The “White Papers” Lie: How Bishops at Chalcedon Admitted to Slandering Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria
This article is not written to reopen old wounds or stir hostility between traditions. Its purpose is to expose a historical falsehood that remains largely uncorrected: a slanderous accusation that continues to be repeated against Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria by Chalcedonian sources to this day — despite clear contrary evidence in the official minutes of the Chalcedon itself. This article intends to bring those facts to light.
When the Council of Chalcedon convened in 451, it deposed the Patriarch of Alexandria. One of the key accusations used to justify his condemnation was that he forced bishops at the Second Council of Ephesus (449) to sign blank decrees—”white papers”—under threat and coercion, while he was presiding over that Council. This lie doesn’t just collapse under scrutiny. It is unraveled in the very minutes of Chalcedon itself.
The Accusation:
Bishops who attended Ephesus II – the Council being invalidated by Chalcedon–claimed that Dioscorus compelled them to sign blank documents, which he then filled with heretical rulings. This claim conveniently shifted blame away from the bishops’ own endorsement of that council’s decisions. Rather than accept responsibility and/or attempt to defend their decisions, they attempted to recast themselves as victims of coercion and Dioscorus as a manipulative tyrant who hijacked the synod–essentially throwing him “under the bus”. But when Pope Dioscorus stood before his accusers at Chalcedon and challenged the slander, what followed was a shameful avalanche of backpedaling.
Dioscorus’ Defense: The Martyrs Would Not Have Lied
Dioscorus addressed the bishops directly:
“If you were forced, then you are no confessors. How can you, bishops of God, say that you were forced to sign what you knew to be false? Where is your courage? Where is the faith of the martyrs? You should have resisted even to the point of death if you believed it was untrue.” (Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, trans. Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, Liverpool University Press, 2005, Session III)
He went further:
“Tell me plainly: what force compelled you? Did I have swords? Chains? Did I have soldiers or troops to threaten you with?” (Ibid., Session III)
Silence. Then came the embarrassment.
The Confession
Under questioning, several bishops confessed they had lied or exaggerated. They had not been forced. There were no threats. They had signed what was placed in front of them either out of convenience or political pressure—not coercion.
One bishop, according to the minutes, admitted:
“Yes, we did say we were forced. But it was not force of arms—it was the pressure of the moment… the atmosphere.”
Others echoed the same: no compulsion, no threats, just fear of losing favor or going against the tide. That fear—not theological conviction—guided many of the bishops’ decisions. They were more concerned with preserving their sees and imperial favor than with integrity and defending truth.
And while some may argue that the bishops ‘repented’ by admitting their falsehood, the reality is that their confessions only came after being publicly confronted and morally rebuked by Dioscorus. They did not volunteer the truth—they were shamed into it. Worse still, the second and more enduring shame is that the accusation against the Archbishop of Alexandria continued to be repeated in Chalcedonian circles to this very day, as if no such retraction was ever made. That is not repentance; that is institutionalized slander.
The Harsh Implications
It wasn’t just one or two bishops lying under pressure. A handful of those present at Ephesus II actively accused Dioscorus of coercion, but dozens more stood by silently entertaining the false accusation. There were roughly 140 bishops at Ephesus II. Even if most did not voice the accusation directly, their silence in the face of slander was complicity. These were not men ignorant of the truth—they were men unwilling to defend it. Fear of losing their bishoprics, imperial disfavor, and/or disruption of their ecclesiastical authority eclipsed their responsibility to uphold justice. In the end, over a hundred bishops either participated in or enabled a lie to destroy a man who stood for his convictions.
Arguably, it was not truth that prevailed at Chalcedon. It was fear, compliance, and political/ecclesiastical survival. This “white papers” slander is a perfect example. And what does this say about the quality of a Council, where over a hundred bishops—supposed shepherds of the Church—either lied outright or remained complicit in the slander of an innocent man? Can a council built on cowardice, opportunism, and moral collapse claim to be a beacon of orthodoxy? We will let the reader judge.
The Verdict Was Already Decided
Despite this exposure of dishonesty, the Council did not revisit the charges. The narrative had done its work. Dioscorus was deposed anyway—not for heresy, not for violence, but because he stood alone against imperial power and also because he rejected Leo’s Tome. And it must be noted: Dioscorus was not alone in raising concerns about the Tome. Many bishops at Chalcedon expressed unease over its content, particularly its Nestorian implications. But their concerns were ignored and silenced.
As a matter of fact, Chalcedon had no intention of trying Dioscorus’s faith or actions—it was simply executing what was pre-decided by Leo I and the imperial agenda. Before Chalcedon began, Leo I agreed with the Emperor to:
“Let Dioscorus be removed from communion, and not be permitted to return to Alexandria.”
(Leo I, Epistle 98 to Emperor Marcian, trans. Charles Lett Feltoe, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 12)
Setting aside the white paper scandal and the Roman/imperial collusion against Dioscorus, Chalcedon began with Leo’s Tome imposed as the standard of orthodoxy before any deliberation took place. Councils are meant to discern the truth through collective judgment, not submit to prepackaged decrees. Having outrightly rejected Leo’s Tome and therefore imperial authority, and being the only one to do so outrightly–combined with the slander and Rome’s conspiracy against him–Dioscorus’ fate was sealed before he stepped one foot into Chalcedon.
Why This Still Matters
The “white paper” lie wasn’t just a smear. It was a lynchpin in the case against one of the Church’s most courageous patriarchs. And it fell apart in open session, recorded in the very Acts used to condemn him. The scandal isn’t that this happened. The scandal is that it’s all in the minutes—and no one talks about it. Even worse, the “white paper” lie is still propagated by Chalcedonian sources today, in spite of the verifiable truth. The Council of Chalcedon was a courtroom drama where the verdict was delivered before the trial began. And this is not interpretation or speculation—it is all documented in the official minutes of the council. Every exchange, every retraction, the predefined agenda, and every silence of complicity is recorded.
“White papers” aside, even though Dioscorus professed the Orthodox faith at Chalcedon—including the dual consubstantiality of Christ—and even though the Fifth Ecumenical Council later affirmed that he was not deposed for heresy, his institutionalized slander by falsely labeling him a heretic continues to this day even in Eastern Orthodox liturgical prayers. The slander is not merely a historical injustice — it became a spiritual posture that continues to deform dialogue and reconciliation today.
Coming Next: How Dioscorus was falsely branded a heretic by the Eastern Orthodox—despite professing the Orthodox faith and being exonerated of heresy by their own Fifth Ecumenical Council.