Why did Ibas die at peace in the Church?

[TheLostCoin]

I posted a similar thread months ago when I was looking into Oriental Orthodoxy and contrasting it with Eastern Orthodoxy, but after studying Chalcedon for a while, it seems that there isn't any absolute historical answers as to who was in the wrong there - the Alexandrians, Armenians, and Syriacs or the Latins, Greeks, and Antiochians.

While on the one hand I don't see why the Tome of Leo is heretical, or saying that Christ is of two natures or even in two natures is heretical (despite being used by Nestorius, it was used in a perfectly Orthodox way by Saint John Cassian, who wrote a treatise against Nestorius), and I don't see how the Definition of the Council of Faith is heretical (Christ is in two ousia but is one hypostasis and prosopon), nevertheless I don't think that there are clear answers from the pro-Chalcedonian side about certain details about Chalcedon or even whether Chalcedon was Orthodox in toto when it happened in terms of how many viewed it.

As was pointed out in "Chalcedon Re-Examined", there were many people who saw the Reconciliation between Cyril and John of Antioch in a very blasphemous perspective - they believed that Cyril was an Apollinarian heretic who repented, as he didn't recognize the difference between the Temple and Him who Dwelt in Him, and Nestorius was only a heretic because he refused the title "Mother of God".

The Letter of Ibas explicitly says this, and during the initial trial of Dioscorus, when people are inquiring into the events of the Council of Ephesus of 449, one of the Imperial Officers clearly explains and holds to this perspective; wondering why Dioscorus was so against "Two Natures," considering that Saint Cyril already repented with the reunion already occurring.


With this in mind, I seriously question the legitimacy of the judgment of Ibas of Edessa, and I question how it impacts the Orthodoxy of the Council itself.

During the Council of Ephesus 449, accusations were brought about against Ibas, where he said such blasphemies like "I'm not jealous of Christ, because what He was I can become," also saying ‘It was one person who died, and another who was in heaven, and that was one person who was without beginning, and that was another person who is subject to a beginning; and he was one person who is of the Father, and he was another who is of the Virgin' - and he was condemned for heresy.

However, at Chalcedon, all accusations were cleared because "he couldn't defend himself," and then the Papal Legates and the Patriarch of Antioch both say "having read his letter, we determine him to be Orthodox."

At the 5th Council, Ibas's Letter would be anathematized, leading to a large part of the Western Church excommunicating the Pope for heresy.


So...did Chalcedon accept Ibas for an unjust cause? Was it an erroneous judgment? And what does this say about Leo? Was he a Nestorian?

 

[TheLostCoin]

I don't know, it's still confusing to me. Maximus of Antioch, who was appointed Patriarch by Dioscorus during the Council of 449, said this during the trial of Ibas:

"from what has just been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be Orthodox."

Was the letter not produced by Ibas? Or is an enemy accusing Ibas of heterodoxy?

 

[TheLostCoin]

I find this significant because Dioscorus felt that the reconciliation of Ibas was enough to justify an anathematization against Chalcedon, for communing heretics.

But who knows.

 

[archer75]

What are your sources for all this? What are you consulting?

 

[TheLostCoin]

What are your sources for all this? What are you consulting?

"Chalcedon Re-Examined" by V.C. Samuels
"The Case of Ibas of Edessa" by Fr. Peter Harrington - all kinds of writing 

 

[TheLostCoin]

What are your sources for all this? What are you consulting?

As I've said, I still struggle to see (as I don't know Greek) the differences between the Tome of Leo and Cyril's theology himself. Chalcedon didn't use the "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" formula, but what was expressed by the Tome and Chalcedon's Definition was Saint Cyril's own views of theology.

I mean, just compare these two.

From Saint Cyril's 2nd Letter to Nestorius:

"The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven. These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for he was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh. On this account we say that he suffered and rose again; not as if God the Word suffered in his own nature stripes, or the piercing of the nails, or any other wounds, for the Divine nature is incapable of suffering, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, but since that which had become his own body suffered in this way, he is also said to suffer for us; for he who is in himself incapable of suffering was in a suffering body.

In the same manner also we conceive respecting his dying; for the Word of God is by nature immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving; since, however, his own body did, as Paul says, by the grace of God taste death for every man, he himself is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he had any experience of death in his own nature (for it would be madness to say or think this), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. In like manner his flesh being raised again, it is spoken of as his resurrection, not as if he had fallen into corruption (God forbid), but because his own body was raised again."

