Site icon Orthodox Online Network

2: 2 – المجامع المسكونية

Aspiro Jabour, deacon

أ – المجمعان الأول والثاني

The First Council was held in Nicaea (Turkey) in the year 325 under the chairmanship of Eftsatius of Antioch (according to contemporary scholars). He witnessed the heroism of Deacon Athanasius of Alexandria, the protector of Orthodoxy for 48 years after that. He was the Bishop of Alexandria after the Council. The Second Ecumenical Council was held in the city of Constantinople in the year 381 under the presidency of Meletius of Antioch. Then he died and was succeeded by Gregory the Theologian. Gregory of Nyssa attended it, and the council testified that they were the foundations of the faith. They [the two councils] left us the Constitution of Faith.

Although it is known, we mention it here so that the presentation is complete:

ب – دستور الإيمان النقاوي

The Constitution and the councils’ definitions will be presented divided into several paragraphs for ease of understanding.

“أؤمن بإله واحد آب ضابط الكل خالق السماء والأرض، وكل ما يرى وما لا يرى، وبرب واحد يسوع المسيح ابن الله الوحيد المولود من الآب قبل كل الدهور، نور من نور إله حق من إله حق،

Begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father,

By whom all things were made,

Who for us humans and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnated by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.

And he ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father,

And he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom has no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son.

scope of the prophets,

The Church of the one holy apostolic University,

And confess one baptism for the remission of sins,

وأترجى قيامة الموتى والحياة في الدهر الآتي، آمين!”

طبعاً هذه الترجمة ليست سليمة 100% لغوياً. ولكن المعنى واضح. فعبارة “مساوٍ للآب في الجوهر” لا تردّ لطافة اللفظة اليونانية Homoousios. هذه تعني أنه من ذات جوهر الآب الواحد (1). واسم والي فلسطين آنذاك هو بونتيوس بيلاتوس لا بيلاطس البنطي. فاسمه الصغير هو بونتيوس، بينما لفظة “البنطي” تعني أنه من بلاد البنطس على البحر الأسود.

والأصل اليوناني لعبارة انبثاق الروح القدس مأخوذ من إنجيل يوحنا (15: 26). وقد ترجمته الطبعة الكاثوليكية التي نقّحها المرحوم الشيخ ابراهيم اليازجي “الذي من الآب ينبثق”. وهذا التركيب في اليونانية والعربية يحصر الانبثاق في الآب. واستبدلت لفظة “العتيد” بلفظة “الآتي” لأن كثيرين صاروا يستعملونها. وهي أصح لغوياً. وفي اليوناني جاء: “وبكنيسة واحدة قدوسة جامعة رسولية”.

وإن يكن هذا النص مقتضباً جداً فهو خلاصة إقرار إيماننا. فهو يعلمنا: 1- بأن إلهنا هو الآب والابن والروح القدس (غريغوريوس اللاهوتي العظة 45 وسواها). 2- بأن يسوع إله من ذات جوهر الآب وبأنه تجسد وتأنس وتألم وصلب وقبر وقام وصعد إلى السماء لأجلنا ولأجل خلاصنا و…. 3- بأن الكنيسة تدخل في الدستور كبند إيمان. فالدستور مفتتح بلفظة “أؤمن بـ….” وتتبع واو العطف. فالمعنى هو “أؤمن بالآب… وبرب واحد يسوع… وبالروح القدس… وبكنيسة واحدة…” ونستعمل اللفظة بالمفرد لا بالجمع أي نقول “أؤمن” لا “نؤمن”. فالشخص الذي يتلو دستور إيمان يعلن إقرار إيمانه. هو شهادة شخصية تصدر عن كل مؤمن. على الأشهاد، التزاماً شخصياً منه بالحقيقة التي اعتنقها. 4- بأننا نعترف بمعمودية واحدة. 5- بأننا نرجو القيامة والحياة الأبدية.

