Difference between revisions of "Second Council of Ephesus" - New World Encyclopedia

Latest revision as of 17:40, 25 January 2023

Second Council of Ephesus
Date	449
Accepted by	Oriental Orthodoxy
Previous council	First Council of Ephesus
Next council	Council of Chalcedon (not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox)
Convoked by	Emperor Theodosius II
Presided by	Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria
Attendance	130
Topics of discussion	Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Christology, Chalcedonianism
Documents and statements	Condemnations & declared anathemas of Patriarch Flavianus, Patriarch Leo I, Theodoret, and Domnus II
Chronological list of Ecumenical councils

The Second Council of Ephesus was a church synod in 449 C.E. It was convoked by Emperor Theodosius II as an ecumenical council to deal with unresolved issues that had arisen out of the early First Council of Ephesus in 431. Because of its highly acrimonious and controversial proceedings, it was labeled by its opponents as a Robber Synod and later repudiated at the Council of Chalcedon.

The council was called after the archmonk Eutyches had been deposed by Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople on account of his christological view, an early version of what later became known as Monophysitism. Eutyches appealed to Dioscorus, the successor of Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, who restored him and influenced the emperor to summon a church synod to resolve the matter. The council of 130 bishops convened in August 449 and was dominated by Dioscorus and his followers. Eutyches was acquitted of heresy and reinstated, while Flavian and his key supporters were deposed. Opposition was met by intimidation and actual violence. The death of Flavian, which soon followed, was attributed to injuries received in this synod by his opponents.

The emperor confirmed the synod, but the Eastern Church was divided on the question of accepting it. Moreover, Pope Leo I, upon hearing of the report of his delegate, the deacon and future pope Hilarius, excommunicated Dioscorus and refused to recognize the successor of Flavian. The death of Theodosius II cleared the way for the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which deposed Dioscorus and condemned Eutychianism.

Background

Cyril of Alexandria.

Pope Leo I.

The Second Council of Ephesus grew out of the Nestorian controversy that had been dealt with at the First Council of Ephesus, where Cyril of Alexandria had succeeded in obtaining the condemnation of the patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, for his teaching on the two distinct natures of Christ, divine and human. Nestorius had been condemned especially for his refusal to accept the term theotokos (Mother of God) to describe the Virgin Mary. Although Nestorianism had thus been condemned, the underlying issue had not been resolved: Did Christ have one unified nature of divinity-humanity, or two natures, divine and human, which were harmoniously combined within a single person?

Following the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, the archmonk Eutyches had been an outspoken opponent of Nestorius. Now around 70 years of age, Eutyches had been the leader of a monastery outside the walls of Constantinople for 30 years, where he ruled over 300 monks.

However, his teaching of "one nature" in Christ brought him into conflict with his bishop, Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople and several other leading churchmen in the area. In 488, Flavian presided over a council which deposed Eutyches for heresy and excommunicated both him and his monks. This synod declared it a matter of faith that after the Incarnation, Christ consisted of two natures (divine and human) united in one person, while Eutyches protested that there was only one nature (also divine and human) in Christ. Also leading in the condemnation of Eutyches were Domnus, patriarch of the Syrian city of Antioch, and Eusebius, the bishop of Dorylaeum (Phrygia).

Seeing this action as as an injustice that opened the two to a revival of Nestorianism, Patriarch Dioscoros of Alexandria supported Eutyches and influenced Emperor Theodosius II to call a new ecumenical council to deal with the matter. Pope Leo I's predecessors had traditionally sided with Alexandria on theological matters. However, he now wrote to Flavian endorsing the "two natures" view, in a famous letter known as the Tome of Leo. The pope also sent legates to the council, notably the deacon Hilarius, who would later become pope himself.

The acts of the first session of this synod were read at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and have thus been preserved. Another fuller version of the council's acts is known through a Syriac translation by a Monophysite monk written in the year 535 C.E.

The first session

The question before the council, by order of the emperor, was whether Patriarch Flavian, in the synod held by him at Constantinople, had justly deposed and excommunicated Archimandrite Eutyches for refusing to admit two natures in Christ. Consequently, Flavian and six other bishops who had been present at his synod, were not allowed to sit as judges at Ephesus.

The emperor designated Dioscorus of Alexandria to act as president of the council. The papal legate Julius is mentioned next in order of precedence, but he seems to have been expelled at some point. Also attending was the deacon Hilarius with his notary. The number of bishops present was 198.

