The Council of Ephesus I (431 AD) and The Council of Ephesus II (449 AD)

The Council of Ephesus I (431 AD) and The Council of Ephesus II (449 AD)

 common to get these two councils confused because they happened in the same city (Ephesus) less than 20 years apart, involved the same families of Emperors, and both featured powerful Patriarchs of Alexandria.

The main difference is that the First Council (431) is accepted by almost all Christians as a true "Ecumenical Council," while the Second Council (449) was rejected by the West and the East as a "Robber Council."

1. The First Council of Ephesus (431 AD)

• This council was called to settle a dispute about how the divinity and humanity of Jesus work together.
• Patriarch of Alexandria: St. Cyril of Alexandria. He was the "star" of this council. He argued that Jesus is one single person, not two separate beings joined together.
• Heresy Addressed: Nestorianism. Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople) suggested that Mary should not be called Theotokos (Mother of God) but rather Christotokos (Mother of Christ), implying that she only gave birth to the human part of Jesus.
• Outcome: * Nestorius was deposed and his teachings were declared heretical.
• The term Theotokos was officially confirmed.
• Cyril of Alexandria became the most influential figure in the Eastern Church.

The Second Council of Ephesus (449 AD)

• This council was called to deal with the opposite extreme of Nestorianism. It is famously known as the "Robber Council" (Latrocinium).
• Patriarch of Alexandria: Dioscorus (Cyril’s successor). He was much more aggressive and supported a monk named Eutyches.
• Heresy Addressed: Monophysitism (Eutychianism). Eutyches taught that Jesus’s divine nature swallowed up his human nature "like a drop of honey in the ocean," leaving Him with only one nature.
• In the views of the church in the west this call The "Robber" I will put the view of the west and then the view of Coptic church .
• These views are very important as it will explain what happened in The Council of Chalcedon which I am going to explain in future post
• Violence: Dioscorus brought a "mob" of monks to intimidate the other bishops.
• The "Tome of Leo": Pope Leo I of Rome had sent a famous letter (the Tome of Leo) explaining the correct balance of two natures. Dioscorus refused to let it be read to the council.
• Assault on Flavian: Flavian (Patriarch of Constantinople) opposed Eutyches. During the council, he was physically attacked and died from his injuries shortly after.
• Outcome: Eutyches was declared "Orthodox."
• Pope Leo was so outraged he gave it the nickname "The Robber Council" and declared its decisions null and void.

* Source: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1 by Jaroslav Pelikan.

Coptic views

The First Council of Ephesus (431 AD)

• This is the ultimate victory of Orthodoxy.
• Patriarch of Alexandria: St. Cyril the Great (the 24th Pope of Alexandria). He is the "Pillar of Faith" in Coptic tradition.
• Heresy Addressed: Nestorianism.
• The Key Formula: Cyril used the phrase "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate"

Outcome: The Coptic Church views this council as the final word on Christology. Anyone who deviates from Cyril’s "One Nature" (Miaphysitism) is seen as drifting back toward the heresy of Nestorius.

( Miaphysitism: The Coptic Church emphasizes they are not "Monophysites" (which means 'only one nature'—denying Christ's humanity). They are Miaphysites (one united nature), meaning Christ is fully God and fully Man in one unity).

 The Second Council of Ephesus (449 AD)

• Coptic View: It was a Legitimate Council, not a "Robber Council." They believe history was rewritten by their opponents after the Schism of 451.
• Patriarch of Alexandria: St. Dioscorus (successor to Cyril). The Coptic Church venerates him as "The Champion of Orthodoxy."
• The Case of Eutyches:  Coptic sources argue that Eutyches was not a heretic at this time. He presented a written confession of faith to Dioscorus that seemed to follow St. Cyril’s teaching.
• Dioscorus accepted him because Eutyches claimed to believe in "one nature" and rejected Nestorius. (Later, when it was clear Eutyches held extremist views, the Coptic Church condemned him as well).
• The Tome of Leo: Dioscorus did not read the letter from Pope Leo of Rome because he felt it was "Nestorian" in disguise. It spoke of "two natures" in a way that the Alexandrians felt split Christ into two people again.
• The "Violence" Accusations: Coptic tradition rejects the idea that Dioscorus killed or physically beat Flavian of Constantinople. They argue Flavian died of natural causes or minor injuries during a chaotic situation, but not at the hands of Dioscorus.
• Outcome: To the Coptic Church, this council successfully prevented Nestorianism from creeping back into the Church through the "two natures" language.

References

• The Nature of Christ by H.H. Pope Shenouda III (Coptic Orthodox Patriarch).
• The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined by V.C. Samuel (Oriental Orthodox perspective).