ج – المجمع المسكوني الثالث

انعقد هذا المجمع برئاسة كيرللس الإسكندري في مدينة أفسس الواقعة على مسافة 40 كيلومتراً من مدينة أزمير في تركيا. وكانت آنذاك قاعدة المنطقة المسماة “آسيا”. حرم المجمع نسطوريوس. ونشأ عنه صراع بين الإسكندرية وأنطاكية وانتهى في النهاية إلى مصالحة على نص لاهوتي كتبه الأنطاكيون المعتدلون ورضي به كيرللس الإسكندري ووافقت عليه دنيا الأرثوذكسية جمعاء شرقاً وغرباً باستثناء المتطفرفين الذين تشنجوا ورفضوا الصلح الواقع وانشقوا عن جسم الكنيسة الجامعة. وهم المعروفون تاريخياً بالنساطرة والمنتشرون اليوم بنسبة محدودة في العراق وسوريا ولبنان وإيران والمهاجر. ولكنهم في الماضي السحيق دللوا على حيوية واسعة فوصلوا إلى الصين وتوسع نفوذهم كثيراً في دولة الأكاسرة الفرس.

The actual peace reached us in letters 38 and 39 of the letters of Cyril of Alexandria. This is the text written by the Antiochians and signed by Cyril:

“نعترف إذاً بأن ربنا يسوع المسيح بن الله الوحيد هو إله كامل وإنسان كامل (يتألف) من نفس عاقلة وجسم،

بأنه مولود من قبل الآب قبل الدهور بحسب الألوهة، وبأنه بعينه، في آخر الأزمنة – لأحلنا ولأجل خلاصنا – (مولود) بحسب الناسوت من قبل مريم العذراء بحسب الناسوت.

He himself is equal in essence to the Father according to his divinity, and equal to us in essence according to his humanity, because it is from two natures that the union occurred.
This is why we acknowledge one Christ, one Son, and one Lord.

According to this way of conceiving the unmixed union (2)We acknowledge that the Most Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, Theotokos, because God the Word was incarnated, humanized, and joined to Himself from conception the temple that He took from Her.

وبالنسبة للعبارات الإنجيلية والرسولية المتعلقة بالرب. فإننا نعرف أن اللاهوتيين يعتبرون العبارات التي توحِّد تنصر إلى شخص وحيد، والعبارات التي تُفرِّق تنصرف إلى الطبيعتين: مايليق منها بالله فللمسيح بحسب ألوهته، والأكثر تواضعاً فيه بحسب ناسوته”. (راحع نص الرسالة بتمامه في مجموعة التشريع كما سيجيء).

In this translation and the translation of the text of Chalcedon, the relationship between the two texts was taken into account, and the phrases in the translation were the same as they are in the Greek original.

A normal comparison between the two texts indicates that the Chalcedon text disdained the text of reconciliation and that the Chalcedon text is a natural complement to reconciliation and the Constitution of Faith, taking into account developments in theological understanding among the councils.

ونبدي هنا الملاحظة السابقة نفسها حول “المساوي للآب في الجوهر…”. أما “أمّ الله” فهي في اللغة اليونانية لفظة واحدة لا لفظتان. وقد ترجمت الفعل اليوناني الذي عني الاتحاد بالفعل “ضمّ” لفقدان المقابل العربي من فعل اتَّحد. فالمعنى اليوناني موجود بهذا الفعل لا بباقي مشتقات جذره العربي. وفي النص جاء ذكر الاتحاد والفعل المتعدي منه فاستعملت “ضمّ”.

د – المجمع المسكوني الرابع

The Fourth Ecumenical Council was held in Chalcedon, near Constantinople, on 1/8/451. Hundreds of fathers (630 fathers) attended.

The situation there was not easy. The arguments against Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, are very strong and prominent since the first session. He was sentenced to divorce in the third session on 10/13/451 (3). But the text of the ruling does not include any theological accusation at all. The disagreement is personal. The charges relate to legal violations (4). This is supported by the statement of Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, in the session of 10/22/451, that the dispute with Dioscorus is not a theological dispute.