From the Tome of Leo:

"These three statements wreck the tricks of nearly every heretic. When God is believed to be both almighty and Father, the Son is clearly proved to be co-eternal with him, in no way different from the Father, since he was born God from God, almighty from the Almighty, co-eternal from the Eternal, not later in time, not lower in power, not unlike in glory, not distinct in being. The same eternal, only-begotten of the eternal begetter was born of the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary. His birth in time in no way subtracts from or adds to that divine and eternal birth of his: but its whole purpose is to restore humanity, who had been deceived, so that it might defeat death and, by its power, destroy the devil who held the power of death. Overcoming the originator of sin and death would be beyond us, had not he whom sin could not defile, nor could death hold down, taken up our nature and made it his own. He was conceived from the holy Spirit inside the womb of the virgin mother. Her virginity was as untouched in giving him birth as it was in conceiving him....

So without leaving his Father's glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world, born in an unprecedented order by an unprecedented kind of birth. In an unprecedented order, because one who is invisible at his own level was made visible at ours. The ungraspable willed to be grasped. Whilst remaining pre-existent, he begins to exist in time. The Lord of the universe veiled his measureless majesty and took on a servant's form. The God who knew no suffering did not despise becoming a suffering man, and, deathless as he is, to be subject to the laws of death. By an unprecedented kind of birth, because it was inviolable virginity which supplied the material flesh without experiencing sexual desire. What was taken from the mother of the Lord was the nature without fault. And the fact that the birth was miraculous does not imply that in the lord Jesus Christ, born from the virgin's womb, the nature is different from ours. The same one is true God and true man.

There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man. God, by the fact that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; man, by the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God, by the fact that "all things were made through him, and nothing was made without him," man, by the fact that "he was made of a woman, made under the law." The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels' voices announce the greatness of the most High. Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all. And when he came to be baptised by his precursor John, the Father's voice spoke thunder from heaven, to ensure that he did not go unnoticed because the divinity was concealed by the veil of flesh: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Accordingly, the same one whom the devil craftily tempts as a man, the angels dutifully wait on as God. Hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep are patently human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves; to dispense living water to the Samaritan woman, a drink of which will stop her being thirsty ever again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink; to rebuke the storm and level the mounting waves; there can be no doubt these are divine."


Reading both of these things, they express the same thing: One is truly God and truly man, united in an inseparable oneness, the differences of the natures remaining in tact, with the Divine Nature incapable of suffering but the human nature capable of suffering; nonetheless, God Himself died on the cross because He was fully human in every way except sin.

Nonetheless, I still wonder about some of the judgments of Chalcedon in reconciling some notorious enemies of Saint Cyril.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Interesting counter-argument - according to Fordham University, a scholar named "Bright" claims that the accusations of Ibas saying that Christ was but a man deified were proven to be false at Chalcedon, as 9 witnesses claimed that he said such a thing, but 60 people who were there according to the 9 witnesses claim that he never said such a thing.

"In order to appreciate this canon, we must consider the case of Ibas bishop of Edessa. He had been attached to the Nestorians, but after the reunion between Cyril and John of Antioch had re-entered into communion with Cyril on the ground that Cyril had explained his anathemas (Mansi, vii., 240), or, as he wrote to Maria (in a letter famous as one of the "Three Chapters") that God had "softened the Egyptian's heart" (ib., 248). Four of his priests (Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulegius), stimulated, says Fleury (xxvij. 19) by Uranius bishop of Himeria, accused Ibas of Nestorianism before his patriarch Domnus of Antioch, who held a synod, but, as Samuel and Cyrus failed to appear, pronounced them defaulters and set aside the case (Mansi, vii. 217). They went up to Constantinople, and persuaded Theodosius and archbishop Flavian to appoint a commission for inquiring into the matter. Two sessions, so to speak were held by the three prelates thus appointed, one at Berytus the other at Tyre. At Berytus, according to the extant minutes (Mansi, vii., 212 ff.), five new accusers joined the original four, and charges were brought which affected the moral character of Ibas as well as his orthodoxy. The charge of having used a "blasphemous" speech implying that Christ was but a man deified, was rebutted by a statement signed by some sixty clerics of Edessa, who according to the accusers, had been present when Ibas uttered it. At Tyre the episcopal judges succeeded in making peace, and accusers and accused partook of the communion together (ib., vii., 209). The sequence of these proceedings cannot be thoroughly ascertained, but Hefele (sect. 169) agrees with Tillemont (xv., 474 et seqq.) in dating the trial at Berytus slightly earlier than that at Tyre, and assigning both to the February of 448 or 449. Fleury inverts this order, and thinks that, "notwithstanding the reconciliation" at Tyre, the four accusers renewed their prosecution of Ibas (xxvij. 20); but he has to suppose two applications on their part to Theodosius and Flavian, which seems improbable. "The Council is believed," says Tillemont (xv., 698), "to have had this case in mind when drawing up the present canon:" and one can hardly help thinking that, on a spot within sight of Constantinople, they must have recalled the protracted sufferings which malignant plotters had inflicted on St. Chrysostom."

