Second Council of Ephesus: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The '''Second Council of Ephesus''' (commonly known as the '''Robber Council of Ephesus''') was a [[Christological]] church synod in [[449 AD]] convoked by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] under the presidency of [[Dioscorus]].<ref name="first seven"/> It was intended to be an [[ecumenical council]], but because of the scandalous nature of the proceedings, canon legalities, and the [[heresy|heterodox]] nature of the canons and decrees as viewed by the orthodox bishops of East and West (and the later ecumenical councils), it was never accepted as ecumenical, and was explicitly repudiated by the fourth and next ecumenical council, the [[Council of Chalcedon]] of 451,<ref name="first seven"/> and named the ''[[Latrocinium]]'', or "Robber Council".<ref name="first seven">{{cite book|last=Davis, [[Society of Jesus|SJ]]|first=Leo Donald|title=The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21)|year=1990|publisher=Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press|location=Collegeville, MN|isbn=978-0-8146-5616-7|pages=342}}</ref><ref name=kelly>{{cite book|last=Kelly|first=Joseph F|title=The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History|year=2009|publisher=Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press|location=Collegeville, MN|isbn=978-0-8146-5376-0|pages=226}}</ref> |
The '''Second Council of Ephesus''' (commonly known as the '''Robber Council of Ephesus''') was a [[Christological]] church synod in [[449 AD]] convoked by Emperor [[Theodosius II]] under the presidency of [[Dioscorus]].<ref name="first seven"/> It was intended to be an [[ecumenical council]], but because of the scandalous nature of the proceedings, canon legalities, and the [[heresy|heterodox]] nature of the canons and decrees as viewed by the orthodox bishops of East and West (and the later ecumenical councils), it was never accepted as ecumenical, and was explicitly repudiated by the fourth and next ecumenical council, the [[Council of Chalcedon]] of 451,<ref name="first seven"/> and named the ''[[Latrocinium]]'', or "Robber Council".<ref name="first seven">{{cite book|last=Davis, [[Society of Jesus|SJ]]|first=Leo Donald|title=The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21)|year=1990|publisher=Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press|location=Collegeville, MN|isbn=978-0-8146-5616-7|pages=342}}</ref><ref name=kelly>{{cite book|last=Kelly|first=Joseph F|title=The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History|year=2009|publisher=Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press|location=Collegeville, MN|isbn=978-0-8146-5376-0|pages=226}}</ref> |
||
The Council of Chalcedon gave rise to the [[monophysite]] [[schism]]<ref name=" |
The Council of Chalcedon gave rise to the [[monophysite]] [[schism]]<ref name="first seven"/><ref name="kelly"/> between those who accepted the Second Council of Ephesus and those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon: many Byzantine Emperors would spend the next several hundred years attempting to reconcile the opposed parties,<ref name="first seven"/><ref name=Pelikan1>{{cite book|last=Pelikan|first=Jaroslav|title=The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)|year=1975|publisher=University of Chicago Press|location=Chicago, IL|isbn=978-0-226-65371-6|pages=442}}</ref> in the process giving rise to several other schisms and teachings later condemned as heresy, such as [[monoenergism]] and [[monotheletism]], which were devised as attempted compromises between the Chalcedonian and monophysite parties (cf. the ''[[Henotikon]]'' and the [[Three Chapters]] - the latter itself leading to another schism lasting over a century, the [[Schism of the Three Chapters]]).<ref name="first seven"/><ref name="Pelikan1"/> |
||
Both councils dealt primarily with Christology,<ref name="first seven"/><ref name="kelly"/> or the study of the nature of Christ, the Second Council of Ephesus pronouncing decrees of monophysitism, or "one divinized being [''[[physis]]'']", and the Council of Chalcedon pronouncing decrees of the accepted orthodox teaching of the [[hypostatic union]], or "a divine nature [''physis''] and a human nature [''physis''], united in one person [''[[hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostasis]]''], with neither division nor confusion", teaching the distinct orthodox doctrine that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully Man.<ref name="first seven"/><ref name="kelly"/><ref name="Pelikan1"/> |
