RECENT EFFORTS
FOR UNITY BETWEEN THE TWO FAMILIES
OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
``Disputes merely about words must not be
suffered to divide those who think alike''
St. Athanasius, Tome to the people of Antioch
CONTENTS
--------
1. Preface
2. Introduction
3. Synopsis
o Aarhus 1964
o Bristol 1967
o Geneva 1970
o Addis Ababa 1971
o Chambesy 1985
o Corinth 1987
o Egypt 1989
o Egypt 1990
o Geneva 1990
4. Communiques
o Aarhus 1964
o Bristol 1967
o Geneva 1970
o Addis Ababa 1971
o Chambesy 1985
o Corinth 1987
o Egypt 1989
o Egypt 1990
o Geneva 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PREFACE
-------
The following report on the recent efforts for unity between the two
families
of the Orthodox Church is divided into two parts.
The first part is a synopsis of the Reports, Agreed Statements
and
Recommendations to the Churches, written by the delegates at these
meetings.
It will provide the reader with a basic understanding of the conclusions
of
each of the conversations.
The second part is a full print of the official Communiques produced at
each
meeting, including a list of participants.
The report covers the four unofficial conversations (1964, 1967, 1970,
1971),
the three meetings of the ``Joint Commission of the Theological
Dialogue
between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches'' (1985,
1989,
1990), and two meetings of sub-committees (1987, 1990). The sources for
these
communiques are listed in the table of contents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. INTRODUCTION
------------
Since 451, at the Council of Chalcedon, there has been a division within
the
Orthopdox Church due to different Christological terminology. In recent
times,
members of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches have
met
together coming to a clear understanding that both families have
always
loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and
the
unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have
used
Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and
continuous
loyality to the apostolic tradition that has been the basis of
the
conversations held over the last two decades towards unity and communion.
In 1964 a fresh dialogue began at the University of Aarhus in Denmark.
This
was followed by meetings at Bristol in 1967, Geneva in 1970 and Addis Ababa
in
1971. These were a series of non-official consultations which served as
steps
towards mutual understanding.
The official consultations in which concrete steps were taken began in 1985
at
Chambesy in Geneva. The second official consultation was held at the
monastery
of Saint Bishoy in Wadi-El-Natroun, Egypt in June 1989. The outcome of
this
latter meeting was of historical dimensions, since in this meeting the
two
families of Orthodoxy were able to agree on a Christological formula,
thus
ending the controversy regarding Christology which had lasted for more
than
fifteen centuries.
In September 1990, the two families of Orthodoxy signed an agreement
on
Christology and recommendations were passed to the different
Orthodox
Churches, to lift the anathemas and enmity of the past, after revising
the
results of the dialogues. If both agreements are accepted by the
various
Orthodox Churches, the restoration of communion will be very easy at
all
levels, even as far as sharing one table in the Eucharist.
``As for its part, the Coptic Orthodox Church has agreed to lift
the
anathemas, but this will not take place unless it is performed
bilaterally,
possibly by holding a joint ceremony.'' (H.E. Metropolitan
Bishoy,
Metropolitan of Damiette and Secretary of the Holy Synod, Coptic
Orthodox
Church, and Co-chairman of the Joint Commission of the Official
Dialogue,
El-Kerasa English Magazine, May 1992, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 8).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. SYNOPSIS
-----------
AARHUS 1964
+ Over 3 days, 15 theologians from both families met in Aarhus in Denmark
for
informal conversations. They recognised in each other the one
orthodox
faith.
+ The well known phrase used by our common father, St. Cyril of
Alexandria
``the one nature of God's Word Incarnate'' was at the centre of
the
conversations. Through the different terminologies used by each side,
they saw the same truth expressed. On the essence of the Christological
dogma they found themselves in full agreement.
+ As for the Council of Chalcedon (451) both families agreed
without
reservation on rejecting the teaching of Eutyches as well as Nestorius,
and
thus the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon does
not
entail the acceptance of either heresy.
+ It was agreed that the significant role of political, sociological
and
cultural factors in creating tension between factions in the last
fifteen
centuries should be recognized and studied together. They should
not,
however, continue to divide us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRISTOL 1967
The Agreed Statement from the second informal conversations in
Bristol,
England, firstly affirmed new areas of agreement and then discussed
the
questions that still remained to be studied and settled.
-- ONE --
+ Based on the teachings of common fathers of the universal Church
they
approached the Christological question from the perspective of
salvation.
+ ``Thus He who is consubstantial with the Father became by the Incarnation
consubstantial also with us''. God became by nature man that man may
attain
to His uncreated glory.
+ Ever since the fifth century, we have used different formulae to confess
our
common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect Man. Some
of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the
One Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature,
will and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union
without
confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The
four
adverbs belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic
permanence
of the God-head and the Manhood, with all their natural properties
and
faculties, in the one Christ. Those who speak in terms of ``two'' do
not
thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of ``one'' do
not
thereby commingle or confuse.
+ They discussed also the continuity of doctrine in the Councils of
the
Church, and especially the mono-energistic and monothelete controversies
of
the seventh century. They agreed that the human will is neither absorbed
nor
suppressed by the divine will in the Incarnate Logos, nor are they
contrary
one to the other.
-- TWO --
+ Secondly they began to explore adequate steps to restore the full
communion
between our Churches.
+ They recommended a joint declaration be drafted with a formula of
agreement
on the basic Christological faith in relation to the nature, will and energy
of our one Lord Jesus Christ, for formal and authoritative approval by
the
Churches.
+ They saw a need to further examine the canonical, liturgical
and
jurisdictional problems involved (e.g. anathemas, acceptance and
non
acceptance of some Councils, and agreements necessary before
formal
restoration of communion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENACLE, GENEVA 16-21 Aug 1970
The third unofficial conversations yielded a four part Summary of
Conclusions:
I. REAFFIRMATION OF CHRISTOLOGICAL AGREEMENT
+ The theologians found that they were still in full and deep agreement
with
the universal tradition of the one undivided Church .
+ Through visits to each other, and through study of each other's
liturgical
traditions and theological and spiritual writings, they rediscovered
other
mutual agreements in all important matters: liturgy and
spirituality,
doctrine and canonical practice.
+ They concluded by saying `` Our mutual agreement is not merely verbal
or
conceptual it is a deep agreement that impels us to beg our Churches to
consummate our union by bringing together again the two lines of
tradition
which have been separated from each other for historical reasons for such
a
long time. We work in the hope that our Lord will grant us full unity so
that we can celebrate together that unity in the Common Eucharist. That
is
our strong desire and final goal''.
II. SOME DIFFERENCES
+ Despite their agreement on the substance of the tradition, the long
period
of separation has brought about certain differences in the formal
expression
of that tradition. These differences have to do with three
basic
ecclesiological issues:
(a) The meaning and place of certain Councils -
The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that there were seven ecumenical
Councils which have an inner coherence and continuity that make them
a
single indivisible complex.
The Oriental Orthodox Church feels, however, that the
authentic
Christological tradition has so far been held by them on the basis of
the three ecumenical Councils.
