St. Dioscorus

• The following details are biographical only:
• At Edessa, in 435, a newly elected bishop Ibas turned out to be a zealous disciple of Theodore of Mospuestia (a Nestorian Antiochian leader), and the dogmatic controversy now began to concentrate on Theodore’s writings. John of Antioch was replaced in 443 by his nephew Domnus, who had unstable character, a man only capable of sensible decisions when he had Theodoret of Cyrus at hand to advise him. In the year St. Cyril died and was succeeded by Dioscorus. At Constantinople Proclus was succeeded (446) by Flavian. He seemed to believe in “one incarnate nature of the Word of God out of the two,” but Theodoret of Cyrus changed his mind.
• According to Church tradition St. Dioscorus sent letters to his brothers the bishops. Theodoret of Cyrus replied with a kind letter. Afterwards Theodoret declared his enmity to St. Dioscorus, for the latter sent a letter to

Domnus of Antioch, blaming him kindly and openly for his encouragement to Theodoret to preach the people with the Nestorian dualism of the Person of Christ, despising the Council of Ephesus and declaring that Nestorius was not a heretic. Domnus sent a kind reply to St. Dioscorus, saying that he enjoyed his letter. St. Dioscorus and Eutyches

• On 8 November 448, Eusebius of Dorylaeum accused Eutyches, an aged and respected archimandrite of the Monastery of Job-Constantinople who was responsible for over 300 monks, of not having the faith of the Nicene Fathers to Flavian patriarch of Constantinople.53
• Flavian called for a Home Synod beginning on 10 November 448, resulting in the condemnation of Eutyches. Eutyches accepted the Alexandrian Christological formula “one incarnate nature of the Word of God.” In his eager opposition to Nestorianism, he defended the formula “one nature” against that of the “two natures,” but without sound theological basis, as he inferred that the Godhead absorbed the manhood of Christ.
• Eutyches refused to appear before the council until the seventh session. He denied ever having said that Jesus’ flesh came from heaven. He repeated that Christ took flesh of the Virgin Mary, and added that it was a complete incarnation, but he refused to conclude that His flesh was co-essential with us.
• Eutyches was condemned, at the Home Synod. He appealed to the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica, and lodged a complaint to the emperor.54 The Second Council of Ephesus in 449
• Leo of Rome wrote to Eutyches, praising his zeal in

opposing the Nestorian dualism, and at the same time wrote to Flavian to be kind to Eutyches

• But he changed his mind perhaps when he heard that the emperor wrote to St. Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, summoning him to a council to be held to discuss this matter.
• Emperor Theodosius II convened the second Council of Ephesus in 449. He asked Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria to preside. He was the nominee of the emperor with special instruction to investigate the condemnation of Eutyches at the Home Synod of 448, and in light of the Nicene faith as ratified by the Council of Ephesus 431.
• Eutyches declared Orthodox statements.
• After examining the proceedings of the First Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Home Synod of Constantinople in 448, and reading a written confession of the Orthodox faith which Eutyches had (deceitfully) submitted to this Council, the Council condemned and deposed Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople and Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaem, and acquitted Eutyches and restored him to his clerical post.55
• Leo of Rome, however, denounced the council of 449 as a lactrocinium—a meeting of robbers—which Frend thinks ‘has stuck for all time.’56 In rejecting the council in this way Pope Leo may not have had in mind any iniquity which critics in later times spoke concerning it and which pro-Chalcedonian writers delighted in perpetuating. The real grievance of Pope Leo, as the term which he employed clearly indicates, ‘was that the council did not honor his Tome’.
• He may well have seen in this an act of ignoring his papal authority and even robbing his see of the divine right which he was claiming for it. An assembly which dared to pay no attention to his papal mandate was for

Pope Leo a meeting of robbers, and not a council of the Church.57

• Pope Dioscorus has also been branded by pro- Chalcedonians for the death of the patriarch Flavian. The death of Flavian, which occurred probably not long after his condemnation, was an event which elicited sympathy for the cause of Pope Leo, particularly in Constantinople. This incident came to be interpreted in later times by the opponents of the council of 449 as having been caused by physical injuries inflicted on him at the council, though no such story was told at Chalcedon in 451. As VC Samuel states, “as to the council of 449, it is only fair that no adverse comment which is clearly not established by the minutes of the

Council of Chalcedon should not be deemed deserving any attention by impartial scholarship.”

