Q&A Home > C > Council of Chalcedon

I read on http://www.pravmir.com/article_1076.html#_ftnref7, on pages 221 and 222 of The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 1 Liverpool University press vol.1, it is stated that just after hearing Eutychus' rejection of declaring that Christ is consubstantial with us in His manhood, Dioscorus stated, "We all agree with this." I am sure this is a lie to defame Dioscorus, but do you know anything about its historicity?

St. Dioscorus was a kind and just leader and defender of the Church of Alexandria. During his papacy, politics began to interfere amongst the sister churches. Many attempts were made to discredit Pope Dioscorus in order to reduce the authority of the Church of Alexandria which had gained much fame and respect throughout the world at that time. These aggressive strides included accusing him with siding with Eutyches, who was a heretic. Key detail in certain linguistics, even in the use of prepositions, e.g., "in" ... as opposed to "from" ... made significant differences in interpretation of certain theological statements. Below are two brief excerpts from a very good resource from the perspective of the Coptic Orthodox Church to which you may refer on this topic. The following excerpts, and actually the entire document, help us to understand on what basis Pope Dioscorus was defending Eutyches and on what basis he completed rejected his heresies:

Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council
The Chalcedon Crisis and Monophysitism
Monophysitism: Reconsidered
Mia-Physis
By Fr. Matthias F. Wahba
St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church
Hayward, California
USA

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_(Chalcedon).pdf

The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches, did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever." The evidence is sufficient for us to look for other reasons for his condemnation. Rome was annoyed by the extraordinary vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch.

"On the contrary Dioscorous supported Eutyches on the basis of his confession of faith that " Christ is consubstantial with his mother." Whether this confession is genuine or not, or in reality an act of penance, the fact remains that Dioscorous defended a
Eutyches confessing a Christology which was not exactly that for which he was condemned. (...) This corrected or perhaps falsified confession of faith was the basis on which Dioscorous accepted to defend Eutyches against false accusers. In any case
this means that Chalcedon did not condemn the faith of Dioscorous. He was condemned only because he excommunicated Leo and refused to appear before the Council to defend himself. It is within this context that Anatolius of New Rome Constantinople opposed the effort of the imperial commissioners to have Dioscorous condemned for heresy. Anatolius clearly declared that, " Dioscorous was not deposed because of the faith, but because he excommunicated Lord Leo the Archbishop and although he was summoned to the Council three times he did not come." (...)

During the council St. Dioscorus explained why the Orthodox faith adopted the formula "One incarnate nature of God the Word". On hearing one nature some bishops in the council shouted, "Eutyches says these things also." Here Dioscorus clarified the Alexandrian point of view saying, "We do not speak of confusion, neither of division, nor of change." St. Dioscorus tried to make his position clear, that he did not accept "two natures after the union" , but he had no objection to "FROM two natures after the union."