Introduction
Archbishop Dioscorus of Alexandria is commonly vilified as a heretic—by Rome, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox. But the historical record—the minutes of Chalcedon and the Fifth Ecumenical Council—makes it undeniable: Dioscorus confessed the Orthodox faith, was never condemned for heresy, and was instead excommunicated for political and procedural reasons. The key points to be discussed in this article are not matters of subjective interpretation, but are rooted in historical fact—verifiable primarily from the official minutes of the Council of Chalcedon, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the writings of Leo and John of Damascus themselves.
The purpose of this article is not to stir up polemics or hostility between Christian traditions. Rather, it seeks to correct a generational injustice—one that falsely branded an Orthodox confessor as a heretic. True reconciliation among apostolic churches cannot be built on the foundation of misrepresentation. If Dioscorus was truly a heretic, then his supporters—millions of faithful Miaphysite Christians—stand condemned with him. But if he was Orthodox, then the slander against him (and them) must be confronted, acknowledged, and set straight. Exposing this injustice is not intended as an act of polemics but of healing; reconciliation cannot occur unless it is founded on truth.
This article will demonstrate:
- Dioscorus explicitly confessed Orthodox Christology at Chalcedon, including the dual consubstantiality of Christ.
- That the Fifth Council confirmed Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy.
- Leo of Rome and John of Damascus slandered him anyway, falsely grouping him with heretics.
- This miscarriage of justice became enshrined in tradition—through the decrees of Chalcedon, the veneration of its champions like Leo, the canonization of those who misrepresented Dioscorus’ Orthodoxy like John of Damascus, and subsequently via the liturgical prayers of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
- Actual Nestorian were reinstated at Chalcedon without repentance, while Dioscorus was condemned and later slandered after making an Orthodox confession.
1. Dioscorus’ Orthodox Confession at Chalcedon
Before being silenced by procedural maneuvering, Dioscorus openly declared his adherence to the Orthodox faith—leaving no room for doubt about his Christology. In the minutes of Session I, Dioscorus states regarding Eutyches:
“If Eutyches holds opinions contrary to the doctrines of the church, he deserves not only punishment but hell fire.”
(Acts of Chalcedon, PDF p. 176 / vol. 1 p. 159)
Dioscorus articulated a confession of dual consubstantiality in a letter written during his exile to the monks of the Hennaton:
“We do not say that the body of our Lord came down from heaven, nor do we say that the Word was turned or changed into flesh and bones and hair. Rather we confess that the same one is consubstantial with the Father in respect of his divinity and consubstantial with us in respect of his humanity.” (Letter to the Monks of the Hennaton)
This letter demolishes the claim that Dioscorus rejected the dual consubstantiality of Christ—proving that his Christology was soundly Orthodox. Although he was never given a full and fair chance to articulate his theological position in detail, his formal alignment with Cyril’s theology and the Nicene tradition was evident in both the structure of Ephesus II and his statements at Chalcedon. He appeared at Chalcedon in good faith, submitting to its authority. But when it became evident that the Council had already predetermined his guilt—refusing to read the minutes of Ephesus II and denying him the opportunity to respond meaningfully—he recognized the futility of the process. His subsequent refusal to appear was not contempt but protest against a sham trial, and the minutes confirm this non-appearance, not heresy, as the reason for his deposition.
Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, a key Chalcedonian figure, explicitly stated:
“Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith; but because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time but did not come, this is why he was deposed.” (Acts of Chalcedon, vol. 1, p. 198; PDF p. 590)
This powerful testimony—coming from the Council’s own leadership—undermines every later claim that Dioscorus was deposed for heresy.
2. The Fifth Council Admits the Truth
Dioscorus was condemned not for heresy, but for failing to appear—after recognizing the Council had prejudged him. The Fifth Ecumenical Council later stated explicitly:
“And they said in answer that Dioscorus had not been deposed for any reason touching the faith, but for other ecclesiastical offenses.” (Second Council of Constantinople, Session VIII, cited in Price, Richard. The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553. Liverpool University Press, 2009, p. 270.)
This declaration and that of Anatolius at Chalcedon alone should settle the matter—that Dioscorus was undeniably and irrefutably not deposed for heresy. But Dioscorus is nevertheless branded as a heretic, thanks to centuries of slander we will soon expose.
3. Leo’s Personal Slander Campaign and the Political Reversal
Key Details Further Undermining the Injustice Against Dioscorus:
- Ephesus II Minutes Were Refused Repeatedly: Chalcedon deliberately refused to read the Acts of Ephesus II, depriving Dioscorus of the very record that justified his prior rulings and vindicated Eutyches’ confession.
- Pre-session Bias Admitted by Judges: Some judges at Chalcedon commented on Dioscorus’s “crimes” even before formal sessions began—showing the trial’s predetermined nature.
- Refusal to Hear Dioscorus’s Theological Position: Though Dioscorus asked to explain his theology further, the Council pivoted to procedural accusations to avoid engaging with his confession of faith.
- Document Suppression of Eutyches’ Defense: Eutyches’ confession at Ephesus II—where he affirmed Christ’s dual consubstantiality—was not reviewed, and the Council framed him as an unrepentant heretic.
- Explicit Connection Between Non-Appearance and Deposition: The minutes confirm that the stated reason for Dioscorus’s deposition was procedural—his absence—not doctrinal error.