Internet History Sourcebooks

Under Canon XVIII.


I guess all we can do is assume that the Church judged Ibas justly, regardless of his past - something which I guess we can assume considering the Patriarch of Antioch was appointed by Diocorus and was thus Alexandrian? And the proceedings in total cleared Ibas justly of heresy?

And the charges against Ibas were false because of the robber council of 449 not being trustworthy?

I don't know...it still seems like the very blasphemous letter was accepted as Orthodox.....

 

[ArmyMatt]

simply put, Ibas repented, reconciled with St Cyril, and agreed Nestorius is a heretic.

there is a reason Cyril is the saint and Ibas is not.

 

[TheLostCoin]

simply put, Ibas repented, reconciled with St Cyril, and agreed Nestorius is a heretic.

there is a reason Cyril is the saint and Ibas is not.

But he repented and denounced Nestorius only after the Council determined him Orthodox. And simply denouncing Nestorius doesn't mean he's Orthodox, as the heretical and blasphemous letter of Ibas shows. The Letter of Ibas denounces both Cyril and Nestorius, with the former as an Apollinarian Monophysite, the latter as going too far in how he titled the Virgin Mary as "The Mother of Christ" and rejecting "The Mother of God."

Ibas, at that point, thought that he had reconciled with Cyril, interpreting the Reunion with John of Antioch in a very blasphemous, incorrect, and heretical way.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But he repented and denounced Nestorius only after the Council determined him Orthodox. And simply denouncing Nestorius doesn't mean he's Orthodox, as the heretical and blasphemous letter of Ibas shows. The Letter of Ibas denounces both Cyril and Nestorius, with the former as an Apollinarian Monophysite, the latter as going too far in how he titled the Virgin Mary as "The Mother of Christ" and rejecting "The Mother of God."

Ibas, at that point, thought that he had reconciled with Cyril, interpreting the Reunion with John of Antioch in a very blasphemous, incorrect, and heretical way.

the issue is the One Nature phrase WAS Apollinarian in origin. and yes, like I said, there is a reason Chalcedon and every subsequent council affirms Cyril as a saint, and not Ibas.

 

[TheLostCoin]

the issue is the One Nature phrase WAS Apollinarian in origin. and yes, like I said, there is a reason Chalcedon and every subsequent council affirms Cyril as a saint, and not Ibas.

True, but Saint Cyril made it Orthodox, and it doesn't eliminate the fact that the 5th Ecumenical Council Fathers all "realized it's impiety" upon reading it, anathematizing anybody who adhered to it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

True, but Saint Cyril made it Orthodox, and it doesn't eliminate the fact that the 5th Ecumenical Council Fathers all "realized it's impiety" upon reading it, anathematizing anybody who adhered to it.

correct, but Ibas' letter was read as part of the council. as well as what others said about him. Ibas' Orthodoxy was confirmed (but with deliberation), even though his letter was rejected as blasphemy.

 

[TheLostCoin]

correct, but Ibas' letter was read as part of the council. as well as what others said about him. Ibas' Orthodoxy was confirmed (but with deliberation), even though his letter was rejected as blasphemy.

Well that's where I struggle with in toto with the whole Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian debate.

It seems that Emperor Justinian (and the Chalcedonian Orthodox) put forward the idea that the Letter was debated at Chalcedon, and that the person of Ibas was accepted regardless if there was no decision about the Letter yet (as during Ephesus, Cyril didn't even bother excommunicating other Nestorian partisans like Theodoret or Ibas, etc.), for accepting the Tome of Leo and anathematizing Nestorius.

Did he repent truly? The Western Churches thought that the Council accepted Ibas's Letter and broke communion with the Pope until 700 because of this controversy, and obviously the non-Chalcedonians must have understood it that way too.