(b) The anathematization or acclamation as Saints of certain
controversial
teachers -
It may not be necessary formally to lift these anathemas, nor for
these
teachers to be recognised as Saints by the condemning side. But
the
restoration of Communion obviously implies, among other things,
that
formal anathemas and condemnation of revered teachers of the other
side
should be discontinued as in the case of Leo, Dioscorus, Severus,
and
others.
(c) The jurisdictional questions related to uniting the Churches at
local,
regional and world levels -
This is not only an administrative matter, but it also touches
the
question of ecclesiology in some aspects. Most cities will need to
have
more than one bishop and more than one Eucharist, but it is
important
that the unity is expressed in Eucharistic Communion.
+ The universal tradition of the Church does not demand uniformity in
all
details of doctrinal formulation, forms of worship and canonical
practice.
But the limits of variability need to be more clearly worked out.
III. TOWARDS A STATEMENT OF RECONCILIATION
+ They reaffirmed the need for an official joint commission to draft
an
explanatory statement of reconciliation which could then be the basis
for
unity.
+ They suggested that this statement of common Christological agreement
could
make use of the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch,
and
that it be worded in unambiguous terminology that would make it clear
that
this explanation has been held by both sides for centuries, as is attested
by the liturgical and patristic documents.
IV. SOME PRACTICAL STEPS
+ There had already been visits between the two families on the levels
of
heads of churches, bishops and theologians.
+ Some Oriental Orthodox students have been studying in Eastern
Orthodox
Theological Institutions and it was hope that there would be more
exchange
both ways at the level of theological professors, church dignitaries
and
students.
+ Although it was realised that some work could be initiated at an
informal
level, it was hoped that official actions would make further
unofficial
conversations unnecessary.
+ A special Executive Committee was formed to have the following
functions:
(a) Publish in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review a report on this
meeting
in Geneva.
(b) Produce a resume of the three unofficial conversations, which may
be
studied by the different churches
(c) Publish a handbook of statistical, historical, and
theological
information regarding the various Churches
(d) Explore the possibility of an association of all the Theological Schools
(e) Publish a periodical which will continue to provide information about
the
Churches and to pursue further discussions
(f) Make available to the Churches the original sources for an informed
and
accurate study of developments
(g) Encourage theological consultations on contemporary problems
(h) Explore the possibilities of establishing a common research centre
for
Orthodox theological and historical studies
(i) Explore the possibility of common teaching material for children
and
youth .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDIS ABABA 1971
+ The informal discussions at Addis Ababa centered around the lifting
of
anathemas and the recognition of Saints.
+ This was termed ``an indispensable step on the way to unity''. The
delegates
felt that such a step presupposes essential unity in the faith and thus
as
previously discussed there is a need for an official announcement of
unity
in faith first.
+ They agreed that once the anathemas against certain persons cease to
be
effective, there is no need to require their recognition as saints by
those
who previously anathematized them.
+ They felt that the lifting of anathemas should be prepared for by
careful
study of the teaching of these men, the accusations levelled against them,
the circumstances under which they were anathematized, and the
true
intention of their teaching. Such study should be sympathetic and
motivated
by the desire to understand and therefore to overlook minor errors.
+ There was also a request for a study of how anathemas have been lifted
in
the past. It was suggested that there may be no need for a formal
ceremony
but that it is much simpler gradually to drop these anathemas in a quiet
way
The fact that these anathemas have been lifted can then be formally
announced at the time of union.
+ Another study suggested was ``Who is a Saint?''; a study of the criteria
for
sainthood and distinctions between universal, national and local
saints.
+ An educational programme for churches was suggested, for both before
and
after the lifting of the anathemas, especially where anathemas
and
condemnations are written into the liturgical texts and hymns. Also
the
rewriting of Church history, text-books and theological manuals will
be
necessary. As this is a time consuming project, we need not await
its
completion for the lifting of anathemas or even for the restoration
of
Communion.
+ The Summary of Conclusions of this fourth unofficial meeting was
submitted
to the churches with the following closing note: ``It is our hope that
the
work done at an informal level can soon be taken up officially by
the
churches, so that the work of the Spirit in bringing us together can
now
find full ecclesiastical response.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBESY, GENEVA 10-15 Dec 1985
+ After two decades of unofficial theological consultations the first
official
dialogue between the two families of orthodoxy finally occurred with
a
delegation that was called the ``Joint-Commission of the
Theological
Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox
Non-Chalcedonian Churches''.
+ They set up a Joint Sub-Committee of six theologians to prepare common
texts
for future work. The aim of the next meetings would be to
re-discover
common grounds in Christology and Ecclesiology. The following main theme
and
subsequent sub-themes were agreed upon:
``Towards a common Christology''
a) Problems of terminology
b) Conciliar formulations
c) Historical factors
d) Interpretation of Christological dogmas today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORINTH, GREECE 23-26 Sep 1987
+ This was a meeting of the Joint Sub-Committee to discuss the problems
of
terminology. They were convinced that though using some terms in a
different
sense, both sides express the same Orthodox theology.
+ The dialogue focused on the terms: Physis, Ousia, Hypostasis, Prosopon.
Although these terms have not been used with conformity in
different
traditions and by different theologians of the same tradition, all
the
delegates confirmed their agreement that the unique and wonderful union
of
the two natures of Christ is a hypostatic, natural and real unity.
+ In confessing Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Father,
truly
born of the Holy and Virgin Mary, our Churches have avoided and rejected
the
heretical teachings of both Nestorius and Eutyches.
+ The common denominator was the common doctrine of the two real births of
the
Logos. The Logos, the Only-begotten of the Father before the ages,
became
man through his second birth in time from the Virgin Mary.
+ The discussion concluded with the expression of the faith that
the
hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ was necessary for the
salvation of the human kind. Only the Incarnate Logos, as perfect God and
at
the same time perfect man, could redeem man.
+ As discussed in Bristol in 1967, the Joint Sub-Committee concluded that
the
four attributes of the wonderful union of the natures belong also to
the
common tradition since both sides speak of it as ``without
confusion,
without change, without division, without separation''. And thus those
who
speak in terms of ``two'' don't thereby divide or separate. Those who
speak
in terms of ``one'' don't thereby co-mingle or confuse.
+ They affirmed that the term ``Theotokos'' used for the Virgin Mary, is
a
basic element of faith in our common tradition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANBA BISHOY MONASTERY, EGYPT 20-24 Jun 1989
+ This was the second meeting of the Joint Commission, there were
23
participants representing 13 Churches.
+ The main item for consideration was the report of the Joint
Sub-Committee
from Corinth on common Christological convictions. An Agreed Statement
was
approved for transmission to our Churches which subsequently
gained
widespread acceptance by everybody.
+ It confessed the common apostolic faith and tradition of the
undivided
church of the first centuries. This was best expressed in the formula of
our
common father, St. Cyril of Alexandria' ``the one nature of God's
Word
Incarnate''.
+ They confirmed that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos and the Holy Trinity
is
one True God, one ousia in three hypostases or three prosopa.
+ They acknowledged the mystery of the Incarnation when the Logos,
eternally
consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit in his Divinity,
became
incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and
thus
became consubstantial with us in His humanity but without sin; true God
and
true man at the same time.