To understand why the Coptic Orthodox Church rejected the Tome of Leo (the letter sent by Pope Leo I of Rome), we have to look at it through the eyes of St. Dioscorus and the Alexandrian theologians of 449 AD.

• In the Coptic view, the Tome wasn't just "different" language; it was a dangerous retreat into the heresy of Nestorianism.
• The "Two Natures" vs. "One United Nature" The Tome of Leo used the phrase "in two natures."
• The Coptic Objection: Following St. Cyril, the Alexandrians taught there was "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate" (Mia Physis).
• To them, saying "two natures" after the union of the divinity and humanity suggested that Christ was two separate people living in one body. They feared this made Christ a "hybrid" or a "partnership" rather than a single, unified Being.
• The Tome contained a famous line: "The one [nature] sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." * The Coptic Objection: This was the biggest "red flag." Coptic theologians argued that you cannot attribute some actions to the "God-side" and some to the "Man-side."
• If Jesus walks on water, it is the Incarnate Word walking. If Jesus suffers on the Cross, it is the Incarnate Word suffering.
• By dividing actions between two natures, the Coptic Church felt Leo was "tearing the seamless garment of Christ."
• The Re-emergence of Nestorianismm Because Nestorius (condemned in 431) had also spoken of two natures and two sets of attributes, the Coptic bishops felt the Tome of Leo was simply "Nestorianism with a new face."
• The Coptic View: They believed that if they accepted the Tome, they would be betraying the victory St. Cyril had won at the First Council of Ephesus.

The Coptic Theological Defence

• The Coptic Church uses the analogy of Iron and Fire to explain why the Tome's "two natures" language is unnecessary and confusing:
• The Analogy of the Red-Hot Iron: When you heat an iron in a fire until it glows, the iron and the fire are united. When you strike the iron, you are striking both the iron and the heat. You don't say "I am striking the iron-nature but not the fire-nature."  They act as one single reality while keeping their own properties.

Source:

• The Nature of Christ by H.H. Pope Shenouda III. He explicitly breaks down the "Tome of Leo" and explains why its phrasing is rejected by Coptic Orthodoxy.
• The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined by V.C. Samuel. This provides a deep academic look at how the Tome was perceived by the Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental) world.

Sadly, the views in the west were introduction for the subsequent events followed  and separation of the oriental orthodox

modern times through "Common Declarations" of faith?

• After 1,500 years of separation, the 20th and 21st centuries have seen a remarkable "thaw" in relations. Modern theologians and Popes have realized that the fight in 449 AD was largely a dispute over language, not a dispute over who Jesus actually is.
• Both sides now agree that they believe the same thing, just expressed through different "philosophical vocabularies."

The 1973 Common Declaration

• In May 1973, Pope Shenouda III (Coptic Orthodox) and Pope Paul VI (Roman Catholic) met in Rome. This was the first meeting between a Bishop of Rome and a Pope of Alexandria in over 1,000 years.
• The Key Agreement: They signed a "Common Declaration" that bypassed the old arguments of the Second Council of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

 The Shared Formula: They agreed that:

    "In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation."

• This phrasing satisfied the Coptic need for Unity (no separation) and the Catholic need for Distinction (no mixing).

Agreement with Eastern Orthodoxy (1989 & 1990)

• The Coptic Church also entered into deep dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox (Greeks, Russians, etc.). They met at the Monastery of Anba Bishoy in Egypt.
• The Rejection of Extremes: Both families officially agreed to condemn both Nestorius (the "divider") and Eutyches (the "mixer").
• The Great Discovery: They concluded that the "two natures" of the Greeks and the "one nature" of the Copts were trying to say the exact same thing.
• Lifting the Anathemas: They recommended that the ancient curses (anathemas) placed on figures like St. Dioscorus or Pope Leo should eventually be lifted, acknowledging they were not heretics.

 The Modern Status: Where do we stand in 2025?

• While the churches are not yet in "full communion" (meaning they don't yet share the Eucharist together), the hostility of 449 AD is largely gone.
• Mutual Recognition: They recognize each other’s baptisms as valid.
• The "Robber" Label: Most Catholic and Eastern Orthodox historians now admit that the "Robber Council" was as much about politics and power as it was about theology.
• Dioscorus Today: Many non-Coptic scholars now view Dioscorus more sympathetically—not as a heretic, but as a man fiercely loyal to the language of St. Cyril who lived in a very chaotic time. References
• Proselytism: In these declarations, the churches agreed to stop trying to "convert" members from one another, viewing each other as sister churches.
• Terminology: The modern term used to describe this unity is "Common Christology."

Source: Joint Declaration of Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III (1973), Vatican Archives.

 Second Agreed Statement (1990), Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.