The Reception of Councils

A paper presented by His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of Antioch (1980-2014), at a Pro Oriente conference, while he was still Archbishop Mor Severios Zakka Iwas.

Introduction

For a complete understanding of this subject, we must know the authority of the councils and the executive power of their decisions. Saint Athanasius (c. 296-373) said: “The council of Nicaea (325) [] pronounced the word of God, and it [stands] forever.”[1] The decisions of the councils according to the custom of the ecclesiastical Fathers were not merely a code or creed or a collection of educational orders, but are the decrees of God, [with] God Himself [being] the supreme law giver.

The doctors of Canon Law [agree] that “if the right of [promulgating] a law was [conferred] to a lawmaker, then [what] is [also conferred] [regarding] the subordinates, or his subjects, [is] the right of obligation to obey these laws, because both rights are inseparable; and to trespass any true law, being compulsory [and] obligatory [on] the mind, is a sin. The power of such a legal law is known as the power of an administrative law.”[2]

It is clear that God [has] granted the apostles and their successors authority in the Church[3] to teach the faithful; therefore they are the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.[4] The Lord [] ordered them, saying: “Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you, and be assured, I am with you always, to the end of the time.”[5] Then He sent them the Holy Spirit to stay with them forever,[6] to teach them everything, and to remind them of everything which Christ had told them.[7] So the authority of the apostles is from God, to tend and to teach the people. Thus, if the right of making laws, teaching, binding, and loosing, was [conferred] to the apostles, it was [at the same time] [conferred] to the faithful to obey them; and as the authority of the apostles was granted to their successors as well,[8] the faithful have no right to refuse the decisions of these as well. Their decisions are of the Holy Spirit; he who refuses to listen to them must then be treated as a pagan or tax collector.[9]

This is what the apostles themselves understood. Saint Paul the apostle himself wrote to the Galatians warning them of slipping into strange teachings, saying: “But if anyone, if we ourselves or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel at variance with the gospel we preached to you, he shall be held outcast.”[10] [He] who does not accept the teachings of the Church [is considered] a stranger to the Church of God. Our Lord said: “Whoever hears you hears Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”[11]

Accordingly, it becomes clear that the legal Ecumenical Councils must be accepted [by the faithful]. The authority of these Councils and their decisions must be obeyed by the entire body of the Church. If these decisions concern matters of creed, then they must be adhered to by Christians very strongly, and those who reject them must be excommunicated.

After the Council of Jerusalem [] declared its decisions in the year 51, it was announced through Barnabas, Paul, Judas (surnamed Barsabbas), and Silas: “So they were sent off on their journey and traveled down to Antioch, where they called the congregation together and delivered the letter. When it was read, they all rejoiced at the encouragement it brought.”[12] So the decisions were obligatory because they were issued by a supreme authority, which was the Council of the apostles; that is why the faithful accepted it joyfully, and it was a cause of encouragement for them. It is mentioned in the history of the Church that a group of the Jews who had become Christians rejected the decisions of this Council of Jerusalem; the Church cast them out.[13]

The Reception of the New Testament and the Dogma is Based Upon the Testimony of the Apostles

The evangelical circumstances at the [outset] of Christianity demanded that some of the servants of the Word be evangelists, pastors, prophets, apostles, and teachers, to equip God’s people for work in His service to build up the Body of Christ.[14] In practice, they did not limit their preaching to a certain region or a given nationality, though Peter was called the apostle of the Jews[15] and Paul the apostle of the Gentiles.[16] Their work was general, and the authority of each one of them extended to all the churches of the world without being confined to the regions in which each one had preached or the churches he had established.[17]

The foundation of the Faith relied on the teaching of the apostles, which is the teaching of the Holy Spirit; and whenever some contradictory teaching appeared, the Church would return to the testimony of the apostles which was unanimously agreed upon by all the apostolic churches,[18] because the principal work of the apostles was to bear witness to the life of Christ, His death, His resurrection, and His teaching.[19] The testimony was orally delivered because Christ did not give His disciples any manuscript; but when the early Christians found it necessary to write down the Gospel, the four Gospels were written down. The Church examined them and all the Scriptures of the New Testament by returning to those who had seen Christ and heard Him, guided by the Holy Spirit.[20] The Church was assured that each of these Scriptural books was written down [either] by one of the disciples or under their supervision, so she declared their lawfulness, for they gained the testimony of the Church which was unanimously accepted, and it was a testimony of the truth, because this unanimity was decisive evidence for an apostolic testimony.

