The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD stands as a monumental, yet deeply divisive, event in Christian history. Within this complex backdrop, a powerful narrative emerged: the “Miracle of St. Euphemia.” For many within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, this event, commemorated annually on July 11th, is considered a profound divine revelation—God’s irrefutable confirmation of the Council of Chalcedon. But is this widely celebrated miracle a genuine divine intervention, or a later fabrication? For others, particularly within the Oriental Orthodox Churches, this narrative is viewed with deep skepticism, characterized as a story intended to discredit their theological stance. This article will delve into the historical context and alleged details of this “miracle,” scrutinizing its claims against verifiable historical facts, especially the minutes of Chalcedon — to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions about its true nature.
The Alleged Miracle: A Divine Verdict or a Convenient Myth?
The traditional account of the “Miracle” claims that during the Council of Chalcedon, when theological agreement proved elusive, Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople proposed an extraordinary divine arbitration. Two confessions of faith—one Chalcedonian (Dyophysite) and one Non-Chalcedonian (often labeled “Monophysite”)—were inscribed on separate scrolls and placed within the tomb of Saint Euphemia, whose relics were housed in the very church where the council met. The tomb was sealed with the imperial seal and guarded for three days, during which both sides engaged in fervent prayer and fasting.
The climax: upon opening the tomb, the Chalcedonian scroll was found clutched firmly in St. Euphemia’s right hand, while the heretical scroll lay discarded at her feet, signifying its divine rejection. This outcome was presented as an undeniable divine verdict, confirming the Chalcedonian definition of faith as the true orthodoxy.However, the very details of this narrative betray it–revealing it as a historical impossibility.
The Fatal Flaws: Why the “Miracle” Could Not Have Occurred
The “Miracle” is riddled with historical inaccuracies that undermine its credibility as a genuine event from 451 AD:
- Eutyches’ Phantom Presence: The miracle narrative frequently alleges that Eutyches, the archimandrite whose Christological views were at the heart of the controversy, was present at Chalcedon, actively arguing his “heresy” and that his “tome” was rejected by the saint. This is a fundamental historical absurdity. Eutyches was not physically present at Chalcedon to argue his case; he was the subject of the council’s condemnation. Any narrative claiming his active participation in a “scroll test” at Chalcedon is demonstrably false.
- The Non-Existent “Monophysite Tome”: The miracle story hinges on the existence of a “tome of the monophysites” that was supposedly placed in St. Euphemia’s tomb and found at her feet. Yet, scholarly analysis confirms that no such tome has existed, neither Monophysite nor Miaphysite. Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria and a leading Non-Chalcedonian figure, did not author any such document. The inclusion of this fabricated “tome” is a clear invention, designed to create a tangible object for the saint to reject and thereby fabricate a divinely-judged dichotomy.
- No Confusion, No Need for a “Miracle-Test”: The premise of the miracle narrative is that the council was at an impasse, unable to reach a “decisive agreement” and thus needed divine intervention to clarify the true faith. However, this misrepresents the historical reality of Chalcedon regarding Eutychianism. The doctrine attributed to Eutyches (that Christ had only one nature after the Incarnation) had already been condemned from the start. Chalcedon’s primary purpose was to re-assert the Orthodox condemnation of Eutychianism, not to determine if the view was heretical. Everyone at Chalcedon, including Dioscorus himself, condemned Eutychianism. Therefore, there would have been no theological “confusion” about Eutychianism that necessitated a miraculous sign to resolve.
- Dioscorus’s Deposition Was Not for Heresy: The miracle narrative implies that Dioscorus represented a condemned heresy that needed divine refutation. Even at Chalcedon, Dioscorus confessed the Orthodox faith of the first three Ecumenical Councils and of Ephesus I. He affirmed that Christ as fully God and fully man (dual consubstantiality). Therefore, unless proponents of the miracle wish to argue that Chalcedon deviated from the established Orthodox faith, and so held a position opposite to his, the council did not have any confrontations with Dioscorus about the faith itself, and neither was he deposed for heresy (he was deposed for allegations of canonical abuse and refusal to appear after the first session of Chalcedon).
