The Council of Chalcedon AD 451
Emperor Marcian resumed discussions with the bishops who had volunteered and with his wife Pulcheria about Dioscorus and how to overcome him. They finally agreed to convene the council in a place far from the capital. They would not debate matters of faith with Dioscorus, since it had become clear to them that his arguments were strong. Instead, they would confine their inquiry to the matter of the volunteer bishops and the letter of Leo.
Imperial orders were therefore issued for the Council of Chalcedon to be convened. It assembled in the Church of Saint Euphemia. The emperor and empress sat at the head of the church, while Pope Dioscorus, the bishops of Jerusalem and Corinth, and the assistant to the bishop of Egypt sat on the right. Civil judges also attended the council to maintain order and supervise its sessions.
The city of Chalcedon
Chalcedon was one of the ancient cities of Asia Minor. It was built before the seventh century BC, in 685 BC, on the coast of Bithynia, opposite the place where Constantinople would later be built.
It appears to have been destroyed in the second century BC, after which its inhabitants moved to Nicomedia. Justinian, however, undertook to rebuild and restore it. It was destroyed again during the Ottoman conquest, and its site is said to be occupied today by a small village called “Kadıköy.”
Prominent fathers of the council
Among the prominent participants were Pope Dioscorus with some bishops, Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus, patriarch of Antioch, and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople. Three episcopal representatives were also sent to the council.
The number of bishops
Historians have differed over the number of bishops who attended this council. Some put the number at 230, while others said it reached 620.
Marcian and Pulcheria
Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria were eager to attend the council, accompanied by a large number of their courtiers and many officers and soldiers.
The first session
On 8 October 451, in the Church of Saint Euphemia, Marcian delivered his customary address, explaining that his purpose in attending the council was to maintain order.
The council had scarcely begun when Paschasinus, Leo’s representative, stood in the middle and demanded that Pope Dioscorus should not sit at the forefront of the fathers, claiming that he had been brought there to be judged. The judges asked what Pope Dioscorus had done contrary to canon law. Paschasinus replied:
“The Second Council of Ephesus was convened without the permission of the See of Rome.”
Realizing that this was a false and worthless allegation, the judges rejected his demand and told him:
“If you occupy the position of a judge, it is not proper for you to act as the accuser.”
Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, then rose. He and Flavian had been deposed by the Second Council of Ephesus for insisting on two natures in the Lord Christ after the union. He submitted a complaint alleging that Dioscorus had unjustly condemned him and his colleague, the bishop of Constantinople.
Pope Dioscorus explained that the truth would become clear when the proceedings of the Second Council of Ephesus were read. The judges agreed. Soon afterward, the excommunicated Nestorian Theodoret, bishop of Tarsus, entered the council and requested admission, claiming that Leo had ordered his restoration to his see.
This caused considerable uproar among the fathers. The bishops objected, and many voices were raised, until one of the judges stood up, calmed the council, and asked that its business continue.
After the imperial letters ordering the council to assemble had been read, a heated discussion arose between the Pope and some of the bishops. One of the judges called for quiet, and the clerk resumed reading the remaining proceedings of the Second Council of Ephesus. When the reading was finished, Pope Dioscorus said:
“It is clear from what has been read to you that Emperor Theodosius, of blessed memory, was not unaware of the matter. Nor was I alone: the judges and the two pious bishops, Juvenal and Thalassius, shared the supervision with me. Why, then, is what took place at Ephesus attributed to me alone, when we were equal in authority and all the bishops approved the decisions of our council and signed them with their own hands?”
At this point, the bishop of Ephesus and some of the protesting bishops from the East objected that they had agreed to the decisions of the previous council only under compulsion, and that they had signed a blank sheet while surrounded by soldiers with drawn weapons.
The Egyptian bishops answered them:
“The soldiers of the Lord do not fear a force that frightens only the cowardly.”
When Leo’s letter was read, the judges asked why it had not been read previously. The following answer was given:
“At the time when Father Dioscorus ordered this letter to be read, the head of his writing office at the council presented us with Emperor Theodosius’s letters, and all of those were read. Bishop Leo’s letter was not presented to us again afterward, and no one reminded us of it.”
