I am struggling with certain allegations of the early church using violence and I was wondering if anyone could point me to some sources discussing this topic.
Some of the allegations include the following:
1. The use of parabalani by early patriarchs. For example: St. Cyril is said to be involved in the murder of Hypatia through the use of parabalani. (fromm what I understand the evidence is little to none)
2. There are allegations that St. Dioscorus employed monks and parabalani during Ephesus II, and it is also alleged that he was involved in a violent attack on Flavian (Chalcedon takes a serious stance on this).
3. The Melkite Pope Proterius allegedly being murdered by coptic mobs
There are probably more, but these are the ones I was looking to learn more about. I also know that politics played an unfortunate role in the early church and that, in the end, everyone involved were humans and that no one is perfect. I just want to learn more about this and if they are true, are there any official condemnations by the Coptic church?
Pray for me.
Comments
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/06/the-perniciously-persistent-myths-of-hypatia-and-the-great-library
Also this very good historical analysis by a rather brilliant Atheist blogger:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/05/agora-and-hypatia-hollywood-strikes.html
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2012/03/geologist-tries-history-or-agora-and.html
As for points 2 and 3, may God have mercy on of us, not only those who commit or facilitate physical violence, but also on us who do violence to our brothers and sisters through our injustice, our negligence, our deeds, our thoughts and our lack of care and compassion for them. May God have mercy on us who lord over others with our charity, our wealth, our poverty, our power and our pride and self righteousness.
O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.
But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.
Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen.
As for St. Dioscorus, it was not the Parabalani (although they were a troublesome group, and perhaps the imperial forces may have encouraged their behavior). It was the imperial forces. Emperor Theodosius was ruthless. Any decision by the Church he considered imperial law. He also burned down many pagan and heretic worshipping places, and it was him who sent St. John Chrysostom to his suffering and death. So it's not surprising when the same emperor would also take the decisions of Ephesus 449 into law and beat up those who have been declared heretics. This same policy was repeated towards St. Dioscorus, who was beaten up for rejecting Chalcedon, and you might also hear similar stories with St. Samuel the Confessor, Bishop Mena, brother of Pope St. Benjamin, and on the Chalcedonian side, Pope Vigilius of Rome to force him to condemn the Three Chapters and Maximus the Confessor to force him to accept Monotheletism. When you have blood shed against those who do not accept Chalcedon, it is not surprising that a weak-spirited Coptic mob seeking revenge for the blood-shed they experienced would kill the imperially-placed (and forced) Pope Proterius, who was also much more bloody and ruthless in kicking out any anti-Chalcedonians.
For St. Dioscorus' case, there was a lot more turbulence. By the time Flavian was condemned (and even then, it's still disputed whether he really was beaten in the council, since there were indications he was alive and writing after his alleged death!), the emperor was killed, Pulcheria usurped the throne with her new husband, who made plans to undermine St. Dioscorus, form a new council and send St. Dioscorus off to his exile and beating.
To ask for an official press view on a situation is only a contemporary phenomenon and it's rarely done in ancient times. You can at best infer, and there is a lot of information that can help understand what may have been their opinions on the situation.
Part of the argument is also to understand the cultural situations of the time. You can't judge ancient socio-political "morality" by today's standards.
I advise you read "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined" by Fr. V.C. Samuel as a starter.