Skip to content

HISTORY OF DIOSCORUS, THE 25TH PATRIARCH OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA

October 12, 2017

A39

The Council of Chalcedon, 451, by the Russian artist Vasily Surikov, 1876. Unlike other Church councils, the Emperor and Empress (Marcian and Bulcheria) presided over its proceedings. This was a matter criticised by Dioscorus. It is not clear to me if Dioscorus is represented in this painting

Perhaps no man has assumed a central role in Coptic history, after St. Mark the Evangelist, more than St. Dioscorus (444 – 454 AD), the 25th patriarch of the Coptic Church. His stance in the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD, in which he rejected the Imperial creed presented by Emperor Marcian (450 – 457) and Pulcheria his wife, and which was supported by the Roman Pope, Leo I (440 – 461 AD), and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Anatolius (449 – 458), has had a historic impact on the Egyptian Church and the Egyptians. The humiliating and unfair way he was treated by the Council, his exile to Gangra, in Paphlagonia (in Asia Minor), his torture and his eventual death in it, accompanied by the severe persecution that broke out in Egypt against his followers, created in the Copts a national consciousness and resentment that shaped their history since then. The rift that occurred between Alexandria on one hand and Rome and Constantinople on the other has undoubtedly helped in the eventual fall of Egypt in the hands of the Muslim and Arab invaders in 642 AD.

And yet, the Coptic History of the Patriarchs, the main book that collects the Lives of the Coptic Patriarchs, has only two short and inadequate paragraphs to tell us about Dioscorus:

After the holy patriarch Cyril had departed to his rest, Dioscorus was made patriarch in the see of the city of Alexandria. He endured severe persecution for the orthodox faith at the hands of the prince Marcian and his wife; and they banished him from his see, through the partial action of the council of Chalcedon, and their subserviency to the will of the prince and his wife. It is for this reason that the members of that council and all the followers of their corrupt creed are called Melkites, because they follow the opinion of the prince and his wife, in proclaiming and renewing the doctrine of Nestorius.

It was a custom of the ancients to write histories of their predecessors in every generation. In the time of the Israelites, Philo, the Pharian, and Justus and Josephus and Hegesippus wrote part of the life of Jesus Christ, and an account of the ruin of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus his son, and of what took place after them. And after that, Africanus and Eusebius wrote, and Mennas wrote of the trials and persecution endured by the pastors and their flocks in the days of the patriarch Abba Cyril the Wise, and what passed between him and Nestorius; also of what the Father Dioscorus after him suffered in the council of Chalcedon. But at that time the creeds were separated, and the sees were torn asunder, so that none was left to write histories of the patriarchs, and the practice of composing them was interrupted. But the Lord remains for ever. In this way no biography of the holy patriarch Dioscorus after his banishment has been found. He preserved the orthodox faith, which persists in the see of the evangelist Saint Mark to this day and for ever, until he received the crown of martyrdom in the island of Gangra, by the command of the prince Marcian; for it was in that island that Dioscorus died.[1]

The writer of these words, which form the beginning of the second series of biographies in the History of Patriarchs, is Jirja (Georgios) who wrote in the beginning of the eighth century the lives of eighteen patriarchs from Dioscorus I to Simon I, whom he served as a scribe.[2] The section he wrote covers the period from 444 – 700 AD. It is a long and turbulent period which saw not only the sundering of the relationship between the three great Churches in Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople, but also an intense persecution of the Copts who refused Chalcedon 451 AD, and the occupation of Egypt by the Arabs in 642 AD, and their oppression of the Copts. All these events disrupted Coptic life and culture: monasteries and churches were either taken away from the Copts or ruined; books confiscated, damaged or lost; and literature declined. It is not surprising that no one before Jirja took the initiative to write the history of this period, or that Jirja could not find the biography of St. Dioscorus. But despite the lack of a continuous narrative, individual biographies did exist though not easily available. When Jirja writes: “But at that time [after 451 AD] the creeds were separated, and the sees were torn asunder, so that none was left to write histories of the patriarchs, and the practice of composing them was interrupted. But the Lord remains for ever. In this way no biography of the holy patriarch Dioscorus after his banishment has been found;” one should be careful not to interpret it as that no one wrote a biography of Dioscorus.[3]