In the second session on 10/9/451, the letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, which had been read at the Council of Ephesus, was read in the council. (5) And his letter to John, Bishop of Antioch, which contained the text of reconciliation (6) And a letter from Leo, Pope of Rome, to Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, known as Tomos Leo (7). Amid widespread acclaim, first for Cyril, then for Leo and Anatolius (8). In the first session, attendees praised the writings of Saints Fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Ilarion, Ambrosius, and Cyril. (9) Then, in this second session, they paid tribute to Saint Fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celsius, Pope of Rome, Ilarius, Basil, and Gregory. (10).

In the fifth session, the Council issued a definition of faith (11). He began with a long introduction in which he noted the letters of Cyril to Nestorius and John of Antioch, known as the Epistle of Reconciliation, and the Thomas of Leo, and his acceptance of these three documents. (12). He concluded with the following doctrinal definition (13):

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon near Constantinople in the year 451, denounced Eutychism and issued the following definition regarding the faith:

“تبعاً للآباء القديسين نعلم جميعاً بالاجماع معترفين

By one son With his eyes Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is With his eyes Perfect in his divinity, And with his eyes Perfect in his humanity.

that With his eyes (He) is truly God and truly man, (composed of) a rational soul and a body, consubstantial with the Father. (14) According to his divinity, he is With his eyes Consubstantial with us according to His humanity, similar to us in all things except sin,

Born by the Father before the ages according to divinity, and He is With his eyes In the last times - for our sake and for the sake of our salvation - he was born according to humanity by the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

One Christ With his eyes, Son, Lord, only Son, known in two natures without mingling, without transubstantiation, without division, without separation, without disappearing, in any way - because of the union - the two natures separated, but rather each of them preserved their own way of being, and met the other in One person and one hypostasis, (Christ) is not divided or divided into two persons, but rather he is the one Lord Jesus With his eyesThe Only Begotten Son, God the Word,

كما أنبأ عنه الأنبياء قديماً، وكما علمنا إياه يسوع المسيح نفسه، وكما سلمنا إياه دستور الإيمان” (15).

Analyze this text

In the historical section, we explained that this text is a theological miracle that saved the Orthodox faith from being torn apart between conflicting theological currents. Any believer who is well versed in the history of theology and beliefs in fear of God will be astonished by this divinely inspired miraculous text. What are his major lines?

What are the heresies that this inspiring text undermines?

If we compare the text with the Constitution of Faith in light of the history of beliefs, we find that this inspiring text has clarified the meaning of the Constitution in light of the recent heresies that required the Church to intervene to give its final word, through the Holy Spirit. (16).

Who is the biggest victor in this council? Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Alexandria, the moderate Antiochians, Pope Leo of Rome, and all of the Church Fathers who had their say before the year 451.

We noticed at the end of the talk about the Third Council that the message of reconciliation entered the text of Chalcedon. Even the verbal kinship between them is vast. The text of Chalcedon is nothing but an extension and clarification of the message of reconciliation (17) And dedication to the theology of Gregory the Theologian, the leader of those who advocate applying the principles of the theology of the Trinity to the theology of the incarnation. Just as we say Trinitarianly that God is one in three hypostases, we say incarnately that Jesus is one hypostasis in two natures.

وهكذا أنقذ الله الكنيسة الجامعة من الغرق في الأبولينارية وسقطها أي الأوطيخية، ومن الغرق في النسطورية. فما بين الإفراط والتفريط كان طريق الأرثوذكسية تمخضاً عسيراً جداً في الروح القدس لوضع الأمور في نصابها القانوني. أليس تدبيراً إلهياً أن تكون أنطاكية واسعة التمثيل في هذا المجمع (حوالي 100-130 مندوباً) وأن يصدر هذا التشديد الثماني-السباعي على عبارة “الواحد بعينه”؟ ألم يكن هذا التشديد مخلاً لاهوتياً طرد كل أشكال النسطورية من الأرثوذكسية مهما حاول أن يندس المندسون على ما ذكر المؤرخون عن الاندساس؟

This is in addition to eliminating the confusion of theological terminology.