Thus, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church examined and approved the twenty-seven Scriptural books of the New Testament.[21] It became an obligation for all the believers to receive them without adding or removing even a single letter. The reception of the [Church’s] dogma was in the same manner, including all of the traditional teachings received from the disciples, even though the disciples did not legislate them in an ecumenical council. The reception of any doctrine by the Church does not need to be imposed in an ecumenical council, because the Church has received her doctrines from the apostles; the councils were held to define the true faith and to refute any heresy by referring to the testimony of the apostles. This is why we observe how the Fathers of the Church, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386), and Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330 - c. 395) were content simply with any statement received by the Church, even though it was not issued by an official decision.[22]

Such a decision is based upon the testimony of the universal Church. The Nicene Creed, for example, was included within the sacred writings of the Fathers in detail and was accepted by the Church since the early days of Christianity, but the Council molded it into a clear form and compelled the believers to receive it under penalty of excommunication.

Holding the Councils

The apostles held three councils,[23] and thus they established the principle of councils. But the Church, due to the evil persecutions, did not hold councils until the second half of the second century. Thereafter, when she began to introduce orders and laws, she became responsible to solve doctrinal problems and to organize the [affairs of the] church[es]. Thus, the local, general, and ecumenical councils were established.[24]

The Reception of the Councils

The decisions of the councils were consciously received[25] by the believers, and their judgements were carried out by their authorities immediately after they were issued without any disturbance, regardless of ecclesiastical rank or social class.

The decisions of the local, general, and ecumenical councils were regarded to be of divine origin. The ecumenical council had the most supreme authority over the universal Church;[26] that is why its decisions had a decisive, obligatory power over the entire Church.

The ancient official documents reveal that the early Christians regarded the doctrinal decisions issued by the Nicene Ecumenical Council in the year 325 as spontaneously infallible, and as having an obligatory and acceptable authority; that is to say: “They are incontestable in faith, and all Christians regarded them as an expression of a heavenly grace and divine order.” The reason for this is that the decisions taken by the Ecumenical Council pertained to the divine order, as was said in the Edict of Emperor Constantine, when it declared the decisions of the Nicene Council.[27] In any case, we must mention here with great sorrow that the official interference of the Roman Empire in the Church’s own religious affairs spoiled the spiritual quality of the councils. However virtuous the aim of the state might sometimes be in resolving religious problems by means of ecumenical councils, its influence created from the local problem an international one, thus facilitating the division of the Church. 

The Reception of the Local and the General Councils within Their Area Is Easier than the Reception of the Ecumenical Council throughout the Entire Church

As soon as a decision of a local or general council was issued, it was submitted to the local church or Apostolic See; for example, the decisions issued by the two general councils held against Origen (c. 185 - c. 254), who, in excess zeal, mutilated himself, misinterpreting Matthew 19:12 in a literal sense, and for accepting to be ordained a priest by bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem without his bishop’s consultation was deposed by Anba Demetrius from the priesthood and set into exile. Although Origen was a pious doctor of international influence, the Church immediately accepted the decision issued against him; if the case of Origen was discussed in an ecumenical council, he would have been supported by most of the churches in the world.[28]

Here is another example of the decisions of the general and local councils that were carried out immediately after they were issued and were received by the Church without any uproar. This was the excommunication of Paul of Samosata, the patriarch of Antioch (third century). His teaching was that our Lord Jesus Christ was only a human being. Consequently, he was deposed from his See in the Council of Antioch in 268. Paul of Samosata obeyed the order of the Council without any resistance, and the Church satisfactorily received the [Council’s] decision.[29] Thus the problem was solved without interference from the government.

It is not fair to compare Origen, the great scholar, international philosopher, and pious man, with Arius, the arrogant priest; neither is it fair to compare the supreme rank of Paul of Samosata, the patriarch, with the mentioned Arius. Nevertheless, the trial of Origen was held at a local council, and its decision was immediately received. Arius was condemned to be excommunicated in the time of Pope Peter in a local council held in Alexandria, without any disturbance at that time. Afterwards, however, Arius returned to the Church during the time of Anba Achillas and returned again to his heresy in the time of Alexander. His case became international and was examined in the Nicene Ecumenical Council in the year 325, which was held according to the call of Emperor Constantine. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present, among whom were two Arian bishops. After a long dispute, the Council condemned Arius and sentenced him to excommunication and exile.