A24

One of the biographies that existed early, and Jirja wasn’t aware of, is that of St. Dioscorus I. In Egypt, no manuscript containing the biography of St. Dioscorus has been published so far. The Coptic Synaxarium is very deficient on its take on Dioscorus.[4] There is an Arabic manuscript (no. 171) kept at the Coptic Patriarchate in Cairo, but, to my understanding, it is a short biography, and has not been published yet. I believe it is similar to the 19th century Arabic manuscript (Paris 4786) kept at the Bibliotheque nationale de France.

In the West, the Life of Dioscorus remained of little interest, due to some Chacedonian prejudice against the man. Some Coptologists, however, have published manuscripts that tell us some of St. Dioscorus’ history: Georg Zoëga (1755 – 1809);[5] Charles Eugene Revillout (1843 – 1913);[6] and Émile Amélineau (1850 – 1915).[7]  These, however, as the French Syriacist[8] François Nau (1864 – 1931) believes, are secondary sources to what he published in 1903 in Journal AsiatiqueHistoire de Dioscore, patriarche d’Alexandrie, écrite par son disciple théopiste(History of Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, written by his disciple Theopiste).[9] Nau, who published the original Syriac text with a French translation, depended on the Syriac manuscript (Paris, 234 [P]),[10] which was written in Antioch in the 13th century. As it lacks a few pages, he used another manuscript (Oxford, O),[11] to collate and complete the Paris manuscript.[12]

 

Theopiste, or more accurately Theopistus, was an Egyptian deacon who accompanied St. Dioscorus in his exile to Gangra in 451 and stayed with him until the death of the Saint in 454 AD. Following that, Theopistus left Gangra and went to Pentapolis, in present day Libya, where he, as he tells us, immediately wrote his history. Nau summarises the Histoire de Dioscore:

Theopiste tells us in his own way the preliminaries of the Council of Chalcedon, the death of Theodosius the Younger[13] and the advent of Marcian, the convocation of the Council, the departure of Dioscorus to Constantinople, his arrival, his first visit to the Emperor, intrigues which preceded the meeting of the Council, the first session, the cause of the deposition of Dioscorus, his efforts to bring back some of the bishops who abandoned [the Alexandrian faith], especially Juvenal of Jerusalem[14] and Leontius of Ascalon[15], his exile, life, miracles and sufferings in Gangra where he was visited by Paphnutius, superior monk at the Monastery of St. Pachomius, and finally his death on September 4 (454).[16]

The Histoire de Dioscore is clearly not a full history of St. Dioscorus, since it ignores the Life of Dioscorus prior to 451 AD. It is concerned of what happened around the Council of Chalcedon and what happened immediately after it to Dioscorus until his death. It contains original information, one can’t find elsewhere, about the Council of Chalcedon and the Coptic viewpoint of it that is essential for the Copts to understand what happened exactly at Chalcedon.

The authenticity and date of the writing of Histoire de Dioscore has been a matter of controversy. Theopistus tells us, as we have seen, that after the death of Dioscorus, he left Gangra to Pentapolis, and, there, he immediately set himself to write the book. In the 18th century, the orientalist Giuseppe Simone Assemani (1687 – 1768)[17] had unfairly passed Theopistus’ book as a literary fake that had recently been written from scratch with help from the Panegyric of Macarius of Tkoou[18] and The Plerophories[19] by John, Bishop of Maiuma[20] [21].[22]

Nau proves that Assemani was wrong on the date of the Histoire de Dioscore.[23] He shows that fragmentary manuscript of the same writing, London, 1463 (A), exists and belongs to the 10th century, which disproves Assemani’s claim that the Histoire de Dioscore was a recent composition. Further, he concludes that rather than being the original composition, the Panegyric of Macarius of Tkoou, in fact, depended on the Histoire de Dioscore.

