A - The First and Second Councils

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:

B - The Pure Constitution of Faith

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

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God,

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,

I hope for the resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come, Amen!

Of course, this translation is not grammatically correct. But the meaning is clear. The expression “consubstantial with the Father” does not respond to the elegance of the Greek word Homoousios. This means that He is of the same essence as the One Father (1). The name of the governor of Palestine at that time was Pontius Pilatus, not Pontius Pilate. His diminutive name is Pontius, while the word “Pontus” means that he is from the country of Pontus on the Black Sea.

The Greek origin of the phrase “the emanation of the Holy Spirit” is taken from the Gospel of John (15:26). The Catholic edition, which was revised by the late Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Yaziji, translated it as “He who proceeds from the Father.” This structure in Greek and Arabic limits the emanation to the Father. The word “to come” was replaced with the word “to come” because many people began to use it. It is more grammatically correct. In the Greek it says: “And in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

Although this text is very brief, it is the summary of our declaration of faith. It teaches us: 1- That our God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 45, etc.). 2- That Jesus is God of the same essence as the Father, and that he was incarnated, became man, suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose, and ascended to heaven for us and for our salvation, and…. 3- That the Church is included in the constitution as an article of faith. The Constitution opens with the word “I believe in...” The conjunction waw follows. The meaning is “I believe in the Father... and in one Lord Jesus... and in the Holy Spirit... and in one Church...” and we use the word in the singular, not in the plural, meaning we say “I believe,” not “we believe.” The person who recites the Creed declares his confession of faith. It is a personal testimony issued by every believer. As evidenced by his personal commitment to the truth he embraced. 4- That we acknowledge one baptism. 5- That we hope for resurrection and eternal life.

C - The Third Ecumenical Council

This council was held under the chairmanship of Cyril of Alexandria in the city of Ephesus, located 40 kilometers from the city of Izmir in Turkey. At that time, it was the base of the region called “Asia”. The council excommunicated Nestorius. A conflict arose between Alexandria and Antioch, and it ultimately ended in a reconciliation based on a theological text written by the moderate Antiochians, which Cyril of Alexandria approved of, and the entire Orthodox world, east and west, approved of, with the exception of the extremists who became tense and rejected the actual reconciliation and split from the body of the universal Church. They are known historically as Nestorians and are spread today to a limited extent in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Al-Muhajir. However, in the distant past, they showed great vitality and reached China, and their influence expanded greatly in the Persian state of the Aksars.

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:

“We acknowledge, then, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man (consisting of) a rational soul and a body,

That He was born by the Father before the ages according to divinity, and that He Himself, at the end of times - for our salvation and for our salvation - (begotten) according to humanity by the Virgin Mary according to humanity.

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.

As for the evangelical and apostolic expressions related to the Lord. We know that theologians consider the expressions that unite to be Christian to a single person, while the expressions that divide refer to the two natures: those that are appropriate to God belong to Christ according to his divinity, and those that are most humble in him according to his humanity.” (See the full text of the message in the legislation collection, as will come.)

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.

Here we make the same previous observation about “consubstantial with the Father...” As for “Mother of God,” it is one word in the Greek language, not two. The Greek verb that meant union was translated as “annexation” due to the loss of the Arabic equivalent of the verb “to unite.” The Greek meaning is present in this verb, not in the rest of the derivatives of its Arabic root. In the text, the union and its transitive verb were mentioned, so “damma” was used.

D - The Fourth Ecumenical Council

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:

“According to the Holy Fathers we all unanimously know and confess

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,

As the prophets foretold about it in ancient times, as Jesus Christ himself taught us, and as the Constitution of Faith handed it down to us.” (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?

• 1- At the beginning and the end, the text states that it is the teaching of the prophets, the Lord Jesus himself, and the constitution of faith drawn up by the fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, and the holy fathers.
• 2- The Fathers of the Fourth Council all unanimously acknowledge this teaching.
• 3- The unity of Jesus is a very prominent element in the text:
  • a- The phrase “with his own eyes” appears eight times.
  • B- The word “one” is repeated in various forms, as follows, in succession: one (Son), one (Christ), one only Son, one (person), one (hypostasis), one (Lord Jesus), one and only Son.
  • C- We are faced with eight repetitions of the word “particularly” and seven times of the word “one.” This “one by one” is the focus of the entire text.
  • Dr- The text gives this “particular one” the following names, sometimes repeatedly:
    The Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, Christ (One), Son, Lord, Only Begotten Son, Lord Jesus, Only Begotten Son, God the Word, Jesus Christ.
  • E- The text focuses categorically on unity and completely excludes the duality in the person of Jesus, which the Nestorians say in terms of hypostasis and person, and declares the synonymy between these two words. It says: “...in one person and one hypostasis, (Christ) is not divided or divided into two persons, but...one...”

