02 — The Latrocinium and the Tome

Two documents from the year 449 stand at the head of the Chalcedonian question: the acts of the council that Dioscorus held at Ephesus in August, which rehabilitated Eutyches, deposed the orthodox, and refused to let the bishop of Rome’s dogmatic letter be read; and that letter itself, the Tome of St. Leo, written in June and vindicated two years later. This section treats both — the robbery and the answer to it.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

Contents

File Description
ephesus-ii-449-the-robber-council.md The imperial sacra and Dioscorus’ presidency; the rehabilitation of Eutyches and the deposition of Flavian, Eusebius, Domnus, Theodoret and Ibas; the suppression of the Tome; Flavian’s death (mechanism pinned as disputed); Leo’s verdict non iudicium sed latrocinium; why the Church rejected this council and received Chalcedon
the-tome-of-leo.md Leo’s Ep. 28 to Flavian (13 June 449): its occasion, its two-natures Christology, the hinge sentence “each form does what is proper to it in communion with the other,” its Latin sources, the scrutiny it underwent at Chalcedon against Cyril, and why it drew a special animus from those who rejected the council

Reading Order

Read Ephesus II 449 first for the crisis, then The Tome of Leo for the document that answered it — though the Tome was in fact written two months before the council met, and its suppression there is the reason the story runs as it does.

A Note on Deferral

The Tome’s author, his pontificate, his preaching, and his wider theology belong to St. Leo the Great, whose Section 03 carries the Tome in a fuller literary and biographical setting. This section carries the Tome as a document of the Chalcedonian question.

See Also