Both councils dealt primarily with Christology,<ref name="first seven"/><ref name="kelly"/> or the study of the nature of Christ, the Second Council of Ephesus pronouncing decrees of monophysitism, or "one divinized being [''[[physis]]'']", and the Council of Chalcedon pronouncing decrees of the accepted orthodox teaching of the [[hypostatic union]], or "a divine nature [''physis''] and a human nature [''physis''], united in one person [''[[hypostasis (philosophy)|hypostasis]]''], with neither division nor confusion", teaching the distinct orthodox doctrine that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully Man.<ref name="first seven"/><ref name="kelly"/><ref name="Pelikan1"/> |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==The first session== |
==The first session== |
||
The Acts by the Second Council of Ephesus (the first session being wanting) are known through a [[Syriac]] translation by a monk, published from the [[British Museum]] (MS. Addit. 14,530), written in the year [[535 AD]]. |
The Acts by the Second Council of Ephesus (the first session being wanting) are known through a [[Syriac]] translation by a monk, published from the [[British Museum]] (MS. Addit. 14,530), written in the year [[535 AD]]. |
||
| Line 34: | Line 33: | ||
The brief of convocation by Theodosius II was read, and then the Papal legates explained that it would have been contrary to custom for the pope to be present in person, but he had sent a letter by them. In this letter Leo I had appealed to [[Tome of Leo|his dogmatic letter to Flavian]], which he intended to be read at the council and accepted by it as a rule of faith. |
The brief of convocation by Theodosius II was read, and then the Papal legates explained that it would have been contrary to custom for the pope to be present in person, but he had sent a letter by them. In this letter Leo I had appealed to [[Tome of Leo|his dogmatic letter to Flavian]], which he intended to be read at the council and accepted by it as a rule of faith. |
||
However, the head notary noted that the Emperor's letter should be read first, and Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem commanded that the letter of the emperor be presented, ordering the presence at the council of the anti-[[Nestorianism|Nestorian]] monk [[Barsumas]].<ref>http://stnoufer.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/council-of-chalcedon.pdf</ref> The question of faith was next proceeded with. [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Pope (Patriarch of Alexandria) Dioscorus]] declared that this was not a matter for inquiry: they had only to inquire into the recent doings, as all present had acknowledged that they strictly adhered to the faith. He was acclaimed as a guardian of the Faith and the Champion of Orthodoxy. |
However, the head notary noted that the Emperor's letter should be read first, and Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem commanded that the letter of the emperor be presented, ordering the presence at the council of the anti-[[Nestorianism|Nestorian]] monk [[Barsumas]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://stnoufer.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/council-of-chalcedon.pdf |title=Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two |publisher=Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church}}</ref> The question of faith was next proceeded with. [[Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria|Pope (Patriarch of Alexandria) Dioscorus]] declared that this was not a matter for inquiry: they had only to inquire into the recent doings, as all present had acknowledged that they strictly adhered to the faith. He was acclaimed as a guardian of the Faith and the Champion of Orthodoxy. |
||
Eutyches then was introduced, and declared that he held the [[Nicene Creed]], to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be taken away. He claimed that he had been condemned by Flavian for a mere slip of the tongue, though he had declared that he held the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, and had appealed to the present council. He had been in danger of his life. He now asked for judgment against the calumnies which had been brought against him. |
Eutyches then was introduced, and declared that he held the [[Nicene Creed]], to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be taken away. He claimed that he had been condemned by Flavian for a mere slip of the tongue, though he had declared that he held the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, and had appealed to the present council. He had been in danger of his life. He now asked for judgment against the calumnies which had been brought against him. |
||
Revision as of 13:46, 5 August 2012
 | This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (February 2012) |
| Second Council of Ephesus | |
|---|---|
| Date | 449 |
| Accepted by | Oriental Orthodoxy |
Previous council | First Council of Ephesus |