However, the path to this miracle faltered until the middle of the following century. From the year 451 to the year 532, theological confusion and debate, sometimes intense and sometimes lukewarm, spread. However, the years 532-536 witnessed widespread theological activity within the Orthodox ranks, in which the stars of Leonidius of Jerusalem and Ephrem of Antioch shone, and it ended in the Fifth Council with great success.

هـ – المجمع المسكوني الخامس

The Nestorians had forged a document and began publishing it in defense of Theodorus of Misa and Nestorius. They relied on the writings of Theodoretos against Cyril and on the letter attributed to Hippas, Bishop of Edessa, known as the Letter to Maris the Persian, and thus they distorted the reputation of Chalcedon.

The threat of Origenism had also increased among the monks of Palestine.

فانعقد المجمع في العام 553 في القسطنطينية وضرب ضربة “معلم”، التشويش النسطوري والأوريجنسي.

He opened his judgment with a lengthy introduction in which he impugned Theodorus at length and accused him of hypocrisy (18). He challenged certain writings of Theodoretos and Hippas. He limited the appeal to her only, without harming their personalities (19). Rather, he defended them against those who used them to defend Theodorus and Nestorius and harm the reputation of the Council of Chalcedon. He stated explicitly that the Fourth Ecumenical Council accepted them after they announced their denunciation of Nestorianism and the person of Nestorius. (20).

Anti-Nestorian items

The Council singled out Nestorianism with fourteen items (21). It briefly presents the Orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity and the Divine Incarnation according to the latest Orthodox clarifications. In the section on the hypostatic union, it devotes the opinions of Leonidius of Jerusalem:

  1. He follows the example of Chalcedon in the categorical insistence on the unity of the one person in Jesus, a unity in two natures united in a close and inseparable hypostatic union. Whoever makes the two natures into two persons or hypostases (3, 5, and 7) is a fool.
  2. يصر على ما جاء في خلقيدونية لجهة ترادف لفظتين “شخص” و”أقنوم” والتفريق بين معنيي “أقنوم” و”طبيعة” (5 و7 و3).
  3. The issue of hypostatic union is most prominent in several clauses (4, 5, 7, 8, and 13).
  4. In Clause 7, he used the metaphor that indicates that differentiating between the two natures is impossible except from a rational perspective, in the field of pure thought theoria.
  5. Voluntary suffering is attributed to the person of our Lord and God Jesus (22).
  6. يستعمل كلمة “جسد” للدلالة على الطبيعة البشرية (2 و3 و4 و5 و6 و7). وسنرى مثل ذلك في المجمع السادس. وهذا يؤيد نقدنا أعلاه لمايندورف وغريلماير.

Anti-Originian clauses

The Council denounced Origenism in 15 articles. It concerns matters inspired by Greek philosophical paganism and painted with Christian paint (23). We have discussed the topic in the historical section sufficiently to understand the topic.

F- The Sixth Ecumenical Council

The Sixth Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople in the year 680 to consider the issue of those who believe in one will and one action. The issue had matured thanks to the struggle of Sophronius of Damascus, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Maximus the Confessor, the famous Constantinople monk who traveled the Mediterranean world refuting those who spoke of it orally and in writing. He left us a very valuable theological heritage, even if it is difficult to understand. He traveled to Rome and left a positive impact on the martyr Pope Martius. Numerous councils were held in the West condemning heresy. Martinus presided over the Lateran Council (year 649), which denounced it (24).

Maximus’s thinking, the documents of the council, and its theological definition are based on a main topic that we mentioned elsewhere, which is that the holy fathers attributed action and will to nature, not to the hypostasis. As long as Jesus has two natures, he has two actions, two wills, and two freedoms. And they are all natural. That is, it has a divine action, a human action, a divine will, a human will, divine freedom, and human freedom.

There are two main documents in the council, which George, Bishop of Constantinople, requested to be read at the fourth session on 11/15/680. (25). They are a letter from Pope Agathon to the Emperor (26) And the letter of the 125th Council of Western Bishops to him. George agreed to it (27) And his assistant bishops in the 8th session.