After a message from Theodosius II was read, the Roman legates apologized for the bishop of Rome's absence by explaining that it would have been contrary to custom for the pope to attend in person. A letter from [[Leo I], indicated that he intended his dogmatic letter to Flavian to be read at the council and to be accepted as a rule of faith. However, Dioscorus refused to have it read, declaring that determining matters of dogma was not a matter for inquiry, since these had already been resolved at the earlier first Council of Ephesus, which had soundly defeated Nestorianism. The issue at hand was whether Flavian had acted properly in deposing and excommunicating Eutyches.

Eutyches then was introduced. He declared that he held to the Nicene Creed, to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be taken away. He claimed to have been condemned by Flavian for a mere slip of the tongue and asked the council to exonerate and reinstate him. Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who was to act as the accuser of Eutyches, was not allowed to be heard. However, the bishops agreed that the acts of the condemnation of Eutyches at the synod of Constantinople in 448 should be read. At this point, the delegates of Rome publicly asked that Leo I's letter might be heard first. Eutyches argued that the papal legates could not be trusted, for they had dined with Flavian, who had treated them with great courtesy. Dioscorus decided that only the acts of the trial were germane, not the pope's doctrinal letter.

The acts of Eutyches' condemnation were then read in full, and also an account of later inquiries made at Eutyches' behest alleging that these acts had been incorrectly taken down and that Flavian had drawn up the sentence against him beforehand. During these proceedings, acrimonious shouts were heard against Flavian's "Nestorianism," and Flavian rose to complain that no opportunity was given him to defend himself.

The bishops proceeded to cast 114 votes absolving Eutyches, with each bishop making a short speech in the process. A petition was read from the monastery of Eutyches, which had been excommunicated by Flavian. The synod absolved them also, and reinstated the monastery to communion. Dioscorus then led the bishops in deposing Flavian from his post, and 135 bishops ultimately joined in signing the canon removing him.

Subsequent sessions

The Syriac acts take up the history where the Chalcedonian version breaks off. In the next session, 113 were present, with several bishops apparently having left and nine new names being listed. The Roman delegates did not appear, apparently having left after the council's disregard of the pope's letter.

The council now dealt with the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, who had been acquitted of charges of Nestorianism in February. However, after a new inquiry in April, the emperor ordered that a another bishop should be chosen to replace him. The council convicted Ibas and sentenced him to deposition and excommunication. Ibas' teaching would later become one of the issues in the Three Chapters controversy. The council also ratified the deposition a certain Bishop Irenaeus of Tyre as a bigamist and a blasphemer. Aquilinus, Bishop of Byblus, who had been consecrated by Irenaeus, was also deposed. Theodoret, who had been an opponent of Dioscorus and a friend of Nestorius, was also deposed and excommunicated, despite having earlier reached accord with Cyril of Alexandria. Like Ibas, he too would became an issue during the The Chapters controversy and the Second Council of Constantinople.

Bishop Domnus of Antioch was said to have agreed in the first session to the acquittal of Eutyches but did not appear at the latter sessions of the council, pleading illness. He was now accused of friendship with Theodoret and Flavian, of Nestorianism, of altering the form of the sacrament of baptism, and of being an enemy of the holy Dioscorus. The council's final act was to depose him.

Reception and legacy

Flavian was deported into exile and died a few days later in Lydia, with the council's opponents alleging that he in fact died of wounds received at this "Robber Synod." The council reported its acts to the emperor, who confirmed its legitimacy with his own letter. Dioscorus sent an encyclical to the bishops of the East, with a form which they were to sign and return, indicating their agreement with its acts. He then went to Constantinople and appointed his secretary, Anatolius, as bishop of that see. On his way back to Egypt, Dioscorus stopped at Nicaea, where, in a council with ten other bishops, he excommunicated the Pope Leo I. Meanwhile Leo I himself had received appeals from Theodoret and Flavian, of whose death he was unaware. He wrote to them, and to the emperor and empress, declaring that the acts of the council were null and void. He eventually excommunicated all who had supported it and absolved those it had condemned.

A Coptic Orthodox church in Jordan.

Evidence given at the Council of Chalcedon strongly impugned the conduct of the Second Council of Ephesus. It stated that the secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes and declared that Dioscorus and others had even struck Flavian. Police and soldiers had to be called in during the ensuing scene of violence. Some of the bishops allegedly endorsed the synod's acts under intimidation, and others did not sign at all, their names being added afterward.

The papal legate Hilarius was said to have bravely uttered a single word in Latin, Contradicitur, purportedly annulling the council's sentence in Leo I's name. He then escaped with difficulty and secretly made his way back to Rome, leading to Leo's officially nullifying the council's acts.

