Ephesus 449: Catastrophe

If you Copts and other non-chalcedonians condemn Eutyches as you say you do NOW, Then on what grounds do you accept the Ephesian council of 449 which was explicitly meant to rehabilitate him (Eutyches) and failed to condemn his teachings?


Thanks alot,

Leo. Pope of Old Rome and Patriarch of all the West.

Hey man, no need to be so confrontational…

From what I understand, Dioscorus’s successor Timothy Aleurus ‘the cat’ actually dealt with this issue. He subscribed to Cyril’s Reunion letter to John of Antioch, and after being an on again off again patriarch, he convened what is known as the third council of Ephesus, in 475. There the Alexandrian church made official its condemndation of Eutyches and his teaching.

So, here is an interesting point. If the Orientals are orthodox after all (since they do not admit to change mixture or confusion or separation or division which is what this is all about AND maintain that all the properties of both natures, to include the wills, are present in each nature in Christ) then the CHRISTOLOGICAL basis for our anathemas against say Dioscorus, Severus of Antioch, Timotheus Aleurus and Peter the Fuller…are baseless.

Now, we may say that the anathemas on a CHRISTOLOGICAL basis remain because they denied Chalcedon which is an Orthodox expression of Romano-Byzantine Christology…

But didn’t we just do the same as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? Have we not, after all, said ANATHEMA! to those who are turning out to be orthodox in their CHRISTOLOGY?..

So what is OUR christological status after all? Is it No surprise they anathematize St. Leo and St. Flavian and St. Maximus? If they had been right all along, well then DUH, our censuring them is obviously going to provoke strong reactions.

And vice-versa.

What do we do?

Also, Leo_the_Great, The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have been through this kind of apparent contradiction before, its called the three chapters controversy. Compare Chalcedon, Where Ibas of Edessa’s letter to Maris the Persian was “Obviously orthodox” in the eyes of that council, to Constantinople II where all of a sudden “its blasphemies were apparent to all” ! Yet all three men (Theodore, Ibas and Theodoret) died in communion with the catholic church.

The same thing happened in 449 II Ephesian council and 475 III Ephesian council (Which incidentally had 500 bishops present!! That was at least 90% of the number at Chalcedon!). Eutyches may have been rehabilitated at first, but that was only after he played it safe saying “I subscribe to the Council of Ephesus and the writings of Holy Cyril!”
He basically weaseled his way out. Even though Eutyches may have died in communion with Alexandria, The 475 Ephesian council saw through that smoke screen and declared him to be anathema.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.