Both of them, according to what is seen in the Greek original, are a very extensive theological study from the Holy Fathers. The Arabic translator only mentioned a summary of their sayings and neglected the rest (the original is in volume 11 of Mansi or 6 of Labih).

The topic revolves around doctrine and what was determined by previous councils. Before presenting the doctrinal definition of the Sixth Council, we make the following observations:

  1. Pope Agathon respects the Fifth Council, like his predecessor, the martyr Martinus. He mentioned it twice (28). He mentioned Section 7 of it, which relates to the intellectual distinction only between the two natures (29). واستعمل عبارة “الاتحاد الأقنومي” في الشخص الواحد مرتين (30). These are expressions enshrined by the Fifth Council, as mentioned above.
  2. في رسالة الأساقفة استعمل الأساقفة اللفظة الخاصة بالتفريق الفكري بين الطبيعتين فقال المترجم: “ولا ندرك غلا بالتأمل الفرق بين الطبيعتين…” (31).
  3. Council Determination The Fifth Council was mentioned twice (32).
  4. In Agathon's letter, he repeatedly stated that Jesus' human nature was deified (33) The council said that his body was deified and his will was deified (34). The theological ideas of deification were not, therefore, alien to Rome at that date. Didn't Maximus the Confessor, the last and greatest architect in the sixth century of this theological thinking, leave the imprints of his dynamic thought on it?
  5. ترد لفظة “جسد” بمعنى الطبيعة البشرية كلها في رسالة الأساقفة وفي تحديد المجمع (35).

وفي الجلسة الثامنة عشرة  في 16 / 9 / 681 أصدر المجمع تحديداً مطولاً (36). He mentioned heretics and denounced them. He cited the text of the Constitution of Faith. He mentioned the letters of Agathon and his council (composed of 125 bishops) to the Emperor. He cited the text of the definition of Chalcedon and completed it directly with the following:

“ونجاهر، بالمثل، بحسب رأي الآباء القديسين (بأنه موجود) فيه مشيئتان أو إرادتان طبيعيتان. وفعلان طبيعيان بدون انقسام، بدون استحالة، بدون انفصال، بدون انشطار (ونجاهر) بإرادتين (له) طبيعيتين غير متضادتين -لا كان ذلك- كما قال الهراطقة غير الأتقياء، ولكن إرادته الإنسانية مطيعة وغير مقاومة وغير ثائرة بل بالأحرى خاضعة للمشيئة الإلهية والكلية القدرة.

فكان على مشيئة الجسد أن تتحرك ولكن أن تخضع للإرادة الإلهية على ماقال أثناسيوس الكلي الحكمة” (37).

The selection continues at the same pace. Increased clarification and clarification of the exchange of attributes between the two natures of Jesus and the ratio of what is divine and what is physical to one person (38).

In the translation, we took into account accuracy and linguistic closeness to the definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, so we translated the single Greek word into a single Arabic equivalent.

We note the following in the text:

  1. The matter here, as in Chalcedon, is attributed to the holy fathers, of whom Athanasius is the only one to be mentioned. Then, in the continuation of the text, he returns to mentioning Gregory, Leo, and Cyril.
  2. The text focuses on the attribution of will and action to nature. As long as Jesus has two natures, he has two natural wills and two natural actions.
  3. The two actions and the two wills do not contradict each other. They don't collide. The will of the body moves, but in complete agreement with and submission to the all-powerful divine will.
  4. يكرر أوصاف الاتحاد الواردة في خلقيدونية وإن لم يحافظ على الترتيب نفسه واستبدل لفظة بلفظة أخرى وردت في النص هي لفظة “بدون انشطار” بدلاً من “بدون انقسام”. (39)

(1) Loski, On Image and Likeness, p. 132.

(2) اللفظة نفسها ترد في تحديد خلقيدونية “بدون امتزاج”. وإنما وردت هنا “المنزّه عن الامتزاج” للضرورة اللغوية في العربية.

(3) See: المجمع المسكوني الرابع – مجمع خلقيدونية… (الشبكة)

(4) Legislation Collection, pp. 392-393.

(5) Legislation Collection, pp. 295-297.