He shows that the Histoire de Dioscore is a composite structure:

First, its first layer was written by Theopistus, after the death of Dioscorus as Theopistus tells us, and with a terminus post quem not later than 477 AD. This point of history is taken because scholars agree that Peter, the other disciple of Dioscorus, besides Theopistus, mentioned in the story, was actually Peter Mongus, who later became the 27th Patriarch of Alexandria (477 – 489 AD). This part reveals an Egyptian milieu, and Egyptian figures, like Shenute the Archimandrite, Macarius the Bishop of Tkoou and Paphnutius the Superior of the Bachomian Monastery, figure prominently in it. It is a part concerned mostly with what happened from the time Marcian called the Egyptian bishops to Constantinople in 451 AD, the Council of Chalcedon and Dioscorus’ role in it, and his exile to Gangra until his death in 454 AD.

Second, another layer was later added to the original Egyptian nucleus by a person of a Palestinian background, “one of the orators of the school of Peter the Iberian,” as Nau says. This layer has a terminus a quo not earlier than 512 AD. This is because in it Severus, the famous Patriarch of Antioch (513 – 518 AD), is mentioned. The Palestinian origin is revealed by the frequent mentioning of personalities from Palestine, such as John of Maiuma, Peter the Iberian, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Leontius of Ascalon.

It can, therefore, be said that the Egyptian nucleus of the Histoire de Dioscore, which is what interests us more, was written sometime between 454 and 477 AD. The Polish historian Felix Haase (1882 – 1965), writing in 1902, who defends the authenticity of Histoire de Dioscore and thinks that it was indeed written by Theopistus, and in Greek, puts its date more precisely, in 455 AD.[24] We have no reason to doubt Theopistus’ assertion that he wrote the Histoire de Dioscore immediately after arriving in Pentapolis, after the death of St. Dioscorus.

Most probably both Egyptian and Palestinian layers were written in Greek and then later got translated into Coptic and Syriac. While the full version in Coptic seems to have been lost unfortunately, the Syriac survived.

A24

We must be thankful that the Syriac manuscript of Histoire de Dioscore has survived. It is essential to our understanding what happened at and around Calcedon. It is a shame that it has not yet been translated into English or Arabic. With help from the Panegyric of Macarius of Tkoou, the Histoire de Dioscore can form the foundation of a biography of Saint Dioscorus.

___________________________

[1] Severus of Al’Ashmunein (Hermopolis), History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria. Part 2: Peter I – Benjamin I (661 AD); Arabic text edited, translated, and annotated by B. Evetts. Patrologia Orientalis (1904); pp. 443-4.

[2] Atiya, Aziz Suryal. The Coptic Encyclopedia (New York City, Macmillan Publishers, 1991); pp. 1239-1240.

[3] Whether the biography is a complete one, describing his Live from his ascension in 444 AD to the patriarchate until his death in 458 AD, is another matter.

[4] The reposing of St. Dioscorus I is celebrated on 7 Tut.

[5] Cat. cod. copt. mus. Borg., Rome, 1810, p. 99-107.

[6] Revue Egyptolog., t. I. p. 187-189; t. II, p. 21-25; t.III, p. 17-25.

[7] Mémoires publiés par la mission archéologique française au Caire, t IV, p. XV-XXVIII et 92-165.

[8] A specialist in Syriac studies.

[9] Journal Asiatique, Dixieme Serie, Tome 1 (Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1903); pp. 5-108.

[10] Fol. 39-60. It lacks a sheet, fol. 30-31.

[11] Hunt 199, fol. 441-475.

[12] Nau also reviewed two London fragmentary manuscripts (No. 1463[A], which is from the 10th century [fol. 1-12]); No. 14732[B], fol. 218-221).

[13] Theodosius the Younger, or Theodosius II, was Byzantine emperor with Arcadius from 402 to 408 AD and alone from 408 to 450 AD.

[14] Juvenal of Jerusalem was bishop of Jerusalem from 422 to 451 AD. He sided with the Chalcedonians, and as a reward he was made first Patriarch of Jerusalem from 451 to 458 AD.

[15] Ascalon (or Ashkelon) is a coastal town in what is now Israel, 13 km north of the border with the Gaza Strip. Leontius was its bishop during the Second Council of Ephesus in 439 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

[16] The English translation is mine.