  Thus, this text eliminated all division in the one person of Jesus.

• 4- Although He is one and does not accept separation, fission, or division, He is both God and man.
  • a- He is God, complete in His divinity. He is truly God, not a metaphor or imagination.
  • B- The Father begot him before all ages. He is not born in a time or place. His birth is eternal and takes place outside of time because there is no past, present, or future in God. He is eternally present, that is, from eternity to eternity. It has no beginning and no end. He is always born. Yesterday he was born. Today he was born. And tomorrow he will be born. He was born without being separated from the arms of the Heavenly Father.
  • C- As long as the Father begot him, their divine essence is one and the same. The Son is not higher than the Father, nor is the Father higher than the Son. Unity in essence between them means unity of divinity. Humans have a son who is younger than his father. In the Trinity, there is no time in which the Father existed without the Son and the Holy Spirit.
  • Dr- This birth is his birth according to divinity.
  • E- But he has a second birth according to humanity (humanity).

      BSharita

  • a- He is a complete human being in his humanity. He is truly a human being, not a symbol or a fantasy.
  • B- The Virgin Mary gave birth to him, not eternally, but when the fullness of time had come. This birth occurred in time many years ago, at the end of time, as stated in the text.
  • C- As long as the Virgin Mary gave birth to him, his human essence is the same as hers. He is equal to her in essence. But the difference is very great between His equality with the Father in theological essence and His equality with us in human essence. Theologically, His essence is the essence of the Father, which is shared between them without division. As for us humans, we are multiple individuals separated in time, place, and the way we possess human nature. Paul, Peter, John, and...people. Human nature exists in each of them individually. Each of them is separate from the other. Each of them possesses it in isolation from the others. None of them reside in the others. Therefore, there is no common ownership of nature among them. As for the Trinity, the entire Father is present in the Son and the Holy Spirit. And also vice versa. And some of them possess all the divine nature. It's all for each one of them.
  • Dr- Mary is this ever-virgin virgin.
  • E- She gave birth to a son similar to us in everything except sin. He is the son of the Virgin. He took from it a complete human nature, as we see in every individual human being, except for the tendency to sin. We have taken in our entirety, except for the inclination to sin. He is pure and completely pure. He has a body and a rational soul, contrary to what Apollinarius said.
  • And the- This divine concession has a purpose. What is it? It is “for us and for our salvation.”
• 5- But with a categorical emphasis on the unity of the person, hypostasis, son, Christ, and Lord, Jesus contains both God and man. What is unity in it and what is duality?
• 6- Unity is the unity of the hypostasis, that is, the person.
• 7- The duality is the duality of natures.
• 8- One hypostasis is in two natures. The word “in” is very important. Gregory the Theologian used it first, then later theologians took it from him. It closes the door to the statement that there are two natures first and then the hypostatic union second. Human nature did not exist before the day of the Annunciation. The divine nature is eternal. On the day of the Annunciation, the hypostasis of the Son carved a human nature for himself from the Virgin. We are not faced with the process of combining two that exist before combining them. We are facing a divine concession. The Son's hypostasis renounced and took from the Virgin Mary a human nature, which he added to his divine hypostasis.
• 9- What is the color of the union? God only knows. The inspired fathers used expressions denying the occurrence of any mixing between the two natures or the transformation of divinity into humanity or humanity into divinity. They are neither divided nor separated. Both exist in a strangely close union.
• 10- How can a person be united with God without God bearing down on man?
• 11- The Fathers said that the union did not in any way remove the difference between the two natures. So God remained a perfect God and man a perfect human. Each of the two natures retained its own way of being.
• 12- Where did they meet then?
• 13- In the one person of Jesus.
• 14- The divine nature is not a person. Human nature is not a person. But they are not without a person.
• 15- One person possesses both natures.
• 16- In this way, the Fathers eliminated the confusion resulting from theological terminology. It is no longer plausible to say that Jesus has two hypostases or two persons, or that he is composed of two hypostases or two persons, because His Nasto did not exist before the union to be one or two hypostases. He took his humanity on the day of the Annunciation. He took it without having a hypostasis. Rather, he immediately joined him to his divine hypostasis, and his divine hypostasis became a hypostasis of his humanity since Mary said to the angel: “Let it be done to me according to your word.” The only hypostasis of the Nastatot, from the moment of incarnation, is the hypostasis of the only Son, Jesus. There is no hypostasis or person other than that, neither in theory nor in reality.
• 17- The text focuses on not splitting or splitting into two people. The person does not split or divide. It is an indivisible whole.
• 18- The divine fathers made a difference in meaning between the words person (or hypostasis) and nature. The person or hypostasis is the owner who contains the essence. In Jesus, one hypostasis possesses two essences: divinity and humanity. The hypostasis is present in both.
• 19- The Virgin Mary is the mother of God. How if she only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus?
• 20- Jesus took humanity from her. She did not become pregnant at first, and then after her pregnancy, her newborn was joined to him, so she was absent from the scene of the union of God and man. Jesus took from her a humanity that he immediately added to his divine hypostasis. He is the taker. It is taken from it.
• 21- Jesus is one hypostasis, not divided or divided. Mary is the mother of this particular one. Thanks to the unity of the hypostasis, she is the mother of Jesus the God-Man. Jesus' body is taken from her. His divinity emanates from the Father only. But she is the mother of God Jesus since Jesus is one and never divided.
• 22- The one Jesus is eternally born and temporally born. The Virgin is the mother of God, from whom He received His humanity. Therefore, we can say, “Crucify the Lord of glory,” the Passion of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, the Blood of God, the Mother of God. Does the essence of divinity suffer and drip blood? no. But thanks to the unity of the hypostasis, this statement is true.

