Creed promulgated
The Creed of this Council
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that the Word of God is one thing and Christ another — who was gradually separated from what is inferior and became better through his progress in good works — and who was not recognized as God until after his baptism... let him be anathema.
Definition · No. 1
The Council's Answer
Claim refuted: "“Chalcedon's two-natures definition is compatible with the Nestorian theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia: Christ is two subjects loosely united, not one Person with two natures. The writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas prove this.”" — The council held that the genuine meaning of Chalcedon requires the full integrity of Christ's humanity — not two subjects but one Person. The Neo-Chalcedonian synthesis (Cyril + Chalcedon) is the authentic reading: “two natures” means two complete sets of essential properties, not two persons. Chalcedon is not Nestorian; the Nestorian interpreters of Chalcedon are wrong, and their writings deserve condemnation.
Creed · No. 2
The Council's Anathema Against Nestorian Christology
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that the Word of God is one thing and Christ another — who was gradually separated from what is inferior and became better through his progress in good works — and who was not recognized as God until after his baptism... let him be anathema. — Council of Constantinople II, Anathema II against the Three Chapters, 553 AD
Anathema · No. 3
Against Three Chapters
“Chalcedon's two-natures definition is compatible with the Nestorian theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia: Christ is two subjects loosely united, not one Person with two natures. The writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas prove this.”
Anathema · No. 4
Against The Three Chapters Nestorian Readings Of Chalcedon
“Chalcedon's two-natures definition is compatible with the Nestorian theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia: Christ is two subjects loosely united, not one Person with two natures. The writings of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas prove this.”
Definition · No. 5
Witness — Emperor Justinian I (Imperial Theologian)
"We anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that the Word of God is one Person and Christ another; and who taught that this “Christ” had a mere human person, which was gradually united with the Word by progress and honor — and thus received divine sonship only by adoption, not by nature. For such a one divides the holy and indivisible Trinity." — Emperor Justinian I, Edict against the Three Chapters, c. 543 AD. Justinian's theological argument was not merely political. He genuinely grasped what was at stake: a Nestorian reading of Chalcedon would mean the Son of God did not himself suffer — only an associated human being did. The Theopaschite formula (“one of the Trinity suffered”) was the Cyrillian correction.
Definition · No. 6
Witness — Pope Vigilius (The Reluctant Pope)
"I am not unaware how greatly my weakness has displeased many people on account of the Three Chapters... I confess that I was moved by human fear. I ask for forgiveness, and I declare that the Three Chapters deserve condemnation. Theodore of Mopsuestia, with all his works, is to be anathematized; likewise the writings of Theodoret against Cyril; likewise the letter of Ibas." — Pope Vigilius, Constitutum II, 553 AD (final capitulation). Vigilius had agreed, retracted, been placed under house arrest, escaped to a church, been physically dragged out, agreed again, retracted again — all under sustained imperial pressure. His final signature represents one of the most historically complicated moments in the relationship between Rome and the ecumenical councils.
Definition · No. 7
Witness — St. Maximus the Confessor (Theological Completion)
"The holy fathers and the holy councils recognize two natures in Christ: the divine and the human. They recognize one hypostasis, which is that of the Word. They do not say that the union has taken away the difference of the natures, but that the same one Person is both natures — neither merging them nor dividing them. This is what Cyril taught, and this is what Chalcedon defined." — St. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula Theologica et Polemica, 7th c.. Maximus wrote after Constantinople II and built on its Neo-Chalcedonian synthesis. His development of <em>enhypostasia</em> — Christ's human nature subsisting in the hypostasis of the Word — gave the synthesis its most rigorous philosophical form and set the stage for his own confrontation with Monothelitism.
Cross-references
Read alongside
Fathers