It was then that we see the truth concerning the treachery of the Roman bishops and the Empress Pulcheria. Pulcheria placed a guard to where Dioscorus was abiding, keeping him under a form of “house arrest” while Leo and his loyal bishops secretly reconvened the council after only three days and without informing the civil judges.
After the council was assembled, they sent delegates to instruct Dioscorus to report to the meeting; the guards however, were under orders to restrict his and his bishops from leaving the premises.
Reportedly, Dioscorus inquired as to whether the civil judges had been notified that the council had reconvened and was informed that the attendance of the laity was unnecessary in Church matters. He also asked whether they had informed the guards that the council was again in session so that he may be released to attend. He was then told that they were only sent to invite him to the council Chalcedon and no instructions were given in regards to informing those who kept Dioscorus contained. This summons was repeated twice and in each case, Dioscorus was refused leave to attend by his guards, as they had received no further orders.
After Dioscorus failed to appear, new accusations were being made against him, all of which had no bearing on the case in question. When evidence was requested to support these claims could not be found, his case was discussed in the absence of all the bishops of Alexandria and any who had sided with Dioscorus.
The Roman legates then put forward That Dioscorus should have repented after reading the “Tome of Leo” rather than excommunicating him and his writing. Finally having no evidence against the Alexandrian they declared that he had pronounced his own condemnation due to the fact the he had refused to respond to the Council’s three instructions to attend. I next present the statement proclaimed by the Council of Chalcedon against Dioscorus, Pope of the Church of Alexandria:
“From the great ecumenical and holy council, convoked by the Grace of God in compliance with the decree of our pious Godfearing kings at Chalcedon of Bithynia, in the church of
St. Euphemia the triumphant martyr – to Dioscorus: Be it known unto you that, because of your disdain of church canons, and the disobedience which you have committed with
regard to the holy synod by refusing to appear after our triple summons without counting
all your other crimes; you have been, on the thirteenth of October, 451 A.D., deposed of
your Episcopal dignity by the Holy Synod, and declared incapable of fulfilling your
ecclesiastical functions.”
This marked the informal separation between the Church of Alexandria, The Church of Antioch, The Church of Jerusalem and the other Orthodox Churches from the Roman Church and those Churches under its honorary position, including the Church of Constantinople and all the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The Life of Dioscorus by Theopistus (Histoire de Dioscore): This is the foundational non-Chalcedonian historical source. Written in Greek by Theopistus—a deacon and direct disciple of Dioscorus who accompanied him to Chalcedon—and preserved heavily in Syriac translations, it functions as a primary eyewitness narrative. Theopistus explicitly records that Empress Pulcheria placed a military guard around Dioscorus's quarters. He notes that when the council messengers arrived with the summons, Dioscorus asked if the imperial judges were present and if the guards would let him leave. The messengers admitted the civil judges were absent, and the guards refused to allow him passage.
According to Mgr. Hefele, a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, Bishop Anatolius made
the following statement;
“Dioscorus was not deposed because of his Orthodox Faith, but because he had excommunicated Leo 1 (of Rome) and had not obeyed the Synod”
Mgr. Hefele adds:
“In the synodal decree against Dioscorus, there is no express mention of his
heresy, and the sentence passed on him by the Pope’s (Leo) legates says nothing
either”.