Next council | Council of Chalcedon (not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox) |
| Convoked by | Emperor Theodosius II |
| President | Dioscorus of Alexandria |
| Attendance | 130 |
| Topics | Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Christology |
Documents and statements | Condemnations of Flavianus of Constantinople, Pope Leo I, Theodoret, and Domnus II of Antioch |
| Chronological list of ecumenical councils | |
The Second Council of Ephesus (commonly known as the Robber Council of Ephesus) was a Christological church synod in 449 AD convoked by Emperor Theodosius II under the presidency of Dioscorus.[1] It was intended to be an ecumenical council, but because of the scandalous nature of the proceedings, canon legalities, and the heterodox nature of the canons and decrees as viewed by the orthodox bishops of East and West (and the later ecumenical councils), it was never accepted as ecumenical, and was explicitly repudiated by the fourth and next ecumenical council, the Council of Chalcedon of 451,[1] and named the Latrocinium, or "Robber Council".[1][2]
The Council of Chalcedon gave rise to the monophysite schism[1][2] between those who accepted the Second Council of Ephesus and those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon: many Byzantine Emperors would spend the next several hundred years attempting to reconcile the opposed parties,[1][3] in the process giving rise to several other schisms and teachings later condemned as heresy, such as monoenergism and monotheletism, which were devised as attempted compromises between the Chalcedonian and monophysite parties (cf. the Henotikon and the Three Chapters - the latter itself leading to another schism lasting over a century, the Schism of the Three Chapters).[1][3]
Both councils dealt primarily with Christology,[1][2] or the study of the nature of Christ, the Second Council of Ephesus pronouncing decrees of monophysitism, or "one divinized being [physis]", and the Council of Chalcedon pronouncing decrees of the accepted orthodox teaching of the hypostatic union, or "a divine nature [physis] and a human nature [physis], united in one person [hypostasis], with neither division nor confusion", teaching the distinct orthodox doctrine that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully Man.[1][2][3]
Those who do not accept the decrees of Chalcedon nor later ecumenical councils are variously named monophysites,[1] miaphysites,[1] or non-Chalcedonians,[4] and comprise what is today known as Oriental Orthodoxy, a communion of six autocephalous ecclesial communions—Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Tewahedo, Eritrean Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic Orthodox—the first in honor of which is the Pope of Alexandria, head of the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox Church.[4] Those who did accept the teaching of Chalcedon and the later ecumenical councils living in monophysite-controlled lands were called by the non-Chalcedonians melkites, or "Emperor's men" (as the later rulers were Chalcedonians),[1] a group that remains as one of the twenty-three sui iuris churches of the Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. The monophysite and dyophysite parties have each maintained competing bishops of Alexandria,[1] each claiming sole legitimacy, since the time shortly after the Second Council of Ephesus.[1][2]
The first session
The Acts by the Second Council of Ephesus (the first session being wanting) are known through a Syriac translation by a monk, published from the British Museum (MS. Addit. 14,530), written in the year 535 AD.
Attending signatories
No time had been left for any Western bishops to attend, except a certain Julius of an unknown see, who, together with a Roman priest, Renatus (he died on the way), and the deacon Hilarius (who later became Pope himself), represented Pope Leo I. The emperor gave Dioscorus of Alexandria the presidency – ten authentian kai ta proteia. The legate Julius is mentioned next, but when this name was read at Chalcedon, the bishops cried: "He was cast out. No one represented Leo." Next in order was Juvenal of Jerusalem, above both the Patriarch Domnus II of Antioch, and Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople.
The number of bishops present was 198, with eight representatives of absent bishops, and lastly the deacon Hilarius with his notary Dulcitius. The question before the council by order of the emperor was whether Patriarch Flavian, in a synod held by him at Constantinople beginning November 8, 448 AD, had justly deposed and excommunicated Archimandrite Eutyches for refusing to admit two natures in Christ. Consequently Flavian and six other bishops, who had been present at his synod, were not allowed to sit as judges in the council.