And Justinian has every incentive in the world for historical revisionism.

From what I can tell, the entire Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian debate hinges on the personal character of Pope Leo / the Chalcedonian Bishops and Pope Dioscorus / the Ephesus 449 Bishops, and it seems like, due to the fact that we have contradicting histories and scant evidence remaining, we can't really figure out who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

Pope Leo's Tome doesn't sound heterodox to me, he helped Saint John Cassian wage war against Nestorius's blasphemy, and he even commended Eutyches initially for fighting against Nestorianism, only condemning him when he found out something was wrong.

At the same time, he became buddies with Theodoret while he was still a vile heretic, before he formerly repented, and it seems that his legates - with the context of the Acts that we have - accepted the Blasphemy of the Letter as Orthodox.

Dioscorus, on the other hand, excommunicated Pope Leo because of his association with Theodoret, and was an immediate successor to Saint Cyril, and accepted Eutyches explicitly thinking he repented of his error.

On the other hand, it seems he definitely wanted Alexandria to have a monopoly of theology through Ephesus 449, and we don't know what happened there except Flavian was unjustly murdered.


All we have is Chalcedonian accounts, which are filled with accusations of falsification of documents, false accusations, forcing bishops to sign documents with a gun to the head, violence, etc., but according to the Copts, the accounts are corrupt and exaggerated to allow Nestorians such as Ibas, Theodoret, and allegedly Leo to have power.


So, was Dioscorus a power-hungry monster who murdered people to allow the Alexandrians to sieze theological dominance, with Theodoret repenting personally to the holy Pope of Rome, with Chalcedon fixing the injustices that have occurred in the past?

Or did Dioscorus simply try to fix the issues of crypto-Nestorians lingering around, by ending the discussion once and for all, with the Pope using his leverage with the Emperor to take advantage of the controversial decisions of Ephesus 449 to allow his Nestorian friends to take control theologically once again, and eliminate Alexandrian theology?

Or is it somewhere in between, with one side being more correct than the other?

Beats me. All I can go off is the fact that I can't see how Pope Leo's works are crypto-Nestorian, but rather they parallel what Cyril wrote, as I've shown here, and Dioscorus, in his own autobiography, misquotes Saint Cyril of Alexandria to justify an incorrect theology.

Dioscorus:

"But I, Dioscorus, said: ‘On the other hand, I accept my father, Cyril, who says: ‘As a piece of iron, when it is about to be refined in the fire and is brought out glowing and is beaten upon with hammer blows and the fire is fused with the iron, so it is that the divinity and the humanity of my Savior share with one another in the sufferings which he underwent and the wonders which he performed’."

Saint Cyril:

"It is like iron, or other such material, when it is put in contact with a raging fire. It receives the fire into itself, and when it is in the very heart of the fire, if someone should beat it, then the material itself takes the battering but the nature of the fire is in no way injured by the one who strikes it. This is how you should understand the way in which the Son is said both to suffer in the flesh and not to suffer in the Godhead."

Plus, we have more immediate reactions of Leo, calling it a Robber Council and hearing some horrible things from the Legates who escaped, claiming some corrupt things did go down - but once again, this hinges on trusting Leo.

And Eutyches never actually did repent, he was a heretic to his grave (Severus of Antioch said that Eutyches was like a dog who eats his own vomit), which makes Dioscorus look less legitimate in context of some of these heterodox letters of his, while Theodoret did actually anathematize Nestorius (although hesitantly).

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, the Council accepts Ibas, but to my knowledge there is no formal acceptance of the letter.

plus the Synod of 449 was where St Flavian was beaten to death, where the Tome wasn't even allowed to be read, and where it was run under the force of violence.

plus, if you read St Leo's letters, I believe it's letter XX where he specifically tells Eutyches to keep up the fight against Theodoret and other Nestorians. he wasn't as buddy-buddy with the Nestorians as some would believe.

and lastly, Theodoret and Ibas didn't gain much power at Chalcedon.

 

[TheLostCoin]

well, the Council accepts Ibas, but to my knowledge there is no formal acceptance of the letter.