The tide had now turned away from the persecution of Nestorianism and toward the condemnation of its opposite, namely Monophysitism. At the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451 after Theodosius II's death, Euthyches would again be condemned as a heretic. Even Dioscorus, who was deposed at Chalcedon, joined in anathematizing Eutyches shortly after the council's conclusion. Although considered a Monophysite himself by many, Dioscorus is honored as a a great saint in the modern Coptic, Syriac, and other Oriental Orthodox churches.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

al-Masri, Iris Habib. An Intrepid Confessor: Dioscorus I, 25th Pope of Alexandria, 444-458. Leeds: Leeds University Oriental Society, 1967. OCLC 9243408.
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Theology and life series, v. 21. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990. ISBN 9780814656167.
Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. ISBN 9780898706864.
Need, Stephen W. Truly Divine and Truly Human: The Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. ISBN 978-1598562996.
Tanner, Norman P. The Councils of the Church. Herder & Herder, 2001. ISBN 0824519043.
Wessel, Susan. Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, v. 93. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ISBN 9789004170520.

This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.

External links

All links retrieved January 25, 2023.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Second Council of Ephesus ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

History of "Second Council of Ephesus"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{unbalanced}}
+{{Images OK}}{{submitted}}{{approved}}{{copyedited}}
-{{Onesource|date=July 2007}}
-{{cleanup-rewrite}}
 {{Ecumenical council|council_name=Second Council of Ephesus|council_date=449|accepted_by=[[Oriental Orthodoxy]]|rejected_by=[[Roman Catholicism]], [[Eastern Orthodoxy]], [[Protestantism]], [[Assyrian Church of the East|Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorians)]]|previous=[[First Council of Ephesus]]|next=[[Council of Chalcedon]] (not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox)|convoked_by=Emperor [[Theodosius II]]|presided_by=[[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria]]|attendance=130|topics=[[Nestorianism]], [[Monophysitism]], [[Christology]], [[Chalcedonian]]ism|documents=Condemnations & declared anathemas of [[Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople|Patriarch Flavianus]], [[Pope Leo I|Patriarch Leo I]], [[Theodoret]], and [[Domnus II of Antioch|Domnus II]]}}
-The '''Second Council of Ephesus''' was a church synod in 449 C.E. It was convoked by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] as an [[Ecumenical council]] but because of the controversial proceedings it was not accepted as Ecumenical, labelled a '''[[Latrocinium|Robber Synod]]''' and later repudiated at the [[Council of Chalcedon]].
+The '''Second Council of Ephesus''' was a church synod in 449 C.E. It was convoked by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] as an [[ecumenical council]] to deal with unresolved issues that had arisen out of the early First [[Council of Ephesus]] in 431. Because of its highly acrimonious and controversial proceedings, it was labeled by its opponents as a '''Robber Synod''' and later repudiated at the [[Council of Chalcedon]].
-__TOC__
+The council was called after the archmonk [[Eutyches]] had been deposed by Patriarch [[Flavian of Constantinople]] on account of his [[christology|christological]] view, an early version of what later became known as [[Monophysitism]]. Eutyches appealed to [[Dioscorus of Alexandria|Dioscorus]], the successor of Patriarch [[Cyril of Alexandria]], who restored him and influenced the emperor to summon a church [[synod]] to resolve the matter. The council of 130 bishops convened in August 449 and was dominated by Dioscorus and his followers. Eutyches was acquitted of [[heresy]] and reinstated, while Flavian and his key supporters were deposed. Opposition was met by intimidation and actual violence. The death of Flavian, which soon followed, was attributed to injuries received in this synod by his opponents.
-==The first session==
+{{toc}}
-The Acts by the Second Council of Ephesus (the first session being wanting) are known through a [[Syriac]] translation by a monk, published from the [[British Museum]] (MS. Addit. 14,530), written in the year 535 C.E.
+The emperor confirmed the synod, but the Eastern Church was divided on the question of accepting it. Moreover, [[Pope Leo I]], upon hearing of the report of his delegate, the [[deacon]] and future pope [[Pope Hilary|Hilarius]], excommunicated Dioscorus and refused to recognize the successor of Flavian. The death of [[Theodosius II]] cleared the way for the [[Council of Chalcedon]] in 451, which deposed Dioscorus and condemned [[Eutychianism]].
-===Attending signatories===
-No time had been left for any Western bishops to attend, except a certain Julius of an unknown see, who, together with a Roman priest, Renatus (he died on the way), and the deacon [[Pope Hilarius|Hilarius]] (who later became [[Pope]] himself), represented [[Pope Leo I|Pope Leo I]]. The emperor gave [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Dioscorus of Alexandria]] the presidency &ndash; ''ten authentian kai ta proteia''. The legate Julius is mentioned next, but when this name was read at Chalcedon, the bishops cried: "He was cast out. No one represented Leo." Next in order was [[Juvenal of Jerusalem]], above both the [[Domnus II of Antioch|Patriarch Domnus II of Antioch]], and [[Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople]].