Opening proceeding
The brief of convocation by Theodosius II was read, and then the Papal legates explained that it would have been contrary to custom for the pope to be present in person, but he had sent a letter by them. In this letter Leo I had appealed to his dogmatic letter to Flavian, which he intended to be read at the council and accepted by it as a rule of faith.
However, the head notary noted that the Emperor's letter should be read first, and Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem commanded that the letter of the emperor be presented, ordering the presence at the council of the anti-Nestorian monk Barsumas.[5] The question of faith was next proceeded with. Pope (Patriarch of Alexandria) Dioscorus declared that this was not a matter for inquiry: they had only to inquire into the recent doings, as all present had acknowledged that they strictly adhered to the faith. He was acclaimed as a guardian of the Faith and the Champion of Orthodoxy.
Eutyches then was introduced, and declared that he held the Nicene Creed, to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be taken away. He claimed that he had been condemned by Flavian for a mere slip of the tongue, though he had declared that he held the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, and had appealed to the present council. He had been in danger of his life. He now asked for judgment against the calumnies which had been brought against him.
The accuser of Eutyches, Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum, was not allowed to be heard. The bishops agreed that the acts of the condemnation of Eutyches, at the 448 AD Constantinople council, should be read, but the legates of Rome asked that Leo's letter might be heard first. Eutyches interrupted with the complaint that he did not trust these legates; they had been to dine with Flavian, and had received much courtesy. Pope Dioscorus decided that the acts of the trial should have precedence, and so the letter of Leo I wasn't read.
The acts were then read in full, and also the account of an inquiry made on April 13, 449 AD, into the allegation of Eutyches that the synodal acts had been incorrectly taken down, and of another inquiry on April 27, 449 AD, into the accusation made by Eutyches that Flavian had drawn up the sentence against him beforehand. While the trial was being related, cries arose of belief in one nature, that two natures meant Nestorianism, of "Burn Eusebius", and so forth. Flavian rose to complain that no opportunity was given him of defending himself.
The Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus now give a list of 114 votes in the form of short speeches absolving Eutyches. Even three of his former judges joined in this, although by the emperor's order they were not to vote. Barsumas added his voice in the last place. A petition was read from the monastery of Eutyches, which had been excommunicated by Flavian. On the assertion of the monks that they agreed in all things with Eutyches, and with the holy fathers, the synod absolved them. Eutyches was crafty enough to seem Orthodox at the time. However, at a later date, he returned to his old beliefs, and was excommunicated by Patriarch Dioscorus.[citation needed]
Relations with the First Council of Ephesus
An extract from the acts of the first session of the First Council of Ephesus (431 AD) was read next. Many of the bishops, and also the deacon Hilarus, expressed their assent, some adding that nothing beyond this faith could be allowed.
Dioscorus then spoke, declaring that it followed that Flavian and Eusebius must be deposed, as it was that if an anathema was passed unjustly, he who passed it was to be judged by the same . No less than 101 bishops gave their votes orally, and the signatures of all the 135 bishops follow in the acts. Flavian and Eusebius had previously interposed an appeal to the Roman Pope and to a synod held by him. Their formal letters of appeal have been recently published by Amelli.
Response of Chalcedon
The evidence given at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradicts the account in the acts of this final scene of the session. It was reported that secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes, and it was declared that both Barsumas and Dioscorus struck Flavian. It was further reported that many bishops threw themselves on their knees to beg Dioscorus for mercy to Flavian, that the military were introduced and also Alexandrine Parabolani, and that a scene of violence ensued; that the bishops signed under the influence of bodily fear, that some signed a blank paper, and that others did not sign at all, the names being afterwards filled in of all who were actually present.
The papal legate Hilarius uttered a single word in Latin, "Contradicitur", annulling the sentence in Leo's name. He then escaped with difficulty.