+ It is not that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis
came
together, but that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of
the
Trinity has assumed our created human nature to form an inseparably
and
unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being
distinguished
from each other in contemplation only.
+ The agreed condemnation of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies means
that
we neither separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His
divine
nature, nor do we think that the former was absorbed in the latter and
thus
ceased to exist.
+ Again the four adverbs were used to qualify the mystery of the
hypostatic
union: without co-mingling, without change, without separation and
without
division.
+ This mutual agreement was not limited to Christology, but encompassed
the
whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries.
+ They included a statement on the procession of the Holy Spirit from
the
Father alone.
+ They then appointed a 10 person Joint Sub-Committee for Pastoral Problems
to
report at the next meeting of the newly named Joint Commission of
the
Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANBA BISHOY MONASTERY, EGYPT 31 Jan-4 Feb 1990
+ This was a meeting of the Joint Sub-Committee for Pastoral Problems.
They
found that while the faith unifies us, history keeps us distant because
it
creates ecclesiastical practical problems, which often are more difficult
to
rectify than the historical differences of theological expressions.
+ They recognised that although these problems do not have a deep
theological
cause, they renew the feelings of suspicion and pain among us, and
will
diminish the value of the theological fruits of our official
dialogues
unless ties of love and common sincere desire for unity complement
our
relations.
They made proposals in two areas :
1 - The relation between the two Orthodox families:-
+ The first step must be official ecclesiastical acceptance of the
agreed
statement on Christology. From there an education programme should
begin
with publications to acquaint congregations with the joint agreements,
with
the churches taking part in the dialogues, a summary of the most
important
Christological terms together with a brief explanation based on the
fathers'
writings, and updates on the relations existing between us.
+ There should be an objective to create ecclesiastical relations
through
exchanging the theological writings, professors and students of the
Theological Institutes.
+ They recommended the clear official acceptance and recognition of
the
Baptism performed by the two families and a joint confrontation of
the
practical problems in the two families such as the problems of marriage
-
divorce (consideration of the marriage as having taken place) etc.
2 - Our common relations with the rest of the Christian world:-
+ There were several recommendations for a joint front :
- To adopt the same attitude in theological dialogues with the World
Council
of Churches and other ecumenical movements.
- To issue a joint communique against the modern conceptions which
are
completely in contradiction with our Apostolic tradition, whether
related
to faith or ecclesiastical issues, such as the ordination of women,
and
the moral issues.
- Common work in neutralising the trends of proselytism and
the
confrontation of religious groups who mislead believers from the
faith,
such as Jehovah's witnesses, Adventists, etc ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBESY, GENEVA 23-28 Sep 1990
+ Over six days the third meeting of the Joint Commission was held at
the
Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They produced a
``Second
Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the Churches'', and a four
part
appendix related to the report of the Joint Sub-Committee on
Pastoral
Problems from their meeting at Anba Bishoy Monastery.
I. Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the Churches
+ They reaffirmed our common faith based on the first Agreed Statement
on
Christology. Points reiterated were the condemnation of the heresies
of
Eutyches and Nestorius; the Incarnation of the Logos from the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary Theotokos, to become fully consubstantial with us;
the
hypostatic union of His divine and human natures with their proper
energies
and wills naturally without confusion, without change, without division
and
without separation, being distinguished in thought alone; the acceptance
of
the first three ecumenical councils as common heritage and a
mutual
understanding of respective views on the four later councils;
the veneration of icons.
+ They stated a clear understanding that both families have always
loyally
maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the
unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have
used
Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith
and
continuous loyalty to the apostolic tradition that should be the basis of
our unity and communion.
+ They recommended that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past
which
now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the
last
obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be
removed
by the grace and power of God. The manner in which the anathemas are to
be
lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.
II. Recommendations on Pastoral Issues
(A) Relations among our two families of Churches:
+ They felt that a period of intense preparation of our people to
participate
in the restoration of communion of our Churches is needed. This
should
include an exchange of visits by our heads of Churches and prelates,
priests
and lay people of each one of our two families of Churches to the other;
and
further encouragement to the exchange of theological professors and
students
among theological institutions of the two families for periods varying
from
one week to several years.
+ In localities where Churches of the two families co-exist, they
suggested
that the congregations should organize participation in one
Eucharistic
worship on a sunday or feast day.
+ Again the need for various publications to reach the people was
stated;
these would include the key documents of the Joint Commission, a summary
of
Christological terminology as it was used in history and in the light of
our
agreed statement on Christology, a descriptive book about all the Churches
of our two families, brief books of Church History giving a more
positive
understanding of the divergencies of the fifth, sixth and seventh
centuries.
+ They recognised each others baptism's and suggested that where
conflicts
arise between Churches of our two families over marriages, annulments
etc.,
the Churches involved should come to bilateral agreements on the
procedure
to be adopted until such problems are finally solved by our union.
(B) Relations of our Churches with other Christian Churches:
+ They agreed with the Joint Sub-Committee that our common participation
in
the ecumenical movement needs better co-ordination to make it more
effective
and fruitful.
+ There was a suggestion for small joint consultations on issues like :
(a) The position and role of the woman in the life of the Church / the
ordination of women to the priesthood,
(b) Pastoral care for mixed marriages between Orthodox and heterodox
Christians,
(c) Marriages between Orthodox Christians and members of other
religions,
(d) The Orthodox position on annulment of marriage, divorce and separation
of
married couples,
(e) Abortion,
(f) Proselytism,
(g) The theology and practice of Uniatism in the Roman Catholic Church (as
a
prelude to a discussion with the Roman Catholic Church on this
subject).
+ There was found to be a need for another joint consultation to
co-ordinate
the results of the several bilateral conversations now going on or held
in
the past by the Churches of our two families with other Catholic
and
Protestant Churches.
(C) Our common service to the world of suffering, need, injustice and
conflicts:
+ They called for the co-ordination of our existing schemes for promoting
our
humanitarian and philanthropic projects in the socio-ethnic context of
our
peoples and of the world at large. This would entail our common approach
to
such problems as : hunger and poverty, sickness and suffering,
political,
religious and social discriminations, refugees and victims of war,
youth,
drugs and unemployment, the mentally and physically handicapped, the aged.
(D) Our co-operation in the propagation of the Christian Faith:
+ This includes mutual co-operation in the work of our inner mission to
our
people, and also collaborating with each other and with the other Christians
in the Christian mission to the world.
4. COMMUNIQUES
--------------
AARHUS 1964
AGREED STATEMENT
Ever since the second decade of our century representatives of our
Orthodox
Churches, some accepting seven Ecumenical Councils and others accepting
three,
have often met in ecumenical gatherings. The desire to know each other and
to
restore our unity in the one Church of Christ has been growing all
these
years. Our meeting together in Ithodos at the Pan-Orthodox Conference of
1961
confirmed this desire.
Out of this has come about our unofficial gathering of fifteen
theologians
from both sides, for three days of informal conversations, in connection
with
the meeting of the Faith and Order Commission in Aarhus, Denmark.
We have spoken to each other in the openness of charity and with
the
conviction of truth. All of us have learned from each other. Our
inherited
misunderstandings have begun to clear up. We recognize in each other the one
orthodox faith of the Church. Fifteen centuries of alienation have not led
us
astray from the faith of our fathers.