In the Acts of Chalcedon, both the Patriarch of Antioch and the Papal Legates say "Having read his letter, we find him to be Orthodox." What exactly this means seems to be the question - were the Papal Legates and Patriarch just stating their opinion? Was this a decision by the Council? Is there redacted debate and discussion after these things happened, such that it couldn't be recorded?

plus the Synod of 449 was where St Flavian was beaten to death, where the Tome wasn't even allowed to be read, and where it was run under the force of violence.

plus, if you read St Leo's letters, I believe it's letter XX where he specifically tells Eutyches to keep up the fight against Theodoret and other Nestorians. he wasn't as buddy-buddy with the Nestorians as some would believe.

See above post of mine.

and lastly, Theodoret and Ibas didn't gain much power at Chalcedon.

They were admitted back into full communion into the Church as Orthodox, and even before Theodoret was admitted back into communion, he was ordered by the Pope to be on the commission which analyzed the Tome of Leo for it's Orthodoxy - and he was.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In the Acts of Chalcedon, both the Patriarch of Antioch and the Papal Legates say "Having read his letter, we find him to be Orthodox." What exactly this means seems to be the question - were the Papal Legates and Patriarch just stating their opinion? Was this a decision by the Council? Is there redacted debate and discussion after these things happened, such that it couldn't be recorded?

They were admitted back into full communion into the Church as Orthodox, and even before Theodoret was admitted back into communion, he was ordered by the Pope to be on the commission which analyzed the Tome of Leo for it's Orthodoxy - and he was.

first point, I am not sure. however, since it was in council, and all sides speak at a council, there was probably more to his restoration than just reading the letter.

as to your second point, that's still not much power, especially since the initial reaction to the Tome was that it sounded fishy. Chalcedon began with the writings of St Cyril, and his writings were what the commission used to check the Tome. which means not that much power for those guys.

and on a sidebar, could you give me the reference for the Dioscorus quote?

 

[TheLostCoin]

first point, I am not sure. however, since it was in council, and all sides speak at a council, there was probably more to his restoration than just reading the letter.

as to your second point, that's still not much power, especially since the initial reaction to the Tome was that it sounded fishy. Chalcedon began with the writings of St Cyril, and his writings were what the commission used to check the Tome. which means not that much power for those guys.

and on a sidebar, could you give me the reference for the Dioscorus quote?

It's not really academic, but there's only so much information on this topic online or scholarly work online.

From the Life of Saint Dioscorus

The full quote:

