Dioscorus of Alexandria

From OrthodoxWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(expanded the lead paragraph)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{cleanup}}
 
{{cleanup}}
  
'''Dioscorus I of Alexandria''' was the [[Patriarch of Alexandria]] (444-451).
+
'''Dioscorus I of Alexandria''' was the [[Patriarch of Alexandria]] from 444 to 451. His actions during the continuation of the Christological controversies following the [[deposition]] of [[Nestorius]] resulted in his deposition at the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council]] in Chalcedon in 451 which led to the later [[schism]] in the [[Church of Alexandria]].  
  
 
==Controversy==
 
==Controversy==
Dioscorus I of Alexandria is considered a [[saint]] by the [[Coptic]], [[Syriac Orthodox Church|Syriac]], and other [[Oriental Orthodox]] churches.  He is generally considered a [[heretic]] by the [[Eastern Orthodox]], though some commentators like Anatolius and [[John S. Romanides]] think that Dioscorus was deposed at [[Council of Chalcedon|Chalcedon]] (451) not because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the [[Robber Council of Ephesus]] (449), which included restoring [[Eutyches]] the heretic and the attack on [[Flavian the Confessor|Flavian]], and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope [[Leo the Great|Leo of Rome]], and also because at Chalcedon he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times.<ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas] by John S. Romanides</ref>
+
Dioscorus I of Alexandria is considered a [[saint]] by the [[Coptic]], [[Syriac Orthodox Church|Syriac]], and other [[Oriental Orthodox]] churches.  He is generally considered a [[heretic]] by the [[Eastern Orthodox]], though some commentators like Anatolius and [[John S. Romanides]] think that Dioscorus was deposed at [[Chalcedon]] in 451 not because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the [[Robber Council of Ephesus]] (449), which included restoring [[Eutyches]] the heretic and the attack on [[Flavian the Confessor|Flavian]], and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope [[Leo the Great|Leo I of Rome]], and also because at [[Chalcedon]] he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times.<ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas] by John S. Romanides</ref>
  
 
His character and stance are subject to contravention between the Oriental Orthodox churches on one side and the Eastern Orthodox and [[Roman Catholic]] churches on the other.
 
His character and stance are subject to contravention between the Oriental Orthodox churches on one side and the Eastern Orthodox and [[Roman Catholic]] churches on the other.
Line 10: Line 10:
 
The Oriental Orthodox churches are generally accused by other churches of accepting the [[Eutychianism|Eutychian doctrine]] of [[Monophysitism]]&mdash;this is denied by these churches as they consider Eutyches a heretic as the other churches but to have redeemed himself by retrieving this heresy in the Second Council of Ephesus,<ref>Story of the Coptic church by [[w:Iris Habib Elmasry|Iris Habib Elmasry]] Volume I</ref> but figures large in the differences between those churches and most other populous Christian churches, as well as in the civil strife and friction of the era and afterwards within the [[Eastern Roman Empire]].  
 
The Oriental Orthodox churches are generally accused by other churches of accepting the [[Eutychianism|Eutychian doctrine]] of [[Monophysitism]]&mdash;this is denied by these churches as they consider Eutyches a heretic as the other churches but to have redeemed himself by retrieving this heresy in the Second Council of Ephesus,<ref>Story of the Coptic church by [[w:Iris Habib Elmasry|Iris Habib Elmasry]] Volume I</ref> but figures large in the differences between those churches and most other populous Christian churches, as well as in the civil strife and friction of the era and afterwards within the [[Eastern Roman Empire]].  
  
Hence, in the mess typical of [[schism|schisms]], according to mainstream Christian sects, he was merely a [[Patriarch of Alexandria]] turned heretic, who in a preemptive power-play characteristic of megalomania attempted to excommunicate many other influential bishops in opposition to his belief in Monophysitism, including Pope Leo I. <!-- ref:see [[ Second Council of Ephesus ]], the historical documentation is rather telling. --->
+
Hence, in the mess typical of [[schism|schisms]], according to mainstream Christian sects, he was merely a [[Patriarch of Alexandria]] turned heretic, who in a preemptive power-play characteristic of megalomania attempted to excommunicate many other influential bishops in opposition to his belief in Monophysitism, including Leo. <!-- ref:see [[ Second Council of Ephesus ]], the historical documentation is rather telling. --->
  
He was subsequently [[excommunication|excommunicated]] by the Roman Catholic Pope Leo I, most likely in very early 450 during the aftermath of the controversial  [[Second Council of Ephesus]], which he was charged by the Emperor to preside over with the concurrence of Pope Leo I.  
+
He was subsequently [[excommunication|excommunicated]] by Leo, most likely in very early 450 during the aftermath of the controversial  [[Second Council of Ephesus]], which he was charged by the Emperor to preside over with the concurrence of Leo.  
  
It was supposed to be the fourth [[ecumenical council]] and can only be described as in effect and bizarre in it's rubber stamping character wherein giants of the orthodox sects were slain ''in absentia'' by excommunication and which findings were all subsequently negated and annulled by Pope Leo I as well as the succeeding [[ecumenical council]] in 451, the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (Widely accepted as the Fourth Ecumenical Council, by most mainstream Christian Churches. In contrast, the Oriental Orthodox Churches listed above accept the Second Council of Ephesus as canonical, and do not accept the Council of Chalcedon, nor the [[Chalcedonian Creed]].)
+
It was supposed to be the fourth [[ecumenical council]] and can only be described as in effect and bizarre in it's rubber stamping character wherein giants of the orthodox sects were slain ''in absentia'' by excommunication and which findings were all subsequently negated and annulled by Leo as well as the succeeding [[ecumenical council]] in 451, the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (Widely accepted as the Fourth Ecumenical Council, by most mainstream Christian Churches. In contrast, the Oriental Orthodox Churches listed above accept the Second Council of Ephesus as canonical, and do not accept the Council of Chalcedon, nor the [[Chalcedonian Creed]].)
  
The other person involved in this controversy apart from Dioscorus I is Pope Leo I with each side considering the other person a heretic. The main factors behind this are still present and it is subject to discussion between the churches.<ref>[http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/20000509oomtg3.html Syriac Orthodox Church]</ref>  
+
The other person involved in this controversy apart from Dioscorus is Leo with each side considering the other person a heretic. The main factors behind this are still present and it is subject to discussion between the churches.<ref>[http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/20000509oomtg3.html Syriac Orthodox Church]</ref>  
  
 
In recent research it was suggested that both Leo and Dioscoros are Orthodox because they agree with St.[[Cyril of Alexandria]], especially with his Twelve Chapters, even though both had been considered heretical by the other side <ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas] by John S. Romanides</ref>.
 
In recent research it was suggested that both Leo and Dioscoros are Orthodox because they agree with St.[[Cyril of Alexandria]], especially with his Twelve Chapters, even though both had been considered heretical by the other side <ref>[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas] by John S. Romanides</ref>.
  
In May 1973 After fifteen centuries, Pope [[Shenouda III (Gayyid) of Alexandria]] visited Pope [[Paul VI of Rome|Paul VI]] of Rome and  declared a common faith in the nature of Christ, the issue which caused  the schism of the church  in the [[Council of Chalcedon]].<ref>[http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt Coptic.net Monophysitism Reconsidered]</ref> However, this is disputed, due to the fact that the main leaders of the Non-Chalcedonian schism specifically condemned St. Cyril's agreements with St. John of Antioch.  For example, Timothy Ailouros (Dioscorus' disciple and successor, wrote: "Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ."<ref>Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," ''Patrologia Graeca'', Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13. See also [http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx "The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ"]</ref>
+
In May 1973 After fifteen centuries, Pope [[Shenouda III (Gayyid) of Alexandria]] visited Pope [[Paul VI of Rome|Paul VI]] of Rome and  declared a common faith in the nature of Christ, the issue which caused  the schism of the church  in the [[Council of Chalcedon]].<ref>[http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt Coptic.net Monophysitism Reconsidered]</ref> However, this is disputed, due to the fact that the main leaders of the Non-Chalcedonian schism specifically condemned St. Cyril's agreements with St. John of Antioch.  For example, Timothy Aelurus (Dioscorus' disciple and successor, wrote: "Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ."<ref>Timothy Aelurus, "Epistles to Kalonymos," ''Patrologia Graeca'', Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13. See also [http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx "The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ"]</ref>
  
 
A similar declaration was reached between the Oriental Orthodoxy churches and the Eastern Orthodoxy churches in the 1990s. In the summer of 2001, the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria agreed to mutually recognize baptisms performed in each other's churches<ref>[[Church of Alexandria (Coptic)#Council of Chalcedon]]</ref>.
 
A similar declaration was reached between the Oriental Orthodoxy churches and the Eastern Orthodoxy churches in the 1990s. In the summer of 2001, the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria agreed to mutually recognize baptisms performed in each other's churches<ref>[[Church of Alexandria (Coptic)#Council of Chalcedon]]</ref>.
Line 40: Line 40:
 
A struggle occurred between Eutyches and [[Theodoret]]. Eutyches was an [[archimandrite]] of a [[monastery]] in Constantinople. He defended the formula "one nature" against that of "two natures." He concluded that the Godhead absorbed the manhood of Christ. Theodoret accused Eutyches and Cyril, and published a long attack on them. The council of Constantinople was held in 448, and Eutyches was condemned and exiled.
 
A struggle occurred between Eutyches and [[Theodoret]]. Eutyches was an [[archimandrite]] of a [[monastery]] in Constantinople. He defended the formula "one nature" against that of "two natures." He concluded that the Godhead absorbed the manhood of Christ. Theodoret accused Eutyches and Cyril, and published a long attack on them. The council of Constantinople was held in 448, and Eutyches was condemned and exiled.
  
Pope Leo I of Rome wrote to Eutyches praising his zeal in opposing the Nestorian dualism. But Leo changed his mind; perhaps when he heard that the emperor wrote to Dioscorus calling him to a council to be held to discuss that matter. Leo, who was not part of the conflict between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Christology, sent the famous Tome (letter) of Leo to Constantinople -- not to work for reconciliation of the parties, but to defame the Alexandrian theologians.
+
Leo originally wrote to Eutyches praising his zeal in opposing the Nestorian dualism. But he later changed his mind; perhaps when he heard that the emperor wrote to Dioscorus calling him to a council to be held to discuss that matter. Leo, who was not part of the conflict between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian [[Christology]], sent his famous Tome (letter) to Constantinople -- not to work for reconciliation of the parties, but to defame the Alexandrian theologians.
  
 
==Second Council of Ephesus==
 
==Second Council of Ephesus==
Then Emperor Theodosius II convened the [[Second Council of Ephesus]] (called the "Robber Synod") in 449 and asked Dioscorus to exercise supreme authority over it as president. Eutyches was rehabilitated because he offered to repent and also because Leo, Bishop of Rome wrote to  Flavian saying that he should be kind to him, and to accept him if he repented.
+
Then Emperor Theodosius II convened the [[Second Council of Ephesus]] (called the "Robber Synod") in 449 and asked Dioscorus to exercise supreme authority over it as president. Eutyches was rehabilitated because he offered to repent and also because Leo wrote to  Flavian saying that he should be kind to him, and to accept him if he repented.
  
 
==Council of Chalcedon==
 
==Council of Chalcedon==
 
Then on [[July 28]], 450, Emperor [[Theodosius II|Theodosius]] died and his sister [[Pulcheria the Empress|Pulcheria]] and her consort [[Marcian]] were declared emperors. Pulcheria supported Rome against Alexandria. She gathered signatures for the "Tome" of Leo to be introduced as the basic paper for a new council to be held at Chalcedon. At the same time, she decided not to let Rome hold supreme authority in the church. She refused Leo's demand to hold the council in Italy, but insisted that it would be held in the East. Although the [[council of Chalcedon]] is believed to have condemned Eutyches, the man with whom it really dealt was Dioscorus, for Eutyches was already in North Syria, where he had been exiled before the council met.
 
Then on [[July 28]], 450, Emperor [[Theodosius II|Theodosius]] died and his sister [[Pulcheria the Empress|Pulcheria]] and her consort [[Marcian]] were declared emperors. Pulcheria supported Rome against Alexandria. She gathered signatures for the "Tome" of Leo to be introduced as the basic paper for a new council to be held at Chalcedon. At the same time, she decided not to let Rome hold supreme authority in the church. She refused Leo's demand to hold the council in Italy, but insisted that it would be held in the East. Although the [[council of Chalcedon]] is believed to have condemned Eutyches, the man with whom it really dealt was Dioscorus, for Eutyches was already in North Syria, where he had been exiled before the council met.
  
During the council, Dioscorus explained why the Orthodox faith should adopt 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 view, saying, "We do not speak of confusion, neither of division, nor of change." 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."
+
During the council, Dioscorus explained why they should retain the formula "one incarnate nature of God the Word" (a formula which had already been vindicated and defined at the [[Third Ecumenical Council|First Council of Ephesus]]). On hearing "one nature," some bishops in the council shouted, "Eutyches says these things also." Here Dioscorus clarified the Alexandrian view, saying, "We do not speak of confusion, neither of division, nor of change." 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."
  
 
When the judges started the order of the acts of the Council, Paschasinus, the Roman delegate, said, "We have orders from Rome that Dioscorus should not have a place in this council. If this is violated he should be cast out." When the judges asked about what Dioscorus did, the Roman delegate replied, "He has dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see in Rome, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to have happened."
 
When the judges started the order of the acts of the Council, Paschasinus, the Roman delegate, said, "We have orders from Rome that Dioscorus should not have a place in this council. If this is violated he should be cast out." When the judges asked about what Dioscorus did, the Roman delegate replied, "He has dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see in Rome, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to have happened."
Line 54: Line 54:
 
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. They used Leo as a tool to accomplish their objective through his enmity to Alexandria, looking upon it as an obstacle in realizing his papal authority on the Church over the world.
 
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. They used Leo as a tool to accomplish their objective through his enmity to Alexandria, looking upon it as an obstacle in realizing his papal authority on the Church over the world.
  
The verdict of the commissioners was announced: Dioscorus of Alexandria, [[Juvenal of Jerusalem]], Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eutathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia&mdash;these were the men who had been responsible for the decisions of the second council of Ephesus, and should as such all be deposed. Thus the Patriarch of Alexandria was exiled to Gangra Island. In fact, Dioscorus was not condemned by name at Chalcedon because of his theological heresy, but specifically due to his canonical violations at the Robber Synod of Ephesus.
+
The verdict of the commissioners was announced: Dioscorus of Alexandria, [[Juvenal of Jerusalem]], Thalassius of [[Caesarea]], Eusebius of Ancyra, Eutathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia&mdash;these were the men who had been responsible for the decisions of the second council of Ephesus, and should as such all be deposed. Thus the Patriarch of Alexandria was exiled to Gangra Island. In fact, Dioscorus was not condemned by name at Chalcedon because of his theological heresy, but specifically due to his canonical violations at the Robber Synod of Ephesus.
  
 
==New formula of faith==
 
==New formula of faith==
Line 60: Line 60:
  
 
==Exile of Dioscorus==
 
==Exile of Dioscorus==
After those incidents, a messenger from Constantinople arrived in Alexandria announcing the exile of the Patriarch Dioscorus, and the appointment of an Alexandrian priest named [[Proterius of Alexandria|Proterius]] as an imperial, i.e., alien/foreign/non-Egyptian, patriarch over Alexandria, with the approval of the emperor. He threatened whoever dared to show disobedience. The [[Melchite]] patriarch who was appointed by the emperor became surrounded by soldiers willing to punish those who might resist the imperial command.
+
After those incidents, a messenger from Constantinople arrived in Alexandria announcing the exile of the Patriarch Dioscorus, and the appointment of an Alexandrian priest named [[Proterius of Alexandria|Proterius]] as an imperial, i.e., alien/foreign/non-Egyptian, patriarch over Alexandria, with the approval of the emperor. He threatened whoever dared to show disobedience. The [[Melkite]] patriarch who was appointed by the emperor became surrounded by soldiers willing to punish those who might resist the imperial command.
  
 
In the year 457 Patriarch Dioscorus died in exile, and when the Copts heard that, they met with the clergymen and elected Timothy, the disciple of Dioscorus, to be the new Patriarch. This became a regular practice of the Coptic Church, who have not been reconciled to the Orthodox Patriarchates to this day.
 
In the year 457 Patriarch Dioscorus died in exile, and when the Copts heard that, they met with the clergymen and elected Timothy, the disciple of Dioscorus, to be the new Patriarch. This became a regular practice of the Coptic Church, who have not been reconciled to the Orthodox Patriarchates to this day.
Line 72: Line 72:
 
title=[[Patriarch of Alexandria]]|
 
title=[[Patriarch of Alexandria]]|
 
years=444-451|
 
years=444-451|
after=Proterios (Chalcedonian succession)<br>Timothy II ([[List of Coptic Popes|Non-Chalcedonian succession]])|}}
+
after=[[‎Proterius of Alexandria|Proterius]] (Chalcedonian succession)<br>Timothy II ([[List of Coptic Popes|Non-Chalcedonian succession]])|}}
 
{{end box}}
 
{{end box}}
  
Line 95: Line 95:
  
 
[[Category:Egyptian Saints|Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria]]
 
[[Category:Egyptian Saints|Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria]]
[[Category:Heretics]]
 
 
[[Category:Non-Chalcedonian Saints]]
 
[[Category:Non-Chalcedonian Saints]]
 
[[Category:Patriarchs of Alexandria]]
 
[[Category:Patriarchs of Alexandria]]
  
 
[[ar:ديوسقورس الأول]]
 
[[ar:ديوسقورس الأول]]
 +
[[ro:Dioscor al Alexandriei]]

Latest revision as of 12:58, June 1, 2011

This article or section needs a cleanup to bring it to a higher standard of quality. Recommendation:
See talk page.
More detailed comments may be noted on the talk page. You can help OrthodoxWiki by editing it, especially to conform to the Style Manual and the suggestions in How to write a great article.

Dioscorus I of Alexandria was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 444 to 451. His actions during the continuation of the Christological controversies following the deposition of Nestorius resulted in his deposition at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451 which led to the later schism in the Church of Alexandria.

Contents

Controversy

Dioscorus I of Alexandria is considered a saint by the Coptic, Syriac, and other Oriental Orthodox churches. He is generally considered a heretic by the Eastern Orthodox, though some commentators like Anatolius and John S. Romanides think that Dioscorus was deposed at Chalcedon in 451 not because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the Robber Council of Ephesus (449), which included restoring Eutyches the heretic and the attack on Flavian, and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope Leo I of Rome, and also because at Chalcedon he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times.[1]

His character and stance are subject to contravention between the Oriental Orthodox churches on one side and the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches on the other.

The Oriental Orthodox churches are generally accused by other churches of accepting the Eutychian doctrine of Monophysitism—this is denied by these churches as they consider Eutyches a heretic as the other churches but to have redeemed himself by retrieving this heresy in the Second Council of Ephesus,[2] but figures large in the differences between those churches and most other populous Christian churches, as well as in the civil strife and friction of the era and afterwards within the Eastern Roman Empire.

Hence, in the mess typical of schisms, according to mainstream Christian sects, he was merely a Patriarch of Alexandria turned heretic, who in a preemptive power-play characteristic of megalomania attempted to excommunicate many other influential bishops in opposition to his belief in Monophysitism, including Leo.

He was subsequently excommunicated by Leo, most likely in very early 450 during the aftermath of the controversial Second Council of Ephesus, which he was charged by the Emperor to preside over with the concurrence of Leo.

It was supposed to be the fourth ecumenical council and can only be described as in effect and bizarre in it's rubber stamping character wherein giants of the orthodox sects were slain in absentia by excommunication and which findings were all subsequently negated and annulled by Leo as well as the succeeding ecumenical council in 451, the Council of Chalcedon (Widely accepted as the Fourth Ecumenical Council, by most mainstream Christian Churches. In contrast, the Oriental Orthodox Churches listed above accept the Second Council of Ephesus as canonical, and do not accept the Council of Chalcedon, nor the Chalcedonian Creed.)

The other person involved in this controversy apart from Dioscorus is Leo with each side considering the other person a heretic. The main factors behind this are still present and it is subject to discussion between the churches.[3]

In recent research it was suggested that both Leo and Dioscoros are Orthodox because they agree with St.Cyril of Alexandria, especially with his Twelve Chapters, even though both had been considered heretical by the other side [4].

In May 1973 After fifteen centuries, Pope Shenouda III (Gayyid) of Alexandria visited Pope Paul VI of Rome and declared a common faith in the nature of Christ, the issue which caused the schism of the church in the Council of Chalcedon.[5] However, this is disputed, due to the fact that the main leaders of the Non-Chalcedonian schism specifically condemned St. Cyril's agreements with St. John of Antioch. For example, Timothy Aelurus (Dioscorus' disciple and successor, wrote: "Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ."[6]

A similar declaration was reached between the Oriental Orthodoxy churches and the Eastern Orthodoxy churches in the 1990s. In the summer of 2001, the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria agreed to mutually recognize baptisms performed in each other's churches[7].

Early life

Before being a Pope Dioscorus served as the dean of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, and was the personal secretary of Saint Cyril the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria, whom he accompanied to the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus.

Eutyches and Nestorius

In his struggle against Nestorius, St. Cyril explained the union between the two natures of Christ (His Divinity and His Humanity) as "inward and real without any division, change, or confusion." He rejected the Antiochian theory of "indwelling," or "conjunction," or "close participation" as insufficient to reveal the real unification. He charged that their theory permitted the division of the two hypostasis of Christ just as Nestorius taught.

Thus the traditional Orthodox formula adopted by Cyril and Dioscorus was "one incarnate nature" which translated in Greek to mia-physis and not mono-physis. They meant by mia: one; not "single one", but "unity one"; "out of two natures"; as Dioscorus stated. He insisted on "the one nature" of Christ to assert Christ's oneness, as a tool to defend the Church's faith against Nestorianism. Thus Christ is at once God and man.

On the other hand the Antiochian formula was "two natures after the union" which is translated to dio physis. This formula explained Christ as two natures; Son of God, and Son of Man, and that God did not suffer nor did He die.

St. Cyril himself accepted the Antiochian formula, in his agreements with St. John of Antioch:

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—we glorified God the Saviour of all"[8]

A struggle occurred between Eutyches and Theodoret. Eutyches was an archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. He defended the formula "one nature" against that of "two natures." He concluded that the Godhead absorbed the manhood of Christ. Theodoret accused Eutyches and Cyril, and published a long attack on them. The council of Constantinople was held in 448, and Eutyches was condemned and exiled.

Leo originally wrote to Eutyches praising his zeal in opposing the Nestorian dualism. But he later changed his mind; perhaps when he heard that the emperor wrote to Dioscorus calling him to a council to be held to discuss that matter. Leo, who was not part of the conflict between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Christology, sent his famous Tome (letter) to Constantinople -- not to work for reconciliation of the parties, but to defame the Alexandrian theologians.

Second Council of Ephesus

Then Emperor Theodosius II convened the Second Council of Ephesus (called the "Robber Synod") in 449 and asked Dioscorus to exercise supreme authority over it as president. Eutyches was rehabilitated because he offered to repent and also because Leo wrote to Flavian saying that he should be kind to him, and to accept him if he repented.

Council of Chalcedon

Then on July 28, 450, Emperor Theodosius died and his sister Pulcheria and her consort Marcian were declared emperors. Pulcheria supported Rome against Alexandria. She gathered signatures for the "Tome" of Leo to be introduced as the basic paper for a new council to be held at Chalcedon. At the same time, she decided not to let Rome hold supreme authority in the church. She refused Leo's demand to hold the council in Italy, but insisted that it would be held in the East. Although the council of Chalcedon is believed to have condemned Eutyches, the man with whom it really dealt was Dioscorus, for Eutyches was already in North Syria, where he had been exiled before the council met.

During the council, Dioscorus explained why they should retain the formula "one incarnate nature of God the Word" (a formula which had already been vindicated and defined at the First Council of Ephesus). On hearing "one nature," some bishops in the council shouted, "Eutyches says these things also." Here Dioscorus clarified the Alexandrian view, saying, "We do not speak of confusion, neither of division, nor of change." 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."

When the judges started the order of the acts of the Council, Paschasinus, the Roman delegate, said, "We have orders from Rome that Dioscorus should not have a place in this council. If this is violated he should be cast out." When the judges asked about what Dioscorus did, the Roman delegate replied, "He has dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see in Rome, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to have happened."

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. They used Leo as a tool to accomplish their objective through his enmity to Alexandria, looking upon it as an obstacle in realizing his papal authority on the Church over the world.

The verdict of the commissioners was announced: Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eutathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia—these were the men who had been responsible for the decisions of the second council of Ephesus, and should as such all be deposed. Thus the Patriarch of Alexandria was exiled to Gangra Island. In fact, Dioscorus was not condemned by name at Chalcedon because of his theological heresy, but specifically due to his canonical violations at the Robber Synod of Ephesus.

New formula of faith

Under strong pressure, the bishops of the council accepted a new formula of faith, so that Alexandria would not acquire theological precedence. Yet when the delegates attempted to impose the papal authority upon the universal church, silence turned into revolt. Leo announced, in his repeatedly angry letters, his resistance to the council because it regarded Rome and Constantinople as equal.

Exile of Dioscorus

After those incidents, a messenger from Constantinople arrived in Alexandria announcing the exile of the Patriarch Dioscorus, and the appointment of an Alexandrian priest named Proterius as an imperial, i.e., alien/foreign/non-Egyptian, patriarch over Alexandria, with the approval of the emperor. He threatened whoever dared to show disobedience. The Melkite patriarch who was appointed by the emperor became surrounded by soldiers willing to punish those who might resist the imperial command.

In the year 457 Patriarch Dioscorus died in exile, and when the Copts heard that, they met with the clergymen and elected Timothy, the disciple of Dioscorus, to be the new Patriarch. This became a regular practice of the Coptic Church, who have not been reconciled to the Orthodox Patriarchates to this day.

Dioscorus I (died c. 454/457) in Asia Minor, September 11, 454.[9]


Succession box:
Dioscorus of Alexandria
Preceded by:
Cyril I
Patriarch of Alexandria
444-451
Succeeded by:
Proterius (Chalcedonian succession)
Timothy II (Non-Chalcedonian succession)
Help with box



See also

References

  1. Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas by John S. Romanides
  2. Story of the Coptic church by Iris Habib Elmasry Volume I
  3. Syriac Orthodox Church
  4. Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation: Leo of Rome's Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria's Support of Eutyches and the Lifting of the Anathemas by John S. Romanides
  5. Coptic.net Monophysitism Reconsidered
  6. Timothy Aelurus, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13. See also "The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ"
  7. Church of Alexandria (Coptic)#Council of Chalcedon
  8. John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1, Athens, 1960. p. 154, quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 11
  9. Catholic Encyclopedia

Source

External links

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox
In other languages