would imply a deficient , as human nature's volitional faculty, common to the , must subsist in Christ unabsorbed by , preserving Chalcedonian union. Pyrrhus conceded and briefly renounced the Ecthesis before retracting under pressure. Maximus's key works, including the Disputation with Pyrrhus (645–647) and Epistle 14 (the "Didactic Epistle"), refuted monothelitist texts like the Typos of 648 by distinguishing thelēsis (natural will of a nature) from gnome (rational choice), arguing scriptural silence on a single will precluded its invention for ecumenical compromise. Aligning with Rome, he endorsed the Lateran Synod of 649's anathemas against one will and collaborated with , who convened it. Persecuted by Emperor , Maximus refused the Typos, endured trial in 662, mutilation (tongue and right hand severed), and exile to , dying August 13, 662; his steadfastness, rooted in ecclesial fidelity over imperial unity, propelled dyothelitism's triumph at III.

Conflicts with Western Church

Early Correspondence and Papal Responses

In 633, Patriarch Sergius I of initiated correspondence with by sending a letter outlining the emerging Christological debate over whether Christ possessed one or two operations (energies), stemming from efforts to reconcile Monophysites through the formula of "one operation" proposed by . Sergius expressed concern over opposition from and sought papal counsel to avoid divisive terminology, emphasizing that "from one and the same Incarnate Word proceeds indivisibly every human and Divine operation." Pope Honorius replied in 634 with two letters to Sergius, advising silence on the number of wills or operations to preserve ecclesiastical unity, while confessing "one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ" and asserting that Christ had no second will contrary to the Father. He stated: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall." This phrasing, intended to affirm harmony between divine and human aspects in Christ, was later cited by Monothelite proponents as endorsement, though Honorius aimed to refute any notion of conflicting wills. Following Honorius' death on October 12, 638, and the issuance of the Ecthesis in the same year promoting a single will in Christ, subsequent popes mounted explicit opposition. Pope Severinus, consecrated on May 28, 640 after imperial delay due to his refusal to accept the Ecthesis, condemned Monothelitism and reaffirmed the dyothelite position of two wills corresponding to Christ's two natures. His successor, Pope John IV (640–642), similarly rejected the doctrine in a synodal letter, clarifying that Honorius had not intended to endorse heresy but had been misinterpreted. These responses marked the Western Church's firm resistance, escalating tensions with Byzantine authorities.

Controversy Surrounding Pope Honorius I

In 634, Patriarch Sergius of wrote to (r. 625–638), seeking papal endorsement for a formula that avoided specifying one or two wills in Christ to reconcile doctrinal divisions, while subtly promoting the idea of a single theandric operation. Honorius responded in two letters to Sergius, affirming "we confess one will (unam voluntatem) of our Lord Jesus Christ," arguing that Christ's , assumed faultlessly by the , did not require positing two distinct wills to prevent implying opposition between divine and human elements. This phrasing echoed Sergius's concerns that dual wills might suggest conflict within Christ, akin to Nestorian divisions, and Honorius urged silence on the number of operations or wills to preserve unity. Honorius's correspondence, including a letter to , was circulated by Sergius to bolster Monothelite positions, as it appeared to endorse a single will without distinguishing divine and human aspects adequately, thereby failing to uphold the dyothelite implications of (451). Critics like viewed this as ambiguous at best and supportive of heresy at worst, exacerbating East-West tensions, as Western theologians increasingly recognized the need for two wills corresponding to Christ's two natures. Honorius's reluctance to anathematize emerging errors, instead prioritizing ecclesiastical harmony, allowed Monothelitism to gain traction, drawing papal authority into the fray despite Rome's traditional resistance to imperial theological impositions. The controversy intensified posthumously when the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) explicitly anathematized Honorius alongside Sergius and other Monothelite leaders, declaring that he "followed [Sergius's] view and confirmed his impious doctrines" through writings that sowed "the heresy of a single will and a single principle of action." The council's decree, ratified by Pope Leo II (r. 682–683), condemned Honorius not merely for personal belief but for negligence in safeguarding orthodoxy, as his letters provided ammunition for heretics without clear dyothelite affirmation. This marked a rare instance of ecumenical condemnation of a pope, fueling debates on papal teaching authority, with later popes like John IV (r. 640–642) defending Honorius as intending only a unified human will in Christ, free from sin's corruption. Historians note that Honorius's error stemmed from incomplete theological precision amid evolving Christological debates, predating formal dyothelite definitions, yet his affirmation of "one will" objectively aided Monothelite propagation, as evidenced by its use in imperial edicts like the Ecthesis (638). While Catholic apologists argue the letters were private and non-magisterial, the council's action underscores their doctrinal impact, highlighting Rome's vulnerability to Byzantine influence during this period and contributing to long-term schismatic strains.