Flavian was deported into exile, and died a few days later in Lydia. No more of the Acts was read at Chalcedon. But we learn from Theodoret, Evagrius, and others, that the Council voted to depose Theodoret himself, Domnus, and Ibas, Bishop of Edessa.
Subsequent sessions
The attitude of schism
The Syriac Acts take up the history where the Chalcedonian Acts break off. Of the first session only the formal documents, letters of the emperor, petitions of Eutyches, are known to be preserved in Syriac, though not in the same manuscript. It is evident that the Monophysite editor thoroughly disapproved of the first session, and purposely omitted it, not because of the high-handed proceedings of Dioscorus, but because the later Monophysites, as a general rule, condemned Eutyches as a heretic, and did not wish to remember his rehabilitation by a council which they considered to be ecumenical, and the rest of Christianity scorns.
Attendance
In the next session, according to the Syriac Acts, 113 were present, including Barsumas. Nine new names appear. The legates were sent for, as they did not appear, but only the notary Dulcitius could be found, and he was unwell. The legates had shaken off the dust of their feet against the assembly. It was an uncanonical charge against St. Dioscorus at the Council of Chalcedon that he "had held an (ecumenical) council without the Roman See, which was never allowed". This manifestly refers to his having continued at the council after the departure of the legates.
Double jeopardy
The first case was that of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa. This famous champion of the Antiochian party had been accused of crimes before Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, and had been acquitted, soon after Easter, 448 AD. His accusers had gone to Constantinople and obtained a new trial from the emperor. The bishops Photius of Tyre, Eustathius of Berytus, and Uranius of Imeria were to examine the matter. These bishops met at Tyre, removed to Berytus, and returned to Tyre, and eventually acquitted Ibas once more, together with his fellow-accused, Daniel, Bishop of Harran, and John of Theodosianopolis. This was in February, 449 AD.
Cheroeas, Governor of Osrhoene was now ordered to go to Edessa to make a new inquiry. He was received by the people on April 12, 449 AD, with shouts (the detailed summary of which took up some two or three pages of his report), in honour of the emperor, the governor, the late Bishop Rabbula, and against Nestorius and Ibas. Cheroeas sent to Constantinople, with two letters of his own, an elaborate report, detailing accusations against Ibas. The emperor ordered that a new bishop should be chosen.
It was this report, which provided a history of the whole affair, that was now read at length by order of Dioscorus. When the famous letter of Ibas to Bishop Maris was read, cries arose such as "These things pollute our ears ... Cyril is immortal. ... Let Ibas be burnt in the midst of the city of Antioch. ... Exile is of no use. Nestorius and Ibas should be burnt together!" A final indictment was made in a speech by a priest of Edessa named Eulogius. Sentence was finally given against Ibas of deposition and excommunication, without any suggestion that he ought to be cited or that his defence ought to be heard.
In the next case, that of Ibas's nephew, Daniel of Harran, they declared that at Tyre they had clearly seen his guilt, and had only acquitted him because of his voluntary resignation. He was quickly deposed by the agreement of all the council. He was, of course, not present and could not defend himself.
It was next the turn of Irenaeus, who as an influential layman at the first Council of Ephesus had shown much favour to Nestorius. He had later become Bishop of Tyre, but the emperor had deposed him in 448 AD under the charges of bigamy and blasphemy, and Photius had succeeded him. The synod made no difficulty in ratifying the deposition of Irenaeus. Aquilinus, Bishop of Byblus, because he had been consecrated by Irenaeus and was his friend, was next deposed. Sophronius, Bishop of Tella, was a cousin of Ibas. He was therefore accused of magic, and his case was reserved for the judgment of the new Bishop of Edessa — a surprisingly mild decision.
Condemnation of Theodoret
Theodoret, an opponent of Dioscorus and a personal supporter of Nestorius, had been confined by the emperor within his own diocese in the preceding year, to prevent his preaching at Antioch; and Theodosius had twice written to prevent his coming to Ephesus to the council. The council found reason to depose him in his absence. He had been a friend of Nestorius, and for more than three years (431 AD-434 AD) a prominent antagonist of Cyril of Alexandria.