The clerk read the confession of faith that Eutyches had submitted to the Second Council of Ephesus, together with the bishops’ confirmation of its orthodoxy. Among them was Basil, bishop of Salonia. This bishop, however, denied having given his approval. Grieved by his falsehood, the Pope said:
“I do not know what prompts Basil to deny it, when he knows that he approved a sound teaching presented to us.”
This bishop also denied statements recorded in his name. Perhaps the bishops who opposed Pope Dioscorus were affected by his words, the strength of his arguments, and his evidence, for they found no alternative but to concede and said before the council:
“We have erred, and we ask forgiveness.”
The judges asked why they had treated the Pope as they had and then reversed their position. They answered once again:
“We have erred, and we ask forgiveness.”
It was then decided to adjourn the session and reconvene after five days.
The second session
From what has been related above, we observe that the strength of the Pope’s arguments and his innocence caused the Roman representatives to resent him and devise a way to ensnare him. Together with the Chalcedonian bishops, they considered holding a brief, secret session without the judges or Pope Dioscorus, so that they could issue judgments serving their religious purposes.
Thus, the second session of this false council was held on the third day after the end of the first session, a full two days before the date set by the judges. It was restricted to the Eastern bishops and the representatives of the bishop of Rome. Neither the Egyptian bishops nor the judges were invited.
To ensure that Pope Dioscorus could not attend this session, they stationed guards at the door of his house to prevent him from leaving should he attempt to do so. What is astonishing is that, after assembling, these bishops sent for the Pope, although they themselves had ordered the guards to stop him from going out.
When the council’s messengers came to summon him, he told them:
“The guards are preventing me from leaving. The council has already examined my case; what does it want now? Does it intend to overturn what took place in the presence of the judges? I will not attend unless the judges are present.”
When they sent for him a second time, he maintained his earlier position.
The invalid judgment
Finally, they issued their false judgment against Pope Dioscorus in his absence and that of his bishops, and without the judges or the emperor’s representatives present. In this false judgment, they stated:
“The deeds of Dioscorus have been revealed and established. He received Eutyches in violation of what the canons prescribe, seized authority for himself by force, and did not permit the reading of Leo’s letter to Flavian. He has added a further sin to his earlier misdeeds by daring to excommunicate Leo, the most holy pontiff and occupant of the See of the Church of Rome… The council has summoned him three times in accordance with the ecclesiastical canons, but he has disobeyed its command and refused to appear… Therefore Leo, the most holy pontiff, through us… has determined that he be deprived of the rank of bishop and removed from the priestly ministry. This holy council now judges the case of Dioscorus as the canons prescribe.”
The invalidity and nullity of these judgments are evident for the following reasons:
The judgment was issued in a secret, uncanonical session held on a date that contradicted the one set by the council at its first session.
The judgment was issued by a body that had no authority to deliver it and did not represent a general, ecumenical council, since the Orthodox bishops, the judges, and the emperor’s representatives were absent.
The judgment was issued in the defendant’s absence, although he was close to the meeting place.
The judgment included accusations of which Pope Dioscorus had been shown innocent at the first session, in the presence of the full council, when the accusers acknowledged, “We have erred, and we ask forgiveness.”
The judgment was issued under pressure and threats exerted by the Roman bishop’s representatives on the other bishops present.
Neither in their statements, nor in their judgment, nor in their malicious accusations did the bishops ever claim that Pope Dioscorus had departed from sound teaching or the true faith. This is the only matter that could justify a sentence of excommunication against bishops. Since they had established his innocence on this point, their judgment is plainly invalid.
Pope Dioscorus affirms sound teaching
Pope Dioscorus expressed a desire to read the Chalcedonian statement of faith. They sent it to him, and he read it in the presence of many bishops. Finding it contrary to the teaching of the Holy Church, he wrote in the margin the points that contradicted her teaching. He also wrote an anathema against anyone who dared to change the true Orthodox faith or tamper with the canons of the ecumenical councils.