Condemnation and Aftermath

Third Council of Constantinople (680–681)

The , recognized as the Sixth , was convened by Byzantine Emperor in November 680 to definitively resolve the Monothelite controversy, which had persisted despite imperial edicts like the Typos of . The council assembled in the domed hall of the imperial palace in , initially comprising around 174 bishops, primarily from the East, along with papal legates representing . Constantine IV personally presided over the opening sessions to ensure impartiality amid tensions between imperial authorities and Monothelite patriarchs. Proceedings spanned eighteen sessions from November 7, 680, to September 16, 681, involving rigorous examinations of patristic texts, scriptural passages, and writings from Monothelite leaders. In the eighth session on March 7, 681, the council endorsed the doctrinal letter of , which articulated —the orthodox position affirming two natural wills (divine and human) in Christ, united without confusion or opposition, with the human will in submission to the divine. of Antioch and his disciple , staunch Monothelites, were deposed after defending a single divine-human will and failing to reconcile their views with Chalcedonian . The council's thirteenth session on March 28, 681, issued anathemas against key Monothelite proponents, including Patriarchs Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul of Constantinople; ; Theodore of Pharan; and , whom it faulted for failing to condemn the and for ambiguously supporting expressions that lent aid to Monothelitism. The synodal definition proclaimed that Christ possesses two natural wills and two natural operations, indivisible and unconfused, corresponding to his two natures as defined at in 451, rejecting any formulation implying a single will as heretical. This affirmation underscored that the divine will leads and the human will follows without resistance, preserving the integrity of the . The council's decrees were ratified by Emperor and later confirmed by in 682, marking the official suppression of Monothelitism in the Byzantine Church, though enforcement faced resistance from some Eastern monasteries. By condemning imperial-backed compromises and reinstating dyothelite , the council reinforced the necessity of distinct yet harmonious wills in Christ to avoid diminishing his full humanity or .

Enforcement and Suppression

The enforcement of Monothelitism began with Emperor Heraclius's issuance of the Ecthesis in 638, which officially promulgated the doctrine as imperial policy to unify the empire's divided Christian factions. This edict required acceptance of Christ's single will, leading to the deposition of non-compliant patriarchs, such as Athanasius I of in 635. Heraclius's successors, including , continued this policy through coercive measures, including the Typos of 648, which prohibited any discussion of Christ's wills or energies to suppress dissent and enforce doctrinal silence. Under Constans II, enforcement escalated into direct persecution of dyothelitist opponents. Pope Martin I, who convened the Lateran Synod of 649 to condemn the Typos and Monothelitism, was arrested in 653, tried in Constantinople, deposed, and exiled to Chersonesus in 654, where he died in 655. Similarly, Maximus the Confessor faced multiple trials; after refusing to recant in 655, he was exiled, and in a 662 trial under Constans II, he endured amputation of his right hand and tongue before exile to Lazica, dying there on August 13, 662. These actions targeted key figures in Rome and the East to eliminate resistance and impose Monothelite orthodoxy. Suppression of Monothelitism followed the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681), convened by Emperor , which definitively condemned the doctrine and affirmed as orthodox. The council anathematized prominent Monothelites, including Patriarchs Sergius I, Pyrrhus, Paul II, and Peter, as well as posthumously, declaring their teachings heretical in its eighteenth session on March 7, 681. ratified the council's decrees, leading to the deposition of remaining Monothelite clergy and the enforcement of dyothelitist teachings across the , effectively ending organized support for the doctrine. This imperial backing ensured the rapid marginalization of Monothelitism, with no significant resurgence in official ecclesiastical circles thereafter.