Consequently, the Nicene Creed was formed[30] and the bishops returned to their countries, but the disputes [continued] in the Church and the Arian party began to increase in strength after the Council. The disputes were more political and racial than religious, and while the Nicene Council’s decisions were accepted by one group, the other rejected it, and alas, the followers of Arius became one hundred million in number,[31] and in a very short time they caused severe harm to the Church. Their evil would have remained until today if it were not for their internal divisions. Eventually, the Arian party disappeared as many of its members rejoined the true Church.

While we are studying the subject of the reception of councils, it is inevitable to mention two complicated questions. The first is the question of Easter, and the second is the baptism of heretics. These were the causes of disagreement in the Church in its early days, but the Church found the solution for them.

The Examination and Reception of the Local and General Councils by the Ecumenical Council

Before the Council of Nicaea in the year 325, many councils were held in the centers of the Holy Sees and dioceses; these councils issued many decisions about faith and order, and these decisions were received in their regions. The Council of Nicaea examined the decisions of these local and general councils concerning the question of faith and order, such as the question of Easter and the baptism of heretics, as we have mentioned before.

The Council of Nicaea issued a decision which was taken to be heavenly and thus became strictly obligatory. The decisions of the local and general councils, which were agreeable with the testimony of the apostolic Church, were considered to be ecumenical. St. Julius, the Pope of Rome, said: “In ecclesiastical affairs, the apostolic canons are to be sought rather than eloquence…What did you find in my letter to legitimize such rage? Is it because I have invited you to the council? This invitation should have delighted you: those who have no doubt whatsoever [regarding] the justice of their acts cannot be discontented when their acts are subjected to examination.”[32]

That is why we see that the great Council of Nicaea [] discussed the decisions of the local and general councils held before, and then gave those decisions an ecumenical quality. The traditions that were acknowledged by the Church were represented in councils and these traditions could not be abolished by individual influence, irrespective of how influential these individuals might have been.

The old documents indicate that the Fathers of the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea and the whole of Christendom at that time considered the decisions concerning the doctrines that were issued by the Council of Nicaea spontaneously infallible and authoritative, that is to say, they were “indisputable in the faith, and all the Christians should consider them as expressions of heavenly grace and divine order.”[33]

Emperor Constantine, in his letter to the church of Alexandria, said: “All of what the 318 Fathers of the Church have decided must be considered as divine judgement, and I am sure that there is no one amongst you bishops who suspects them or hesitates to fulfill them.”[34] That is why the Emperor took charge of issuing the Nicene decisions, announcing them throughout the Church [in order] to carry them out.

Obstacles on the Way of the Council’s Reception

The Council of Nicaea, in desiring to carry out its decisions, granted the apostolic Holy Sees certain privileges of authority derived from civil, and not from religious, considerations. But this same authority became the cause of severe conflict between the state and the Church.

In the West, where the center of the government was transferred from Rome to Ravenna, the influence of the Pope of Rome increased, and he gained his independence to administer the church there. The same happened in Egypt, where the influence of the Pope of Alexandria was beyond the reach of the government. But in Constantinople, the patriarch was no more than a government official in comparison to the monarch’s power. In consequence, the church became one of the governmental offices and the Emperor became the actual head of the church there, as well as the judge of disagreements on the doctrine and the executor of the council’s decisions.[35] The interference of the authorities in solving the problems and their attempts to subject the church to their order brought innumerable misfortunes and pains to the Church. 

Emperor Constantine, who once proclaimed in a letter that “the decisions pronounced by the Ecumenical Council are but divine ones,”[36] turned back from his ideas and ordered a council to be held in Jerusalem in the year 335, wherein those assembled decided to cancel the sentence of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea against Arius, and Arius was ordered to return from his exile to Alexandria. Constantine wrote to Athanasius to receive Arius back to communion, but the influence of Athanasius had so increased in Egypt at that time that his bishops obeyed him [instead of the Emperor], following the decision of the Council of Nicaea. He refused the orders of the Emperor, saying: “He who was excommunicated by an ecumenical council can be loosed only by another ecumenical council, because only he who has the power to bind has the power to loose.”[37]

The enraged Emperor ordered a council to be held in Tyre to get rid of Athanasius. He accused him of a political charge, and Athanasius was sentenced to exile. In the year 336, the Emperor called Arius to Constantinople to pray in the church and ordered Patriarch Alexander [of Constantinople] to accept him in his company, but Alexander answered the Emperor saying: “None but an ecumenical council has the right to return one who was divested of his priestly office by an ecumenical council.”[38]