In our common study of the Council of Chalcedon, the well known phrase used
by
our common father in Christ, St. Cyril of Alexandria, mia physis (or
mia
hypostasis) lou Theou Logou sesarkomene (the one physis or hypostasis of
God's
Word Incarnate) with its implications, was at the centre of our
conversations.
On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full
agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we saw
the
same truth expressed. Since we agree in rejecting without reservation
the
teaching of Eutyches as well as of Nestorius, the acceptance or
non-acceptance
of the Council of Chalcedon does not entail the acceptance of either
heresy.
Both sides found themselves fundamentally following the
Christological
teaching of the one undivided Church as expressed by St. Cyril.
The Council of Chalcedon (451), we realize, can only be understood
as
reaffirming the decisions of Ephesus (431), and best understood in the
light
of the later Council of Constantinople (553). All councils, we
have
recognized, have to be seen as stages in an integral development and
no
council or dent should be studied in isolation.
The significant role of political, sociological and cultural factors
in
creating tension between factions in the past should be recognized and
studied
together. They should not, however, continue to divide us.
We see the need to move forward together. The issue at stake is of
crucial
importance to all churches in the East and West alike and for the unity of
the
whole Church of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit, Who indwells the Church of Jesus Christ, will lead
us
together to the fullness of truth and of love. To that end we
respectfully
submit to our churches the fruit of our common work of three days
together.
Many practical problems remain, but the same Spirit Who led us together
here
will, we believe, continue to lead our churches to a common solution of
these.
Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox
---------------- -----------------
Bishop Emilianos, Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan,
Ecumenical Patriarchate Armenian Apostlotic Church
The Very Rev. Prof. G. Florovsky, Bishop Karein Sarkissian,
Ecumenical Patriarchate Armenian Apostlotic Church
The Very Rev. Prof. J.S. Romanides Archbishop Mar Severius Zakka Iwas
Ecumenical Patriarchate Syrian Orthodox Church
The Very Rev. Prof. Vitaly Borovoy Metropolitan Mar Thoma
Dionysius
Russian Orthodox Church Orthodox Syrian Church of the
East
The Rev. Prof. J. Meyendorff The Rev. Father Dr. N.J. Thomas
Russian Orthodox Greek Orthodox Syrian Church of the
East
Catholic Church of North America
Prof. J.N. Karmiris Like Siltanat Habte Mariam
Worqineh
Church of Greece Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Prof G. Konidaris The Rev. Prof. V.C.Sammuel
Church of Greece Orthodox Syrian Church of the
East
Dr. K.N. Khella
Coptic Orthodox Church
Dr. Getachew Haile
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRISTOL 1967
AGREED STATEMENT
1. We give thanks to God that we have been able to come together for
the
second time as a study group, with the blessing of the authorities of
our
respective Churches. In Aarhus we discovered much common ground for
seeking
closer ties among our Churches. In Bristol we have found several new areas
of
agreement. Many questions still remain to be studied and settled. But we
wish
to make a few common affirmations.
-- ONE --
2. God's infinite love for mankind, by which He has both created and saved
us,
is our starting point for apprehending the mystery of the union of
perfect
Godhead and perfect manhood in our Lord Jesus Christ. It is for our
salvation
that God the Word became one of us. Thus He who is consubstantial with
the
Father became by the Incarnation consubstantial also with us. By His
infinite
grace God has called us to attain to His uncreated glory. God became by
nature
man that man may become by grace God. The manhood of Christ thus reveals
and
realizes the true vocation of man. God draws us into fullness of
communion
with Himself in the Body of Christ, that we may be transfigured from glory
to
glory. It is in this soteriological perspective that we have approached
the
Christological question.
3. We were reminded again of our common fathers in the universal Church -
St.
lgnatius and St. Irenaeus, St. Anthony and St. Athanasius, St. Basil and
St.
Gregory of Nyssa and St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim Syrus and St. Cyril
of
Alexandria and many others of venerable memory. Based on their teaching,
we
see the integral relation between Christology and soteriology and also
the
close relation of both to the doctrine of God and to the doctrine of man,
to
ecclesiology and to spirituality, and to the whole liturgical life of
the
Church.
4. Ever since the fifth century, we have used different formulae to
confess
our common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect
Man.
Some of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in
the
One Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature,
will
and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union
without
confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The
four
adverbs belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic permanence
of
the God- head and the Manhood, with all their natural properties
and
faculties, in the one Christ. Those who speak in terms of ``two'' do
not
thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of ``one'' do not
thereby
commingle or confuse. The ``without division, without separation'' of
those
who say ``two,'' and the ``without change, without confusion'' of those
who
say ``one'' need to be specially underlined, in order that we may
understand
each other.
5. In this spirit, we have discussed also the continuity of doctrine in
the
Councils of the Church, and especially the monenergistic and
monothelete
controversies of the seventh century. All of us agree that the human will
is
neither absorbed nor suppressed by the divine will in the Incarnate Logos,
nor
are they contrary one to the other. The uncreated and created natures,
with
the fullness of their natural properties and faculties, were united
without
confusion or separation, and continue to operate in the one Christ,
our
Saviour. The position of those who wish to speak of one divine-human will
and
energy united without confusion or separation does not appear therefore to
be
incompatible with the decision of the Council of Constantinople
(680-81),
which affirms two natural wills and two natural energies in Him
existing
indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly.
6. We have sought to formulate several questions which need further
study
before the full communion between our Churches can be restored. But we
are
encouraged by the common mind we have on some fundamental issues to pursue
our
task of common study in the hope that despite the difficulties we
have
encountered the Holy Spirit will lead us on into full agreement.
-- TWO --
7. Our mutual contacts in the recent past have convinced us that it is a
first
priority for our Churches to explore with a great sense of urgency
adequate
steps to restore the full communion between our Churches, which has been
sadly
interrupted for centuries now. Our conversations at Aarhus in 1964 and
at
Bristol in 1967 have shown us that, in order to achieve this end by the
grace
of God, our Churches need to pursue certain preliminary actions.
8. The remarkable measure of agreement so far reached among the theologians
on
the Christological teaching of our Churches should soon lead to
the
formulation of a joint declaration in which we express together in the
same
formula our common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ whom we all
acknowledge
to be perfect God and perfect Man. This formula, which will not have
the
status of a confession of faith or of a creed, should be drawn up by a
group
of theologians officially commissioned by the Churches, and submitted to
the
Churches for formal and authoritative approval, or for suggestions
for
modifications which will have to be considered by the commission before
a
final text is approved by the Churches.
9. In addition to proposing a formula of agreement on the basic
Christological
faith in relation to the nature, will and energy of our one Lord Jesus
Christ,
the joint theological commission will also have to examine the
canonical,
liturgical and jurisdictional problems involved - e.g anathemas and
liturgical
deprecations by some Churches of theologians regarded by others as doctors
and
saints of the Church, the acceptance and nonacceptance of some Councils,
and
the jurisdictional assurances and agreements necessary before
formal
restoration of communion.