When they received the document and saw the Pope’s anathema, they hurried to inform the emperor of what he had done. Marcian became furious and resolved to kill him. Recognizing the danger of carrying this out, however, he abandoned the idea and contented himself with exiling him to the island of Gagra, near the shores of Asia Minor. Thus ended the ill-fated Council of Chalcedon, to which the division of the Holy Universal Church can be traced.
Pope Dioscorus remained in exile for five years, accompanied by two bishops, his archdeacon Peter, and his secretary Theopistus. When Abba Macarius, bishop of Edku, wished to share his Pope’s exile, the Pope asked him to return to Egypt, where the crown of martyrdom awaited him. Pope Dioscorus’s prophecy was indeed fulfilled: shortly after returning to Egypt, Macarius was martyred at the hands of the soldiers of the Roman emperor Marcian.
The Pope’s exile to Gagra was a great blessing to its pagan inhabitants. He brought them to the Christian faith by healing their sick and helping those in need. He continued in this way until he departed to the realm of glory in AD 457.
After the death of Theodosius the Younger without a lawful heir, and the marriage of his sister, a nun, to Marcian, one of the imperial commanders, some bishops advised the new emperor to summon Dioscorus and try to influence him. Perhaps he would accept the new teaching and pardon the heretical bishops.
When the Pope came to Constantinople at the emperor’s invitation, he found among those invited Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, Maximus, bishop of Antioch, Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, Mark, bishop of Ephesus, and three excommunicated bishops.
When they had taken their seats, one of the bishops began addressing Pope Dioscorus in the presence of the emperor and empress, urging him to submit to their wishes and not oppose the emperor, so that he might retain his office. Realizing that this was a conspiracy to rid themselves both of him personally and of his sound principles opposing Nestorius, the Pope stood in their midst and said:
“The faith is complete in every respect and lacks no clarification. It has been established and confirmed by fathers such as Athanasius, Cyril, and others. The emperor has no need to investigate these subtle matters. Rather, he should occupy himself with the affairs and administration of his kingdom and leave the priests to examine the true faith, for they know the Scriptures. It would be better for him not to be swayed by his own inclinations, but to follow the truth alone.”
Everyone was astonished at his boldness. Empress Pulcheria then said:
“Dioscorus, in the days of my mother Eudoxia there was a man as firm in his convictions as you. You know that no good came to him from opposing her, and I think your fate will be like his.”
She meant Saint John Chrysostom. With courage and composure, Dioscorus answered:
“You also know what happened to your mother as a result of her persecution of this saint, and how God afflicted her with a severe illness for which she could find neither medicine nor cure. At last, on the advice of the priests, she went to his tomb, wept, and asked him for absolution and pardon. When God forgave her, she recovered. Here I am in your hands; do whatever you wish, and you will gain what your mother gained.”
His words struck the emperor, the empress, and the bishops, even the Egyptians among them, like a thunderbolt.
The empress could not contain herself and slapped the saint, who was courageous in defending the truth, so violently that she knocked out two of his molars. When the guards saw their empress’s fury, they fell upon the saint, beating and stabbing him despite his old age, and tearing out the hair of his beard. What is remarkable is that throughout all this he remained silent and endured, looking upward and saying:
“For Your sake we are put to death all day long.”
After that encounter, he gathered the hair from his beard and his teeth and sent them to his people in Alexandria with a letter saying:
“These are the fruits of my struggle for the faith. Know that I have suffered greatly to preserve the faith of my holy fathers. As for you, whose faith rests upon the rock of the true faith, do not fear the torrents of heresy or the storms of unbelief.”
Pope Dioscorus’s innocence of the accusations
The bishop of Rome and the bishops who followed him sought to bring several accusations against the Pope, thinking that this would weaken and frighten him. On the contrary, he answered them with great courage and respect.
The allegations and the responses to them were as follows:
The first accusation
They alleged that he had convened and presided over the Second Council of Ephesus on his own, without the knowledge of the bishop of Rome. On this basis, they demanded his removal from the council.
Response
If this were so, and the bishop of Rome knew nothing about it, who sent Rome’s three representatives: Bishop Julian, the priest Renad, and the deacon Hilary? Who wrote Leo’s letter? Nor would the bishop of Rome’s failure to attend in person have diminished the council’s importance.
