Dioscorus the Great | |
|---|---|
| Pope of Alexandria & Patriarch of the See of St. Mark | |
 Coptic icon of St. Dioscorus from theMonastery of Saint Anthony, by Theodore, 13th century | |
| Church | Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria |
| Papacy began | 444 |
| Papacy ended | September 454 |
| Predecessor | Cyril "Pillar of Faith" |
| Successor | Timothy II(Non-Chalcedonian) Proterius(Chalcedonian) |
| Personal details | |
| Born | |
| Died | September 454 |
| Buried | Gangra,Paphlagonia (modern-dayÇankırı, Turkey) |
| Nationality | Roman |
| Denomination | Oriental Orthodoxy |
| Residence | Saint Mark's Church |
| Sainthood | |
| Feast day | 7Thout in theCoptic calendar[1] (4 September in theJulian calendar) (17 September in theGregorian calendar [from 1901 to 2099]) |
| Venerated in | Oriental Orthodox Churches Non-Chalcedonian,Coptic Catholic Church,Ethiopian Catholic Church,Eritrean Catholic Church,Syriac Catholic Church,Armenian Catholic Church,Syro-Malankara Catholic Church |
| Shrines | St Mark Cathedral (Cairo, Egypt) |
| Part of a series on |
| Oriental Orthodoxy |
|---|
 |
| Oriental Orthodox churches |
Independent churches |
History and theology
|
Liturgy and practices
|
Major figures
|
Links and resources |
 Christianity portal |
Dioscorus I (Greek:Διόσκορος Α΄ ὁ Ἀλεξανδρείας), also known asDioscorus the Great, was thepope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of St. Mark who was deposed by theCouncil of Chalcedon in 451. He was recognized as patriarch by theCoptic Church until his death. He died inGangra,Paphlagonia, in September 454. He is venerated as asaint by the Coptic and otherOriental Orthodox Churches.[2]
Dioscorus' origins are unknown, although it is known that he was not aCopt.[3][4] Dioscorus served as thedean of theCatechetical School of Alexandria, and was the personal secretary ofCyril of Alexandria, whom he accompanied to theCouncil of Ephesus in 431. He eventually rose to the position ofarchdeacon.[5] He had been made Cyril's designated successor.[6]
In his struggle againstNestorius, Cyril explained the union between thedivine and human natures of Christ as "inward and real without any division, change, or confusion." He rejected theAntiochene theory of "indwelling", or "conjunction" or "close participation", as insufficient. Thus the Alexandrian formula adopted by Cyril and Dioscorus was, inGreek,mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene, which translates into "one nature of God the Word Incarnate", by which Cyril meant "one nature"—thatChrist is at once God and man. On the other hand, the Antiochene formula was "two natures after the union", or "in two natures", which translates todyo physis. This formula explained Christ as existing in two natures, God and man.[citation needed]
Nestorius was condemned and deposed by theFirst Council of Ephesus, which approved of the Second Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius.[7]
Dioscorus succeeded Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria in the summer of 444.[8]
Soon after Dioscorus' consecration,Theodoret sent a letter (Letter 60) to him. In this letter he praises Dioscorus' modesty and humility, stating: "you do not behold the multitude of your subjects nor the exaltation of your throne, but you see rather human nature, and life's rapid changes, and follow the divine laws whose observance gives us the kingdom of heaven". Though being theologically opposed to him, Theodoret always positively represents Dioscorus' qualities. Theodoret had written against the12 Anathemas of Saint Cyril and did not condemn Nestorius until theCouncil of Chalcedon.W. Bright states that Theodoret's: "testimony in his favour cannot be suspected".[9]
Cyril's nephewAthanasius, who C. Haas describes as a "wealthy Alexandrian priest and potential rival" was a fierce critic of Dioscorus. Immediately after his accession Dioscorus was worried that the influential group of Cyril's relatives would be tempted to sabotage his tenure. He was also legally obliged to persecute them for misappropriating church property. Dioscorus regained property (including boats) for the Church, and destroyed property and fruit trees that had been illegally situated on land belonging to the Church.[6] Athanasius claimed that from the outset of his episcopate, Dioscorus harassed him and his brother by using influence with the court, so that the brother died of distress, and Athanasius, with his aunts, sister-in-law, and nephews, were bereft of their homes by the patriarch's malignity. According to thedeacon Ischyrion in the third session of theCouncil of Chalcedon in 451, Dioscorus had laid waste to property, inflicted fines and exile, as well as buying up and selling at a high price the wheat sent by the government to Libya.[10] InPatriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria: The Last Pharaoh and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Later Roman Empire, V.L. Menze writes that illegal property had been "bearing income to the deacon Ischyrion".[11]