What are the heresies that this inspiring text undermines?

• FirstlyApollinarianism: When he said that Jesus had a body and a rational soul.
• secondlyNestorianism: He insisted on the unity of the hypostasis of Jesus and called the Virgin “Mother of God,” and denied the existence of any division, separation, or division.
• ThirdEutychism: He denied any type of mixing or transformation.
• Fourthly: The complete divinity of Jesus and His complete humanity, His divinity is true and His humanity is true. This saying rejects Apollinarianism and before it the heresies that deny divinity such as Arianism or that deny the reality of humanity such as Docetism, which says that humanity is only an imaginary appearance.

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.

Thus, God saved the universal Church from drowning in Apollinarianism and its downfall, i.e. Eutychism, and from drowning in Nestorianism. Between excess and negligence, the path of Orthodoxy was a very difficult process of churning in the Holy Spirit to put things right. Is it not a divine providence that Antioch should be widely represented in this council (about 100-130 delegates) and that this eight-seven-fold emphasis should be issued on the phrase “the one in particular”? Wasn't this emphasis a theological defect that expelled all forms of Nestorianism from Orthodoxy, no matter how hard the infiltrators tried to infiltrate, according to what historians mentioned about infiltration?

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.

E - The Fifth Ecumenical Council

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.

The council was held in the year 553 in Constantinople and struck a “landmark” blow, the Nestorian and Origenist confusion.

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. He insists on what was stated in Chalcedon regarding the synonymy of the words “person” and “hypostasis” and the distinction between the meanings of “hypostasis” and “nature” (5, 7, and 3).
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. He uses the word “flesh” to refer to human nature (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). We will see something similar in the Sixth Council. This supports our above criticism of Meyendorff and Grillmeier.

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). He used the phrase “hypostatic union” twice in one person (30). These are expressions enshrined by the Fifth Council, as mentioned above.
2. In the bishops’ letter, the bishops used the word for the intellectual distinction between the two natures, so the translator said: “We do not realize by contemplation the difference between the two natures…” (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. The word “body” appears in the sense of all human nature in the bishops’ letter and in the Council’s definition (35).

In the eighteenth session on 9/16/681, the Council issued a lengthy definition (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:

“We similarly declare, according to the opinion of the holy fathers, that there are two natural wills or wills in Him. And two natural actions without division, without transubstantiation, without separation, without cleavage (and manifesting) with two natural, non-opposing wills (of Him) - it was not that - as the impious heretics said, but His human will is obedient, non-resistant and non-rebellious, but rather subject to the divine and all-powerful will.

The will of the body had to move, but to submit to the divine will, as the all-wise Athanasius said. (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. He repeats the descriptions of the union mentioned in Chalcedon, although he does not maintain the same order and replaces one word with another word that appears in the text, which is the word “without division” instead of “without division.” (39)

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

(2) The same word appears in the definition of Chalcedon, “without mixing.” Rather, it was mentioned here as “free from mixing” due to linguistic necessity in Arabic.

(3) See: Fourth Ecumenical Council - Council of Chalcedon… (the network)

(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) The phrase used in Arabic in the Constitution of Faith, “equal to the Father in essence,” does not accurately reflect the Greek word homoousios, which means that their essence is one.