10. We submit this agreed statement to the authorities and peoples of
our
Churches with great humility and deep respect. We see our task as a
study
group only in terms of exploring together common possibilities which
will
facilitate action by the Churches. Much work still needs to be done, both
by
us and by the Churches, in order that the unity for which our Lord prayed
may
become real in the life of the Churches.
Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox
---------------- -----------------
Metropolitan Emilianos Vardapet Arsen Berberian
Ecumenical Patriarchate Armenian Apostolic Church
The Very Rev. Prof. G. Florovsky Dr. K.N. Khella
Ecumenical Patriarchate Coptic Orthodox Church
The Very Rev. Prof. J.S. Romanides Vardapet Dr. M.K.Krekorian
Ecumenical Patriarchate Armenian Apostolic Church
Archpriest V. Borovoy Ato G.E. Mikre Selassie
Russian Orthodox Church Ethiopian Orthodox Church
The Rev. Prof. J. Meyendorff Metropolitan Theophilos
Philippos
Russian Orthodox Greek Orthodox Syrian Church of the
East
Catholic Church of North America
Archimandrite D. Papandreou Bishop Samuel
Church of Greece Coptic Orthodox Church
Prof. G. Konidaris The Rev. Prof. V.C. Samuel
Church of Greece Orthodox Syrian Church of the
East
Prof N.A. Nissiotis Rev. Fr. P. Verghese
Church of Greece Orthodox Syrian Church of the East
Prof. N. Chitescu
Romanian Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Nikodim Sliven
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Prof. E. Tsonievsky
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENEVA 1970
1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
1. The third unofficial consultation between the theologians of the
Oriental
Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches was held from August 16-21, 1970 at
the
Cenacle, Geneva, in an atmosphere of openness and trust which has been
built
up thanks to the two previous conversations at Aarhus (1964) and
Bristol
(1967).
REAFFIRMATION OF CHRISTOLOGICAL AGREEMENT
2. We have reaffirmed our agreements at Aarhus and Bristol on the
substance
of our common Christology. On the essence of the Christological dogma our
two
traditions, despite fifteen centuries of separation, still find themselves in
full and deep agreement with the universal tradition of the one
undivided
Church. It is the teaching of the blessed Cyril on the hypostatic union of
the
two natures in Christ that we both affirm, though we may use
differing
terminology to explain this teaching. We both teach that He who
is
consubstantial with the Father according to Godhead became consubstantial
also
with us according to humanity in the Incarnation, that He who was before
all
ages begotten from the Father, was in these last days for us and for
our
salvation born of the blessed Virgin Mary, and that in Him the two natures
are
united in the one hypostasis of the Divine Logos, without confusion,
without
change, without division, without separation. Jesus Christ is perfect God
and
perfect man, with all the properties and faculties that belong to Godhead
and
to humanity.
3. The human will and energy of Christ are neither absorbed nor suppressed
by
His divine will and energy, nor are the former opposed to the latter, but
are
united together in perfect concord without division or confusion; He who
wills
and acts is always the One hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate. One
is
Emmanuel, God and Man, Our Lord and Saviour, Whom we adore and worship and who
yet is one of us.
4. We have become convinced that our agreement extends beyond
Christological
doctrine to embrace other aspects also of the authentic tradition, though
we
have not discussed all matters in detail. But through visits to each other,
and through study of each other's liturgical traditions and theological
and
spiritual writings, we have rediscovered, with a sense of gratitude to
God,
our mutual agreement in the common tradition of the One Church in
all
important matters liturgy and spirituality, doctrine and canonical
practice,
in our understanding of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the
Person
and Work of the Holy Spirit, on the nature of the Church as the Communion
of
Saints with its ministry and Sacraments, and on the life of the world to
come
when our Lord and Saviour shall come in all his glory.
5. We pray that the Holy Spirit may continue to draw us together to find
our
full unity in the one Body of Christ. Our mutual agreement is not
merely
verbal or conceptual it is a deep agreement that impels us to beg our
Churches
to consummate our union by bringing together again the two lines of
tradition
which have been separated from each other for historical reasons for such
a
long time. We work in the hope that our Lord will grant us full unity so
that
we can celebrate together that unity in the Common Eucharist. That is
our
strong desire and final goal.
SOME DIFFERENCES
6. Despite our agreement on the substance of the tradition, the long
period
of separation has brought about certain differences in the formal
expression
of that tradition. These differences have to do with three
basic
ecclesiological issues - (a) the meaning and place of certain councils in
the
life of the Church, (b) the anathematization or acclamation as Saints
of
certain controversial teachers in the Church, and (c) the
jurisdictional
questions related to manifestation of the unity of the Church at local,
regional and world levels.
(a) Theologians from the Eastern Orthodox Church have drawn attention to
the
fact that for them the Church teaches that the seven ecumenical councils
which
they acknowledge have an inner coherence and continuity that make them
a
single indivisible complex to be viewed in its entirety of
dogmatic
definition. Theologians from the Oriental Orthodox Church feel, however,
that
the authentic Christological tradition has so far been held by them on
the
basis of the three ecumenical councils, supplemented by the liturgical
and
patristic tradition of the Church. It is our hope that further study will
lead
to the solution of this problem by the decision of our Churches.
As for the Councils and their authority for the tradition, we all
agree
that the Councils should be seen as charismatic events in the life of
the
Church rather than as an authority over the Church; where some Councils
are
acknowledged as true Councils, whether as ecumenical or as local, by
the
Church's tradition, their authority is to be seen as coming from the
Holy
Spirit. Distinction is to be made not only between the doctrinal
definitions
and canonical legislations of a Council, but also between the true intention
of the dogmatic definition of a Council and the particular terminology
in
which it is expressed, which latter has less authority than the
intention.
(b) The reuniting of the two traditions which have their own
separate
continuity poses certain problems in relation to certain revered teachers
of
one family being condemned or anathematized by the other. It may not
be
necessary formally to lift these anathemas, nor for these teachers to
be
recognised as Saints by the condemning side. But the restoration of
Communion
obviously implies, among other things, that formal anathemas and
condemnation
of revered teachers of the other side should be discontinued as in the case
of
Leo, Dioscurus, Severus, and others.
(c) It is recognised that jurisdiction is not to be regarded only as
an
administrative matter, but that it also touches the question of
ecclesiology
in some aspects. The traditional pattern of territorial autonomy
or
autocephaly has its own pragmatic, as well as theological, justification.
The
manifestation of local unity in the early centuries was to have one
bishop,
with one college of presbyters united in one Eucharist. In more recent
times
pragmatic considerations, however, have made it necessary in some cases
to
have more than one bishop and one Eucharist in one city, but it is
important
that the norm required by the nature of the Church be safe guarded at least
in
principle and expressed in Eucharistic Communion and in local conciliar
structures.
7. The universal tradition of the Church does not demand uniformity in
all
details of doctrinal formulation, forms of worship and canonical practice.
But
the limits of pluralistic variability need to be more clearly worked out,
in
the areas of the forms of worship, in terminology of expressing the faith,
in
spirituality, in canonical practice, in administrative or
jurisdictional
patterns, and in the other structural or formal expressions of
tradition,
including the names of teachers and Saints in the Church.