[17] يوسف بن سمعان السمعاني‎‎ Yusuf ibn Sim’aan al-Sim’aani.

[18] Ed. David W. Johnson, A Panegyric of Macarius Bishop of Tkow Attributed to Dioscorus of Alexandria, CSCO 415-416, Scriptores coptici 41-42 (Louvain: Sécretariat du CorpusSCO, 1980).

[19] Plerophories means convictions.

[20] Maiuma was an ancient town near Gaza, Palestine.

[21] For the Plerophories, see: F. Nau, Les plérophories de Jean, évêque de Maiouma: récits anecdotiques relatifs au Ve siècle by Joannes Rufus, Bp. of Maiuma (Paris, 1899).

[22] Bibl. vatic. catal., t. III, p. 497.

[23] I depend on Nau’s excellent Introduction.

[24] See: A Panegyric of Macarius Bishop of Tkow; pp. 10-11.

5 Comments leave one →
  1. Egiziane permalink
    October 12, 2017 10:58 pm

    Such a sad historic event, The Church of Alexandria lost communion with Rome and Constantinople , the COPTIC Christians became a LONELY MINORITY in a sea of Islam, we are all paying for it.

  2. Zack Shenouda permalink
    October 15, 2017 11:23 am

    In the book “Chalcedon in Context”, Catholic Theologian Richard Price describes Dioscorus as the “St. Athanasius of his age”

    Richard Price also writes this in regards to Dioscorus’s conduct in the council “Dioscorus, however, maintained his courage and dignity; he alone, in the words of Otto Seeck, ‘behaved like a man in this collection of howling old women’.”

    What’s interesting is Dioscorus introduced terminology that ended up being used in the Chalcedonian definition. At least this is what the minutes indicate.

    On October 8th 451 Dioscorus said this below in quotes
    “We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture.”

    On October 25th when signing definition, the below were included
    “without confusion, change, division, or separation”

    Whats interesting is Chalcedon 451 was convoked to undo 449 Ephesus II that Dioscorus presided over. basically once the emperor Theodosius II(who convoked Ephesus 449) passed away, the opponents of Dioscorus that were excommunicated in 449, convoked Chalcedon 451 to undo it & deposed Dioscorus for reasons unrelated to anything theological

    As Anatolius said in the documented minutes of chalcedon, ” Dioscoros was not deposed because of the faith, but because he excommunicated Lord Leo the Archbishop and although he was summoned to the Council three times he did not come.”

    What’s interesting is contemporary Eastern Orthodox professor John Romanides admits that legally Dioscorus was correct to ex-communicate Leo

    ” Therefore, Dioscoros was legally and canonically correct by excommunicating Leo for his support of Theodoret before the Council of Chalcedon. Ephesus 449 was still before the Council of Chalcedon a part of Roman Law in spite Leo of Rome. From a purely doctrinal viewpoint the Pope of Rome was guilty of supporting a Nestorian and a vigorous enemy of the Twelve Chapters, which were the basis of the doctrinal decision of the Third Ecumenical Council.”

    so Ephesus 449 was just as canonical as Ephesus 431. Chalcedonians rejected the former because they disagreed with the outcome, but the system & the process was the same as in 431.

    What’s more interesting is that the patriarch of Antioch,patriarch Constantinople, and Rome(via the legates), all accepted the restoration of Ibas based on his letter in 451. this is all recorded in the minutes too. this same letter was the reason Disocorus deposed Ibas in 449 to begin with & this same letter was condemned in 553 by the Chalcedonians 100 years later. same story with theodoret, theodoret was deposed on 449 by Dioscorus but his letter was condemned in 553 100 years later by the Chalcedonian’s.

    So overall, the letter that the patriarch of Antioch, patriarch of Constantinople, and Rome(via the legates), all accepted Chalcedon in 451, was deemed heretical in 553 by the Chalcedonians and this same letter was rejected by Dioscorus in the synod he presided over in 449.