Leo I of Rome, though not physically present at Chalcedon, presided over the Council by his legates and held immense influence over its outcome. This reversal of fortunes—where Leo suddenly gained the upper hand over Dioscorus—was made possible by a dramatic shift in imperial politics. In 449, at the Second Council of Ephesus, Dioscorus enjoyed the support of Emperor Theodosius II and presided with imperial backing. The new Empress Pulcheria, however, had long been sympathetic Dyophysite Christology and was no friend of Dioscorus. When Theodosius died suddenly in 450, Pulcheria came to power, married Marcian, and aligned the imperial court with Leo. This shift gave Leo the leverage to convene Chalcedon with a predetermined agenda: reverse Ephesus II, rehabilitate Nestorian sympathizers like Theodoret and Ibas, and punish Dioscorus.
That agenda explains why Chalcedon refused to read the minutes of Ephesus II, refused to allow Dioscorus a fair defense, and reinstated Nestorian bishops Theodoret and Ibas before the Council’s theological sessions even began. The Council’s prearranged agenda raises concerns about its integrity—concerns later confirmed by how events unfolded.
4. Leo and John of Damascus: Slandering an Orthodox Confessor
As such, Leo bore full knowledge of the council’s deliberations and conclusions. He knew (or should have known) of Dioscorus’ Orthodox confession. Yet after the Council, Leo launched a personal vendetta against Dioscorus:
In Letter 109, Leo explicitly bundles Dioscorus with Eutyches, writing:
“Let the followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus dare to accuse such an authority as this of ignorance or of heresy…”
Even more forcefully, in a letter addressed to the Council Fathers dated 21 March 453, Leo declared:
“Therefore, if anyone ever dares to support the faithlessness of Nestorius or defend the impious teaching of Eutyches and Dioscorus, let him be cut off from catholic communion, and let him have no share in that body whose reality he denies, most beloved brethren.”
This is not a mere rhetorical flourish—it is a formal denunciation that places Dioscorus on par with Eutyches and Nestorius, explicitly branding his teaching as “impious.”
Even more explicitly, in Letter 156 to Emperor Marcian, Leo wrote:
“Through the wickedness of Dioscorus the Catholic Faith was rejected, and Eutyches’ heresy accepted…”
In spite of Dioscorus’s Orthodox confession at Chalcedon, and the actual reason he was deposed, Leo, Marcian, and John publicly wrote of Dioscorus as a corrupter of the faith, branding him alongside condemned heretics. This was not theological imprecision. It was personal revenge on the part of Leo—and likely ignorance on the part of John of Damascus. The slander was later canonized liturgically as well. In the Eastern Orthodox “Triumph of Orthodoxy” prayers, Dioscorus is named among the “God-hated heretics,” anathematized annually in a church service meant to celebrate truth. The slander became official and sanctified—enshrined in what should have been holy worship.
To make the contrast unmistakable, here is a side-by-side comparison of Leo’s and John of Damascus’ statements as well subsequent Eastern Orthodox liturgical prayers slandering Dioscorus, with the actual records of Chalcedon and the Fifth Ecumenical Council:
| Leo’s Slanderous Claims | John of Damascus’ Slanderous Claims | Eastern Orthodox Liturgical Prayers | Council of Chalcedon | Council of Constantinople II |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Let the followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus dare to accuse such an authority as this of ignorance or of heresy…” (Letter 109) | “And Dioscorus, however, who followed the evil heresy of Eutyches, and accepted his impiety, and cast out the illustrious and holy Flavian… him also we place under anathema.” (On Heresies, 83) | Dioscorus is publicly named among the “God-hated heretics” in the annual Triumph of Orthodoxy liturgical prayers. | Dioscorus confessed: “I confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect man… consubstantial with the Father in divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity…”* | “They did not say that Dioscorus had been deposed for reason of the faith.” |
| “Through the wickedness of Dioscorus the Catholic Faith was rejected…” (Letter 156) | Dioscorus listed alongside Arius, Sabellius, Apollinarius | Slander was enshrined in worship as holiness. | “Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith” – Bishop Anatolius of Chalcedon | Council minutes confirm procedural grounds only. |
| “…defend the impious teaching of Eutyches and Dioscorus, let him be cut off…” (Letter to Council, 453) | No acknowledgment of Dioscorus’ Orthodox confession or the Fifth Council’s exoneration | Anathemas recited publicly each year. | No doctrinal condemnation recorded in council acts. | Explicit exoneration on doctrinal grounds. |
*Source: Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Concilium Chalcedonense, Session I.5. Theodoret and Ibas: A disturbing Contrast
While Dioscorus was denied a hearing despite his confession of Orthodoxy, Bishops Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa—both condemned at Ephesus II for Nestorianism—were reinstated at Chalcedon without even recanting their heretical writings, and without making an Orthodox confession. Theodoret delayed condemning Nestorius until pressured, and Ibas’s infamous letter to Maris, affirming Nestorian theology, was literally read aloud and declared “Orthodox” at Chalcedon. If this is not disturbing to the objective truth-seeking reader, then we don’t know what would be.
Conclusion
Chalcedon’s treatment of Dioscorus wasn’t just unjust—it was inverted: an Orthodox bishop was condemned; Nestorians were welcomed and restored. If the Eastern Orthodox take conciliar truth seriously, they must also seriously reconsider the restoration of Dioscorus’ name—and admit the slander that even her own saints helped spread. This is slander so deeply entrenched that it found its way into their official liturgical prayers– where a bishop who confessed the Orthodox faith is publicly named among ‘God-hated heretics’, in spite of the facts of their own councils.