Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two.

2010

Why the Council?

The events that brought about the Council of

Chalcedon are extremely complex and to
make any reasonable attempt to understand
how such a travesty could take place it is
necessary to consider the circumstances that
lead up to this historical meeting.

Prior to the Council of Chalcedon there arose

two main heresies that were condemned by
the Church in the Councils held after Nicea,
“Nestorianism”1 and “Eutychianism”.2

When “Nestorianism”, the first of these two heresies appeared Eutyches, a monk of the Church of
Constantinople opposed the teachings of Nestorius so passionately that in his attempts to eliminate
the heresy, he himself fell from true faith and denied the human nature of Christ.

This was reported to Flavianus the bishop of Constantinople who wrote to Eutyches to explain his
error and to instruct him not to continue in this teaching. Flavianus was made aware that Eutyches
had written to Leo, the Roman Pope so he wrote to Leo as well. Leo responded by writing what is
known as the “Tome of Leo” or a study of the dogma in question showing what some called a
distinct leaning towards the heresy of “Nestorianism”.

When his attempts to stop Eutyches failed, Flavianus called a local Council at Constantinople to
consider the case of Eutyches and the controversial issue, which was gaining momentum partly due
to all the attention it was receiving. After ignoring the first two summonses to attend, Eutyches
finally arrived at the Council during its seventh session where he was immediately accused in
reference to his heretical teachings by the bishop of Dorylaeum.

1
The Nestorian doctrine was advanced by Nestorious Patriarch of Constantinople which stated that
Christ was born man and later became God. This of course was heretical and condemned by all
churches led by the Alexandrian Church and there leader St Cyril the Pillar of Faith who introduced
the term “theotokos” or “Bearer/Mother of God”
2
The Eutuchianism doctrine was advanced by Eutychus of Constantinople (380-456AD.) Eutyches
taught that the human nature of Christ was overcome by the divine, or that Christ had a human
nature but it was unlike the rest of humanity.

1 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
The Tomes of Leo

After the “Tomes” of Leo were read, Eutyches was asked to declare his faith, but when he refused
to give a direct answer and presented to the Council a written confession of faith that was full of
ambiguity, Florentius, the Imperial deputy over the council then asked Eutyches to give a direct
answer. When he refused, the Council decreed that Eutyches was to be excommunicated.

As the “Tome of Leo” appeared to have a Nestorian view

and it was partly this writing that brought about the
judgment, the people of Constantinople became alarmed
so Eutyches wrote letters to the then Emperor, Theodosius
and the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and
Thessalonica.

Leo, the Roman Pope sent Eutyches the following letter,

“To the beloved son Eutyches the Priest, from Leo the
Bishop – We have gathered from your letter that some
people of wicked aims have once more asserted the
heresy of Nestorius. We are glad because of your zeal and
your care in this matter. We doubt not, therefore, that God Who granted us the Universal
Faith will succour you in your endeavour. As for us, having heard of the hypocrisy of those
who are following this heresy, we are bound by God’s Grace to cut off this evil. And may
God the Almighty guard you, my son.”

When Flavianus became informed that Eutyches had appealed to the bishops of other Churches he
also wrote letters to them to explain his actions. Flavianus received a letter from Leo stating that
Eutyches claimed he had been unfairly excommunicated.

This letter concluded with the following comment,

“…Eutyches promised in his letter to correct the error he committed against the Doctrine.
In this case, we should evade all discord and uphold Christian Love with no aim other than
the Truth. We know what Eutyches did, but he seems to be worthy of the sacerdotal
honour, even though denuded of all wisdom and knowledge.”

2 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
Emperor Theodosius

After Emperor Theodosius agreed to hold a further Council, Eutyches again began writing to a
number of bishops, including Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria to win their support in the
forthcoming meeting. Dioscorus also received letters from the Emperor requesting that he preside
over the council and placing a demand that Theodorat, bishop of Cyrrhus be excluded due to his
acceptance of “Nestorianism”, a belief he refused to recant, even though the earlier council
condemned this as heresy.

When Leo of Rome heard of the new council to reassess the judgment passed on Eutyches by
Flavianus and the local council he and his supporters had convened, he wrote to Flavianus asking
him to deal with Eutyches with mercy and compassion. Leo also wrote to the Emperor’s sister,
Pulcheria stating how Eutyches had fallen into his heresy by error rather than by any sinful reason
and how if it was his decision, the excommunion would be lifted and Eutyches would be permitted
to return to his position within the Church.