    While there is historical prejudice in chalcedonian writing towards him, history actually does vindicate Dioscorus. You can make a case that he was correct to convoke Ephesus 449 to depose Ibas/theodoret & he was also correct to reject Chalcedon due to the restoration of Ibas. So what Chalcedonians did in 553 is what Dioscorus did 100 years prior. there was also a schism that took place among chalcedonians when ibas/theodorets letters were condemned. so for 100 years, the eastern orthodox were actually in communion with the followers of Ibas & these were the ppl that Dioscorus was opposing … Dioscorus effectively excommunicated them from the church of alexandria 100 years before the Chalcedonians did in their churches.

    Dioscorus himself outlines one of the reasons Chalcedon was rejected

    “Chalcedon is anathematised because it has accepted the communion of the partisans of Nestorius, such as Ibas.”

    Overall, we can easily make the case that ephesus in 449 was just as canonical/lawful as ephesus 431(chalcedonians accept the Ephesus 1 but rejected Ephesus II). While it’s framed that the Oriental orthodox rejected Chalcedon in 451 & this is the reason for the schism…., the reality is the Chalcedonians rejected Ephesus 449 two years prior. So between Chalcedonians vs non-chalcedonians, the group to first reject a ecumenical council was the Chalcedonians & the oriental rejected chalcedon cuz they remained loyal to the continuity of the decisions in Ephesus 431, Ephesus 449 etc…..chalcedon contradicted the decisions in Ephesus 449….and the Chalcedonians decisions in their council 553, show that the Ephesus 449 had a valid purpose.

    History really does show that Dioscorus was ahead of the curve in comparison to the rest of christendom. He really did eliminate the Theodorean influence in church of Alexandria christology way before the Chalcedonian orthodox did the same in their churches 100 years later

    • Dioscorus Boles permalink*
      October 15, 2017 11:03 am

      Thank you, Zack, for an excellent piece.

    • Zack Shenouda permalink
      October 15, 2017 12:21 pm

      What’s also interesting in terms of Christology is Copts terminology & the terminology confessed confessed by Dioscorus in Chalcedon 451, was actually declared orthodox in the Chalcedonians fifth council in 553. so that’s why Dioscorus wasn’t deposed for faith related reasons in 451.

      As Anatolius said in the documented minutes of chalcedon, ” Dioscoros was not deposed because of the faith, but because he excommunicated Lord Leo the Archbishop and although he was summoned to the Council three times he did not come.”

      We also know what Dioscorus confessed in Chalcedon. it was no different than what Cyril has written & what the church of Alexandria has always used. the difference is, Cyril is considered a saint by the chalcedonians while Dioscorus isn’t. if they were consistent they’d also call Cyril a monophysite.

      We can demonstrate this from the minutes & Cyril’s writings.

      in the minutes Dioscorus says

      During the reading Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I accept “from two [natures]”; I do not accept “two”. I am compelled to speak brashly: my soul is at stake.’

      Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Clearly 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 passages that one should not speak of two natures after the union but of one incarnate nature of the Word. I am being cast out together with the fathers. I stand by the doctrines of the fathers, and do not transgress in any respect. And I have these quotations not indiscriminately or in a haphazard form but in books. As all have asked, I too request that the rest be read.’

      Cyril says:

      ‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one’.

      ” Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated: One Incarnate Nature of The Word.”

      ” We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete.”

      What’s interesting is Cyril’s christology is the barometer of orthodox christology, but Cyril never used “in two natures”/ “Two natures in christ”. So Dioscorus objectively speaking is closer to Cyril’s christoloy than the chalcedonian’s were.

      There a interesting paper that analyzed all of Cyril’s christological writing and concluded that Cyril wouldn’t have accepted Chalcedon’s definition

      “n 451 the council of Chalcedon makes the famous definition of the two natures in Christ. This definition is meant to be in line with the Christology of Cyril, but it shall become clear from this paper, that Cyril would not approve of the definition that disrupts his stress on the single-subject and the union of Christ.”

      http://www.academia.edu/30029391/THE_CHRISTOLOGY_OF_ST._CYRIL_OF_ALEXANDRIA_AND_THE_REPRESENTATION_OF_CYRILLINE_CHRISTOLOGY_IN_THE_CHALCEDONIAN_DEFINITION.pdf

      Cyril was clear in not saying “two” after the union in order to emphasize union. hence one nature, fully human & fully divine & we accept distinction only in thought after the union as Cyril instructed. Chalcedonians historically viewed one as “single nature” and think we believed in only one divine nature. What’s interesting is Cyril’s critics historically also accused him of not affirming christ’s full humanity as well.

