Fifth Ecumenical Council

Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online
Constantinople, 03: Second Council of (Fifth Ecumenical

Council; 553 CE)
(1,590 words)
The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE was the

fifth ecumenical council. The council, indeed, was wanted Table of Contents
by Justinian rather than by the bishop of Rome or other
Historiography
bishops. Pope Vigilius had been brought by force from
Rome to Constantinople, by the emperor’s order, already in Bibliography
546 CE. Justinian wanted him to ratify the condemnation of
the “Three Chapters” (besides that of Origen, on which see
below): Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa, accused of
Nestorianism. Justinian published two edicts, in 543 and 551 CE, against these three theologians.
He wanted Vigilius to approve his edicts, but the pope did not. He only issued a letter of
approval, but later withdrew it. Neither did he accept in 553 CE to declare that the council was
open: Justinian had to do so. Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople, presided. On May 5 the
council began its works against the Three Chapters, with about 150 bishops, in the Basilica of
Haghia Sophia. Vigilius was absent, like the other Italian bishops. On May 14 he published the
Constitutum, which condemned 60 passages from Theodore, but refused to anathematize a dead
theologian, as well as Theodoret and Ibas. He also forbade the conciliar bishops from going on
without his approval. The council, however, cancelled the name of the pope from the diptychs in
the seventh session, and Vigilius was imprisoned in Constantinople by Justinian, while his
counselors were exiled. In the eighth and last session, on June 2, the conciliar bishops published
14 anathemas against the Three Chapters. They also proclaimed the perpetual virginity of Mary
(eighth session, c. 2, DH 422: ἀειπάρθενος, perpetually virgin). Vigilius, on Dec 8, approved the
condemnation of the Three Chapters and in 554 CE published a second Constitutum, which did
not even mention the council. The churches of Milan, Aquileia, and Spain did not recognize this
council (this was the so-called Three-Chapter Schism), and Isidore of Seville did not hide his
hostility against Justinian, who in fact was its sole promoter.
The council focused on the Three Chapters, but Justinian had prepared for the conciliar bishops
a letter against what he believed to be Origen’s doctrines, equipped with 15 anathematisms,
which he wanted them to ratify. Justinian, however, was not acquainted with Origen’s authentic
thought – he did not even read Origen’s works – but rather with a late and radicalized kind of
Origenism, as it existed in the first half of the 6th century CE, especially in Palestine, in the
monasteries of Saint Saba, the Great Laura, and the New Laura. Evagrius Ponticus’ writings
(Evagrius of Pontus) seem to have been preserved there, but Evagrius’ ideas themselves were
distorted and exasperated in those circles (Casiday, 2013). An expression of this sort of
intellectual environment seems to be the Book of Hierotheus, probably authored by Bar Sudhaili,
which supported the doctrine of apokatastasis in such an extreme form as to arouse suspicions
of pantheism. Cyril of Scythopolis in Vita Cyriaci (12; Life of Cyriacus) reflects well the
contemporary concern about this radicalized type of Origenism. Cyriacus draws the same
connection between Origen and philosophy – both condemned – as drawn by Justinian in his
letter to the conciliar fathers: he indicates as the sources of 6th-century CE Origenism
“Pythagoras, Plato, Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus” (Ramelli, 2013, 724–738).
The diffusion of Origenism specifically in Palestine, which triggered Justinian’s pressure on the
conciliar fathers, is also attested by the correspondence of Barsanuphius and John of Gaza, two
ascetics from the Gaza desert. Here they answer a number of questions. In Ep. 600, a monk
wants to know Barsanuphius’ position about Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius’ Kephalaia Gnostika
(Chapters on Knowledge, or better Propositions on Knowledge, Evagrius’ most speculative work;
see Ramelli, 2015), particularly with regard to the theories of the so-called preexistence of souls
and apokatastasis. Barsanuphius and John utterly reject these doctrines (Ep. 600 and 601). The
same rejection emerges from Justinian’s letters to the conciliar fathers. To take another example,
in Ep. 607 the question is whether the resurrected bodies will be “with bones and nerves,” or
“aerial and spherical.” The latter view was attributed to Origen also by Justinian. The emperor
wanted to extirpate what he mistook for Origen’s doctrines, in the very same way as he wanted to
close the Platonic school of Athens. His and his counselors’ suspicion was that Greek philosophy
inspired the Origenistic heresy. This view of philosophy as the mother of heresies was an old
heresiological stereotype.
Justinian was informed by counselors about the Origenistic doctrines of his day and promoted a
condemnation of this kind of Origenism, which he mistook for Origen’s own ideas, at first in 543
CE, in his long letter to Men(n)as, the patriarch of Constantinople. Here he denounced Origen’s
supposed doctrines and concluded the document with ten anathemas. The provincial synod,
summoned at court, condemned the doctrines indicated by the emperor (acts in DH 2301). The
source of Justinian’s information about Origen’s purported doctrines were some anti-Origenistic
monks from the Laura of Saint Sabas led by Abbot Gelasius. These, probably on the basis of a
severely interpolated redaction of Origen’s De principiis (On First Principles), prepared a
document, which they gave to Peter of Jerusalem, who transmitted it to Justinian. According to
yg g
Cyril of Scythopolis, this document was transformed into Justinian’s edict so-called against
Origen. Justinian’s Epistula ad synodum de Origene (Letter on Origen, to the Council) repeatedly
mentions Origen’s name, but includes little or nothing of his true thought. The Second Council
of Constantinople is usually cited as that which “condemned Origen.” The anathemas, 15 in
number, were already prepared by Justinian, or his counselors, before the opening of the council,
and were appended to his letter to the conciliar fathers. Here, Origen is considered to be the
inspirer of the so-called Isochristoi. This was the position of the Sabaite opponents of Origen,
summarized by Cyril of Scythopolis, who maintained that the council issued a definitive
anathema against Origen, Theodore, Evagrius, and Didymus concerning the “preexistence of
souls” and apokatastasis, thus ratifying Sabas’ position (Cyr.Scyt. Vita Sab. 90). One of the
previously formulated anathemas, which only waited to be ratified by the council, was indeed
against the doctrine of apokatastasis: “If anyone supports the monstrous doctrine of
apokatastasis, be it anathema.” Other anathemas concern the “preexistence of souls,” their union
with bodies only after their fall, and the denial of the resurrection of the body. Apart from
apokatastasis, these doctrines have nothing to do with Origen; in fact, Origen is not named in
any authentic anathema. Vigilius’ documents, emanated by a council that was not wanted by
him, do not contain Origen’s name.
Only anathema 11 in the official acts mentions Origen, in the last position, and notably out of
chronological order, in a list of heretics: “Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius,
Eutyches, and Origen.” In its sketch in Justinian’s Homonoia (Concord), that list does not include
the name of Origen. This suggests an interpolation. Indeed, several anathemas, including those
which mention Origen, did not belong to the official acts of the council, but were interpolated
later. N. Tanner is right to exclude them from his edition of the acts of the councils, noting that
they “cannot be attributed to this council” (Tanner, 1990, 106). It must be considered that the
original Greek text of the acts of this council is lost, and that suspicions have been raised already
in 680 CE (at the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople) that the original Greek acts of
the 553 CE council were interpolated. H. Crouzel (1986) argued that Origen in fact was never
officially condemned by the church.
Historiography
This ecumenical council has been studied within the acts of the ecumenical councils by N.
Tanner (1990), G. Alberigo (1993), and more specifically by F.X. Murphy and P. Sherwood (1973),
and R. Price (2009). H. Crouzel (1986; 1999) has offered, and I. Perczel is going to offer in a more a
comprehensive form, an analysis of this council within an examination of the Origenistic
controversy. G. Frank (1991) provided a theological study of the Second Ecumenical Council of
Constantinople, and M. Simonetti (2006) and J. Konstantinovsky (2014) offered a brief survey. I.
Ramelli (2013, 724–738) analyzed this council in relation to Origen and a future, systematic study
on the rejection of the doctrine of apokatastasis will focus precisely on Justinian and the council
he strongly wanted.
Ilaria L.E. Ramelli
Bibliography
ACO, vol. IV/I, Berlin, 1971.
Alberigo, G., ed., Storia dei concili ecumenici, Bologna, 21993.
Carcione, F., “La politica religiosa di Giustiniano (543–553),” SROC 9, 1986, 131–147.
Casiday, A., Reconstructing the Theology of Evagrius Ponticus, Cambridge UK, 2013.
Crouzel, H., “Origene e l’origenismo: Le condanne di Origene,” Aug. 26, 1986, 295–303.
Crouzel, H., “Les condamnations subies par Origène et sa doctrine,” in: W.A. Bienert & U.
Kühneweg, eds., Origeniana VII: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts,
Louvain, 1999, 311–315.
Frank, G., “The Council of Constantinople II as a Model Reconciliation Council,” TS 52, 1991, 636–
650.
Gray. P., “Konstantinopel II,” in: TRE, vol. XIX, Berlin, 1990, 524–527.
Konstantinovsky, J., “Council of Constantinople II,” in: J. McGuckin, ed., CEOC, Oxford, 2014, 130–
131.
Mansi, vol. XI, 226–375.
Murphy, F.X., & P. Sherwood, Constantinople II et III, HCO 3, Paris, 1973.
Price, R., The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553, 2 vols., Liverpool, 2009.
Ramelli, I., The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment From the New Testament
to Eriugena, Leiden, 2013.
Ramelli, I., Evagrius Ponticus’ Kephalaia Gnostika, Leiden, 2015.