When the council commenced it was presided over by Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of
Jerusalem and Domnus of Antioch. Juvenal and Domnus had also received requests from the
Emperor to aid Dioscorus in his duties at the council. Altogether One hundred and thirty bishops
attended the council held in 449 AD.

After the formal opening of the Council was complete, Dioscorus asked that the letter to the
Council from Leo, Pope of Rome be read, however the head notary stated that there were letters
from the Emperor that should be read first. The delegates from Rome that had carried the letter
agreed, and then Juvenal of Jerusalem ordered the Imperial messages be read.

After all present acknowledged that they all adhered strictly to the Faith as was defined by the
previous Councils, Dioscorus declared that as this was not in question then there was no necessity
to examine the doctrines of faith but rather assess only the facts concerning the case of Eutyches
and his sentence of excommunication.

3 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
Eutyches Responds

When Eutyches was called to express his faith he

again chose not to speak and handed over a
letter written by his own hand requesting that it
be read. The following is a copy of the statement
of faith submitted to the council by Eutyches.

“Since my youth, I diligently sought to

live in retreat. Today I am exposed to a
grave danger because in my strict fidelity
to the Faith, and my refusal to admit any
innovation. I sincerely uphold the faith
declared at Nicea; and rely continuously
on the writings legated to the Church by
Abba Kyrillos (Pope Cyril of Alexandria)
of blessed memory.
I believe in One God the Almighty, Maker
of the visible and the invisible; and in the
Lord Jesus the Christ the Only Begotten
Son – I mean that He is Consubstantial with the Father; by Him were all things made, in
heaven and on earth; He is the One, Who, for us mankind and for our salvation, came
down from heaven; He was incarnate and became man; He suffered and rose from the
dead on the third day; He ascended up to heaven from whence He shall come again to
judge the living and the dead.

As for all those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or that He was not
before He was born, or that He was created out of nothing or that He is of a different
substance, or that His two natures were mixed or mingled, - all those who say such things
are excommunicated by the mouth of the Church Universal. This is the faith I declare, and
which I have received from my fathers; in this faith was I born, and in it was I baptised and
consecrated, and ordained priest; by it I lived unto this day and I shall uphold it until I
depart from this life.

While I was living in this faith and persevering in prayers, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum
calumniated me before Flavianus the honoured Bishop of Constantinople, stating unjustly
that I was a heretic and beguiling me through some vain words. A council was held with
the premeditated intention of degrading me whether I responded to its summons or not.
This evil intention was made clear to me through the chief guard of the imperial office.”

4 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
After the reading of his letter, Eutyches finally made a statement declaring that the minutes of the
council in which he was excommunicated had been falsified and made an appeal for justice.
Dioscorus immediately requested that the minutes of that meeting be read before all in
attendance, everyone present agreed except the two Roman representatives who again asked for
the letter of Leo to be read.

At about this time, Eutyches again spoke out stating that he did not trust the Roman legates, as
they were known friends of Flavianus, the bishop that had brought the original charges against him.

The Understanding of Excommunication

At this point, I wish to explain that if the sentence of “Excommunication” (also referred to as
“Anathema” ) should be lifted and if it were determined that the sentence was passed unjustly then
those who passed such sentence would be judged by the same measure they judged.

When we consider this, it is more than reasonable that Eutyches would be concerned in reference
to the two representatives of Rome as if it should be found the sentence was passed
inappropriately, it would be passed onto those who accused him.

This would not mean that he was not in error concerning his belief at that time, only that proper
action had not been taken to correct him and lead him back to the true faith in love and mercy.

Deliberations on the Fate of Eutyches

After hearing this accusation from Eutyches it was decided to examine the minutes of the council in
question, as well as written reports from both Flavianus and Eutyches. Flavianus was then
permitted to speak on his behalf but his comments appeared tainted with a strong Nestorian
viewpoint, very similar to the “Tome of Leo”.

After the council deliberated for some time over the statements and comments of both Flavianus
and Eutyches and the evidence of the earlier council, they made their determination. Dioscorus
asked the bishops to pronounce their findings and the first to answer was Juvenal of Jerusalem with
the following statement,

“Since Eutyches confesses the Creed of Nicea and accepts what the Fathers declared in the
great Council assembled in this same city, it is clear to me that he is an Orthodox.
Therefore, I suggest that he be reconfirmed in His sacerdocy and in his abbotcy over his
monks.”

The bishops present responded that what Juvenal had said was both true and just. The next to
speak was Domnus of Antioch stating:

5 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
“When I received from Constantinople the verdict passed by Flavianus and his Council, I
signed it, but after hearing the written declaration submitted to this council by Eutyches, I
find that he is an Orthodox. For he clearly states that he upholds the Faith of the three
hundred and eighteen assembled at Nicea as well as the Fathers who assembled in this
city. In consequence, I consent to his worthiness of the priesthood and of the supervision
of his monks.”

After Domnus had finished, Stephen of Ephesus and

Thasius of Caesarea of Cappadocia made similar
declarations, the remainder of the bishops unanimously
acquitted Eutyches.

Dioscorus then closed the issue with the following

proclamation before those present signed their names
confirming their decision:

“I confirm the judgment of this holy council, and I decree

that Eutyches be counted among the priests and resume
being archmandrite of his monastery as before.”

The consequence of accepting Eutyches

Repentance

As a result, Flavianus and those who signed with him came under the same judgment that they had
placed on Eutyches. When Emperor Theodosius was informed of the verdict of the bishops, he
placed his seal upon it and banished Flavianus and those who excommunicated Eutyches, except
those that had rescinded their earlier decision after hearing all the facts.

As had Eutyches before him, Flavianus then began sending letters to some of the bishops stating
that he had relied on the “Tome of Leo” in forming his verdict over Eutyches and appealed the
verdict concerning himself. Leo of Rome then sent a letter to the Emperor calling for yet another
council to be held in Italy to again preside over the matter.

To assist him in applying pressure over Theodosius, the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire
(Byzantine Empire), Leo requested the Emperor of the Western Empire, Valeninianbus III, his wife,
Empress Eudoxia and his mother Galla Placidia to write to Theodosius.

This they did and Emperor Theodosius answered each of them saying in regards to their request
and concerning the council that had already been held,

“…an assembly of pious bishops who had behaved according to the fear of God, and in

6 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
conformity with the Orthodox Faith as I know for certainty. It would, therefore, be better
that you do not interfere in the matter, hence why another council?”

After his attempts to persuade Theodosius to submit to his wishes failed, Leo of Rome began
sending more letters to both the clergy and people of Constantinople. This also came to nothing as
the Emperor authorised the people and clergy of Constantinople to elect a new bishop to replace
Flavianus and pleaded with them not to elect any that followed the heresy of Nestorius.

In accordance with the instruction of Emperor Theodosius and the desire to avoid any further
heretics that may lead the Church away from the faith as taught by the apostles, Anatolius was
chosen. Before leaving the city, Dioscorus presided over the ceremony that consecrated the new
Bishop of Constantinople, further antagonising Leo as
Anatolius had originally been a deacon from the Alexandrian
Church.

The Death of Theodosius the Emperor

One month after the death of Theodosius on July 28, 450 AD,
his sister Pulcheria and her consort Marcian, were declared
emperors as her brother had left no heir. Pulcheria quickly
asserted her power by banishing Eutyches to Doliche in Syria
and removing the chief Chamberlain, Chysophius by
executing him as he had aided Eutyches in the appeal of his
excommunication.

What is of note in regards to the nature of Theodosius’ sister

is that some years earlier, Pulcheria had taken vows of
chastity within the Church, and then when her brother’s wife had borne no children, she pressed
him to marry another wife, thus she advised him to commit the sin of Adultery, against the
Christian doctrine to remain monogamous. Theodosius ended her insistence after seeking council
of the Alexandrian Church who had advised him to remain true to the faith and loyal to his wife.
After her efforts to corrupt the Emperor failed, she renounced her vows as a Nun and married
General Marcianus (Marcion).

Although all the other bishops were hesitant to sanction her marriage after disregarding her sacred
vow that she had willingly taken, Leo of Rome promptly validated and blessed the marriage. Since
this time, if not before, Pulcheria was against the supremacy of the Church of Alexandria in most
ecclesiastical issues and their influence was a constant affront to the new monarchy of Pulcheria
and Marcion. Through these apparent feelings of resentment and jealousy, the Roman Church and
the heirs to the throne of the Eastern Empire developed a closer bond, and ultimately they became
allies against the Church of Alexandria.

7 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
Pope Leo writes to Emperor Pulcheria

When Pulcheria gained the throne, Leo of Rome knew this was his opportunity to call for another
council to overturn the decision of the previous council held at Ephesus. He began by sending a
letter of congratulations to the new rulers in which he suggested the convening of a further council.
After this, a number of further letters were exchanged between Leo of Rome and the Emperors
Pulcheria and Marcion. In some of these letters, we read things that bring into question the motives
of these people,

“From Leo the Bishop to Marcianus the Triumphant – Know, O King, that after I gave the
answer to your monks… I received with joy the letter of your Tenderness… it was a source
of great joy to me, for I gathered from it your resolve to amend Church affairs… Be it
known unto you, O great king, that my reliance on God’s Guidance is coupled with my
hope that through your love, matters will be straightened out. Now, therefore, I do
entreat and implore you by the Mystery of Salvation, to strengthen your heart, and by
your authority forbid any deluded ignorant dissenter from examining the Faith in his
craftiness… It is neither fitting nor proper that we should revert to worldly discussions and
search into the meaning of what ignorant men say and stray from the confirmed Truth as
though there is some doubt with regard to It. It is not our duty to doubt Eutyches, whether
he has erred because of his evil principles or not; we should not suspect the judgment of
Dioscorus against Flavianus of blessed memory whether it was deceitful or not; but a
number of bishops have repented and have made known to us the evil that has happened.
They have asked to be forgiven for all their short-comings. Therefore, we should not
investigate their faith, we should accept and forgive them.”

If we take note of lines such as the following, we must ask some simple questions.

“… It is not our duty to doubt Eutyches?”

“… we should not suspect the judgment of Dioscorus against Flavianus?”

“… we should not investigate their (the bishops’) faith” we should accept and forgive
them…?”

One question would be if it were not their duty to doubt Eutyches, suspect Dioscorus, or investigate
the faith of the bishops, what reason could there be to hold the desired council. It is true other
issues were discussed; however, they were not the reason for convening the Council.

8 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
Another question could be why should any accept back a bishop or anyone else without first
investigating the facts, unless they had another purpose?

A final question I will put forward at this time is that if Leo truly felt there was no reason to suspect
the judgment of Dioscorus, a judgment made also by all but two of those present, against Flavianus,
then why not accept it.

Emperor Pulcheria writes to Pope Leo

This letter speaks of unconditional forgiveness and love but if this is the true feelings of Leo to
those whom he mentions then what motive did he have to call for a further council?
Another letter that confirms the suspicion that the council that was being called had an ulterior
motive is the following from Pulcheria to Leo,

“From Pulcheria the Triumphant to the venerable Father, the bishop of the great city of
Rome, - know – O Father – that we have received the letter of your holiness with the great
honour due to all bishops. Reading it, we knew that your faith was pure… I myself, and my
husband the strong king, diligently believe according to your faith. As for doubts, heresies
and dissensions, they are far from us. Then I would like to tell you of the venerable
Anatolius, Bishop of this great city, that he upholds the Orthodox Faith and confesses the
Apostolic teachings. He has evicted the heresy sown by some in the Church. You will know
his true faith from the letter he sent you… As for me, I would like to tell you that my tender
husband has brought the body of Flavianus, of blessed memory, from the place of exile to
the great city of Constantinople, and has buried it with great honour in the Church of the
Apostles where his predecessors, the bishops, are buried. My husband has also ordered
the return of all the exiled bishops who were agreed with Bishop Flavianus of blessed
memory concerning the faith, that the assembled bishops may judge their case, and
restore them to their Sees according to the merit of their labours.”

In this letter, we read that Marcian had ordered the return of the exiled bishops so the assembled
bishops may judge their case and restore them to their Sees according to their merits. This shows
the disposition of the Emperor towards those in exile. He clearly was not neutral but had already
determined the case as he was assuming they would be restored before the judgment was made. In
reference to the return of the body of Flavianus I will mention here that he had died during his
exile.

