O.K., this may be be like dropping a bomb on a can of worms,
In the interest of "telling both sides"...
I'm reading an excellent book entitled Towards A Fuller Vision: My Life & the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (A Short History: Part One) by Brahana Selassie, an African American of Caribbean background who is an Ethiopian Orthodox priest.
There is a fascinating section entitled "The Council of Chalcedon Revisited", which covers the background, proceedings, and other details of the Council, and attempts to trace why it was not accepted by the Coptic and Sister Churches.
Just keep in mind the perspective and bias of the author.
rustaveli: Some sample quotes:
"... with the arrival of nine monks in Ethiopia in the last decades of the fifth century, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church received a first-class library of the Council of Chalcedon, it's minutes and proceedings. These have all been preserved until this day" (p. 116).
"Chalcedon acquitted Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, both of whom were highly suspicious figures who were keeping alive the teachings of Nestorius, who himself had been condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431." (p. 119).
Read the proceedings of the council for yourself.
Theodoret (who is known to the Eastern Orthodox Church as Blessed Theodoret
) and Ibas condemned Nestorius and his teachings and professed their Orthodox faith at the Council of Chalcedon.
They were not "acquitted" of Nestorianism, but they were allowed to recant and repent.
rustaveli: The figure of St. Dioscoros of Alexandria figures prominently in the account of the Council contained in this book. According to the author, Dioscoros was deposed on charges of "disobedience", as no other charges could - or were - initially brought, and this charge was "strange", as Dioscoros answered every summons of the Council. The Roman delegation to the Council later drew up five charges, including "that even after the other bishops who had taken part in the [Earlier] council of 449 had made their peace with the holy See in Rome, he [Dioscoros, Archbishop of Alexandria] remained in rebellion" and "that he did not allow the reading of Pope Leo's Tome to Flavian at the Council of 449, thus causing the Church of Rome to be greatly scandalized" (!! - pp. 136-137).
You might want to check out the articles at this link
and this one
The account of the proceedings at the Latrocinium (called by Non-Chalcedonians "Ephesus II") comes to us from eye-witness accounts, as recorded in such sources as Mansi's 31-volume Sacrorum Conciliorum
Dioscorus, then the Patriarch of Alexandria, was known by the nickname of "Pharaoh" because of his imperious and tyrannical demeanor.
He dominated the synod held in Ephesus in 449, would not allow the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian, a hearing, and refused to allow the Tome
of Pope St. Leo the Great to be read.
St. Flavian was beaten and ultimately died as a consequence.
Dioscorus exonerated the heretic Eutyches.
The Council of Chalcedon was assembled in large part to correct the abuses of Dioscorus' Ephesian synod.
rustaveli: Does anyone know of other sources - primary or otherwise - which treat the Council of Chalcedon from "this side of the fence"?
That "side of the fence" was declared heretical by the Council of Chalcedon and subsequent Orthodox councils.
Its arguments have not changed since that time.
You might want to look at the articles at this site
Dioscorus was quite rightly viewed by the Orthodox Fathers as a heretic. He testified at Chalcedon, where he made the following statement:"I receive 'the of two;' 'the two' I do not receive (to` ek du'o de'chomai: to` du'o, ou de'chomai). I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my soul."
This of course mirrors Eutyches' own famous statement,
"I confess that before the union our Lord had two natures, but after the union I confess one single nature."
rustaveli: I haven't finished reading Brahana Selassie's account, but I find this subject quite fascinating. The author points out that most scholarship in English on the subject either reflects a Byzantine Orthodox view, which emphasizes the role of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, or takes the Roman Catholic stance (whether by Roman Catholic writers or their intellectual heirs) which marks the historic importance of this Council as the first or seminal triumph of the Pope of Rome and the claim to "Universal Jurisdiction".
[the fuller story may be quite different...]
Caveat Pre-Emptor: I hereby claim "intellectual interest", and personal interest in the Ethiopian Church, and explicitly am NOT attempting to issue any sort of doctrinal Chalcedonian tome, pro or contra!
Hans Urs von Balthasar's book, Cosmic Liturgy: the Universe According to Maximus the Confessor
, might prove useful to you.
Vladimir Soloviev's book, The Russian Church and the Papacy
, is also enlightening, especially the chapter entitled, "Six Centuries of Eastern Heresies."