The Reception of an Ecumenical Council by a Subsequent Ecumenical Council

Socrates, the historian, in his speech about the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the year 381, said the following: “Theodosius, the Roman Emperor, called for the Orthodox bishops to hold a council to support the faith of the Council of Nicaea and to manage to ordain the bishop of Constantinople.”[39] Sozomen, the historian, said: “The Emperor gathered quickly a council of the bishops who were of his own faith, to agree with what was decided in Nicaea and judge that the faith of Nicaea would remain firm, reject all the heresies, and administer all the churches everywhere according to the old canons.”[40]

There is no doubt that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople received the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, confirmed its Creed, explained what concerned the question of the Incarnation, added the statement “And we believe in the Holy Spirit…”, excommunicated Macedonius and his two followers, and commanded to carry out what the Council arranged, and was received by the whole Christian Church, though the bishops of the West did not take part in it.[41] Then it happened that the Third Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus in the year 431 to study the heresy of Nestorius, and it was decided in its seventh canon that it is not permissible for anyone to put forward, to write, or to compile another statement of faith [i.e., a creed] besides that which was written by the Fathers assembled by the Holy Spirit in the city of Nicaea.[42]

The Ecumenical Councils Received by the Syrian Church

The Syrian Orthodox church and its sisters, the Oriental Orthodox churches, accept only three ecumenical councils, which are the Council of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Ephesus (431). The Syrian church included the acknowledgment of these Councils in the diptychs of the Fathers in the liturgy, and it recites the Nicene Creed that was put forward by these Councils, and obliges everyone who desires to accept the sacrament of Baptism to announce his acknowledgement of this Creed. The same applies in the case of confession and in the case of ordaining deacons, priests, and bishops. According to the Syrian church, the quality of the ecumenical council does not depend on the number of its members but on its representation of all the sectors of the apostolic churches bearing the testimony of the teaching of the apostles. Therefore, after the Council of Ephesus, which was the third ecumenical council (431), it became impossible to have ecumenical councils.

The Reception of the Councils Today

There is no doubt that local and general councils are accepted within their own territories, and these are not the subjects of our discussion. As for the Ecumenical Councils, the Oriental Orthodox churches recognize three of them, as mentioned earlier, whereas other Orthodox churches recognize seven, and the Roman Catholic churches recognize twenty-one. In our attempt to arrive at Christian unity, we see ourselves facing an immense obstacle which should be overcome before we can arrive at this supreme goal.

The conditions of the Ecumenical Councils are not fulfilled in the councils that some of these churches recognize to be ecumenical; hence other churches do not find it easy to accept them.

The three Ecumenical Councils recognized by the universal Church were held when Christendom felt the dangers threatening the true Christian doctrine. The aim of holding a council is to preserve the doctrine that was once delivered by the saints, and the judge of the truthfulness of the doctrines is the Apostolic Tradition, which is the unanimous apostolic testimony.

Is not our acceptance of the New Testament based upon these testimonies, as mentioned above? The Fathers of the Church unanimously decided that the Scriptures of the New Testament which were delivered from hand to hand in the Church in those days, and which are in our own hands today, were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by or under command of the apostles who heard the teachings of our Lord and saw His miracles, His passion, His resurrection, and His Ascension. That is why we are consciously obliged to accept these true testimonies.

We are again obliged to accept every teaching that the early Fathers of the Church unanimously accepted, although these teachings did not reach us through ecumenical councils. For a council to be ecumenical, it must be in harmony with the teachings of the apostles and the early Christian Fathers, and should be received by the apostolic churches who participate in it.[43]

If the testimony is not unanimously accepted by the apostolic churches, then the council would not be ecumenical. Thus, we can understand the objection raised by John of Antioch against the Council of Ephesus (431), and his not considering it to be ecumenical, as the church of Antioch was not represented there. Cyril of Alexandria was blamed for his opening of the Council’s meeting without waiting for John of Antioch and for the bishops of the Orient. John then held a Council in which he excommunicated Cyril and Memnon, the bishop of Ephesus, with the charge of being unjust.[44]