TOWARDS A STATEMENT OF RECONCILIATION
8. We reaffirm the suggestion made by the Bristol consultation that one
of
the next steps is for the Churches of our two families to appoint an official
joint commission to examine those things which have separated us in the
past,
to discuss our mutual agreements and disagreements and to see if the degree
of
agreement is adequate to justify the drafting of an explanatory statement
of
reconciliation, which will not have the status of a confession of faith or
a
dogmatic definition, but can be the basis on which our Churches can take
the
steps necessary for our being united in a common Eucharist.
We have given attention to some of the issues that need to be
officially
decided in such a statement of reconciliation. Its basic content would
of
course be the common Christological agreement; it should be made clear
that
this is not an innovation on either side, but an explanation of what has
been
held on both sides for centuries, as is attested by the liturgical
and
patristic documents. The common understanding of Christology is
the
fundamental basis for the life, orthodoxy and unity of the
Church.
Such a statement of reconciliation could make use of the theology of St.
Cyril
of Alexandria as well as expressions used in the Formula of Concord of
433
between St. Cyril and John of Antioch, the terminology used in the four
later
Councils and in the patristic and liturgical texts on both sides.
Such
terminology should not be used in an ambiguous way to cover up
real
disagreement, but should help to make manifest the agreement that
really
exists.
SOME PRACTICAL STEPS
9. Contacts between Churches of the two families have developed at a
pace
that is encouraging. Visits to each other, in some cases at the level of
heads
of Churches, and in others at episcopal level or at the level of
theologians
have helped to mark further progress in the growing degree of mutual
trust,
understanding and agreement. Theological students from the Oriental
Orthodox
Churches have been studying in institutions of the Eastern Orthodox
Churches
for some time now; special efforts should be made now to encourage
more
students from the Eastern Orthodox Churches to study in Oriental
Orthodox
institutions. There should be more exchange at the level of
theological
professors and church dignitaries.
It is our hope and prayer that more official action on the part of the
two
families of Churches will make the continuation of this series of
unofficial
conversations no longer necessary. But much work still needs to be done,
some
of which can be initiated at an informal level.
10. With this in mind this third unofficial meeting of theologians from
the
two families constitutes:
(a) a Continuation Committee of which all the participants of the
three
conversations at Aarhus, Bristol and Geneva would be corresponding
members,
and
(b) a Special Executive Committee of this Continuation Committee consisting
of
the following members, and who shall have the functions detailed
further
below:
1. Metropolitan Emilianos of Calabria
2. Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy
3. Vardapet Mesrob Krikorian
4. Professor Nikos Nissiotis
5. Father Paul Verghese
Functions:
(a) To edit, publish and transmit to the Churches a report of this
third
series of conversations, through the Greek Orthodox Theological Review.
(b) To produce, on the basis of a common statement of which the substance
is
agreed upon in this meeting, a resume of the main points of the
three
unofficial conversations in a form which can be discussed, studied and
acted
upon by the different autocephalous Churches;
(c) To publish a handbook containing statistical, historical, theological
and
other information regarding the various autocephalous Churches;
(d) To explore the possibility of constituting an association of Theological
Schools, in which all the seminaries, academies and theological faculties
of
the various autocephalous Churches of both families can be members;
(e) To publish a periodical which will continue to provide information
about
the autocephalous Churches and to pursue further discussion of
theological,
historical and ecclesiological issues;
(f) To make available to the Churches the original sources for an informed
and
accurate study of the historical developments in the common theology
and
spirituality as well as the mutual relations of our Churches;
(g) To sponsor or encourage theological consultations on local, regional
or
world levels, with a view to deepening our own understanding of, and
approach
to, contemporary problems especially in relation to our participation in
the
ecumenical movement;
(h) To explore the possibilities of and to carry out the preliminary steps
for
the establishment of one or more common research centres where theological
and
historical studies in relation to the universal orthodox tradition can
be
further developed;
(i) To explore the possibility of producing materials on a common basis
for
the instruction of our believers including children and youth and
also
theological text-books.
Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox
---------------- -----------------
Dr. A. Arvanitis Kahali Alemu C.
Church of Greece Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Archpriest V. Borovoy The Very Rev. N. Bozabalian
Russian Orthodox Church Armenian Apostolic Church
Prof. N. Chitescu Abba G.E. Degou
Romanian Orthodox Church Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Emilianos Bishop Gregorius
Ecumenical Patriarchate Coptic Orthodox Church
The Very Rev. Prof. G. Florovsky Metropolitan Severius Zakka
Iwas
Ecumenical Patriarchate Syrian Orthodox Church of India
Metropolitan Georges The Rev. Dr. K.C. Joseph
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch Syrian Orthodox Church of India
Prof. J.Karmiris Dr. M.K.Krekorian
Church of Greece Armenian Apostolic Church
Prof. G. Konidaris Metropolitan Theophilos
Philippos
Church of Alexandria Syrian Orthodox Church of India
The Rev. Prof. J. Meyendorff Rev. Fr. P. Verghese
Orthodox Church in America Syrian Orthodox Church of India
Metropolitan Nikodim Liqe Seltanat Habte Mariam
Worqneh
Bulgarian Orthodox Church Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Prof N.A. Nissiotis
Church of Greece
Archimandrite D. Papandreou
Church of Greece
Prof. B. Piperov
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
The Very Rev. Prof. J.S. Romanides
Church of Greece
Prof. L. Voronov
Russian Orthodox Church
Dr. J.D. Zizioulas
Church of Greece
Prof. I. Zonewski
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDIS ABABA 1971
l. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions and questions have arisen out of our informal
discussions in Addis Ababa about the lifting of anathemas and the
recognition
of Saints:
l. We agree that the lifting of the anathemas pronounced by one side
against
those regarded as saints and teachers by the other side seems to be
an
indispensable step on the way to unity between our two traditions,
2. We are also agreed that the lifting of the anathemas would be with a
view
to restoring communion between our two traditions, and therefore that
it
presupposes essential unity in the faith between our two traditions.
The
official announcement by both sides that there is in fact such essential
unity
in faith, a basis for which is already provided by the reports of our
earlier
conversations at Aarhus, Bristol and Geneva, would thus appear to be
essential
for the lifting of anathemas.
3. We agree further that once the anathemas against certain persons cease
to
be effective, there is no need to require their recognition as saints by
those
who previously anathematized them. Different autocephalous churches
have
differing liturgical calendars and lists of Saints. There is no need to
impose
uniformity in this matter. The place of these persons in the future
united
church can be discussed and decided after the union.
4. Should there be a formal declaration or ceremony in which the
anathemas
are lifted? Many of us felt that it is much simpler gradually to drop
these
anathemas in a quiet way as some churches have already begun to do.
Each
church should choose the way most suited to its situation. The fact that
these
anathemas have been lifted can then be formally announced at the time
of
union.
5. Who has the authority to lift these anathemas? We are agreed that
the
Church has been given authority by her Lord both to bind and to loose.
The
Church which imposed the anathemas for pastoral or other reasons of that
time,
has also the power to lift them for the same pastoral or other reasons of
our
time. This is part of the stewardship or Oikonomia of the Church.