Theological Arguments For and Against

Scriptural and Philosophical Defenses of Monothelitism

Proponents of Monothelitism advanced philosophical arguments rooted in the Chalcedonian (451) affirmation of one person (hypostasis) in two natures, positing that the will functions as a personal faculty rather than a natural one, thus requiring a single composite divine-human will to preclude any internal division or potential conflict within Christ's undivided person. This rationale, articulated by figures like Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople (r. 610–638), held that duplicate wills would imply competing centers of volition, risking a Nestorian-like separation despite the formal acceptance of two natures, and served as a compromise to unify Chalcedonians with Monophysites who prioritized Christ's ontological oneness. Scriptural defenses emphasized texts depicting Christ's volitional unity with the Father, such as John 5:30 ("I can do nothing on my own... because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me") and John 6:38 ("For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me"), which Monothelites interpreted as manifesting a singular theandric (divine-human) will in operation, without scriptural warrant for an autonomous human will distinct from the divine. These passages, along with Philippians 2:6–8 describing Christ's self-emptying obedience, were seen to underscore a unified agency where the assumed human nature's volition is fully assimilated to the Logos, avoiding any implication of opposition as in Gethsemane (Luke 22:42), reframed as the incarnate Word's expression of filial submission rather than dual-willed tension. The Ecthesis, an imperial decree issued by Emperor Heraclius in 638 and drafted under Sergius's influence, reinforced this by aligning the doctrine with patristic exegeses of such verses, claiming fidelity to scriptural holism over novel distinctions.

Dyothelitist Critiques and Necessity of Two Wills

, as Patriarch from 634 to 638, critiqued monothelitism as a veiled form of that absorbed Christ's human nature into the divine, thereby denying the distinct operations required by the (451), which affirmed two natures without confusion. He argued that a single will or energy in Christ would imply that human actions, such as suffering or temptation, were performed by the divine nature alone, rendering Christ's humanity illusory and incompatible with scriptural depictions of his human experiences. extended these critiques, asserting that monothelitism undermined the integrity of Christ's two natures by positing a single will as a property of the person rather than the natures, which logically led to either a denial of full humanity or a division into two subjects. Maximus emphasized that if Christ lacked a human will, his obedience in ("not my will, but yours be done," Luke 22:42) could not represent genuine human submission, thus weakening the soteriological role of the in redeeming human volition. The Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) formalized dyothelitist critiques, condemning monothelitism for failing to account for the distinct yet harmonious operations of Christ's divine and human wills, as evidenced by patristic of texts like John 12:27 ("Now is my soul troubled") and 5:7–8, which depict human emotional and volitional responses. Council fathers reasoned that will inheres in nature, so two natures necessitate two natural wills united in the one person of Christ, without opposition; the human will freely conforms to the divine, preserving both the unchangeability of divinity and the voluntariness of humanity. This was deemed necessary to uphold Chalcedonian against Eutychian tendencies in monothelitism, ensuring that Christ's assumption of included its full faculties for authentic representation and salvation of humankind. Theological necessity of two wills arises from the hypostatic union: without a distinct human will, Christ's temptations (Hebrews 4:15) and prayers would lack true humanity, implying either divine passibility or incomplete incarnation, both of which contradict the impassibility of God and the reality of redemption. Dyothelitism safeguards causal realism in salvation, as the human will's deification through union and submission—rather than annihilation—allows humanity to participate in divine life without ontological merger, aligning with scriptural patterns of volitional obedience (Philippians 2:8). Critics of monothelitism, including Maximus, further contended that a single will could not sustain trinitarian distinctions, where the Son's will aligns with the Father's without identity, paralleling Christ's intra-personal harmony of wills. Thus, two wills affirm the personal unity amid natural distinction, essential for coherent doctrine of God-man.

