The Robber Synod

©Antti Talvitie, 2026. Roof fresco of Pantokrator, Supreme Court and Trump: Wikimedia Commons

Prologue[1]

This paper explores the issue of the Catholic dogma of a unitary deity on the Catholic-dominated US Supreme Court’s apparent understanding of the unitary authority of the Executive. For ten centuries a core dispute within Christendom lay in whether God was one, or whether Jesus was a separate (and lesser) person in the Godhead. The schism has a history of debate and violence, spiritually in the various councils in 4th and 5th centuries, and physically in wars before and after. Knowledge of that long history is necessary for understanding the unconscious relationship of Unitary God and Unitary Presidency.

My interest in the convoluted historical events around Christian doctrines is prompted by the ongoing question of the constitutional authority of the US President. While the centuries-old theological schism continues today, I hypothesize that it has metamorphosed into a parallel dispute within secular affairs: is the nature, powers and authority of the Unitary Presidency as the Supreme Court has decided in several court cases? Or is it checked and balanced by the Congress and Judiciary? Given the preponderance of Catholic belief among the US Supreme Court Justices, this provocative question is worth serious consideration. Does the Justices’ bias toward unitary power and authority in the Executive arise from centuries of embedment of the doctrine of the unitary power and nature of God and Jesus?

The title of this paper is from Pope Leo I, who dubbed the Council of Ephesus in 449 the "Robber Synod" for challenging the complex Christian doctrine around ‘the unitary nature of God’. The Nicene creed that was re-ratified by the Council of Constantinople in 381 remains part of the Catholic and many Protestant churches liturgy. It defines what one believes as a Christian.[2]The Robber Synod was named for its lack of due process and coercion as some participants were asked to sign a blank document and some names were added later without their knowledge. It was convened by Emperor Theodosius II, to settle the dispute between Monophytism, that Christ had one unitary nature, divine and human, and Dyophytism that Christ had two natures, divine and human.

Two theologians, Arius and Nestorius, would contest Monophytism. Arius, a priest in Alexandia, taught his disciples that Jesus was a created being by God, not co-eternal and not equal to God. Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, divided the divine and the human in Christ’s person. The councils declared Arianism and Nestorianism heresies and excommunicated both.

In 448, a year before the Robber Synod was held, yet another council was held in Constantinople chaired by Bishop Flavian. He attempted to nuance Monophysitism ‘errors’ that Christ had but one personality with two natures, human and divine. Pope Leo I, a Monophysite, wrote to the Synod that after Incarnation the divine and human were united in one person, but both acted according to its own qualities and characteristics, which is quite close to what Nestorius said.

Several councils were not enough to quell the disputes. Arius was exiled and died unexpectedly 336 reportedly in suspect circumstances before entering a church for readmission, Flavian was beaten to death, heart-broken Nestorius died in exile 451, Theodosius II died in a horse accident in 450.

---

[1] Caveat emptor: The author is not a theologian nor a historian or lawyer, but a psychoanalyst and a civil engineer interested in the motivations of humans and reactions in constructions in response to psychical and physical forces.

[2] Ecumenical councils recognized by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are: First Council of Nicaea (325), First Council of Constantinople (381), Second Council of Ephesus (431), Council of Chalcedon (451), 2^nd Council of Constantinople (553), 3^rd Council of Constantinople (680), and Council of Nicaea (787) https://www.britannica.com/

Download whole paper. PDF, 6 pages, 298 KB.