• Many Chalcedonians state that the schism which occurred through the Council of Chalcedon was a reaction of what happened in the Second Council of Ephesus; first because Dioscorus omitted the Tome of Leo, and second because he was violent. But we shall argue these two charges.
• Concerning the first charge, after the council of 449, Pope Dioscorus was blamed by Pope Leo of Rome for not allowing the reading of his Tome. At the Council the Roman legates appealed at least three times for the papal letter to be read, there was no one in the council to support them, so far as our record goes, at Ephesus, apart from the Roman legates, Pope Dioscorus alone suggested the reading of the letter. Pope Dioscorus himself made this point at Chalcedon, “Twice”, he said, “I asked for presenting the letter of Leo to the council.”

Thesecond charge: Was St. Dioscorus Violent?

• Metropolitan Gregorius Behnam of the Syrian Orthodox Church, after publishing the imperial letter of Emperors Theodosius II and Valentinus, translated from the Syriac to the Arabic, gives the following remarks: 1. The Council was not held on the demand of Pope Dioscorus, and there were no previous letters between the Alexandrian pope and the emperors. This means that St. Dioscorus de- manded no personal benefit. 2. The imperial letters did not describe St. Dioscorus with titles more honorable than others. This means that there was no previous agreement between the emperor and St. Dioscorus. 3. The imperial letters revealed the increased theological troubles that spread in the See of Constantinople. 4. Decisions were accepted through voting, and we do not hear that one of the bishops who were present resented or withdrew from the Council, except Flavian and Eusebius on giving a statement against them. 5. In the opening word which Juvenal of Jerusalem addressed, he described Leo of Rome as a “saint” and “lover of God.” These titles revealed the council’s spirit. 6. When Leo of Rome asked the emperor of the West, Valentinus, his mother and his sister Pulcheria to intercede before Theodosius II, to summon another council, the latter sent them a letter praising the Council of Ephesus, starting that it was controlled by the fear of God. 7. In the imperial message at the opening of the Council, the emperor revealed the violence of Theodoret of Cyrus. 8. Until the last moment of this council, St. Dioscorus did not speak an evil word against Rome, while Leo in his epistles referred to the Pope of Alexandria as “that Egyptian plun- derer,” and “preacher of the devil’s errors,” who tried to force his “villainous blasphemies” on his brethren. The Council of Chalcedon
• Although the Council of Chalcedon is believed to have con-

demned Eutyches, the man whom it really dealt with was not the old monk, but Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria, for Eutyches was not present at the council but he was away in north Syria, where he had been exiled even before the council was held.

• St. Dioscorus was condemned not because of theological heresy but due to political circumstances which played the principal role in this council. Some of the leaders of this council, such as Anatolius of Constantinople considered him quite Orthodox. Many of the scholars confirm his Orthodoxy.
• It was the emperor’s favor that the council had to draw out Alexandria and declare a new formula to bring the entire Church in the East under the leadership of Constantinople. Emperors - for political reasons - wished to bring down Alexandria from the hegemony which it enjoyed in the East and to set up Constantinople in its place. They used Leo as a tool to realize their desire exploring his enmity to Alexandria that seemed to him an obstacle in spreading his papal supreme authority over the Church world-wide.
• We quote Dioscorus here: “I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that the Lord has been begotten of the Father as God and that the same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the earth as Man and creator of the heavenly hosts as God; 60 see Him sleeping in the boat as a man and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man and giving food as God; see Him thirsty as man and giving drink as God; see Him tempted as man and driving demons away as God and similarly of many other instances.”
• He says also: “God the Logos co-essential with the Father eternally became co-essential with man in the flesh for our redemption, remaining what He was before.”
• If then, He who is born of the Virgin is named Jesus, He is the same by whom all things came into being. One is the nature, because, one is the person, who cannot be separated

into two; for, in the incarnation, the nature of the body does not exist by itself and the nature of the Godhead separately.

• In the flesh He really suffered passion for us. Like us, He was fatigued of traveling - it was not an illusion. Like us, He slept. He felt the pain of the wounds, inflicted on Him by Pilate...We also confess that He had the rational soul which endured for us suffering like this. He endured the reality of the passions of’ the soul, namely sorrow, anguish and grief.
• There is no nature (substantio) which has not (its) hypostasis, and there is no hypostasis which exists without its prosopon; if then there are two natures after the Incarnation, there are of necessity two prosopa; but if there are two prosopa, there are also two Christs, as these new teachers preach.
• See also Chapter Ten: Monophysite Vs Miaphysite.