Legacy and Influence

Impact on Byzantine Ecclesiastical Unity

Monothelitism emerged as an imperial initiative under Emperor , who issued the Ecthesis in 638 to assert Christ's single will as a compromise reconciling Chalcedonian orthodoxy with Monophysite dissent in eastern provinces, aiming to bolster ecclesiastical cohesion amid territorial losses to Persian and Arab forces. This doctrine, endorsed by Patriarch Sergius I of , temporarily aligned key sees like and Antioch but provoked resistance from figures such as , who viewed it as compromising Christ's dual nature affirmed at in 451, thereby fracturing Byzantine clerical consensus. Opposition intensified under Constans II's Typos of 648, which prohibited further debate on wills and energies, enforcing monothelitism through imperial decree and suppressing dyothelite advocates, including the trial and exile of in 653; such measures, while intended to impose unity, instead deepened divisions by prioritizing caesaropapist control over theological autonomy, alienating monastic communities and western bishops who rejected the formula as Eutychian in effect. The Third Council of Constantinople, convened by from November 7, 680, to September 16, 681, marked a pivot, anathematizing monothelitism and affirming two wills in Christ per Agatho's tome, thereby reunifying the Chalcedonian hierarchy—including patriarchs of , , Antioch, and —with and restoring doctrinal orthodoxy across imperial territories. This resolution, ratified by the emperor, curtailed monothelite influence but failed to attract Monophysites, perpetuating schisms in lost provinces like and , while exposing the fragility of unity reliant on conciliar overrides of prior edicts. Subsequent enforcement under involved deposing and exiling monothelite patriarchs, such as Pyrrhus and Paul of Constantinople, consolidating ecclesiastical alignment but at the expense of lingering resentments and highlighting imperial overreach's role in prior discord; ultimately, the controversy shifted Byzantine church dynamics toward greater emphasis on patristic , fortifying core unity yet underscoring compromises' inadequacy against entrenched christological rifts.

Long-Term Effects on East-West Schism

The condemnation of Monothelitism at the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681) temporarily restored doctrinal unity between East and West, with Emperor Constantine IV's edict enforcing and papal legates affirming the council's acts, yet the against (r. 625–638) for his negligent endorsement of ambiguous language on Christ's will sowed seeds of enduring discord. (r. 682–683), in confirming the council, specified Honorius's fault as failing to "extinguish the flame of " through doctrinal vigilance, thereby ratifying the Eastern critique while accepting conciliar supremacy in this instance. This dual affirmation—upholding the council's over a pope's error—reinforced Eastern against Western inclinations toward papal oversight, straining relations despite the resolution of the itself. In subsequent centuries, the Honorius precedent fueled Eastern arguments against Roman primacy, portraying the papacy as prone to doctrinal lapses and subordinate to ecumenical consensus, a view echoed in ninth-century Photian disputes and Orthodox defenses during the 1054 schism. Western responses, emphasizing Honorius's non-ex cathedra negligence rather than formal teaching, highlighted a growing divergence: the East prioritized collective episcopal judgment, as seen in the council's thirteenth session anathematizing Honorius alongside Patriarch Sergius I, while the West increasingly defended papal appellate authority. This authority rift, unhealed by the 681 reconciliation, compounded other tensions like the Filioque clause and liturgical practices, contributing to the irreversible formal excommunications of 1054. The controversy's legacy thus lay not in unresolved —affirmed bilaterally—but in institutional mistrust, with the East leveraging Honorius's condemnation to resist universal papal , a position reiterated in later councils like those under Emperors Bardanes (r. 711–713), who briefly revived Monothelite tolerance before suppression. By embedding proof of papal errancy in ecumenical records accepted by both sides, it eroded the fragile unity forged under (r. 685–695), paving doctrinal and jurisdictional pathways toward amid Byzantine imperial interventions and Roman assertions of primacy.