-The number of bishops present was 198, with eight representatives of absent bishops, and lastly the deacon Hilarius with his notary Dulcitius. The question before the council by order of the emperor was whether Patriarch Flavian, in a synod held by him at [[Constantinople]] beginning November 8, 448 C.E., had justly deposed and [[excommunicated]] [[Eutyches|Archimandrite Eutyches]] for refusing to admit [[Christology|two natures in Christ]]. Consequently Flavian and six other bishops, who had been present at his synod, were not allowed to sit as judges in the council.
+==Background==
+[[Image:Cyril of Alexandria.jpg|thumb|125px|[[Cyril of Alexandria]].]]
+[[Image:Greatleoone.jpg|thumb|left|[[Pope Leo I]].]]
-===Opening Proceeding===
+The Second Council of Ephesus grew out of the [[nestorianism|Nestorian controversy]] that had been dealt with at the First [[Council of Ephesus]], where [[Cyril of Alexandria]] had succeeded in obtaining the condemnation of the patriarch of [[Constantinople]], [[Nestorius]], for his teaching on the two distinct natures of Christ, divine and human. Nestorius had been condemned especially for his refusal to accept the term ''[[theotokos]]'' (Mother of God) to describe the [[Virgin Mary]]. Although Nestorianism had thus been condemned, the underlying issue had not been resolved: Did Christ have one unified nature of divinity-humanity, or two natures, divine and human, which were harmoniously combined within a single person?
-The brief of convocation by Theodosius II was read, and then the Roman legates explained that it would have been contrary to custom for the pope to be present in person, but he had sent a letter by them. In this letter Leo I had appealed to his dogmatic letter to Flavian, which he intended to be read at the council and accepted by it as a rule of faith.
-However, Dioscorus refused to have it read and instead presented a letter of the emperor, ordering the presence at the council of the anti-[[Nestorian]] monk [[Barsumas]]. The question of faith was next proceeded with. [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Pope Dioscorus]] declared that this was not a matter for inquiry: they had only to inquire into the recent doings. He was acclaimed as a guardian of the Faith and the Champion of Orthodoxy.
+Following the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, the archmonk [[Eutyches]] had been an outspoken opponent of Nestorius. Now around 70 years of age, Eutyches had been the leader of a [[monastery]] outside the walls of [[Constantinople]] for 30 years, where he ruled over 300 monks.
-Eutyches then was introduced, and declared that he held the [[Nicene Creed]], to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be taken away. He had been condemned by Flavian for a mere slip of the tongue, though he had declared that he held the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, and had appealed to the present council. He had been in danger of his life. He now asked for judgment against the calumnies which had been brought against him.
+However, his teaching of "one nature" in Christ brought him into conflict with his bishop, Patriarch [[Flavian of Constantinople]] and several other leading churchmen in the area. In 488, Flavian presided over a council which deposed Eutyches for [[heresy]] and excommunicated both him and his monks. This synod declared it a matter of faith that after [[the Incarnation]], Christ consisted of two natures (divine and human) united in one person, while Eutyches protested that there was only one nature (also divine and human) in Christ. Also leading in the condemnation of Eutyches were Domnus, patriarch of the Syrian city of Antioch, and Eusebius, the bishop of Dorylaeum (Phrygia).
-The accuser of Eutyches, Bishop [[Eusebius of Dorylaeum]], was not allowed to be heard. The bishops agreed that the acts of the condemnation of Eutyches, at the 448 C.E.. [[Constantinople]] council, should be read, but the delegates of Rome asked that Leo's letter might be heard first. Eutyches interrupted with the complaint that he did not trust these delegates; they had been to dine with Flavian, and had received much courtesy. [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Pope Dioscorus]] decided that the acts of the trial should have precedence, and so the letter of Leo I wasn't read.
+Seeing this action as as an injustice that opened the two to a revival of [[Nestorianism]], Patriarch [[Dioscoros of Alexandria]] supported Eutyches and influenced Emperor [[Theodosius II]] to call a new [[ecumenical council]] to deal with the matter. Pope [[Leo I]]'s predecessors had traditionally sided with Alexandria on theological matters. However, he now wrote to Flavian endorsing the "two natures" view, in a famous letter known as the ''Tome of Leo''. The pope also sent legates to the council, notably the deacon [[Hilarius]], who would later become [[pope]] himself.