6. Does the lifting of an anathema imposed by an ecumenical council call
in
question the infallibility of the Church? Are we by such actions implying
that
a Council was essentially mistaken and therefore fallible? What are
the
specific limits within which the infallibility of the Church with
her
divine-human nature operates? We are agreed that the lifting of the
anathemas
is fully within the authority of the Church and does not compromise
her
infallibility in essential matters of the faith. There was some question as
to
whether only another ecumenical council could lift the anathema imposed by
an
ecumenical council. There was general agreement that a Council is but one
of
the principal elements expressing the authority of the Church, and that
the
Church has always the authority to clarify the decisions of a Council
in
accordance with its true intention. No decision of a Council can be
separated
from the total tradition of the Church. Each council brings forth
or
emphasizes some special aspect of the one truth, and should therefore be
seen
as stages on the way to a fuller articulation of the truth. The
dogmatic
definitions of each council are to be understood and made more explicit
in
terms of subsequent conciliar decisions and definitions.
7. The lifting of anathemas should be prepared for by careful study of
the
teaching of these men, the accusations levelled against them,
the
circumstances under which they were anathematized, and the true intention
of
their teaching. Such study should be sympathetic and motivated by the
desire
to understand and therefore to overlook minor errors. An accurate
and
complete list of the persons on both sides to be so studied should also
be
prepared. The study should also make a survey of how anathemas have
been
lifted in the past. It would appear that in many instances in the
past
anathemas have been lifted without any formal action beyond the mere
reception
of each other by the estranged parties on the basis of their common
faith.
Such a study would bring out the variety of ways in which anathemas
were
imposed and lifted.
8. There has also to be a process of education in the churches both before and
after the lifting of the anathemas, especially where anathemas
and
condemnations are written into the liturgical texts and hymnody of the
church.
The worshipping people have to be prepared to accept the revised texts
and
hymns purged of the condemnations. Each church should make use of
its
ecclesiastical journals and other media for the pastoral preparation of
the
people.
9. Another important element of such education is the rewriting of
Church
history, text-books, theological manuals and catechetical
materials.
Especially in Church history, there has been a temptation on both sides
to
interpret the sources on a partisan basis. Common study of the sources
with
fresh objectivity and an eirenic attitude can produce common texts for use
in
both our families. Since this is a difficult and time consuming project,
we
need not await its completion for the lifting of anathemas or even for
the
restoration of Communion.
10. The editing of liturgical texts and hymns to eliminate the
condemnations
is but part of the task of liturgical renewal. We need also to make use of
the
infinite variety and richness of our liturgical traditions, so that
each
church can be enriched by the heritage of others.
11. There seems to exist some need for a deeper study of the question:
``Who
is a Saint?'' Neither the criteria for sainthood nor the processes
for
declaring a person as a Saint are the same in the Eastern and
Western
traditions. A study of the distinctions between universal, national and
local
saints, as well as of the processes by which they came to be acknowledged
as
such, could be undertaken by Church historians and theologians. The lifting
of
anathemas need not await the results of such a study, but may merely
provide
the occasion for a necessary clarification of the tradition in relation to
the
concept of sainthood.
12. Perhaps we should conclude this statement with the observation that
this
is now the fourth of these unofficial conversations in a period of
seven
years. It is our hope that the work done at an informal level can soon
be
taken up officially by the churches, so that the work of the Spirit
in
bringing us together can now find full ecclesiastical response. In that
hope
we submit this fourth report to the churches.
Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox
---------------- -----------------
Metropolitan Parthenion Bishop Samuel
Patriarchate of Alexandria Coptic Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Nikodim Bishop K. Sarkissian
Moscow Patriarchate Armenian Apostolic Church
Metropolitan Nikodim Rev. Fr. P. Verghese
Church of Greece Syrian Orthodox Church of India
Metropolitan Mathodios Dr. V.C. Samuel
Patriarchate of Alexandria Syrian Orthodox Church of India
Archpriest L. Voronov Like Seltanat Habte Mariam
Workineh
Moscow Patriarchate Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Prof. S. Agourides Prof. M. Selassie Gebre
Ammanuel
Church of Greece Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Prof. N.A. Nissiotis Archimandrite N. Bozabalian
Church of Greece Armenian Apostolic Church
Prof. T. Sabev Archimandrite S. Kasparian
Church of Bulgaria Armenian Apostolic Church
Archpriest V. Borovoy Dr. K.M. Simon
Russian Orthodox Church Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate
Prof. P. Fouyas Ato Abebaw Yigzaw
Church of Greece Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Dr. A. Mitsides Ato Adamu Amare
Church of Cyprus Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Fr. S. Hackel Ato Aberra Bekele
Russian Orthodox Church Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Fr. N. Osolin Ato Wolde Selassie
Russian Orthodox Church Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Ato Ayele Gulte
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Archpriest Memher Ketsela
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Melakem Berhanat Tesfa
Ethiopian Orthodox Church
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBESY, 10-15 December, 1985
Joint-Commission of the Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church
and the Oriental Orthodox Non-Chalcedonian Churches
After two decades of unofficial theological consultations and
meetings
(1964-1985), moved forward by the reconciling grace of the Holy Spirit,
we,
the representatives of the two families of the Orthodox tradition,
were
delegated by our Churches in their faithfulness to the Holy Trinity, and
out
of their concern for the unity of the Body of Jesus Christ to take up
our
theological dialogue on an official level.
We thank God, the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
for
granting us the fraternal spirit of the love and understanding which
dominated
our meeting throughout.
The first part of our discussions centered on the appellation of the
two
families in our dialogue. Some discussion was also devoted to the
four
unofficial consultations of Aarhus (1964), Bristol (1967), Geneva (1970),
and
Addis Ababa (1971). It was thought that the studies and ``agreed
statements''
of these unofficial consultations as well as the studies of our
theologians
could provide useful material for our official dialogue.
A concrete form of methodology to be followed in our dialogue was adopted
by
the Joint-Commission. A Joint Sub-Committee of six theologians was set
up,
three from each side, with the mandate to prepare common texts for our
future
work.
For the next meetings, whose aim would be to re-discover our common grounds
in
Christology and Ecclesiology, the following main theme and
subsequent
sub-themes were agreed upon:
Towards a common Christology
a) Problems of terminology
b) Conciliar formulations
c) Historical factors
d) Interpretation of Christological dogmas today.
Special thanks were expressed to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for
convening
this official dialogue, as well as for the services and facilities which
were
offered for our first meeting here in Chambesy, Geneva, at the
Orthodox
Centre.
We hope that the faithful of our Churches will pray with us for
the
continuation and success of our work.
Prof. Dr. Chrysostomos Konstantinidis Bishop Bishoy
Metropolitan of Myra Coptic Orthodox Church
Ecumenical Patriarchate Co-President of the Commission
Co-President of the Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORINTH, 23rd to 26th September, 1987
Meeting of the Joint Sub-Committee of the Joint-Commission
of the Theological Dialogue between
the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox non-Chalcedonian
Churches
We, a group of theologians forming and representing the Joint Sub-Committee
of
the Joint-Commission of the theological Dialogue between the Orthodox
Church
and the {\bf Oriental Orthodox non-Chalcedonian Churches}, met at Corinth,
in
Greece, from 23rd to 26th September 1987 in order to discuss problems
of
terminology as decided by the first Plenary Session (Chambesy, 10-15
December
1985).