Eutyches was anarchimandrite inConstantinople. In his opposition to Nestorianism, he seemed to take an equally extreme, although opposite view. Eutyches claimed to be a faithful follower of Cyril. In November 448,Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople held asynod regarding a point of discipline connected with the province of Sardis. Eutyches had been accusing various personages of covert Nestorianism, and at the end of the session of this synod one of those inculpated, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, brought the question forward, and proffered a counter charge of heresy against the archimandrite.[8] Eutyches was summoned to clarify his position regarding the nature of Christ. When asked whether Christ was in two natures after the union, Eutyches responded by stating: "I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union, one nature... I follow the teaching of the blessed Cyril and the holy Fathers and the holy Athanasius, because they speak of two natures before the union, but after the union and incarnation, they speak not of two natures but of one nature." Flavian had demanded that Eutyches confess two natures.[12] Finding his response unsatisfactory, the synod condemned and exiled Eutyches as well as excommunicating anyone associated with him.[13]
Eutyches appealed against this decision, labeling Flavian a Nestorian, and received the support of Dioscorus. In his famousTome,Pope Leo I confirmed Flavian's theological position but as he concluded that Eutyches had erred through ignorance, he also requested that Eutyches should be readmitted if he repented.[14]
Through the influence of the court officialChrysaphius, the godson of Eutyches, in 449, EmperorTheodosius II convened theSecond Council of Ephesus. In remembrance of Cyril's role during the council of 431, the emperor asked Dioscorus to preside over the meetings. The council subsequently decided to reinstate Eutyches and to depose Flavian, as well asEusebius of Dorylaeum,Theoderet of Cyrrus,Ibas of Edessa, andDomnus II of Antioch. Leo's legates protested but were ignored.[5] Dioscorus and his council proceeded to deposeTheodoret and several other bishops. Pope Leo called the council a "robber synod". In the spring of 450 at Nicaea, Dioscorus, while on his way to the court, caused ten bishops whom he had brought from Egypt to sign a document excommunicating Pope Leo.[10] Flavian was sent into exile. Anatolius, who had been the agent of Dioscorus at Constantinople, was appointed his successor.[1]
The common narrative is that Dioscorus partook in and/or ordered an assault on Flavian, who died three days later. However, there are varying accounts at theCouncil of Chalcedon in 451 of who killed Flavian. Those accused included Dioscorus himself (Session I, Line 30, and many other lines), his soldiers (Session I, Line 54), hispersonal clerics (Session III, 54), the Bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine (Session I, Line 32, 38), Barsauma (Session IV, Line 77, 81), Barsauma's monks (Session I, Line 851), theParabalani (Session I, Line 851), the Bishops who opposed Dioscorus (Session I, Line 853), a miscellaneous mob (Session I, Line 62, 851) andJuvenal of Jerusalem (Session I, Line 62).[15] InThe Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon,H. Chadwick claims thatPulcheria and possiblyAnatolius were most likely responsible because she planned "reunion with Rome" and a council that would overturn unfavourable results at theSecond Council of Ephesus. Given they wanted to overturn the results of the council, he notes thatPope Leo I would never have been willing to recogniseAnatolius as bishop if Flavian were still alive. Given Flavian was being exiled he would be incapable of pursuing their objectives. Chadwick states that: "Nothing could have been easier than to arrange an unfortunate 'accident'. Nothing would have been more convenient to Pulcheria and the patriarch than his removal from the scene." When Flavian is killed and Anatolius comes to power, Chadwick notes a "dramatic decision to throw Dioscorus aside, to reassert the claims of his see to be the second see of Christendom, and to accept, as a necessary bargain, the Tome of Leo." He sees these facts as indicating Flavian's death was ultimately in Pulcheria and Marcian's best interest.[16]
Additional, possibly embellished details about Flavian's death only appear in later authors. The earliest source on Flavian's death,Nestorius, describes how Flavian was beaten at Ephesus, though not to death, and then banished to his home city ofHypaepa. However, the soldiers rushed him to his place of exile (with murderous intent, according to Nestorius), so that Flavian's injuries combined with the fatigue of the journey led to his death after four days.[16]Prosper of Aquitaine, another contemporary, affirms that Flavian was killed by the soldiers taking him to his place of banishment. In a disputed letter toTheodoret dated 11 June 453, Pope Leo blamed Dioscorus in a general sense for Flavian's death.Liberatus of Carthage relates that Flavian suffered blows and died as a result. According toEvagrius Scholasticus,Eusebius of Dorylaeum complained at the council that Dioscorus himself, along with Barsauma's monks, beat and kicked Flavian.[17]Theophanes the Confessor, writing three centuries after the event, mentions that Dioscorus personally struck Flavian "both with hands and feet".[18] The detail of Flavian clutching the altar as he was beaten is also a later invention.