Simonetti, M., “Costantinopoli, Concilii, 382–786,” in: A. Di Berardino, ed., NDPAC, vol. I, Genoa,
2006, 1238–1245.
Tanner, N., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, London, 1990.
Cite this page
Ramelli, Ilaria L.E., “Constantinople, 03: Second Council of (Fifth Ecumenical Council; 553 CE)”, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online,
General Editor David G. Hunter, Paul J.J. van Geest, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. Consulted online on 13 July 2022 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-
7993_EECO_COM_040628>
First published online: 2019

Fifth Ecumenical Council

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fifth Ecumenical Council

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fifth Ecumenical Council

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the purpose of the Second Council of Constantinople?

What were the Three Chapters that the council focused on condemning?

Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online

Constantinople, 03: Second Council of (Fifth Ecumenical

The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE was the

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli

ACO, vol. IV/I, Berlin, 1971.

Alberigo, G., ed., Storia dei concili ecumenici, Bologna, 21993.

Carcione, F., “La politica religiosa di Giustiniano (543–553),” SROC 9, 1986, 131–147.

Casiday, A., Reconstructing the Theology of Evagrius Ponticus, Cambridge UK, 2013.

Crouzel, H., “Origene e l’origenismo: Le condanne di Origene,” Aug. 26, 1986, 295–303.

Mansi, vol. XI, 226–375.

Murphy, F.X., & P. Sherwood, Constantinople II et III, HCO 3, Paris, 1973.

Ramelli, I., Evagrius Ponticus’ Kephalaia Gnostika, Leiden, 2015.

Tanner, N., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, London, 1990.

Cite this page

You might also like