It was the emperor, not Pope Dioscorus, who called the council. The emperor presided over it and appointed Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius of Caesarea to serve alongside him, as the imperial decrees make clear.
The second accusation
Another allegation against Pope Dioscorus was that the bishops had signed a blank sheet at the council.
Response
This is a weak and baseless accusation contradicted by the proceedings of the council itself. Faced with this, they said at the first session, “We have erred, and we ask forgiveness.” It is also striking that Catholic historians themselves acknowledge the weakness of this allegation in their books.
The third accusation
They also said that Father Dioscorus had not ordered the letter of Leo, bishop of Rome, to be read at the Second Council of Ephesus, but had concealed it. This is untrue, since the Pope requested its reading three times. Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, acknowledged this when the judges asked for his view, saying:
“Father Dioscorus ordered it to be read.”
Response
What is astonishing here is their insistence on this letter, which is in reality a Nestorian letter far removed from the truth. It contains the following words:
“The Word does what belongs to the Word; the flesh does what belongs to the flesh. One of the two shines forth in miracles, while the other is subjected to insults.”
“Christ is indeed both: God and man.”
It would therefore have been more fitting for them to conceal that letter, so that their errors would not be exposed.
The fourth accusation
The accusers also said that Dioscorus’s clerks alone had written the proceedings of the Second Council of Ephesus and had altered them.
Response
Pope Dioscorus explained that each bishop had his own clerks, saying:
“My clerks wrote my copy. The clerks of Juvenal and Thalassius each wrote their own copies, as did the clerks of the other bishops.”
The bishop of Jerusalem confirmed Dioscorus’s statement.
The fifth accusation
One of the Chalcedonian bishops, named Eusebius, stood up and asked the judges to question Father Dioscorus about why he had prevented him from entering the council.
Response
The Pope said:
“I ask you to read the testimony of the commander Elpidius, the emperor’s representative, who prevented his entry by the emperor’s order.”
Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, confirmed this. The judges ordered the reading of the council proceedings concerning the imperial order to which Pope Dioscorus had referred.
What is astonishing is that, despite these Chalcedonians’ objections to the Pope, they allowed the excommunicated Nestorian bishop Theodoret to attend the Council of Chalcedon. This prompted the Pope to cry out to them:
“You accuse me as though I had transgressed the canons. Yet are you observing the canons when you admit Theodoret?”
The sixth accusation
They objected to the Pope’s acquittal of Eutyches at the Second Council of Ephesus, claiming that he shared his doctrine.
We know that ecumenical councils do not pass judgment on heretics until they have established, several times, that they persist in holding views contrary to the true faith. They hoped that heretics would return to the truth.
The Pope discussed Eutyches’s doctrine with him, and Eutyches acknowledged and confessed the true faith before the fathers. He then presented the council with a statement of his faith written in his own hand, which proved to be sound and Orthodox.
The Chalcedonians should have objected if they had found anything contrary to the canons in Eutyches’s confession. As for Eutyches’s return to his heresy after his acquittal, Pope Dioscorus bore no responsibility for it, since he could have been tried again at another council.
We must not forget that Leo, bishop of Rome, was also deceived by Eutyches’s words, just as the fathers of the Second Council of Ephesus were. Leo himself sent a letter to the council in which he praised his concern for matters of faith and called him “the beloved son and priest.”
The seventh accusation
Finally, they said that the Pope had unjustly condemned Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople.
Yet when we read the council’s proceedings, we see that he was not condemned unjustly. He had fallen into heresy by speaking of two natures after the union while refuting the heresy of Eutyches. The bishops tried to persuade him, but he persisted in his statements.
The conclusion we draw from everything in this section is that Pope Dioscorus is innocent of all these accusations and of everything attributed to him at the false Council of Chalcedon.
The writings of the Western Church itself also make clear the soundness and correctness of Pope Dioscorus’s doctrine and his preservation of the Orthodox faith.
The churches reject the Council of Chalcedon
Most of the apostolic churches, such as Alexandria, Jerusalem, Palestine, and others, refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. They regarded it as a false council because it followed an alien teaching and proclaimed two natures in the Lord Christ after the union.