-The acts were then read in full, and also the account of an inquiry made on April 13, 449 C.E.., into the allegation of Eutyches that the synodal acts had been incorrectly taken down, and of another inquiry on April 27, 449 C.E., into the accusation made by Eutyches that Flavian had drawn up the sentence against him beforehand. While the trial was being related, cries arose of belief in one nature, that two natures meant Nestorianism, of "Burn Eusebius," and so forth. Flavian rose to complain that no opportunity was given him of defending himself.
+The acts of the first session of this synod were read at the [[Council of Chalcedon]] in 451, and have thus been preserved. Another fuller version of the council's acts is known through a [[Syriac]] translation by a Monophysite monk written in the year 535 C.E.
-The ''Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus'' now give a list of 114 votes in the form of short speeches absolving Eutyches. Even three of his former judges joined in this, although by the emperor's order they were not to vote. Barsumas added his voice in the last place. A petition was read from the [[monastery]] of Eutyches, which had been excommunicated by Flavian. On the assertion of the monks that they agreed in all things with Eutyches, and with the holy fathers, the synod absolved them. Eutyches was crafty enough to seem Orthodox at the time. However, at a later date, [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Pope St. Dioscorus]] saw through him and had Eutyches anathematized.
+==The first session==
+The question before the council, by order of the emperor, was whether Patriarch Flavian, in the synod held by him at [[Constantinople]], had justly deposed and [[excommunicated]] [[Eutyches|Archimandrite Eutyches]] for refusing to admit [[Christology|two natures in Christ]]. Consequently, Flavian and six other bishops who had been present at his synod, were not allowed to sit as judges at Ephesus.
-===Relations with the First Council of Ephesus===
-Next in order to establish the true faith an extract was read from the acts of the first session of the [[Council of Ephesus|First Council of Ephesus]] (431 C.E.). Many of the bishops, and also the deacon Hilarus, expressed their assent, some adding that nothing beyond this faith could be allowed.
-Dioscorus then spoke, declaring that it followed that Flavian and Eusebius must be deposed. No less than 101 bishops gave their votes orally, and the signatures of all the 135 bishops follow in the acts. Flavian and Eusebius had previously interposed an appeal to the Roman patriarch and to a synod held by him. Their formal letters of appeal have been recently published by Amelli.
-===Response of Chalcedon===
-The evidence given at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradicts the account in the acts of this final scene of the session. It was reported that secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes, and it was declared that both Barsumas and Dioscorus struck Flavian, though this is likely an exaggeration. It was further reported that many bishops threw themselves on their knees to beg Dioscorus for mercy to Flavian, that the military were introduced and also [[Alexandrine Parabolani]], and that a scene of violence ensued; that the bishops signed under the influence of bodily fear, that some signed a blank paper, and that others did not sign at all, the names being afterwards filled in of all who were actually present.
-The [[papal legate|Roman legate]] [[Pope Hilarius|Hilarius]] uttered a single word in Latin, "Contradicitur," purportedly annulling the sentence in Leo's name. He then escaped with difficulty.
-Flavian was deported into exile, and died a few days later in [[Lydia]]. No more of the Acts was read at Chalcedon. But we learn from [[Theodoret]], [[Evagrius Scholasticus|Evagrius]], and others, that the Council voted to depose Theodoret himself, Domnus, and [[Ibas (Assyrian bishop)|Ibas]], Bishop of [[Edessa, Mesopotamia|Edessa]].
-==Subsequent sessions==
-===The attitude of schism===
-The Syriac Acts take up the history where the Chalcedonian Acts break off. Of the first session only the formal documents, letters of the emperor, petitions of Eutyches, are known to be preserved in Syriac, though not in the same manuscript. It is evident that the Monophysite editor thoroughly disapproved of the first session, and purposely omitted it, not because of the high-handed proceedings of Dioscorus, but because the ''later Monophysites, as a general rule, condemned Eutyches as a heretic'', and did not wish to remember his rehabilitation by a council which ''they considered to be ecumenical'', and the rest of Christianity scorns.
-===Attendance===
-In the next session, according to the Syriac Acts, 113 were present, including Barsumas. Nine new names appear. The Roman delegates were sent for, as they did not appear, but only the notary Dulcitius could be found, and he was unwell. The delegates had shaken off the dust of their feet against the assembly. It was an uncanonical charge against St. Dioscorus at the Council of Chalcedon that he "had held an (ecumenical) council without the Roman See, which was never allowed." This manifestly refers to his having continued at the council after the departure of the delegates.
-===Double jeopardy===
+The emperor designated [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Dioscorus of Alexandria]] to act as president of the council. The papal legate Julius is mentioned next in order of precedence, but he seems to have been expelled at some point. Also attending was the deacon [[Hilarius]] with his [[notary]]. The number of bishops present was 198.