The Council of Ephesus did not become ecumenical until Cyril and John were reconciled in 433, when John received the Council and signed the excommunication of Nestorius; meanwhile Cyril signed the excommunication of Apollinarius. And thus, by the reconciliation of the two patriarchs, the third Council was considered to be ecumenical and its decisions were received by the entire Church and announced by the Emperor.[45] The approval of John of Antioch of the decisions of the Council of Ephesus does not mean that John was the head of the universal Church, but it represents the necessity of the Ecumenical Councils being accepted by the legal heads of the Holy Sees, among whom was John in those days.[46]

The Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381, was attended by Oriental bishops, who relied on the apostolic testimony and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to preserve the true teaching.[47] Immediately after closing the meeting of the Council, its decisions were announced through all the heads of the churches, including Damasus, the Pope of Rome, who did not attend the Council or send a representative.[48] The council stated that “the statement of the faith was so arranged that the churches who enjoyed the same faith were always passionately attached to this faith.”[49] Thus, the Western church recognized the legality of the Council and received it as ecumenical.

So the Christian churches today should together study all the councils, which should be examined according to the traditions of the apostles and the decisions of the three Ecumenical Councils which all the churches recognize, and the teaching of the forefathers which is the true testimony.

History confirms that, sometimes, certain questions which had no connection with religion arose, and that human weakness clearly appeared in those councils. But we believe that the teachings of the legal councils were preserved by the Holy Spirit. We do not forget that the interference of the Roman Empire, as we have previously mentioned, increased the disagreements and encouraged dissensions; liberty and openness were limited, and the human horror of jail, exile, excommunication, and destitution kept the tongues of many Fathers silent or away from the truth.

History was sometimes written by extremely cruel and unjust persons. Reading ecclesiastical history makes us feel ashamed of the long history of hatred of some people who were supposed to be trusted to guard the law of love, concord, pardon, and forgiveness. So it is in the spirit of love and understanding that our councils must be studied. Since the councils are held to confirm the doctrine, as we have mentioned above, let us study their decisions, without taking too much care of the minutes of their meetings.

The review and study of the councils does not imply the lessening of their authority. For example, following the Addis Ababa conference in 1965, “Al-Keraza Review” (issued in Arabic in Egypt)[50] wrote the following: “The sacred synod of the Coptic church examined the decisions of the conference. In that synod some of the decisions were immediately received and the rest were postponed for further study, though the patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodox churches and bishops of these churches attended that conference.”

I feel happy to state here that the Syrian Orthodox church, which rejects the Arian Council of Antioch (341 AD) and its creed, accepts the moral canons of that Council, for they match the apostolic canons.[51] The Syrian church rejects also the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), considering the Tome of Leo a renewal of Nestorianism; nevertheless the Syrian church has adopted some canons of the Council of Chalcedon. Mar Gregorius Bar ‘Ebroyo, Catholicos of the East (13th century), cited five of these canons and added them to his book of canon law, called “The Book of Guidance.” These canons are the following: 1. The Monasteries (1:2); 2. The Charity (1:3); 3. The Church’s Deputy and Manager (1:4); 4. The Order of the Diocese (7:1); and 5. The Monasticism (7:10).

What an open-minded scholar Bar ‘Ebroyo was! And like him were most of the Fathers of the Syrian church. In spite of their rejecting the creed of the Council, which they did not recognize, they did not mind accepting the moral canons which were good for the institution of the Church, though they were introduced in a council rejected by the church.

So let us look at all the councils and study their decisions in light of the Apostolic Tradition, which is the true testimony of the apostles and forefathers. Let us do this in the spirit of understanding and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that we may obtain good yield. Let us sincerely hope that we arrive at fruitful results, which will bring us closer together.

—

[1] Rev. Khalil Adda Al-Yasooae, The Church (Arabic) (Beirut, 1935), 151.

[2] Rev. Namat-Allah Abu Karam Al, Marooni Kustas Al Ahkam (Arabic) (Beirut, 1901) vol. 2, 90.

[3] Matthew 18:18.

[4] 1 Timothy 3:15.

[5] Matthew 28:20.

[6] John 14:16.

[7] John 14:26.

[8] 1 Timothy 5:22, 6:2; Acts 1:24, 20:28; Bishop Alexandros Geeha, Christian Church History (Arabic) (Homs, 1964), 127, 132, 140.

[9] Matthew 18:17.

[10] Galatians 1:8-9.

[11] Luke 10:16.

[12] Acts 15:30-31.

[13] Rev. Isaa Asaad. Al-Tarpha, Church History (Arabic) (Homs - Syria, 1924), 42-43.