Modern and Contemporary Views

Resurgences in Protestant Theology

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, certain Protestant philosophers and theologians, unbound by the binding authority of the Third Council of for many in their tradition, have revisited Monothelitism as a viable Christological option. This resurgence emphasizes analytic philosophy's focus on personal unity and consciousness, arguing that risks implying two distinct centers of self-awareness in Christ, akin to a divided . Proponents contend that a single, divine-human will—fully expressive of both natures without separation—better safeguards the while accommodating Christ's human experiences through a unified volitional center. William Lane Craig, a prominent evangelical philosopher, has defended Monothelitism as biblically permissible and philosophically coherent, positing that Christ's singular will integrates divine sovereignty and obedience without requiring a separate volitional faculty that could fracture . In his view, scriptural depictions of Christ's submission (e.g., "not my will, but yours" in Luke 22:42) reflect relational dynamics within one will rather than conflict between two, avoiding the dyothelite implication of potential divine- . Craig's position, articulated in podcasts and writings since the early , draws on kenotic themes but prioritizes ontological in Christ's . J. P. Moreland, collaborating with Craig in works like Philosophical Foundations for a (2003), endorses a "neo-monothelite" framework where Christ's will is personal and enhypostatic, inhering in the divine while manifesting capacities without a distinct human will as a separate power. This approach, echoed by Garry DeWeese, appeals to Protestant commitments to by questioning conciliar dyothelitism's exegetical necessity, claiming insufficient biblical warrant for two wills and highlighting patristic ambiguities predating the 680–681 council. Jordan Wessling has offered a qualified defense in his 2013 essay "Christology and Conciliar Authority," arguing that Monothelitism remains open for Protestant given non-binding ecumenical decisions and philosophical advantages in resolving puzzles of Christ's and . Wessling maintains that a unified will allows genuine human volition without autonomy from the divine person, aligning with Reformed emphases on Christ's mediatorial role. This minority view persists amid broader Protestant adherence to but reflects ongoing debates in analytic , where empirical scriptural analysis and logical coherence challenge historical orthodoxies.

Ongoing Debates in Ecumenical Contexts

In contemporary ecumenical dialogues between the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches, the condemnation of Monothelitism at the Third Council of remains a shared doctrinal foundation, with both traditions affirming as essential to Christ's full humanity and divinity without reviving the heresy for debate. Official joint statements, such as those from the Joint International Commission, emphasize agreement on post-Chalcedonian , including the two wills, as a basis for further unity discussions rather than a point of contention. Dialogues with similarly exhibit consensus against Monothelitism, as these traditions—while miaphysite in nature terminology—affirm the distinction of divine and human wills in Christ, rejecting any absorption of the human will into the divine as undermining the Incarnation's integrity. For instance, Coptic Orthodox theology explicitly upholds two wills corresponding to Christ's desires, aligning with dyothelitist principles despite historical non-acceptance of the . This alignment has facilitated progress in joint declarations, such as those clarifying Severus of Antioch's teachings do not imply monothelitism, though primary ecumenical challenges persist in areas like rather than will . Occasional scholarly reflections in ecumenical contexts analogize modern theological tendencies—such as certain interpretations subordinating Christ's human will—to historical monothelitism, but these serve apologetic purposes within traditions rather than inter-church disputes. Overall, the doctrine's resolution bolsters Christological unity, precluding substantive debates in favor of exploring practical implications for and across denominations.