-The first case was that of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa. This famous champion of the Antiochian party had been accused of crimes before Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, and had been acquitted, soon after [[Easter]], 448 C.E. His accusers had gone to Constantinople and obtained a new trial from the emperor. The bishops [[Photius of Tyre]], [[Eustathius of Berytus]], and [[Uranius of Imeria]] were to examine the matter. These bishops met at [[Tyre, Lebanon|Tyre]], removed to [[Beirut|Berytus]], and returned to Tyre, and eventually acquitted Ibas once more, together with his fellow-accused, [[Daniel of Harran|Daniel]], Bishop of Harran, and [[John of Theodosianopolis]]. This was in February, 449 C.E..
-[[Cheroeas]], Governor of [[Osrhoene]] was now ordered to go to [[Edessa, Mesopotamia|Edessa]] to make a new inquiry. He was received by the people on April 12, 449 C.E.., with shouts (the detailed summary of which took up some two or three pages of his report), in honour of the emperor, the governor, the late Bishop [[Rabbula]], and against [[Nestorius]] and Ibas. Cheroeas sent to Constantinople, with two letters of his own, an elaborate report, detailing accusations against Ibas. The emperor ordered that a new bishop should be chosen.
+After a message from [[Theodosius II]] was read, the Roman legates apologized for the [[bishop of Rome]]'s absence by explaining that it would have been contrary to custom for the [[pope]] to attend in person. A letter from [[Leo I], indicated that he intended his dogmatic letter to Flavian to be read at the council and to be accepted as a rule of faith. However, Dioscorus refused to have it read, declaring that determining matters of dogma was not a matter for inquiry, since these had already been resolved at the earlier first [[Council of Ephesus]], which had soundly defeated [[Nestorianism]]. The issue at hand was whether Flavian had acted properly in deposing and excommunicating Eutyches.
-It was this report, which provided a history of the whole affair, that was now read at length by order of Dioscorus. When the famous letter of Ibas to [[Maris (bishop)|Bishop Maris]] was read, cries arose such as "These things pollute our ears ... Cyril is immortal. ... Let Ibas be burnt in the midst of the city of Antioch. ... Exile is of no use. Nestorius and Ibas should be burnt together!" A final indictment was made in a speech by a priest of Edessa named Eulogius. Sentence was finally given against Ibas of deposition and excommunication, without any suggestion that he ought to be cited or that his defence ought to be heard.
+Eutyches then was introduced. He declared that he held to the [[Nicene Creed]], to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be taken away. He claimed to have been condemned by Flavian for a mere slip of the tongue and asked the council to exonerate and reinstate him. Bishop [[Eusebius of Dorylaeum]], who was to act as the accuser of Eutyches, was not allowed to be heard. However, the bishops agreed that the acts of the condemnation of Eutyches at the synod of  [[Constantinople]] in 448 should be read. At this point, the delegates of Rome publicly asked that Leo I's letter might be heard first. Eutyches argued that the papal legates could not be trusted, for they had dined with Flavian, who had treated them with great courtesy. Dioscorus decided that only the acts of the trial were germane, not the pope's doctrinal letter.
-===Byzantine matters===
+The acts of Eutyches' condemnation were then read in full, and also an account of later inquiries made at Eutyches' behest alleging that these acts had been incorrectly taken down and that Flavian had drawn up the sentence against him beforehand. During these proceedings, acrimonious shouts were heard against Flavian's "[[Nestorianism]]," and Flavian rose to complain that no opportunity was given him to defend himself.
-It is scandalously ''Byzantine'' to us today to find the three bishops who had acquitted him but a few months previously, ''only anxious to show their concurrence''. They even pretended to forget what had been proved at Tyre and Berytus. In the next case, that of Ibas's nephew, Daniel of Harran, they declared that at Tyre they had clearly seen his guilt, and had only acquitted him because of his voluntary resignation. He was quickly deposed by the agreement of all the council. He was, of course, not present and could not defend himself.
-It was next the turn of [[Irenaeus]], who as an influential layman at the first [[Council of Ephesus]] had shown much favour to Nestorius. He had later become Bishop of Tyre, but the emperor had deposed him in 448 C.E., and Photius, had succeeded him. The synod made no difficulty in ratifying the deposition of Irenaeus as a bigamist and a blasphemer. [[Aquilinus of Byblus|Aquilinus, Bishop of Byblus]], because he had been consecrated by Irenaeus and was his friend, was next deposed. [[Sophronius of Tella|Sophronius, Bishop of Tella]], was a cousin of Ibas. He was therefore accused of magic, and his case was reserved for the judgment of the new Bishop of Edessa—a surprisingly mild decision.
