SWB's History of the Medieval World: Chapter 16 Response Question

5. What was the "Robber Council"? What was the result of the Robber Council?

The Robber Council was a sudden church council that took place in Ephesus in 449 AD. Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria at the time, called this for one major reason: to climb the political and religious ladders of power in the Christian world. His main competor, Leo, bishop of Rome, differed on one theological idea, Dioscorus used this to try to turn other religious figures against him. Both Leo and Dioscorus believe in "Monophysitism", the idea that God and Christ were of one nature, being both divine and human. Dioscorus, however, believes in a more extreme version which also says that Christ was of two natures until the moment of incarnation, strongly implying that Christ was not as much human as he was God. This view is considered common heresy at this time. By calling this council, Dioscorus tries to convince as many religious leaders as he could to condemn Leo's version of Monophysitism, and promoting his own as orthodoxy. He went as far as to pressure these various religious figures to sign blank pages, filling in the theological agreements retrospectively. For these reasons, this "council" was termed the Robber Council, also called Latrocinium, due to its deceptive nature, and his council then, is considered illegitimate. This leads to a trail of liberal excommunications, starting with Dioscorus, enraged by his council being deemed illegitimate. He tries to excommunicate both the bishops of Constantinople and Rome, another final attempt to transfer power to his own seat in Alexandria. As these harsh internal struggles play out, these cities receivied many threats from the Huns externally. 

Augustine's City of God: Book I Chapter 19 Summary and Reflection

Augustine speaks about the justification of a rape victim's innocence prior to Chapter 19 and continues to that of suicide shortly following it. In Chapter 19, he uses Lucretia as an example of a suicide because of the shame she felt caused by rape, also serving as a bridge between these two heavy topics. 
Augustine had already established that in the case of rape, in definition, "involves no blame to the sufferer"(Bk.1, Ch. 16). However in the case of Lucretia's rape, it is commonly contested among literary scholars of antiquity whether it provided her some degree of pleasure to which she submitted to her perpetrator's actions or was a genuine act of resistance on her part, and thus considered rape through and through. This then leads to the question of the justification of her suicide. Was the shame that drove her to suicide derived from her submission, and even perhaps, enjoyment of her "rape", or from the humiliation of being raped? Had she submitted, being overwhelmed by sensual experiences and therefore found a degree of pleasure in it, her suicide would have been a self-inflicted capital punishment. This might seem like a good justification, however, Augustine argues that capital punishment in solely reserved for a position of governmental authority. If it were of only humiliation, her suicide would be considered murder of one's self, and biblically considered a sin. As far as the innocence of her rape, Augustine once again cites this to her deepest and genuine intentions and motives. Was she raped due to submission of the senses, or was it due to her body being physically unable to resist? Augustine finds no guilt in the act of being raped, assuming it was true rape and no physical nor mental submission was given, only God can determine this. But suicide on the other hand, is no morally correct answer to anything.
As this relates to the City of God, Augustine is making the direct connection between Lucretia's body and the city of Rome. He notes that it is not fault of Rome that it was invaded, nor was it a divine punishment. Rome was simply a victim of man's greed and lust for domination, as Lucretia was for King Tarquin's son's lust.