The Seventh Ecumenical Council – Nicaea II (787 A.D.)

Key Issue: The Veneration of Holy Icons

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea in 787, addressed the major controversy over the use and veneration of icons in the Church—a dispute known as Iconoclasm. After a period when icons were banned and destroyed, the Council restored their veneration and articulated a theological basis for their place in Christian worship and devotion.

Council’s Decision

• The Council decreed that the veneration (proskynesis) of icons is lawful and necessary for the Church, as distinct from adoration (latreia), which is due to God alone.

• The honor given to an icon passes to the prototype—the real person depicted—so venerating an icon of Christ or a saint ultimately honors Christ or the saint, not the material image.

• The Incarnation was central to their reasoning: since the Word of God truly became flesh, matter itself is capable of conveying grace, and visual representation is possible and appropriate.

Theological Significance

1. Affirmation of the Incarnation

By allowing images of Christ, the Church affirms the truth and fullness of the Incarnation: the invisible God became visible and tangible in Jesus. Therefore, representing Christ in material form proclaims that He truly took on human flesh and entered history.

2. Sanctification of Creation

Icons demonstrate that physical matter can be sanctified and used for God’s purposes. The Council’s decision rejects the idea that matter is inherently evil or incapable of bearing God’s grace, thus upholding the goodness of all creation.

3. Distinction Between Veneration and Worship

The Council drew a clear theological line between veneration (respect, honor) given to icons and worship (adoration) given only to God. This distinction upholds monotheism and the unique position of God while protecting the devotional role of images.

Theological Conclusions

• Icons are “windows to the divine”: They direct attention to Christ and the saints and proclaim the reality of the Incarnation.

• Veneration of icons is permitted and even essential: It honors the Incarnate Word and supports the sanctification of matter and human creativity.

• Worship belongs only to God: The distinction remains absolute, keeping prayer and adoration reserved for the Holy Trinity alone.

The restoration of icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council reinforced the doctrine of the Incarnation by making visible that God truly became flesh—tangible, depictable, and accessible in human form. Because the Word took on a physical body, Christians can make images of Christ, showing that matter is not rejected but sanctified and capable of revealing the divine. This is essential for worship today because icons help believers encounter Christ and the saints in ways that are concrete and personal, affirming the goodness of creation and deepening faith in the reality of God-with-us. When venerated, icons direct the mind and heart to their divine prototype, proclaiming the truth of the Incarnation and reminding Christians that salvation involves the whole person—body and spirit—participating in the life of God.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council – Constantinople III (680–681 A.D.)

 

Key Issue: The Two Wills and Two Energies of Christ

The Sixth Ecumenical Council confronted the heresy of Monothelitism, which claimed that Christ had only a single divine will and energy, dismissing the reality of His human will. This false teaching threatened the fullness of Christ’s humanity by implying that He only acted according to a divine will, not genuinely as a human being.

Council’s Decision

• The Council affirmed that Jesus Christ possesses two wills (divine and human) and two energies (divine and human) corresponding to His two natures.

• These wills and energies are not in conflict but work in perfect harmony within the one person of Christ.

• The human will of Christ is truly real, not merely symbolic or overridden by the divine; His genuine obedience is central to Christian salvation.

Theological Significance

1. Safeguarding the Full Humanity and Divinity of Christ

By teaching two natural wills and two corresponding energies, the Council protected the doctrine that Christ is both fully God and fully human. If Christ lacked a true human will, He would not fully share and heal our human condition or offer real human obedience to God.

2. Real Obedience and Redemption

Christ’s human will freely submits to the divine, enacting real human obedience on behalf of all. This means that the saving work of Christ truly included human effort and cooperation, fulfilling what humanity was called to offer God but could not.

3. Harmony, Not Conflict

The unity of Christ’s wills ensures His actions remain one and undivided, yet the distinction preserves that His humanity was genuine. Christ’s obedient life, struggle, and sacrifice were not play-acting—they were the genuine offering of God-made-man.

Theological Conclusions

• Christ has two natural wills (human and divine) and two natural energies, united harmoniously in one Person.

• His human obedience is real and effective, securing salvation for all humanity.

• Monothelitism condemned: Any teaching that denies Christ a human will or energy undermines the true Incarnation and redemption.

---

How Christ’s human will participates in salvation and helps believers relate to Jesus more deeply as both God and Man.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council taught that Christ had two natural wills—one divine and one human—and two corresponding energies, working perfectly together. This safeguarded both the fullness of Christ’s divinity and His genuine humanity, showing that His human obedience to the Father was real, not just symbolic. By affirming Christ’s human will, the Council ensured that Jesus truly experienced human choice, struggle, and surrender—making His victory over sin and death a victory achieved as both God and man. This means believers can trust that Christ’s redemption fully meets human needs, and that as truly human, He is able to sanctify every aspect of human life and will.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council – Constantinople II (553 A.D.)