      What’s interesting is Dioscorus gets accused of following Eutyches due to his reception of Eutyche’s in 449. but Dioscorus’s reception of Eutyches was on the basis of his confession of faith that ” Christ is consubstantial with his mother” & Eutyche’s accusers violating both Canon 7 of Ephesus I (431) & formula of reunion 433, by making Eutyches affirm “two natures after the union.” So Dioscorus recieved Eutyches in 449 based on a orthodox confession in that specific council.

      Dioscorus was also more than willing to condemn Eutyches based on new information. As Dioscorus mentioned at Chalcedon

      “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 catholic and apostolic faith and not for any human being. My mind is fixed on the Godhead, and I do not look to any person nor care about anything except my soul and the true and pure faith.”

      Even Dioscorus’s sucessor, Timothy condemned Eutyches in Miaphysites council of Ephesus III in 475. Eutyche’s was condemned in Ephesus around 475 when it became known that he Christ’s dual consubstantiality later. Decisions in councils historically can become reconsidered based on new information.

      Now lets, compare this to the Chalcedonians, there is a 100 year gap between them receiving Ibas & theodoret & condemning Ibas/theodoret.With Miaphysites there is a 26 year gap between receiving Eutyche’s & formally condemning him by name. Also, both Theodoret & Ibas wrote much more heretical content than Eutyche’s by sheer volume.Theodoret & Ibas even explicitly rejected Cyril’s 12 anathema’s(these 12 anathema’s were accepted in Ephesus 431). and till this day the Chalcedonians in their councils never condemned theodoret by name, they only condemned certain writings by theodoret & they give theodoret the title “blessed theodoret”…..yet, theodoret wrote more heretical content than Eutyches & our council actually did formally condemn Eutyche’s by name,in the council following the one where he was received. the double standards applied are quite crazy.

      Now, here is another double standard. in the minutes it shows that the patriarch of Constantinople Anatolius, received Ibas based upon reading material, and the Chalcedonian’s themselves condemned this same material as heresy 100 years later.

      “the reading of all the accompanying material prove the most devout Ibas innocent of the accusations brought against him.”

      Yet Anatolius is considered a saint in the eastern orthodox church & he doesn’t get accused of following Ibas nor does he get accused of being a heretic. Dioscorus on the other hand gets accused of following Eutyche’s for receiving him in 449 based on a orthodox confession & based on Eutyche’s accusers violating canon 7 of 431. If anything, it’s easier to defend Dioscorus’s decisions in 449, compared to say Anatolius’s decisions in 451. Dioscorus made choices based on a orthodox confession. Anatolius made choice based on heretical material this this same heretical material was condemned in our council in 449 & the chalcedonian’s council in 553. that’s a clear double standard.

      Severus of Antioch was a defender of Dioscorus and he wrote this at around the 500s AD. hiba is just the Syriac word for Ibas by the way.

      “but Eutyches, who presented a petition and anathematized his heresy, on account of which he was accused, it accepted on the ground of the actual petition itself and on the ground of the minutes that were written at Constantinople before Flavian, since it did not recognize the poison that was in his heart, and the disease hard to be discovered was in accordance with the human standard properly hidden from it; for the divine Scripture plainly teaches that ‘man looks on the face, but God looks on the heart’. But what will anyone say about those who assembled at Chalcedon, who received Theodoret and Hiba, who not merely hid the foul heresy of Nestorius in the heart, but actually displayed it with open face. “

      • Zack Shenouda permalink
        October 15, 2017 12:37 pm

        Eutyche’s was condemned in Ephesus III around 475 when it became known that he *rejected Christ’s dual consubstantiality later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: