‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘ No, no!’said the Queen. ‘Sentence initially– decision afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ stated Alice loudly. ‘The concept of having the sentence initially!’
– Alice’s Experiences in Wonderland
———————————————————————-
About five hundred delegates assembled in the fantastic church of St. Euphemia, and the first session of the council was held on 8 October, 451.
The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, by V.C. Samuel
This is where and when the Council of Chalcedon started. It was not initially meant to be held in Chalcedon, an ancient maritime town less than 2 miles opposite Constantinople. It was first prepared to be held in Nicea, about sixty miles away. Nevertheless, invasions demanded the attention of emperor Marcian. Therefore, holding the council near the capitol permitted the emperor to take care of both state tasks and the council.
There was unprecedented royal interest in this council. It should be born in mind that it was Pulcheria who acquired the throne upon her bro’s death; Marcian was her consort. Pulcheria was figured out to support Rome versus Alexandria in this council, however also did not desire Rome to accomplish too high a position. She wanted Constantinople to come out as equivalent to Rome.
Eighteen high-ranking state authorities presided over the conferences of this Council.
Their seats were repaired in the church, directly dealing with the alter, and on either side were the delegates to be seated.
To the left were delegates from Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Ephesus, and elsewhere; to the right, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine. At the center: the Holy Gospel.
The most essential decisions of the council which have a bearing on today research study are (i) the deposition of Dioscorus; (ii) the acceptance of the Tome of Leo; (iii) the adoption of a definition of faith; and (iv) the exoneration of individuals like Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa.
It is this very first point that is the subject of this post. Dioscorus was from Alexandria, the bishopric that Pulcheria wished to take down a notch. Right away on the seating of the delegates, the Roman legate required that Dioscorus be left out from the council. The charge:
‘he had actually taken the workplace of judge and dared to perform a council, without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never occurred and which ought not to happen.’
This is reference to the council kept in 449, later to be deemed indefensible by the Council of Chalcedon. In spite of the commissioners not being encouraged, they “reluctantly” needed the Alexandrine patriarch to move from his seat to a place in the center booked for the accused. This was the opening scene.
The charges were presented so regarding lay the whole blame of this council of 449 on Dioscorus and a little handful of others, therefore not charging a lot of the other delegates participating in the earlier council.
2 particular charges existed versus Dioscorus: he infringed upon the faith of the Church by trying to develop the heresy of Eutyches as orthodoxy, and he deposed Eusebius and Flavian– neither of whom had actually trespassed the faith in any method.
Recall that till this point, there were various understandings in Alexandria and Antioch regarding the previous statements of the nature of Christ. They might settle on the statements; they did not agree on what the statements implied. It strikes me that to accuse either side of heresy– as each side performed in turn– was premature.
Dioscorus asked that the minutes of the earlier council be read. But first he asked that the topic of the faith itself be clarified. While this demand was taken lightly, it strikes at the heart of the problem– that there were different understandings of the faith in spite of all sides leaning on the very same previous councils and letters.
The commissioners would not proceed in this way, mentioning that since there were personal charges versus Dioscorus, these should be settled first. A doubtful choice, it would seem, given that the charges versus him were specifically on the different understandings of common declarations.
Now the minutes of the previous council were read. As shown in the minutes, seven requireds were provided by emperor Theodosius II for convening the council. Further, the emperor had actually chosen him, Juvenal and Thalassius as presidents of the council. How, for that reason, could he be charged of assembling an unauthorized council?
Much conversation taken place; points were raised. These were dealt with if against Dioscorus, frequently neglected if these may support his position. Those who supported choices of the council in 449 began to waiver, discovering numerous ways by which to suggest that they did not comprehend or had actually not been appropriately understood or that they had actually been forced to sign blank documents after which Dioscorus solely documented the conclusions of this earlier council.
The decision was reached, probably the verdict determined even before the council convened: Flavian and Eusebius had actually been unjustly condemned and Eutyches had actually not been worthy of exoneration. Further, Dioscorus and a handful of others who led the earlier council were to be deposed.
The decision versus Dioscorus notes two flaws versus him: First, that he refused to abide by the 3 summonses served on him. Dioscorus kept in mind that the others charged with him were not likewise summoned, and he would not participate in unless all were present. Further, the assembly which summoned him consisted of less than one half of the delegates who existed at Chalcedon. Therefore, was this a genuine charge versus Dioscorus, or was it a charge versus the governance of the assembly?
The second defect points out ‘other offenses of which you have been convicted.’ However it did not define any of these. Was the assembly not actually sure?
One can see from these 2 “flaws” that the circumstance against Dioscorus was not as clear as many today (and maybe even then) think. Per Samuel:
It is this fairness that was rejected to the Alexandrine pope by the Roman legates, at a time when the incumbent of the Egyptian see had inhabited a location in the Church as high as that of Rome itself.
Why was Dioscorus to strongly prosecuted and sentenced, with a verdict that was all however pre-determined? Why was Rome so hostile to him, and the imperial authority in Constantinople so willing to allow Rome to so humiliate him? In addition to the political desires of Pulcheria, Samuel provides a few thoughts, however one strikes me as worth keeping in mind. In a letter by Anatolius to Pope Leo after the council, he stated that Dioscorus was condemned for the sake of peace in the Church; he was the scapegoat. And peace in the Church needed acceptance of the Tome of Leo.
It must be kept in mind: of the numerous locations in which Leo had previously dispatched his Tome, he never sent out one to the Alexandrine patriarch– Dioscorus. Dioscorus was not given an opportunity to attend to the Tome directly. Pope Leo had, in fact, excommunicated Dioscorus six months before the Council of Chalcedon. That Dioscorus declined to sign the Tome meant he must be crushed– and the desire of Pulcheria for a reduction in the standing of Alexandria referred the desire of Pope Leo to crush the bishop of that see.
Conclusion
This ends the story of Dioscorus … practically:
… Dioscorus was most warmly loved and honoured by a large majority of the people of Egypt, who continued in their undeviating commitment to him so long as he lived, and remembered him with profound regard even after his death.
Above all, it is a truth that the non-Chalcedonian custom includes him amongst the accepted dads of the Church, holding him in virtually the same esteem as the Chalcedonian custom defers to Leo of Rome.
Epilogue
Am I making a case that the choices of these earliest councils have led the Church down a heretical course? Not at all. Just that the Church was trying to exactly define something that, one the one hand, was not plainly specified in Scripture or tradition (the precise way in which the divine and human came together in Christ), and on the other hand, was not entirely understood in a typical manner throughout all parts of Christendom.
It seems to be the case that, while in the process of much better establishing a common understanding, power politics contributed. Once once again, God does work through imperfect people. The path is not always directly, and not constantly pleasant. But this doesn’t indicate that the outcomes along the way are heretical.
Which, maybe, if one is feeling charitable, might likewise be used to Dioscorus. And to the non-Chalcedonian Churches. Due to the fact that even till this point in history, there was not typical understanding about how the divine and human came together in Christ.