+The bishops proceeded to cast 114 votes absolving Eutyches, with each bishop making a short speech in the process. A petition was read from the [[monastery]] of Eutyches, which had been excommunicated by Flavian. The synod absolved them also, and reinstated the monastery to [[communion]]. Dioscorus then led the bishops in deposing Flavian from his post, and 135 bishops ultimately joined in signing the canon removing him.
-===Condemnation of Theodoret===
+===Subsequent sessions===
-Theodoret, an opponent of [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Pope Dioscorus]] and a personal supporter of Nestorius, had been confined by the emperor within his own diocese in the preceding year, to prevent his preaching at Antioch; and Theodosius had twice written to prevent his coming to Ephesus to the council. The council found reason to depose him in his absence. He had been a friend of Nestorius, and for more than three years (431 C.E.-434 C.E.) a prominent antagonist of [[Cyril of Alexandria|Pope Saint Cyril I]].
+The Syriac acts take up the history where the Chalcedonian version breaks off. In the next session, 113 were present, with several bishops apparently having left and nine new names being listed. The Roman delegates did not appear, apparently having left after the council's disregard of the pope's letter.
-But despite the fact the two great theologians had come to terms and had celebrated their agreement with great joy, he had been rejected with scorn, a monk of Antioch now brought forward a volume of extracts from the works of Theodoret. First was read Theodoret's letter to the monks of the East (see Mansi, V, 1023), then some extracts from a lost ''Apology for Diodorus and Theodore'' &ndash; the very name of this work sufficed in the eyes of the council for a condemnation to be pronounced. Dioscorus pronounced the sentence of deposition and excommunication of [[Theodoret]].
+The council now dealt with the case of [[Ibas of Edessa|Ibas, Bishop of Edessa]], who had been acquitted of charges of [[Nestorianism]] in February. However, after a new inquiry in April, the emperor ordered that a another bishop should be chosen to replace him. The council convicted Ibas and sentenced him to deposition and [[excommunication]]. Ibas' teaching would later become one of the issues in the [[Three-Chapter Controversy|Three Chapters]] controversy. The council also ratified the deposition a certain Bishop Irenaeus of Tyre as a [[bigamy|bigamist]] and a [[blasphemy|blasphemer]]. [[Aquilinus of Byblus|Aquilinus, Bishop of Byblus]], who had been consecrated by Irenaeus, was also deposed. [[Theodoret]], who had been an opponent of [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Dioscorus]] and a friend of Nestorius, was also deposed and excommunicated, despite having earlier reached accord with [[Cyril of Alexandria]]. Like Ibas, he too would became an issue during the [[The Chapters]] controversy and the [[Second Council of Constantinople]].
-When Theodoret in his remote diocese heard of this sentence on an absent man against whose reputation not a word was uttered, he at once appealed to the Leo in a letter (Ep. cxiii). He wrote also to the legate Renatus (Ep. cxvi), being unaware that he was dead.
+Bishop [[Domnus of Antioch]] was said to have agreed in the first session to the acquittal of Eutyches but did not appear at the latter sessions of the council, pleading illness. He was now accused of friendship with Theodoret and Flavian, of Nestorianism, of altering the form of the [[sacrament]] of [[baptism]], and of being an enemy of the holy Dioscorus. The council's final act was to depose him.
-===Condemnation of Domnus===
+==Reception and legacy==
-The council had a yet bolder task before it. [[Domnus of Antioch]] is said to have agreed in the first session to the acquittal of Eutyches. But he refused, on the plea of sickness, to appear any more at the latter sessions of the council. He seems to have been disgusted, or terrified, or both, at the leadership of [[Pope Dioscorus]]. The council had sent him an account of their actions, and he replied (according to the Acts) that he agreed to all the sentences that had been given and regretted that his health made his attendance impossible.
+Flavian was deported into exile and died a few days later in [[Lydia]], with the council's opponents alleging that he in fact died of wounds received at this "Robber Synod." The council reported its acts to the emperor, who confirmed its legitimacy with his own letter. Dioscorus sent an [[encyclical]] to the bishops of the East, with a form which they were to sign and return, indicating their agreement with its acts. He then went to Constantinople and appointed his secretary, [[Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople|Anatolius]], as bishop of that [[see]]. On his way back to Egypt, Dioscorus stopped at [[Nicaea]], where, in a council with ten other bishops, he excommunicated the Pope [[Leo I]]. Meanwhile Leo I himself had received appeals from [[Theodoret]] and Flavian, of whose death he was unaware. He wrote to them, and to the emperor and empress, declaring that the acts of the council were null and void. He eventually excommunicated all who had supported it and absolved those it had condemned.