[14] Ephesians 4:11-12; Galatians 2:7-8.

[15] Romans 15:16; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11.

[16] [Ed.] See e.g., Romans 11:13.

[17] Al-Tarpha 63.

[18] H.B. Cyril Makkar, Roman Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Foundation of the Church (Arabic) (1925), vol. 2, 225-226, 334.

[19] Acts 1:22.

[20] 1 John 1:1-4.

[21] Carhoun’s Scripture Help (Arabic) (Beirut, 1937), 14; Al-Tarpha, 36-37.

[22] Asad J. Rustum, Al-Neema Review (Arabic) (Damascus, 1960) Nr. 2, 55.

[23] H.H. Patriarch Jacob III, History of the Syrian Church of Antioch (Arabic) (Beirut, 1953), Vol. 1, 50-51.

[24] History of the Eastern Church (in Arabic) (Aleppo, 1963), 47; Rev Jaraseemos Masarah, History of the Dissension (Arabic) (Alexandria, 1891), 24, 40, 53.

[25] Rev. Khori Boulos Awees, The Local Council (Arabic) (Beirut), 20.

[26] Lettre Apostolique Donnce Motu Proprio Par Sa Saintete Le Pope Pie XII — Les Rites Orientaux (Arabic) (Harissa-Lebanon, 1958) 173, 1.

[27] Bishop Esodoros, Church History Al-Khreeda (Arabic) (Egypt, 1915), Vol. 1, 328-329.

[28] Rev. Basilious Issac, The Church and Politics (Arabic) (Alexandria, 1965), 37; F.L. Cross, Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church (1958), 992.

[29] Mar Gregorius Bar ‘Ebroyo, Catholicos of the East (13th century), Church History (Syriac). [Ed.] But see Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies, 1299 (noting that Paul resisted the decisions of the Council, improperly retaining possession of the cathedral in Antioch until 272 A.D., when the queen of Palmyra, who supported Paul, was defeated by Aurelian, who in turn assisted the Orthodox in their efforts to evict him).

[30] Id., History of the Kingdom (Arabic) (Beirut, 1958), 80.

[31] [Ed.] This passage appears to represent the use of poetic hyperbole, suggesting an intentional amplification for emphasis or emotive effect.

[32] Iris Habib el Masri, The Story of the Coptic Church (Arabic) (Cairo, 1968), Vol. 1, 213-214.

[33] Al-Khreeda, Church History (Arabic), Vol. 1, 328-329.

[34] Id., 330.

[35] Church and Politics (Arabic), 49-50.

[36] Al-Khreeda, Church History, Vol. 1, 329.

[37] F.L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1958), 85; Iris Habib el Masri, 198-199.

[38] Iris Habib el Masri, 204.

[39] History of Socrates 8:5.

[40] History of the Dissension (Arabic), 152.

[41] Al-Tarpha, 105-107.

[42] Al-Khreeda, Vol. 1, 488; Al-Neema Review (Arabic) (Damascus, 1960), Nr. 2, 53.

[43] Al-Neema Review (Arabic) (Damascus, 1960), Nr. 1-2, 94.

[44] Bar ‘Ebroyo, Church History (Syriac).

[45] Patriarch Michael the Great, Church History (Syriac), 170, 173, 175.

[46] The History of Church Dissension (Arabic), 154-190.

[47] 1 Timothy 1:4.

[48] The History of Church Dissension, 198; Encyclopedia Brittanica, Eleventh Edition, Volume. 7, 9.

[49] The Foundation of the Church, 93.

[50] Al-Keraza Review, 1965, 2-3, 21.

[51] History of the Syrian Church of Antioch, Vol. 1, 219-223.

—

This paper was first published in 2005 in St. George Syrian Orthodox Church of Malankara, Festschrift in Honour of His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, 128-135. It was republished in 2013 in Kuriakose Corepiscope Moolayil, A Collection of Articles by His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, 67-79. It has been adapted with translational edits by the Doss Press team.

His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas served as Patriarch of Antioch from 1980 until his repose in 2014. Throughout his patriarchate, His Holiness served as a president for the World Council of Churches, established the Mor Ephrem Seminary near Damascus, and authored numerous works on Syriac language, theology, and liturgy.

DossPress.com is a place for Christian men and women to collaborate for the sake of our common edification by sharing their written works. As we strive to uphold a standard of doctrinal and spiritual soundness in the articles shared, we note nonetheless that the thoughts expressed in each article remain the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Doss Press.