(6) Legislation Collection, pp. 380-383.

(7) Legislation Collection, pp. 384-390.

(8) Legislation Collection, p. 384.

(9) Legislation Collection, p. 377.

(10) Legislation Collection, p. 379.

(11) Legislation Collection, pp. 395-397.

(12) Legislation Collection, p. 396.

(13) I did not rely on the translations of the Legislation Group, as there are flaws in them. Some of her opinions are old and outdated.

(14) العبارة المستعملة عربياً في دستور الإيمان “المساو]ٍ للآب في الجوهر” لا ترد دقة اللفظة اليونانية homoousios التي تعني أن جوهرهما واحد.

(15) The teaching of the completeness of divinity and the completeness of humanity, with the distinction of the two natures in the unity of the person or hypostasis, is as old as the Church. If clarity sometimes decreases and conclusive formulas are lost, it is because the Church was doing this little by little, and often for the needs of preaching, teaching, and repelling heretical attacks. In the fourth century, the heroes of the faith were forced to confront Arianism and others, so they asserted the equality of the Son and the Father and were forced to clarify the doctrine of the incarnation. Here's what we found from the Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch, who died in 107 (Ephesians 7:2 and 20:2). [النص على التوالي: “يوجد طبيب واحد He is at the same time God and man” و”ولا سيما إذا ما أراني الرب أنكم -افراداً وجماعات- تلتئمون بالنعمة التي لكم باسمه في إيمان واحد بيسوع المسيح الذي من نسل داود حسب الجسد؛ Son of man and son of God؛ وذلك لتطيعوا الأسقف ولفيف القساوسة في الوئام بدون خصام؛ وتكسروا خبراً واحداً، هو دواء الخلود، وترياق لكي لا نموت، فنحيا إلى الأب في يسوع المسيح”… (the network)] وإلى بوليكاربوس 3: 2)،  ايريناوس (ضد الهرطقات 3/ 18: 7)، ابيوليتوس (ضد نوتيوس 17 ومين 10: 870)، ترتليانوس (ضد براكسياس 27)، بطرس بطريرك الإسكندرية (مين 18/ 509 و512 و521)، أثناسيوس الكبير (رسالته الشهيرة إلى ابيكتوس المعتمدة في المجمع الرابع 5 و 7 مين 26/ 1256 و1257)، إيلاريون (في الثالوث 2: 25 و9: 3 و11 و14 و39) ديديموس المصري الأعمى (في الثالوث 3: 2 و6 و12 و13 و21 و27 وفي الروح القدس 52)، أفرام السرياني (1: 177 من طبعة السمعاني و1: 353 و475 من طبعة لامي)، وباسيليوس الكبير (الرسالة 261: 2)، وغريغوريوس اللاهوتي (رسالتاه 101 و102 إلى كلودونيوس المعتمدتان في المجمعين الثالث والرابع 32 و41)، أبيفانيوس (مين 43: 75 و116-117) الذهبي الفم (الميمران 11: 2 و3: 1 و2 على إنجيل يوحنا)، أمفيلوشيوس (مين 39: المقطع 9 وأيضاً 2 و7 و11)، أمبروسيوس (الإيمان المسيحي 4، 12: 164-165 و5، 8 104-108 و3، 8: 54-55 و2، 7: 53، سر تجسد الرب 63-78 خاصة 68)، ايرونيموس (على غلاطية 1: 1 ويوحنا 3: 6 والدفاع ضد روفنيوس 2: 4)، أوغسطين (الرسالة 187 والميمران 186 و293)، كيرللس الإسكندري (مين 73: 205 و74: 89 و 629 و 936 و75: 273 و425 و1325 و76: 164 و627 و1365 و77: 45 و109 و112 و120-121 و179 و232). ويرى كواستن أن المجمع الرابع وفق بين التعبير الأنطاكي الواضح وبين تفكير القديس كيرللس العميق (3: 206) وقد وردت عبارة الاتحاد “بدون استحالة” لدى ديديموس الأعمى وكيرللس الإسكندري. وأوضح الأول أن الطبيعتين لم تمتزجا فتؤلفا طبيعة ثالثة. وسيرد معنا الفرق بين الأقنوم الذي تألف من الإله والإنسان [يقصد الطبيعة الإلهية والطبيعة الإنسانية كما يتضح من سياق الكتاب كله… (الشبكة)] وبين امتزاج الطبيعتين، وكيف أن الأقنوم يقبل التأليف بينما تمتزج الطبيعتين.

