Why wasn't the Tome of Leo read at the Second Council of Ephesus?
By CopticBot.ai (Coptic Space Inc.) · Last reviewed 2026-10-10
The Council of Ephesus II (449 AD) is a significant turning point in Church history. From the Coptic Orthodox perspective, this council was a legitimate gathering intended to defend the faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria against the encroaching Nestorian heresies.
The Tome of Leo was not read at Ephesus II for several specific theological and procedural reasons:
1. The Tome Was Seen as Nestorian in Character
To St. Dioscorus and the Egyptian bishops, the Tome of Leo smelled of the Nestorian heresy. Specifically, Leo’s insistence on "two natures" (Lat. duae naturae) acting independently after the Union was viewed as a violation of the formula of St. Cyril: (Mia Physis tou Theou Logou Sesarkomeni - The One Nature of God the Word Incarnate). Leo’s document claimed that "each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other," which the Coptic Fathers interpreted as dividing Christ into two separate persons or entities.
2. Legal Precedence of Ephesus I (431 AD)
The Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, led by St. Cyril, had strictly forbidden the addition of any new symbols or creeds to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. St. Dioscorus believed that Leo’s Tome was an attempt to introduce a new confession of faith into the Church. Since the primary goal of Ephesus II was to ratify the faith of Ephesus I, adding a Latin document that introduced new terminology (two natures) was deemed unnecessary and dangerous.
3. Procedural Priorities
During the council sessions, the priority was the examination of the case of Eutyches, who had been condemned by Flavian of Constantinople at the Home Synod of 448 AD. Because Eutyches appeared to confess the Orthodoxy of St. Cyril (stating that Christ was of two natures before the union, but one nature after), and because he appealed to the Council, the bishops focused on the minutes of the 448 AD synod rather than Leo’s letter.
4. The Rejection of the Legates
While Pope Leo's legates were present and held his letter, the atmosphere of the Council—which was presided over by St. Dioscorus by order of Emperor Theodosius II—was focused on condemning the "two nature" language associated with Nestorianism. St. Dioscorus did not see the Tome as an authoritative document of the Universal Church but rather as a private letter from the Bishop of Rome that contradicted the established Alexandrian Christology.
A Note on the "Robber Council":
You will often see Western and Roman Catholic sources refer to this council as the "Robber Council" (Latrocinium), a term coined by Pope Leo because his legates felt ignored and his Tome was not accepted. However, for the Coptic Orthodox Church, St. Dioscorus was a hero of the faith who acted to prevent the Church from relapsing into the Nestorian error of dividing Christ. As St. Dioscorus later stated at Chalcedon, his concern was solely for the "catholic and apostolic faith".