"Let us now return to the time when we were taken inside to the emperor Marcian. And it happened (that), when we were taken inside, we sat down. And in it were Mark of Ephesus, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Anatolius of Constantinoploe, Stephen of Antioch and the lowliest, I, Dioscorus, as well as the emperor and she who is unworthy to be called by her name, Pulcheria. And Father Macarius came in with Pinution, his brother, He sat over apart by himself. But they are near us and the emperor, and what we say, they also hear.
The emperor said to us. ‘Define the Faith for us that you may go to your homes.’ I, Dioscorus, said to him: ‘In what is the faith of our fathers lacking that we should add to it in accord with your mind, O emperor? And do you not say, “Our fathers who laid down the Faith are orthodox, that is, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, Liberus, Innocent and Celestine”?’ I related these things, wishing to receive from his own mouth whether he accepts them or will not make changes in the Faith. Flavian , who anticipated the emperor, answered: ‘Enough of you, O Dioscorus! The ancient ways have passed on . Behold, new people exist’. I myself, Dioscorus, answered saying: ‘If I were to add to the things which my fathers built up at the synods which they attended, and if I destroyed these things, truly I would set myself up as a traitor’.
Ibas motioned to the emperor to order the Tome of Leo to be read. When he had given the order, the clerk began to read. I, Dioscorus, responded: ‘What is this scroll which is being unrolled in our midst’? the clerk said: ‘It is the letter of Leo, the patriarch’. Immediately, I leapt up in the court, took the document and threw it away. I said: ‘Do not proclaim the blasphemous acts of that man in this place, (else) I shall leave the whole city of the [empire] under the interdict, and we shall go’.
(A discussion between Pulcheria and Dioscorus follows, referring to the controversy between Pulcheria’s mother Eudoxia and John Chrysostom. Dioscorus concludes his speech: )
If you believe as I do, join me at the Eucharist. If you do not believe as I do, you are rejecting both my word and my faith like a heretic. but I, I am orthodox. Otherwise, let your august assembly relate to me the sin of my belief. Do not slander God, O emperor. For he is the one who holds your breath in his hand, and no doubt you will go to his hands without delay. Do not speak ill of the Faith, O emperor. Do not lie about matters relating to the Holy Spirit. Remove yourself, O layman. Do not touch the place where God is [or you will] burn. I shall not cease upbraiding and censuring. If I am slain with Christ, I will seek after the things of heaven, the place where Christ is.
Theodoret said: ‘We accept our father, Leo, who says: ‘The divinity is divided from him for a time and he accepts the experience of sufferings like us. Afterwards, the divinity fills his body with light and he performs all these wondrous deeds”.’ But I, Dioscorus, said: ‘On the other hand, I accept my father, Cyril, who says: ‘As a piece of iron, when it is about to be refined in the fire and is brought out glowing and is beaten upon with hammer blows and the fire is fused with the iron, so it is that the divinity and the humanity of my Savior share with one another in the sufferings which he underwent and the wonders which he performed’. And when I had said these things, the archbishops and all the members of the synod arose and cried out saying: ‘Right is the faith of Dioscorus. And there is not any weakness in it. Rather, his faith is orthodox. The faith of Flavian is narrow. We believe just as Dioscorus (does)’.
And I motioned to them with my hand (saying): ‘Be silent and listen, Israel’. And when they were silent, I continued and said to them: ‘ Do you accept the four Gospels?’ They said: ‘Yes. Certainly. He who does not accept the four Gospels is not a Christian’. I said: ‘You have spoken well. When the Christ was summoned to the wedding, was he summoned as man or as God’? They said: ‘As man’. I said to them: ‘Correct’. I said to them: ‘When he caused the miracle to happen, did he perform it as man or rather as God’? They said: ‘The matter is obvious. He caused the miracle to happen as God’. I said to them: ‘So then, understand for yourselves that the divinity was not separated from the humanity for a moment or for the twinkling of an eye. Behold then, I have taken you at your (very) own word’.
And (my) speech shut their mouths, and they did not find anything to say nor did they find a way to converse with me. And the officers of the imperial guard and the sentinels and the chamberlains and the patricians and the consuls and the generals, in short, the entire court kept crying out until their voices reached up to heaven: ‘Let the emperor live forever together with the faith like that of Dioscorus!’ There is no weakness in it, since God wills this belief and the world is set right because of it. Cast away from yourself these Manichaean deceivers. Do not let them deceive you, O emperor. Nestorius perished and was destroyed, wishing to take us to destruction with him. Be saved, my brothers, from the ambush of these dogs’."


I don't see how this isn't legitimate, because the quote of not separating for a twinkling of an eye has been taken from here and put into the Coptic Liturgy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's not really academic, but there's only so much information on this topic online or scholarly work online.

From the Life of Saint Dioscorus

The full quote:

"Let us now return to the time when we were taken inside to the emperor Marcian. And it happened (that), when we were taken inside, we sat down. And in it were Mark of Ephesus, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Anatolius of Constantinoploe, Stephen of Antioch and the lowliest, I, Dioscorus, as well as the emperor and she who is unworthy to be called by her name, Pulcheria. And Father Macarius came in with Pinution, his brother, He sat over apart by himself. But they are near us and the emperor, and what we say, they also hear.
The emperor said to us. ‘Define the Faith for us that you may go to your homes.’ I, Dioscorus, said to him: ‘In what is the faith of our fathers lacking that we should add to it in accord with your mind, O emperor? And do you not say, “Our fathers who laid down the Faith are orthodox, that is, Alexander, Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, Liberus, Innocent and Celestine”?’ I related these things, wishing to receive from his own mouth whether he accepts them or will not make changes in the Faith. Flavian , who anticipated the emperor, answered: ‘Enough of you, O Dioscorus! The ancient ways have passed on . Behold, new people exist’. I myself, Dioscorus, answered saying: ‘If I were to add to the things which my fathers built up at the synods which they attended, and if I destroyed these things, truly I would set myself up as a traitor’.
Ibas motioned to the emperor to order the Tome of Leo to be read. When he had given the order, the clerk began to read. I, Dioscorus, responded: ‘What is this scroll which is being unrolled in our midst’? the clerk said: ‘It is the letter of Leo, the patriarch’. Immediately, I leapt up in the court, took the document and threw it away. I said: ‘Do not proclaim the blasphemous acts of that man in this place, (else) I shall leave the whole city of the [empire] under the interdict, and we shall go’.
(A discussion between Pulcheria and Dioscorus follows, referring to the controversy between Pulcheria’s mother Eudoxia and John Chrysostom. Dioscorus concludes his speech: )
If you believe as I do, join me at the Eucharist. If you do not believe as I do, you are rejecting both my word and my faith like a heretic. but I, I am orthodox. Otherwise, let your august assembly relate to me the sin of my belief. Do not slander God, O emperor. For he is the one who holds your breath in his hand, and no doubt you will go to his hands without delay. Do not speak ill of the Faith, O emperor. Do not lie about matters relating to the Holy Spirit. Remove yourself, O layman. Do not touch the place where God is [or you will] burn. I shall not cease upbraiding and censuring. If I am slain with Christ, I will seek after the things of heaven, the place where Christ is.
Theodoret said: ‘We accept our father, Leo, who says: ‘The divinity is divided from him for a time and he accepts the experience of sufferings like us. Afterwards, the divinity fills his body with light and he performs all these wondrous deeds”.’ But I, Dioscorus, said: ‘On the other hand, I accept my father, Cyril, who says: ‘As a piece of iron, when it is about to be refined in the fire and is brought out glowing and is beaten upon with hammer blows and the fire is fused with the iron, so it is that the divinity and the humanity of my Savior share with one another in the sufferings which he underwent and the wonders which he performed’. And when I had said these things, the archbishops and all the members of the synod arose and cried out saying: ‘Right is the faith of Dioscorus. And there is not any weakness in it. Rather, his faith is orthodox. The faith of Flavian is narrow. We believe just as Dioscorus (does)’.
And I motioned to them with my hand (saying): ‘Be silent and listen, Israel’. And when they were silent, I continued and said to them: ‘ Do you accept the four Gospels?’ They said: ‘Yes. Certainly. He who does not accept the four Gospels is not a Christian’. I said: ‘You have spoken well. When the Christ was summoned to the wedding, was he summoned as man or as God’? They said: ‘As man’. I said to them: ‘Correct’. I said to them: ‘When he caused the miracle to happen, did he perform it as man or rather as God’? They said: ‘The matter is obvious. He caused the miracle to happen as God’. I said to them: ‘So then, understand for yourselves that the divinity was not separated from the humanity for a moment or for the twinkling of an eye. Behold then, I have taken you at your (very) own word’.
And (my) speech shut their mouths, and they did not find anything to say nor did they find a way to converse with me. And the officers of the imperial guard and the sentinels and the chamberlains and the patricians and the consuls and the generals, in short, the entire court kept crying out until their voices reached up to heaven: ‘Let the emperor live forever together with the faith like that of Dioscorus!’ There is no weakness in it, since God wills this belief and the world is set right because of it. Cast away from yourself these Manichaean deceivers. Do not let them deceive you, O emperor. Nestorius perished and was destroyed, wishing to take us to destruction with him. Be saved, my brothers, from the ambush of these dogs’."


I don't see how this isn't legitimate, because the quote of not separating for a twinkling of an eye has been taken from here and put into the Coptic Liturgy.

oh I was just asking if you had a source for the quote about Christ suffering in His Divinity, because that would mean the Father and the Spirit also suffered at the Passion, which is heresy.

and I do believe that St Leo was misquoted.

 

[TheLostCoin]

as to your second point, that's still not much power, especially since the initial reaction to the Tome was that it sounded fishy. Chalcedon began with the writings of St Cyril, and his writings were what the commission used to check the Tome. which means not that much power for those guys.

Also, the problem here Father, is this: The Tome of Leo was not analyzed without Imperial and Papal pressure.

Pope Leo the Great wanted to make sure that the Council didn't compromise on his view of Orthodoxy whatsoever, and he saw the Tome as Orthodoxy. At the Council, when the draft of the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith was drawn up, the Bishops wrote "of / from two natures", to which the Papal Legates demanded that you write "in two natures", and you should either follow Dioscorus or Leo.

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ijt/10-4_143.pdf

I still don't get why the Tome isn't Orthodox - after all, "in two natures" was used by Saint John Cassian to explicitly attack Nestorius - but still - the Ecumenical Council's weren't without politics.

Let's not forget that Cyril started the Council without the Antiochians and without the Romans.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I'm sorry for starting this whole post; I struggle with the pride of perfectionism (I inherit it from my dad), and I sometimes reduce salvation to a game of "pick the cup with the ball under it" to my dismay. And when I realize that I can't know with 100% certainty from pure logic alone where the ball is, it drives me mad and makes me despair.

Especially when there are clearly holy things in Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Traditional Roman Catholicism.