(16) هنا لا بد أن نذكر كلمة قالها الأب الدكتور ديمتريوس شربك راعي كنيسة صافيتا في إحدى محاضراته: إن نص إيمان خلقيدونية كان هو الركيزة التي قوضت كل البدع والهرطقات السابقة واللاحقة. اللاحقة اي بدعة المشيئة الواحدة والفعل الواحد، وبدعة محاربة الأيقونات… (الشبكة)

(17) {The departed Bishop Gregory, Bishop of Scientific Research in the Polar Church, says:

[However, this union was not satisfactory for both groups, and some of Cyril’s followers believed that it was not satisfactory for both groups He acknowledged the Nestorian errors Others misunderstood the terms and expressions used by Cyril, but others went further than this. They explicitly denied the teaching that Cyril taught… (ص 192-193، 1-اللاهوت المقارن، موسوعة الأنبا غريغوريوس).]

من هذا التصريح للأنبا غريغوريوس نستطيع أن نفهم ما قاله الأب ف. سي. صموئيل في كتابه “مجمع خلقيدونية – إعادة فحص، ص 378” مُلخصاً تفنيد ورأي ساويروس الأنطاكي في رسالة المصالحة، إذ يقول:

[وماذا إذاً عن صيغة إعادة الوحدة عام 433م، والتي اعترف فيها البابا كيرلس بتعبير “طبيعتين”؟ ألا يُعد هذا الموقف تغييراً عن التقليد الراسخ الذي أشار إليه ساويروس؟

In his answer to this point, Patriarch Severus paid attention to the historical context of that document in addition to the actual meaning of the paragraph in question in which that expression appeared. Patriarch Severus confirmed that the formula for unity in 433 AD was drawn up in circumstances where there was discord in the church, and this discord itself was the result of the Antiochian side’s inability to understand the faith properly. In this context and in order to restore unity in the Church, and thus help the Antiochians to gradually realize the tradition of the Fathers in interpreting the doctrine, Q. Cyril, as a wise physician, accepted the document sent to him from John of Antioch. It was this document that contained the phrase in question, which Pope Cyril supported for the sake of peace within the Church.]

Through these words, Severus of Antioch appears to be among the group of those who explicitly denied the teaching taught by Saint Cyril. He goes on to say, in other words, that Saint Cyril, for the sake of church unity, introduced false doctrines. That is, he implicitly accuses him of heresy.

We know, through reading the biography of Saint Cyril, that he was not the type to compromise on beliefs or give up on sound teaching. Especially if we know that the Church, after reconciliation, entered another stage of schisms. They are the schisms of Antioch and Alexandria. Saint Cyril was forced to defend his faith against those who refused to reconcile with Antioch.

The bottom line, which can be understood from Severus of Antioch, is that Saint Cyril corrupted the doctrine when he approved the text of the letter for the sake of church unity.

We understand this more and it becomes clear when we read the following text by Severus of Antioch, quoted from the website Orthodox Info:

“The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril’s” [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].

ونص الترجمة: “إن العقيدة التي حددها الآباء القديسون بوجود طبيعتين متحدتين في المسيح يجب أن تُطرح جانباً، حتى لو كانت لكيرلس!!”

Here we see that we quote what Patriarch Timothy, successor to Patriarch Dioscorus in the Coptic Church, said, also quoting from the website Orthodox Info:

Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite “saint”) condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

“Cyril… having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formed and was caught professing two Natures of Christ” [Timothy Ailouros, “Epistles to Kalonymos,” Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

وملخص الترجمة: “كيرلس، شرح بدقة و بلاغة العقيدة الأورثوذكسية… و لكن بعد أن صار علينا أن نتكلم عن طبيعة واحدة لله الكلمة، فإن كيرلس بعد ذلك دمر العقيدة التي قام هو بصياغتها و رأيناه يعترف بطبيعتين في المسيح!”.