But despite the fact the two great theologians had come to terms and had celebrated their agreement with great joy, he had been rejected with scorn, a monk of Antioch now brought forward a volume of extracts from the works of Theodoret. First was read Theodoret's letter to the monks of the East (see Mansi, V, 1023), then some extracts from a lost Apology for Diodorus and Theodore – the very name of this work sufficed in the eyes of the council for a condemnation to be pronounced. Dioscorus pronounced the sentence of deposition and excommunication of Theodoret.
When Theodoret in his remote diocese heard of this sentence on an absent man against whose reputation not a word was uttered, he at once appealed to the Leo in a letter (Ep. cxiii). He wrote also to the legate Renatus (Ep. cxvi), being unaware that he was dead.
Condemnation of Domnus
The council had a yet bolder task before it. Domnus of Antioch is said to have agreed in the first session to the acquittal of Eutyches. But he refused, on the plea of sickness, to appear any more at the latter sessions of the council. He seems to have been disgusted, or terrified, or both, at the leadership of Pope Dioscorus. The council had sent him an account of their actions, and he replied (according to the Acts) that he agreed to all the sentences that had been given and regretted that his health made his attendance impossible.
Immediately after receiving this message, the council proceeded to hear a number of petitions from monks and priests against Domnus himself. He was accused of friendship with Theodoret and Flavian, of Nestorianism, of altering the form of the Sacrament of Baptism, of intruding an immoral bishop into Emessa, of having been uncanonically appointed himself, and in fact of being an enemy of Dioscorus. Several pages of the manuscripts are lost; but it does not seem that the patriarch was cited to appear, or given a chance of defending himself. The bishops shouted that he was worse than Ibas. He was deposed by a vote of the council, and with this final act the Acts come to an end.
Reception of the Council
The council wrote the usual letter to the emperor (see Perry, trans., p. 431), who confirmed it with a letter (Mansi, VII, 495, and Perry, p. 364). Dioscorus sent an encyclical to the bishops of the East, with a form of adhesion to the council which they were to sign (Perry, p. 375). He went to Constantinople and appointed his secretary Anatolius bishop of that see.
Juvenal of Jerusalem was loyal to Dioscorus, he had deposed the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople; but one powerful adversary yet remained. He halted at Nicaea, and with ten bishops (no doubt the ten Egyptian metropolitans whom he had brought to Ephesus), "in addition to all his other crimes he extended his madness against him who had been entrusted with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour" -- in the words of the bishops at Chalcedon -- "and excommunicated the Pope himself".
Meanwhile Leo I had received the appeals of Theodoret and Flavian (of whose death he was unaware), and had written to them and to the emperor and empress that all the Acts of the council were null. He eventually excommunicated all who had taken part in it, and absolved all whom it had condemned (including Theodoret), with the exception of Domnus of Antioch, who seems to have had no wish to resume his see and retired into the monastic life which he had left many years before with regret.
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Davis, SJ, Leo Donald (1990). The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Theology and Life Series 21). Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7.
- ^ a b c d e Kelly, Joseph F (2009). The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: A History. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier/Liturgical Press. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-8146-5376-0.
- ^ a b c Pelikan, Jaroslav (1975). The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 442. ISBN 978-0-226-65371-6.
- ^ a b John Anthony McGuckin, ed. (2011). The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 872.
- ^ "Chalcedon – The Treachery that Split Christendom into two" (PDF). Bishoy’s Blog on the Coptic Orthodox Church.
- Edward Walford, translator, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius: A History of the Church from AD 431 to AD 594, 1846. Reprinted 2008. Evolution Publishing, ISBN 978-1-889758-88-6.
External links
- Catholic Encyclopedia, "Robber Council of Ephesus" at New Advent
- Robber Synod in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)