9 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
Pope Leo Fulfils his Desire

Finally Leo achieved his desire and the Council of Chalcedon was opened on the 8th October ,
451 A.D. The exact numbers of those present are questionable but it is known that the Emperors
had appointed nineteen civil judges to direct the council sessions and for the keeping of order. The
assembled bishops all took their appointed seats then as the meeting began, a Roman delegate by
the name of Paschasinus requested that Dioscorus be removed or he and his colleagues would
withdraw themselves.

It is reported that when asked why Dioscorus should be removed Lucentius, another Roman
answered that the man had not come to sit among the saints but to give an account for what he
had committed at Ephesus. Apparently, one of the bishops present then asked what it was that
Dioscorus is accused of, to which Lucentius then answered that he had convoked a council without
the authorisation of the Bishop of Rome.

Again, we see something that is quite suspicious as it was Emperor Theodosius that had called the
previous council not Dioscorus who had only responded to the Emperor’s summons. This appears
even more dubious when we consider that neither Domnus nor Juvenal were similarly accused
when they too sat with Dioscorus to preside over the council being examined. Finally when we
consider that the Bishop of Rome had to request permission to hold the Council in which they were
present at proves it was for the Emperor to sanction a council not the Roman bishop. However,
Dioscorus, probably to avoid a disturbance, left his place and seated himself amongst the civil
judges.

Allegations hurled at Pope Dioscorous

The Roman delegates then accused Dioscorus of breaking the Church canons, to which he replied:

“Who of us is the law breaker: I, who responded to the request of Emperor Theodosius by
sitting at the second Ephesian council and by refusing admittance to Theodoret the
Nestorian bishop of Cyrrhus in deference to the verdict passed upon him by the third
ecumenical council, or you, who have permitted this same Nestorian to sit among you,
when he has been cut off from the church Body and has not repented since his
disposition?”

Dioscorus’ question went unanswered then the bishop of Doryloeum accused Dioscorus of
excommunicating him and his associates unjustly, he then submitted a written accusation that

10 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
Dioscorus was a believer in the heresy to which Eutyches had previously fallen. The council without
question accepted this, and at about that time Theodorat, Bishop of Cyrrhus was formally accepted,
regardless of the fact that he was by his own confession an unrepentant follower of the “Nestorian
heresy” that had previously been condemned.

After this, those present from the Church of Alexandria began to protest resulting in a disturbance
of such intensity that the civil judges had to remind those present that their behaviour was not
appropriate for men of God. When this settled, Dioscorus requested that the minutes of the council
held at Ephesus be read, then after the first section was finished he made the following statement;

“You can see from these minutes that Emperor Theodosius, of blessed memory, is the one
at whose request the past council was convoked. You can also see that it was the Emperor
who had entrusted the direction of that council to Bishops Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus
of Antioch and myself. The three of us, together with all those who were assembled there,
passed the judgment, after each expressed his opinion freely. Unanimously we all agreed
to the verdict of acquitting Eutyches, and then each put his signature to it.”

In response, the bishops that had signed the judgment cried out that they had only signed due to
coercion and that it was against their will. They also added that they had signed a blank piece of
paper under the threat of being beaten by imperial guards.

At this the Egyptians again began to cry out that soldiers of Christ do not fear worldly powers and
challenged those present to “light a fire and we will show you”. After this Dioscorus said,

“It would have been more compatible with a bishop’s dignity to refuse signing what he
knows not specifically when it is that which concerns the majesty of the Faith”.

The meeting fell silent then one of the bishops accused Dioscorus and his monks of having Flavianus
executed. In response, to this accusation one of the letters from Pulcheria to Leo was read showing
that Flavianus had died in exile thus proving the claim false.

The chief notary then continued to read the minutes of the Council of Ephesus until it mentioned
the “Tome of Leo”, when it was asked as to why it was not read. Dioscorus replied that he had
ordered its reading twice. Again it was asked why it was not read so Dioscorus answered that they
should ask the Bishops of Jerusalem and Antioch. Juvenal of Jerusalem then answered,

11 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010

“When Dioscorus ordered its reading, the chief notary had presented to us all the letters of
his imperial majesty Theodosius, of blessed memory, and these were naturally given
precedence. After reading them, none of the notaries reminded us of Leo’s Tomos, so it
was simply forgotten”.

Again, the notary began reading the minutes but after reading the Confession of faith of Eutyches,
Basilius, bishop of Seleucia stated his signature had been forged. Dioscorus responded with,

“I know not why Basilius denies his signature when he knows that he consented to a pure
Orthodox teaching”

After hearing this, the bishops also confessed it was their duty to preserve the faith passed down
from the Council of Nicea and replied

“Dioscorus, Head of the Bishops keeps the Faith”.

Pope Dioscorus Declares the True Orthodox Faith

After this, the bishops asked Dioscorus to declare his faith, he replied with,

“If a piece of iron, heated to white heat, be struck on the anvil, it is the iron which receives
the blows and not the white heat, even though the iron and the white had form one
indivisible whole. And though indivisible, the heat mingles not with the iron, nor is it fused
into it, nor changed by it. This same is true of the iron, and is in a measure, symbolic of the
incarnation of Our Lord where the divine and the human natures united without mixing,
fusion, nor change, though neither parted from the other – not even for a moment or the
twinkling of an eye. This unity, the Fathers of the Alexandrian Church define as “the one
Nature of God the Word made flesh” and is synonymous with St. John’s saying “the Word
was made flesh”.

As none could fault Dioscorus, he was then asked,

“If Eutyches has uttered by mouth what was contrary to the written confession submitted
to you, what would your judgment be?”

12 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010

Dioscorus answered,

“If Eutyches has, indeed, denied the faith written by him and submitted to us, I would not
decree his ex-communication only but would order burning him too. As for me, I
steadfastly uphold the Faith of the Orthodox Church: One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic.
Neither Eutyches nor any other person can make me swerve from this most holy Faith”.

On hearing this, the bishops of what we today call the Oriental Orthodox Churches that had made
the false claim they signed blank paper cried out,

“We have sinned and we ask for forgiveness”.

When asked to confirm the earlier accusation that Dioscorus had Flavianus killed and then again a
third time they repeated that it was they that had sinned and again sought forgiveness.

Pope Dioscorus opinion on the Tome of Leo

Dioscorus was then asked to state his opinion on the “Tome of Leo”, Pope of Rome.

The Pope of Alexandria read it and then declared it to be heretical and following the same beliefs of
Nestorius so he immediately excommunicated it and the Roman Pope who had written it. Many of
those present went silent as they agreed with Dioscorus, yet did not have the courage to speak it
out aloud. They then requested of the civil judges an adjournment of five days to examine in more
depths Leo’s “Tome”, such as the exact meaning of some of the Latin terms used.

The Council held in Secret

It was then that we see the truth concerning the treachery of the Roman bishops and the Empress
Pulcheria. Pulcheria placed a guard to where Dioscorus was abiding, keeping him under a form of
“house arrest” while Leo and his loyal bishops secretly reconvened the council after only three days
and without informing the civil judges.

After the council was assembled, they sent delegates to instruct Dioscorus to report to the meeting;
the guards however, were under orders to restrict his and his bishops from leaving the premises.
Reportedly, Dioscorus inquired as to whether the civil judges had been notified that the council had
reconvened and was informed that the attendance of the laity was unnecessary in Church matters.

He also asked whether they had informed the guards that the council was again in session so that
he may be released to attend. He was then told that they were only sent to invite him to the council

13 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
and no instructions were given in regards to informing those who kept Dioscorus contained. This
summons was repeated twice and in each case, Dioscorus was refused leave to attend by his
guards, as they had received no further orders.

After Dioscorus failed to appear, new accusations were being made against him, all of which had no
bearing on the case in question. When evidence was requested to support these claims could not
be found, his case was discussed in the absence of all the bishops of Alexandria and any who had
sided with Dioscorus.

Dioscorus Condemned

The Roman legates then put forward That Dioscorus should have
repented after reading the “Tome of Leo” rather than
excommunicating him and his writing. Finally having no evidence
against the Alexandrian they declared that he had pronounced his
own condemnation due to the fact the he had refused to respond
to the Council’s three instructions to attend. I next present the
statement proclaimed by the Council of Chalcedon against
Dioscorus, Pope of the Church of Alexandria

“From the great ecumenical and holy council, convoked by

the Grace of God in compliance with the decree of our pious
Godfearing kings at Chalcedon of Bithynia, in the church of
St. Euphemia the triumphant martyr – to Dioscorus: Be it
known unto you that, because of your disdain of church
canons, and the disobedience which you have committed with
regard to the holy synod by refusing to appear after our triple summons without counting
all your other crimes; you have been, on the thirteenth of October, 451 A.D., deposed of
your Episcopal dignity by the Holy Synod, and declared incapable of fulfilling your
ecclesiastical functions.”

This marked the informal separation between the Church of Alexandria, The Church of Antioch, The
Church of Jerusalem and the other oriental Orthodox Churches from the Roman Church and those
Churches under its honorary position, including the Church of Constantinople and all the Eastern
Orthodox Churches.

Another fact that resulted, probably due to the Council of Chalcedon, was the imperial
appointment of non-consecrated clergy, particularly bishops within the oriental Churches. These
men were selected by the Emperors to usurp control away from the true anointed leaders. Those
within these Churches that protested against this, were often imprisoned, tortured or even killed,
sometimes in great numbers.

14 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
As a rule, the Churches of both Rome and Constantinople and the other Churches under their
control then officially acknowledged these imposters. This resulted in further limitations being
placed on those who had been the chief defenders of the true faith.

Considerations on the Council of Chalcedon

When we consider the result of the Council of Chalcedon there are some facts we should consider.

 The civil judges or Imperial Commissioners publicly declared that the judgment was both
unjust and illegal. They also are quoted as saying to the bishops involved in this injustice;

“You shall give account unto God of what you have committed against Dioscorus
whom you deposed in the absence of the Emperor, and in our absence too”

 The judgment was passed in the absence of Dioscorus, giving him no opportunity to defend
himself.

 The judgment was passed before the Council was officially reconvened and not all were
present.

 Many, if not all that passed the judgment were Nestorian, a heresy that had already been
judged at a previous Ecumenical Council.

 According to Mgr. Hefele, a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop Anatolius made
the following statement;

“Dioscorus was not deposed because of his Orthodox Faith, but because he had ex-
communicated Leo 1 (of Rome) and had not obeyed the Synod”

Mgr. Hefele adds:

“In the synodal decree against Dioscorus, there is no express mention of his
heresy, and the sentence passed on him by the Pope’s (Leo) legates says nothing
either”.

15 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010

• After the judgment was passed on Dioscorus, the Council continued to convene. In its fifth session
Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople declared that the orthodoxy of Dioscorus was “impeccable”.

• The Council did not excommunicate Dioscorus as they found nothing indicating he had deviated
from the true faith.

• In the following sessions of the Council of Chalcedon, the question of who would have the
greatest position among them became a point of discussion, demonstrating their personal
ambitions. This would provide a motive to remove the influential Church of Alexandria.

• Before the Council closed, Emperor Marcion endorsed the sentence and decreed the exile of
Dioscorus to the island of Gangra. As Dioscorus was not excommunicated, only deposed of his
ecclesiastical duties, he had done nothing to bring upon himself this further unjustifiable judgment.

• In 1553 AD, Bishop Georgius of Nimokopion made a legal study of this subject. He found that
Dioscorus was not judged due to his faith but because he refused to submit to the views of Leo,
Patriarch of Rome.

• Leo had joined forces with Pulcheria, a Nun who had tried to lead her brother, the Emperor into
the sin of taking more than one wife. Then when this failed, she renounced her vows of chastity to
marry a general to produce an heir to the throne. She even degraded to executing the chief
chamberlain Chrysophius for supporting the appeal of Eutyches

• In the earlier letters of Leo, he often asked for kindness towards Eutyches and stated he would
acquit him if it were his choice. After the Council of Chalcedon was officially called, Leo changed the
tone of his letter in reference to Eutyches describing him as “malicious” and “wicked” like
Nestorius.

• Pulcheria and Marcion had been gathering support for the “Tome of Leo” to be introduced as
standard doctrine at Chalcedon in an attack against Alexandrian Orthodoxy that maintained the
faith of the apostles and the original Church against “Nestorianism”.

• Eutyches was banished to the island of Doliche, after he had been acquitted and before the next
Council was held at Chalcedon.

16 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010

• The letters between Pulcheria, Marcion and Leo show that they had already decided to reinstate
the bishops that had been excommunicated before the Council of Chalcedon had even been
convened to examine the case.

• During the first session of the Council of Chalcedon, Paschasinus made the following statement;

"We have orders from the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of the city of Rome,
who is the head of all churches, enjoining that Dioscorus should not have a place in the
synod. If this is violated, he should be cast out. We are obliged to obey this injunction.
Your excellency may order, therefore, that either he goes out or we depart".

Through these actions, Dioscorus was judged before he had the opportunity to answer to any
charges or accusations. Notice that Leo is declared to be the “Head of all the Churches”. As Jesus
Christ is the “Head”, not a man we see Leo aspiring not only to lead the Church, but also to usurp
the position of Christ Himself.

• Dioscorus was accused of summoning the Council of Ephesus that was in question, when it was
actually the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire Theodosius, the brother of Pulcheria.

• It was not only Dioscorus, but also Juvenal and Thalassius who acted as co-presidents over the
Council in question in response to the Emperor’s request.

• Stephen of Ephesus claimed that they were forced to sign blank papers at the Council of Ephesus.
This is questionable due to the following reasons;

1. Eusebius of Dorylaeum who was present with Stephen makes no mention of this in any of
his letters to the Emperor.
2. If it is true, why was it not mentioned for over two years and only from those who
supported the “Tome of Leo”.
3. A clerk, none of whom mentions any bishop signing a blank paper, accompanied every
Bishop at Ephesus.
4. Later, when the Bishops were asked concerning their story they were forced to sign blank
papers many answered twice "We all have sinned, we ask for pardon."

17 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010

• During the Council of Chalcedon, many of the bishops told different stories.

• After the Council of Chalcedon accepted the “Tome of Leo”, many believers were executed or
tortured for refusing to sign the “Tome of Leo”. Consider, if the Holy Spirit inspired this writing,
would that same Holy Spirit inspire murder and torture. We may then ask what spirit would inspire
such actions.

• Dioscorus was found guilty of only one offence and that being he refused to answer the summons
to attend the Council when it secretly reconvened. This is undeniably unjust when he could not
respond as he had been held prisoner by imperial guards.
To assess what occurred at Chalcedon, it is also necessary to consider the “Tome of Leo” as
compared to the Nestorian heresy if we are to determine if it is the same or in any way similar to its
heretical nature.

Nestorius, who was at one time the Bishop of Constantinople, introduced the Nestorian heresy, it
is outlined as,

“Christ was two separate persons, the one divine

and beyond the reach of human frailty, and the
other human and susceptible to all the fragility of
the flesh. The divine Christ could neither suffer
nor die, and therefore, on the cross it was the
human Christ alone who suffered and died apart
from the divine Christ.”

The following is the “Tome” that was considered

heresy by Dioscorus;

"Christ the two, the God and the Man, came. The
first overwhelmed us with miracles, and the
second received the humiliations."

18 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church

 Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two. 2010
In these two definitions both state, Christ was “Two”, one being “God” and one being a “man”.
Both reinforce this by defining separate actions performed by two separate persons in Christ. By
this, it can easily be recognized that the “Tome of Leo” was much the same as what was considered
heresy by the One, Holy, Apostolic and Universal Church. This is also evident by the fact that while
he was in exile even Nestorius himself declared his approval of the “Tome of Leo”.
The only possible explanation other than heresy could be poor wording on the part of Leo and that
he did not mean his “Tome” to separate Christ, but only to symbolize His divinity and His humanity.
However, even if this had been the case, the writing was still heretical and could easily be
misinterpreted. If Leo were the humble man of God that a man in his position should be, he would
have accepted correction and amended his teaching.

Conclusion

I will add to this that the Roman Catholic Church does not teach as a doctrine the heresy of
Nestorius and according to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition” they follow the
same doctrine of faith as was set down at the Council of Nicea.

They do however tell a different story about what occurred at the Council of Chalcedon. In the
Roman version, the Council was held to deal with the “Monophysites”, those whom the Romans
accuse of being followers of the teachings of Eutyches during the period when he taught his heresy.

They hold that Leo was a great defender of the orthodox faith and it was due to that teaching that
they convened the Council. However as the above shows the question needs to be asked was that
really the case?

This article was compiled from various sources and members of the Orthodox Church

19 Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church