And yes, sometimes Rome wasn’t included (although they always let them know). Why? For one thing there was much politics involved.
Have you ever thought that maybe Rome didn’t include itself for political reasons of its own? No sooner than did the Council of Chalcedon commence , and the assembly gather, that the first charge laid against St Dioscorus was made by the Roman legates. Paschasinus, one of the Roman legates, had objected to the fact that St Dioscorus was sitting at the right hand of the emperors, and attempted to blackmail the imperial officers to evict St Dioscorus, excluding him from the council as ordered by Leo of Rome, otherwise he and his colleagues would withdraw from the assembly . When asked for the reason behind such a request, Lucentius, Paschasinus’ associate, answered that St Dioscorus was on trial, and present at the Council only to give an account of how “‘he had seized the office of judge and dared to conduct a council, without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to happen.” With respect to whether such did in fact happen, we find that the council of 381 had been held without Rome’s participation, not to say authorization. Furthermore, such unwarranted reasoning would condemn the subsequent Council of 553 which had in fact taken place against Rome’s wishes . Fr. V.C. Samuel in thus looking for the basis of this claim asserted by the Roman legates, states that “it was indeed embarrassing for Rome, with its papal claims, to admit the council of 449. But the argument adopted here cannot be defended in the light of history…The words of Lucentius were therefore meant to assert Rome’s claim of universal supremacy over the Church, a point already made by Paschasinus by the words, ‘the head of all churches’.”ÂÂ
Iris Habib El Masri states: "It is amazing that in the face of this flagrant pretentiousness, none produced the letter of convocation that had been signed by the late Emperor Theodosius, neither did anyone say that only the Emperors of the Orient could authorise such Council convocation.ÂÂ Marcianus sat silently listening though he had insisted on fixing the time and place of that very council wherein such prevarication was uttered. One of the dismayed bishops simply remarked: “If you are come to judge, why do you, then, accuse?” To maintain peace and evade a needless disturbance…Dioscorus left his place, and sat beside the civil judges in the midst of the church."
For example, Dioscurus, Bishop of Alexandria, joined with Eutyches to rid themselves of St. Flavian (Bishop of Constantinople)
Come on, that’s weak. Are you going to provide substantial evidence for your claims, or are you going to impute intentions upon figures without any reasonable basis, and distort the facts as they are plainly read? The plain historical reading of the event is clear: St Dioscorus, presiding over a Council convened by the Emperor St Theodosius the Great, examined the case of Eutyches, who was acquitted Conciliarly for providing an Orthodox Confession of faith. Consequently Flavian was justly ex-communicated. If you want to claim some sort of a personal agenda, bias, or "plot", please give us some evidence that may suggest any of this.
Having Rome get involved would of ruined their plot.
Words like “plot” suggest a conspiracy theory of which you have no evidence; we would like to see claims from you borne out by the facts please. The only “plot” one may reasonably interpret in the facts of history, is one on behalf of Leo. The facts that support this include his misgivings concerning Ephesus II (449) before it even commenced, his inconsistent attitude towards Eutyches depending on whether the situation surrounding Eutyches was in the favour of Rome or not, his involvement in a theological dispute (i.e. Alexandrian vs. Antiochian) of which he had absolutely no knowledge or understanding, his undivided support of the Nestorian heretic Theodoret, the level of authority by which he and his legates attempted to assert his tome even prior to Ephesus II etc etc I could go on, but I will wait for you to refute my doubts regarding your ability to substantially answer to even one of these charges.
Both Bishops came from different theological camps and were just not in agreement.
Yeah, one of these theological camps (i.e. the Alexandrian interpretation of the formulary reunion as held by St Dioscorus) was consonant with the normative Orthodox tradition of the time, and another (i.e. the Antiochene interpretation of the formulary reunion underlying the decisions made at Constantinople 448) was not. The grievous error at Chalcedon, was that it didn’t even bother (in the name of justice and truth) investigating this, it commenced upon the false presumption of the Antiochene interpretation.
Luckily Dioscurus was able to get the emperor on his side.
Yes, the Emperor at that time was undoubtedly Orthodox; may his prayers be with us all. Amen.
The Robber Council was held and Flavian eventually died.
I have no idea why you bring up the event of Chalcedon and the death of Flavian as if they have any relevance to anything.
In return Pope Leo wrote the Tome and vindicated St. Flavian.
Please learn the facts of history. That tome was written well before the death of Flavian. It was written before the convocation of Ephesus II even. It was written and asserted once Leo perceived a threat to the self-attributed supremacy of his see (hence his misgivings and personal agenda against Ephesus II before it even commenced — just by virtue of the fact that the Pope of Alexandria himself was to resolve this theological dispute, as opposed to one who knows nothing of, and has nothing to do with the theological dispute in question in the first place).
…By the way, the Tome of Leo vindicated Nestorius as well (or is that St Nestorius in your case?)
I don’t think you can attribute this to mere honor.
You’re right, hence the political motivations behind Rome’s activities relating to Ephesus II + Chalcedon 449. Thank you for proving the Oriental Orthodox position.
Peace.