(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). [Text respectively: “There is one doctor He is at the same time God and man“And especially if the Lord has shown me that you - individually and collectively - are united by the grace that you have in His name in one faith in Jesus Christ, who is of the seed of David according to the flesh; Son of man and son of God; This is so that you may obey the bishop and the group of priests in harmony without quarreling. And break one piece of news, which is the cure for immortality and the antidote so that we do not die and live to the Father in Jesus Christ...”the network)] And to Polycarp 3:2), Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3/18:7), Appolytus (Against Notius 17 and Min. 10:870), Tertullian (Against Praxias 27), Peter, Patriarch of Alexandria (Min. 18/509, 512, and 521), Athanasius the Great. (His famous letter to Epictus approved at the Fourth Council 5 and 7 Min 26/1256 and 1257), Ilarion (in Trinity 2:25, 9:3, 11, 14, 39), Didymus the Blind Egyptian (in Trinity 3:2, 6, 12, 13, 21, 27 and in the Holy Spirit 52), Ephrem the Syrian (1: 177 from the Samaani edition and 1: 353 and 475 from the Lamy edition), Basil the Great (Epistle 261: 2), Gregory the Theologian (his 101 and 102 letters to Clodonius approved in the Third and Fourth Councils 32 and 41), Epiphanius (Maine 43: 75 and 116-117) Chrysostom (Lims. 11: 2 and 3: 1 and 2 on the Gospel of John), Amphilochius (Min. 39: Section 9 and also 2, 7 and 11), Ambrose (Christian Faith 4, 12: 164-165 and 5, 8 104-108 and 3, 8: 54-55 and 2, 7: 53, the mystery of the Lord's incarnation 63-78 especially 68), Jerome (on Galatians 1:1 and John 3:6 and the defense against Rufinius 2:4), Augustine (letter 187 and Mimran 186 and 293), Cyril of Alexandria (Min. 73: 205, 74: 89, 629, 936, 75: 273, 425, 1325, 76: 164, 627, 1365, 77: 45, 109, 112, 120-121, 179, 232). Quasten believes that the Fourth Council reconciled the clear expression of Antioch with the deep thinking of Saint Cyril (3: 206). The phrase “unity without impossibility” was mentioned by Didymus the Blind and Cyril of Alexandria. The first explained that the two natures did not mix to form a third nature. We will present with us the difference between the hypostasis that was composed of God and man [meaning the divine nature and the human nature, as is clear from the context of the entire book... (the network)] and the mixing of the two natures, and how the hypostasis accepts composition while the two natures are mixed.

(16) Here we must mention a word said by Father Dr. Demetrius Sharbak, pastor of the Safita Church, in one of his lectures: The text of the faith of Chalcedon was the foundation that undermined all previous and subsequent heresies and heresies. The subsequent one is the heresy of one will and one action, and the heresy of fighting icons... (Al-Shabaka)

(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… (pp. 192-193, 1-Comparative Theology, Bishop Gregory’s Encyclopedia).]

From this statement by Bishop Gregory, we can understand what Father F. said. bad. Samuel, in his book “The Council of Chalcedon - Re-examination, p. 378,” summarizing the refutation and opinion of Severus of Antioch in the message of reconciliation, as he says:

[What then about the formula for restoring unity in 433 AD, in which Pope Cyril recognized the expression “two natures”? Isn't this position a change from the established tradition referred to by Severus?

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].

The text of the translation: “The doctrine defined by the holy fathers that there are two natures united in Christ must be cast aside, even if it was for Cyril!!”

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].

Summary of the translation: “Cyril explained the Orthodox doctrine with precision and eloquence... But after we had to talk about one nature of God the Word, Cyril then destroyed the doctrine that he had formulated, and we saw him acknowledge two natures in Christ!”

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. Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch accepted Cyril's letter...for more, see Between Ephesus, the robbers, and Chalcedon...by Deacon Aspero Jabour.}… (Al-Shabaka)

(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) Al-Tashreeh Collection, p. 469. However, the translation is completely ambiguous and does not give the meaning at all. The translator said: “…the difference between his two natures in an abstract way.” We have mentioned the issue historically before. The phrase was mentioned in the Sixth Council, as will follow.

(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) Al-Tashri’ Collection, p. 501. He mentioned it before (p. 495, where the translator used the ambiguous word “understanding”).

(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) Before concluding the presentation of this council, we must mention here: In this council, the Pope of Rome was convicted of heresy. This denies the infallibility of the Pope or his being higher than the Council. For more see “Sixth Ecumenical Council - Third Council of Constantinople"… (the network)