Theodosius supported the council's decisions until he died on 28 July 450. His sisterPulcheria returned to power and made the officerMarcian her consort and emperor. She consulted with Pope Leo on convoking a new council, gathering signatures for hisTome to be introduced as the basic paper for the new council, but also insisted, against Leo's wishes, that the council should be held not in Italy but in the East. Meanwhile, the new imperial couple brought Flavian's remains back to Constantinople and exiledEutyches to Syria.[citation needed]
TheCouncil of Chalcedon in October 451 dealt with the Christological views of Eutyches but also with Dioscorus' views and earlier behaviour; specifically, his condemnation of the bishop Flavian in Ephesus II was questioned. When, at the Council of Chalcedon, he was asked why he had deposed Flavian, he, according to the minutes of Chalcedon, responded, "Flavian was deposed for this reason, that he spoke of two natures after the union. But I have quotations from the holy fathers Athanasius, Gregory and Cyril saying in numerous places that one should not speak of two natures after the union".[19]
At the council, Dioscorus expressed a willingness to condemn Eutyches. According to the minutes of the council of Chalcedon, Dioscorus stated: "If Eutyches holds opinions contrary to the doctrines of the church, he deserves not only punishment but hell fire. For my concern is for the apostolic faith and not for any human being."[10]
The council deposed Dioscorus and other bishops that had been responsible for the decisions of 449 for violations ofcanon law rather than ofheresy; Dioscorus had not attended the council of Chalcedon from the third session onward despite an imperial call to do so, which was a deposable offence. According to the minutes of the council of Chalcedon, Dioscorus had given the reason of ill health for his nonattendance from the third session. However, historical accounts from the Eastern Orthodox Church note that Dioscorus was put under solitary arrest. As a result, he was condemned, but by an underwhelming amount (more than half the bishops present for the previous sessions did not attend his condemnation), and all of his decrees were declared null. Empress Pulcheria (Marcian's wife) told Dioscorus "In my father's time, there was a man who was stubborn (referring toSt. John Chrysostom) and you are aware of what was made of him", to which Dioscorus famously responded "And you may recall that your mother prayed at his tomb, as she was bleeding of sickness". Pulcheria is said to have slapped Dioscorus in the face, breaking some of his teeth, and ordered the guards to confine him, which they did pulling his beard hair. Dioscorus is said to have put these in a box and sent them back to his Church in Alexandria noting "this is the fruit of my faith."[20][21] Marcian responded by exiling Dioscorus toGangra.[5][14]
Following Dioscorus's deposition and exile, an Alexandrian priest namedProterius was appointed Patriarch in his stead, with the approval of the emperor. When Proterius returned to Alexandria, he was met by a riot.[22] The native Christians continued to support Dioscorus as the legitimate Patriarch.
Dioscorus died in exile in 454. When the news reached Egypt, his supporters assembled and electedTimothy, a disciple of his, to be the new Patriarch. Timothy immediately went into hiding, but was recognized among theCoptic inhabitants of the countryside, creating the split between theCoptic and theMelchite (i.e. Royal) Church.[citation needed]
Oriental Orthodox Churches remain in disagreement withEastern Orthodox andCatholic churches regarding Dioscorus's character and positions. He is considered a saint by theCoptic,Syriac, and other Oriental Orthodox Churches, while Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches have frequently deemed him a heretic.[citation needed]
Certain modern theologians (as well as ancient ones likeBasil of Seleucia) suggest that both Leo and Dioscorus wereorthodox in their agreement with Saint Cyril's Twelve Chapters, even though both have been (and still are) considered heretical by some.[23] Some commentators likeAnatolius andJohn S. Romanides argue that Dioscorus was not deposed for heresy but for "grave administrative errors" at Ephesus II, among which they mention his restoration of Eutyches, his attack on Flavian, and afterwards, hisexcommunication of Pope Leo I. Defenders of Dioscorus argue that Eutyches was orthodox at the time of his restoration and only later lapsed into heresy, that Flavian was a Nestorian, and that Pope Leo had supported Nestorianism.[23][24]
Another controversial aspect of Dioscorus's legacy is the accusation, frequently levelled by Chalcedonian churches, that the Oriental Orthodox Churches acceptEutychianism. They deny this charge, arguing that they reject both theMonophysitism of Eutyches, whom they consider a heretic, as well asDyophysitism espoused by the Council of Chalcedon, which they equate with Nestorianism, for a doctrine they termmiaphysitism, or that in Jesus Christ, divinity and humanity exist as "one incarnate nature" (physis), as opposed to the Chalcedonian teaching of a divine and a human nature united in the one person (hypostasis) of Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, a doctrine called the "hypostatic union".[25]
In recent times, Oriental Orthodox churches have engaged inecumenical dialogue with Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches on the issues of Dioscorus's day. In May 1973Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria visitedPope Paul VI in Rome and declared a common faith in the nature of Christ, the issue which caused the schism of the church in theCouncil of Chalcedon.[26]
A similar declaration was reached between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches in 1990 inGeneva, in which both agreed in condemnation of the Nestorian and Eutychian "heresies" and in rejection of interpretations of ecumenical councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of theThird Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.[27] They also agreed to lift the anathemas and condemnations of the past.[28] 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.[citation needed]
Dioscorus' personal background is completely unknown.
Neither Cyril nor his 'Monophysite' successors were Copts.
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain: Chapman, John."Eutyches"The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 6 February 2019 One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.He also said that Flavian had even been brought to a miserable end by being thrust and trampled on by Dioscorus himself.
| Titles ofEarly Christianity | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria (before schism) 444–451 | Succeeded by |
| Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria 444–454 | Succeeded by | |