Before we conclude this paragraph, we would like to mention what Deacon Aspero said in the book You Asked Me and I Answered You, First Edition, 2005: John of Antioch distributed Cyril’s message to the Christian world, and the people accepted it except for a small number. Legally, Cyril's use of the phrase one hypostasis and two natures is a retreat from his use of the phrase one nature. The concluding speech is the last speech that cancels out what came before it. روما والقسطنطينية وأنطاكية قبلت رسالة كيرلس… للمزيد راجع Between Ephesus, the robbers, and Chalcedon.. للشماس اسبيرو جبور.}… (الشبكة)

(18) Legislation Collection, pp. 458-466 and 471-472.

(19) Legislation Collection, pp. 463 and 464.

(20) Legislation Collection, pp. 463, 464 and 472.

(21) Legislation Collection, pp. 467-472.

(22) مجموعة التشريع، ص 469 إلا أن الترجمة غامضة كلياً ولا ترد المعنى أبداً. قال المترجم: “… الاختلاف بين طبيعتيه بأسلوب مجرد”. وقد أتينا على ذكر المسألة تاريخياً من قبل. ووردت العبارة في المجمع السادس كما سيجيء.

(23) Legislation Collection, pp. 475-477. The translation is inaccurate because the topic requires familiarization with the issue philosophically and theologically and with contemporary studies. The translator provides an overview of Origen from Macracice and Peter Kandalaft (479), while after that a library on Origen and his influence throughout history appeared.

(24) Lengthy details in Flesch and Hefflet-Leclerc.

(25) Legislation Collection, p. 492.

(26) Legislation Collection, pp. 493-507.

(27) Legislation Collection, pp. 509-510.

(28) Legislation Collection, pp. 495 and 501.

(29) مجموعة التشريع، ص 501 وذكره قبلاً (ص 495 حيث استعمل المترجم لفظة “فهم” الغامضة).

(30) Legislation Collection, pp. 503 and 505.

(31) Collection of Legislation, p. 508. All of this is evidence that supports Meyendorff’s opinion (p. 113) against some contemporary Western scholars challenging the Fifth Council.

(32) Legislation Collection, pp. 512 and 513.

(33) Legislation Collection, pp. 501-502.

(34) Legislation Collection, p. 514.

(35) Legislation Collection, pp. 508 and 514.

(36) Legislation Collection, pp. 511-515.

(37) Cyril of Alexandria echoes the last passage in Min 74:89 and 75:425, and the fathers who spoke of the two natures considered the two actions and the two wills to be a natural aspect. And also Dionysius of Alexandria (Min. 10: 1597 and 1599), Athanasius (the famous letter to Epictetus, Min. 26: 1065 and also Min. 25: 492 and 26: 8047), Ilarion with complete clarity (in Trinity 3: 6), and Gregory of Nyssa addresses the union of the two natures and the subject of Christ’s human nature. The One with Free Will (Min. 45: 1136), Ambrose in the Christian Faith (704: 53 and 58). In the sixth and seventh centuries, matters became more and more clear. And Leonidius of Byzantium (Min. 86, 1: 1320 and 2: 1932), John Skitopoulos (p. 85 et seq. of the Decap edition), Ephrem of Antioch (Min. 86, 2: 2105), and Evastathius the monk (Min. 86: 909). See the two treatises of Agathon and his council in Manasseh (11) or Labah 6.

(38) Legislation Collection, pp. 514-515.

(39) لا بد لنا هنا قبل الانتهاء من عرض هذا المجمع أن نذكر: في هذا المجمع قد تم إدانة بابا رومية بالهرطقة. وهذا ينفي عصمة البابا أو كونه أعلى من المجمع. للمزيد راجع “المجمع المسكوني السادس – مجمع القسطنطينية الثالث“… (الشبكة)

Exit mobile version