References

  1. https://www.monergism.com/monothelitism
  2. https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/church-history/seventh-century/monoenergism-monothelitism
  3. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum06.htm
  4. https://religiondatabase.org/browse/1793
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/christological-perspectives-after-constantinople-ii/2349A9B81FD6F89AEA244D18D18401CA
  6. https://equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/a-model-of-jesus-christs-two-wills-in-view-of-theology-proper-and-anthropology/
  7. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4061/1/4061_1578.pdf
  8. https://academic.oup.com/book/26864/chapter/195901795
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/ekthesis-of-emperor-heraclius/8E900566509C58DC915F4CA2A11651E9
  10. https://iota-web.org/2020/03/24/monothelitism-in-byzantium-of-the-seventh-century-doctrine-politics-and-ideology-of-power-%25D0%25BC%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BD%25D0%25BE%25D1%2582%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BB%25D1%2596%25D1%2582%25D1%2581%25D1%2582%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BE-%25D1%2583-%25D0%25B2%25D1%2596%25D0%25B7/
  11. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm
  12. https://chalcedon.edu/resources/articles/the-theology-of-the-ancient-creeds-part-5-christology-after-chalcedon
  13. https://academic.oup.com/book/26922/chapter/196030441
  14. https://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/allenneil_maximus_3.html
  15. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100455825
  16. https://www.ecatholic2000.com/councils/untitled-56.shtml
  17. https://syriacpress.com/blog/2020/11/08/the-ecthesis-when-emperor-heraclius-sought-to-conciliate-syriac-dissenters-with-the-doctrine-of-christs-single-will-but-failed/
  18. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
  19. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Typos
  20. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/typos
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/typos-of-6478/D484A8622085096C9C91508FC812E37F
  22. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Pyrrhus_I_of_Constantinople
  23. https://4marksofthechurch.com/monothelitism/
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-edition-of-early-christian-writings/sophronius-of-jerusalem-synodical-letter-16-and-3117/6096D548322EC623ADEBC26B6EFBDF0C
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236783182_Sophronius_of_Jerusalem_and_Seventh-Century_Heresy_The_Synodical_Letter_and_Other_Documents_review
  26. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/st-maximus-the-confessor-on-the-will-natural-and-gnomic/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359511652_A_wrong_line_of_reasoning_of_Maximus_the_Confessor_in_his_%27Disputations_with_Phyrrus%27
  28. https://almuslih.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Benevich-Christological-Polemics.pdf
  29. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-truth-about-pope-honorius
  30. https://www.robertodemattei.it/en/honorius-i-the-controversial-case-of-a-heretic-pope/
  31. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-error-and-condemnation-of-pope.html
  32. https://www.goarch.org/-/the-sixth-ecumenical-council
  33. https://www.gotquestions.org/Third-Council-of-Constantinople.html
  34. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm
  35. https://www.english.op.org/godzdogz/councils-of-faith-constantinople-iii-680-681/
  36. https://www.economist.com/johnson/2010/10/29/the-ism-of-the-week-monotheletism
  37. https://4marksofthechurch.com/persecutions-constans-ii/
  38. https://thehistorianshut.com/2023/05/17/emperor-constans-iis-extreme-punishment-of-maximus-the-confessors-religious-debate/
  39. https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/council-of-constantinople---exposition-of-faith-1457
  40. https://lutheranspokesman.org/2021/07/01/monothelitism/
  41. https://wtctheology.org.uk/theomisc/ideas-to-die-for-part-one/
  42. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/maximus-the-confessors-answer-to-the-crisis-of-meaning/
  43. https://founders.org/articles/how-many-wills-does-jesus-have-the-importance-of-christs-humanity-and-divinity/
  44. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/two-wills-in-jesus
  45. https://www.ligonier.org/posts/does-jesus-have-one-or-two-wills
  46. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4018.htm
  47. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/60867502.pdf
  48. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/flor/article/download/19218/20894/25378
  49. https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/06/21/84/00001/Williamson_E.pdf
  50. https://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/4.2018/RemusFeraru.pdf
  51. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-the-byzantine-empire-c5001492/byzantium-transforming-600700/BE25780BDD5F2346A866F3A2ED3AC0D9
  52. https://jat-ojs-baylor.tdl.org/jat/article/download/455/622/1522
  53. https://buildingcatholicculture.com/1054-the-more-complicated-history-of-east-west-relations/
  54. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/monotheletism
  55. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/does-jesus-have-one-or-two-wills
  56. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6392
  57. https://www.pharosjot.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/pharos_article_4_vol._97_2016.pdf
  58. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64416/how-would-miaphysites-approach-the-question-of-monothelitism-versus-dyothelitism
  59. https://www.facebook.com/groups/askaboutcopts/posts/1485071982103307/
  60. https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/severus-of-antioch-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-perspectives/
  61. https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/cardinal-koch/2024/Conferenze/on-the-path-to-unity--challenges-in-the-current-ecumenical-conte.html
  62. https://ecosemiotics.com/2023/05/22/todays-monothelitism-and-the-witness-of-orthodox-apologetics/
  63. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/1/96
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.