 Key Issue: Further Christological Clarity and Condemnation of Heretical Writings

The Fifth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople, aimed to resolve remaining disputes after Chalcedon and clarify misunderstandings about Christ’s person. The central concerns were Christological unity and the condemnation of writings that harbored Nestorian tendencies—the so-called "Three Chapters".​

What Were the “Three Chapters”?

• The Council condemned certain works (and authors) associated with Nestorianism, including Theodore of Mopsuestia, parts of Theodoret of Cyrrhus’s writings, and a letter of Ibas of Edessa.

• These writings tended to split Christ into two persons—one divine, one human—echoing old Nestorian errors which the earlier councils, especially Ephesus and Chalcedon, had opposed.

The Council’s Christological Clarifications

• The Council reaffirmed: There is one Person in Christ, the eternal Word (Logos), in whom the fullness of divinity and humanity are united.

• It endorsed the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and rejected explanations that divided Christ or suggested Christ’s human experience was divorced from his divine personhood.

• It declared that the same divine Person—the Word—truly experienced suffering, crucifixion, and death “in the flesh” (according to his humanity) for the salvation of all.

Theological Importance

1. Unity of Christ Restated:

The council’s actions highlighted again—against renewed Nestorian leanings—that Jesus Christ is not two separate persons but one unified divine-human Person. This ensures all his human actions, including suffering and death, truly belong to the Son of God, not to another (“mere man”).

2. Purification of Teaching:

By condemning the “Three Chapters,” the Council removed writings that could undermine the Incarnation’s mystery and mislead the faithful on the true nature of Christ.

3. Continuity with Cyril:

It firmly aligned the Church’s teaching with St. Cyril’s Christology, which stressed that the Son’s suffering for our salvation was not a separate human act but the true self-giving of the eternal Word.wikipedia+1​

Theological Conclusions

• One undivided Christ: The same eternal Son of God is both fully divine and fully human; all His deeds and sufferings are personal acts of the one Lord, not divided between two subjects.

• Nestorian tendencies condemned: Any interpretation that splits Christ’s redemptive work between two “persons” is rejected.

• Dogmatic continuity: The council safeguarded earlier orthodox teaching, clarified the unity of Christ, and preserved the reality that God Himself came and suffered for our salvation.

---

Can you explain why it matters for salvation that it’s the one divine Person—the eternal Word—who suffered and died, rather than just “the human side” of Jesus?# The Fifth Ecumenical Council – Constantinople II (553 A.D.)

Key Issue: Further Christological Clarity and Condemnation of Heretical Writings

The Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 A.D., convened in Constantinople, addressed lingering controversies after Chalcedon and sought to secure greater Christological unity by condemning writings that undermined this.

The “Three Chapters” Controversy

• The council specifically condemned the “Three Chapters”: works attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia, certain writings by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and a letter from Ibas of Edessa, all of which contained Nestorian themes.

• Nestorianism essentially divided Christ, suggesting a split between a human person and a divine person, threatening the unity affirmed at previous councils.

Council’s Christological Clarifications

• The council reaffirmed the teaching that Jesus Christ is a single, undivided Person: the eternal Word (Logos) who truly became man.

• It preserved the language and theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, confirming that the very same Word who is God suffered “in the flesh” for human salvation.

• It declared anyone who divides the acts of Christ—attributing some only to the human person and not to the one divine Person—is outside Christian faith.

Theological Importance

• Ensures Salvation’s Reality: Because Christ’s divine personhood means that the Word truly suffered and died for humanity, our salvation is the work of God Himself, not just a specially graced human.

• Secures Incarnational Mystery: By rejecting both division and confusion in Christ, the Church protected the teaching that God became genuinely human without ceasing to be God, enabling true union between God and man.

• Maintains Dogmatic Continuity: The council’s actions stood firmly within orthodox tradition, uniting the theology of Chalcedon and earlier councils with the clarity and emphasis of Cyril of Alexandria.

Theological Conclusions

• The unity of Christ’s person is absolute: The same eternal Word is fully divine and fully human, and all of Christ’s actions—including suffering and dying—are truly the actions of God incarnate.​

• The “Three Chapters” and all Nestorianizing interpretations were condemned to safeguard this faith.

• The Church reaffirmed that salvation and worship remain possible only because Christ is one Person who spans the gap between God and humanity in Himself.

It is vital for salvation that the same eternal Word—God Himself—suffered for our sake, rather than just a human “side,” because only God’s self-offering could reach the roots of sin, defeat evil, and free us from eternal separation from God. If only Christ’s human nature suffered, then salvation would not be truly God’s act, and it would lack the infinite power and authority needed to redeem all humanity. By the eternal Word suffering in the flesh, salvation is both complete and universally effective, demonstrating the depth of God’s love and ensuring that human suffering is not lost but redeemed through union with Him.