- Dioscorus’s Absence from Key Deliberations: The miracle narrative implies a direct theological confrontation and ongoing debate with Dioscorus. However, the minutes of Chalcedon show that Dioscorus, was tried in Session I of the Council and subsequently refused to attend further sessions, including his formal deposition in Session III. The theological deliberations leading to the drafting of the Definition of Chalcedon began in Session II. The Chalcedonian Definition, was not passed until Session V. This means Dioscorus was absent from the very sessions where the theological deliberations took place.
- The Deafening Silence of Contemporary Records: Perhaps the most damning evidence against the miracle’s historicity is its complete absence from the most authoritative contemporary sources. The “Miracle of St. Euphemia” is not at all mentioned in the minutes of the acts of the council of Chalcedon, nor is it mentioned by any contemporary historian in their writings. If such a dramatic and decisive divine intervention had truly occurred, it would have been a monumental event, undoubtedly recorded in meticulous detail by all participants and chroniclers as the ultimate validation of the council’s outcome.
- Misinterpretation of the Synodical Letter: Proponents often cite a letter from the Council to Pope Leo I (Letter XCVIII) as proof. This letter states that Euphemia “crowned the meeting as for a bridal” and “taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom… and with hand and tongue setting her seal to the votes of us all”. However, a careful reading reveals this language to be highly symbolic and honorific, referring to her spiritual presence and blessing due to the council being held in her church, where her relics were venerated. There is no mention of scrolls, their placement in the tomb, or their miraculous rearrangement. The narrative forces a literal reading onto a symbolic text, twisting its original meaning to fit a later invention. Furthermore, if this letter genuinely described the detailed miracle, it stands to reason that the Roman See itself would have recognized and commemorated this pivotal event from 451 AD onwards, a recognition conspicuously absent from its Rome’s ecclesiastical records.
- Lack of Recognition by the Roman Catholic Church: While Saint Euphemia is universally venerated for her martyrdom, the specific “Miracle of St. Euphemia” holds no official recognition or liturgical commemoration within the Roman Catholic Church. This silence from Rome is a damning historical indictment. If this dramatic divine intervention truly occurred at Chalcedon in 451 AD, the “miracle” would have been known and celebrated by both the Roman and Byzantine Churches when they were in full communion since 451 AD. Yet, the detailed “miracle” only surfaces in an 11th-century Synaxarion from Constantinople, centuries after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) and after the Schism of 1054 AD, which irrevocably divided Rome and Constantinople. The fact that this “miracle” appears only in the Byzantine tradition after the schism of 1054 evidences it as a clear Byzantine-specific fabrication — a post-schism polemical tool to assert Chalcedonian supremacy.
The True Purpose: A Post-Schism Fabrication
The “Miracle of St. Euphemia” first appears in an 11th-century Synaxarion from Constantinople. This significant chronological gap of over 600 years, coupled with the narrative’s demonstrable historical inaccuracies, strongly indicates that it was not a contemporary eyewitness account, but a latter fabrication.
Inevitable Conclusion: Venerated Myth, Historical Fiction
The “Miracle of St. Euphemia,” as traditionally recounted, is fraught with historical impossibilities. The absence of Eutyches from Chalcedon, Dioscorus’ confession of the Orthodox faith, the fact that Dioscorus was not deposed for heresy, the non-existence of a “Monophysite tome,” the council’s clear condemnation of Eutychianism (negating any need for a divine test), and the complete silence of all contemporary historical records combine to challenge the narrative’s authenticity. This story, while deeply ingrained in Eastern Orthodox tradition, serves as a compelling example of “historical revisionism” — poorly fabricated mythology imagined by someone who clearly had no historical knowledge of the events of the Council of Chalcedon and no access to the minutes of the Council–a desperate attempt to solidify the Chalcedonian position and delegitimize the Non-Chalcedonian stance.