-Immediately after receiving this message, the council proceeded to hear a number of petitions from monks and priests against [[Domnus]] himself. He was accused of friendship with Theodoret and Flavian, of Nestorianism, of altering the form of the [[Sacrament]] of [[Baptism]], of intruding an immoral bishop into Emessa, of having been uncanonically appointed himself, and in fact of being an enemy of Dioscorus. Several pages of the manuscripts are lost; but it does not seem that the patriarch was cited to appear, or given a chance of defending himself. The bishops shouted that he was worse than Ibas. He was deposed by a vote of the council, and with this final act the Acts come to an end.
+[[Image:Amman Coptic Church.jpg|thumb|A Coptic Orthodox church in Jordan.]]
-==Reception of the Council==
+Evidence given at the [[Council of Chalcedon]] strongly impugned the conduct of the Second Council of Ephesus. It stated that the secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes and declared that Dioscorus and others had even struck Flavian. Police and soldiers had to be called in during the ensuing scene of violence. Some of the bishops allegedly endorsed the synod's acts under intimidation, and others did not sign at all, their names being added afterward.
-The council wrote the usual letter to the emperor (see Perry, trans., p. 431), who confirmed it with a letter (Mansi, VII, 495, and Perry, p. 364). Dioscorus sent an [[encyclical]] to the bishops of the East, with a form of adhesion to the council which they were to sign (Perry, p. 375). He went to Constantinople and appointed his secretary [[Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople|Anatolius]] bishop of that [[see]].
-[[Juvenal of Jerusalem]] was loyal to Dioscorus, he had deposed the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople; but one powerful adversary yet remained. He halted at Nicaea, and with ten bishops (no doubt the ten [[Egypt]]ian [[metropolitan bishop|metropolitans]] whom he had brought to Ephesus), ''"in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour"''—in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon—''and excommunicated the Pope himself''.
+The [[papal legate]] [[Pope Hilarius|Hilarius]] was said to have bravely uttered a single word in Latin, ''Contradicitur,'' purportedly annulling the council's sentence in Leo I's name. He then escaped with difficulty and secretly made his way back to [[Rome]], leading to Leo's officially nullifying the council's acts.
-Meanwhile Leo I had received the appeals of Theodoret and Flavian (of whose death he was unaware), and had written to them and to the emperor and empress that all the Acts of the council were null. He eventually excommunicated all who had taken part in it, and absolved all whom it had condemned (including [[Theodoret|Theodoret the Nestorian]]), with the exception of Domnus of Antioch, who seems to have had no wish to resume his see and retired into the monastic life which he had left many years before with regret.
+The tide had now turned away from the persecution of Nestorianism and toward the condemnation of its opposite, namely [[Monophysitism]]. At the [[Council of Chalcedon]], held in 451 after [[Theodosius II]]'s death, Euthyches would again be condemned as a heretic. Even Dioscorus, who was deposed at Chalcedon, joined in [[anathema]]tizing Eutyches shortly after the council's conclusion. Although considered a Monophysite himself by many, Dioscorus is honored as a a great [[saint]] in the modern [[Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria|Coptic]], [[Syriac Orthodox Church|Syriac]], and other [[Oriental Orthodox church]]es.
 ==References==
-* [[Edward Walford]], translator, ''The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius: A History of the Church from AD 431 to AD 594'', 1846. Reprinted 2008. Evolution Publishing, ISBN 978-1-889758-88-6. [http://www.evolpub.com/CRE/CREseries.html#CRE5]
+* al-Masri, Iris Habib. ''An Intrepid Confessor: Dioscorus I, 25th Pope of Alexandria, 444-458''. Leeds: Leeds University Oriental Society, 1967. {{OCLC|9243408}}.
+* Davis, Leo Donald. ''The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology''. Theology and life series, v. 21. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990. ISBN 9780814656167.
+* Gambero, Luigi. ''Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought''. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. ISBN 9780898706864.
+* Need, Stephen W. ''Truly Divine and Truly Human: The Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils.'' Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. ISBN 978-1598562996.
+* Tanner, Norman P. ''The Councils of the Church.'' Herder & Herder, 2001. ISBN 0824519043.
+* Wessel, Susan. ''Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome''. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, v. 93. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ISBN 9789004170520.
+{{Catholic}}
 ==External links==
+All links retrieved January 25, 2023.
 *[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05495a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia, "Robber Council of Ephesus" at New Advent]
 *[http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/councils.htm Roman Catholic Listings of Ecumenical Councils]
-*[http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/RHY_RON/ROBBER_SYNOD.html Robber Synod] in the 1911 [[Encyclopædia Britannica]]
 {{Ecumenical councils}}
-{{Catholic}}
-{{coord|37|56|42|N|27|20|21|E|type:landmark|display=title}}
 [[Category:philosophy and religion]]