Although not all official members of the Joint Sub-Committee were able
to
participate in this meeting for different reasons, the group however
could
accomplish its mandate in preparing a common text for the future work.
We discuss the main problems of christological terminology and were
convinced
that though using some terms in different nuances or sense, both sides
express
the same Orthodox theology. We focused our dialogue on the terms:
physis,
ousia, hypostasis, prosopon,} and attested that they have not been used
with
conformity in different traditions and by different theologians of the
same
tradition. Following St. Cyril who in his key phrase sometimes used
``mia
physis (tou theou Logou sesarkomeni)'' and sometimes ``mia hypostasis'',
the
non-Chalcedonians pay special attention to the formula ``mia physis'', and
at
the same time they confess the ``mia hypostasis'' of Jesus Christ, where
as
the Chalcedonians stress specially the term ``hypostasis'' to express
the
unity of both the divine and human natures in Christ. Yet we all confirmed
our
agreement that the unique and wonderful union of the two natures of Christ
is
a "hypostatic", natural and real unity.
We affirmed that the term "Theotokos" used for the Virgin Mary,
is a basic
element of faith in our common tradition. In this connection for the
solution
of the terminological problems of Christology could be helpful the
confession
of St. Cyril of Alexandria, our common father:
``Almost the whole of our struggle is con central in order to assure that
Holy
Virgin is "Theotokos" ''}, (Ep. 39, PG 77, 177).
``Therefore it is sufficient for the confession of our true and
irreproachable
faith to say and to confess that the Holy Virgin is ``Theotokos'', (Hom.
15,
PG 77, 1093).
We were convinced therefore, in confessing Jesus Christ, the only begotten
Son
of God the Father, truly born of the Holy and Virgin Mary, our Churches
have
avoided and rejected the heretical teachings of both Nestorius and
Eutyches.
Both lines of terminological development produced the same true faith
through
different terms, because both condemned Nestorianism and Eutychianism.
The
common denominator of these two interpretations was the common doctrine of
the
two real births of the Logos. The Logos, the Only-begotten of the
Father
before the ages, became man through His second birth in time from the
Virgin
Mary. Both interpretations accepted the two real births of the Logos,
whereas
Nestorianism denied his second birth - ``for that which is born of flesh
is
flesh''. Every theologian who accepted the two real births of the Logos,
was
to be considered orthodox, regardless to every terminological
differentiation.
We concluded our discussions expressing our faith that the hypostatic union
of
the two natures of Christ was necessary for the salvation of the human
kind.
Only the Incarnate Logos, as perfect God and at the same time perfect
man,
could redeem man and peoples from sin and condemnation.
The four attributes of the wonderful union of the natures belong also to
the
common tradition of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christology,
since
both sides speak of it as ``without confusion, without change,
without
division, without separation''. Both affirm the dynamic permanence of
the
Godhead and the Manhood with all their natural properties and faculties,
in
the one Christ. Those who speak in terms of ``two'', don't thereby divide
or
separate. Those who speak in terms of ``one'', don't thereby co-mingle
or
confuse. The ``without division, without separation'' of those who say
``two''
and the ``without change, without confusion'' of those who say``one'', need
to
be specially underlined, in order that we may understand and accept
each
other.
Heart-felt thanks were expressed to His Eminence Panteleimon, Metropolitan
of
Corinth and president of the Commission of Interorthodox Relations, for
his
friendly and generous hospitality as well as for the services and
facilities
offered for our meeting in Corinth.
We hope that the faithful of our Churches will pray with us for
the
continuation and success of our dialogue.
Elias Bishoy
Metropolitan of Beirut Bishop of Damiette
Chrysostomos Dr. Mesrob K. Krikorian
Metropolitan of Peristerion Patriarchal Delegate for
Central
Europe and Sweden
Prof. Vlassios Phidas Father Tadros Y. Malaty
Canada Coptic Orthodox Church
Secretary: Dr. M.K.Krikorian,
Kolonitzgasse 11/11, 1030
Vienna,
Austria
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGYPT, 20-24 June, 1989
Anba Bishoy Monastery - Wadi El-Natroun
Joint Commision of the Theological Dialogue between
the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
The second meeting of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue
between
the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches took place at the Anba
Bishoy Monastery in Wadi-El-Natroun, Egypt from June 20th to 24th, 1989.
The official representatives of the two families of the Orthodox Churches
met
in an atmosphere of warm cordiality and Christian brotherhood for four days
at
the guest house of the Patriarchal Residence at the Monastery, and
experienced
the gracious hospitality and kindness of the Coptic Orthodox Pope
and
Patriarch of Alexandria and his Church.
His Holiness Pope and Patriarch Shenouda addressed the opening session of the
meeting and appealed to the participants to find a way to restore
communion
between the two families of Churches. The participants also travelled to
Cairo
to listen to the weekly address of Pope Shenouda to thousands of the
faithful
in the Great Cathedral of Cairo. Pope Shenouda also received the
participants
at his residence later.
The twenty three participants came from thirteen countries and represented
13
Churches. The main item for consideration was the report of the
Joint
Sub-Committee of six theologians on the problems of terminology
and
interpretation of Christological dogmas today. The meetings were co-chaired
by
his Eminence Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland and his Grace
Bishop
Bishoy of Damiette. In his response to Pope Shenouda Metropolitan
Damaskinos
appealed to the participants to overcome the difficulties caused
by
differences of formulation. Words should serve and express the essence,
which
is our common search for restoration of full communion. `` This division is
an
anomaly, a bleeding wound in the body of Christ, a wound which according
to
His will that we humbly serve, must be healed.''
A small drafting group composed of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of
New
Delhi, Professor Vlassios Phidas, Prof. Fr. John Romanides, Prof.
Dimitroff,
and Mr. Joseph Moris Faltas produced a brief statement of faith based on
the
report of the Joint Sub-Committee, in which the common
Christological
convictions of the two sides were expressed. This statement, after
certain
modifications, was adopted by the Joint Commission for transmission to
our
churches, for their approval and as an expression for our common faith, on
the
way to restoration of full communion between the two families of Churches.
The
statement follows :
Agreed Statement
We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith
and
tradition, though as churches we have been separated from each other
for
centuries. As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion
with
each other we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the
basis
of common apostolic faith of the undivided church of the first centuries
which
we confess in our common creed. What follows is a simple reverent
statement
of what we do believe, on our way to restore communion between our
two
families of Orthodox Churches.
Throughout our discussions we have found our common ground in the formula
of
our common father, St. Cyril, of Alexandria : mia physis (hypostasis)
tou
Theou Logou sesarkomene, and his dictum that `` it is sufficient for
the
confession of our true and irreproachable faith to say and to confess that
the
Holy Virgin is Theotokos (Hom : 15, cf. Ep. 39) ''.
Great indeed is the wonderful mystery of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
one
True God, one ousia in three hypostases or three prosopa. Blessed be the
Name
of the Lord our God, for ever and ever.
Great indeed is also the ineffable mystery of the Incarnation of our
Lord
Jesus Christ, for us and for our salvation.
The Logos, eternally consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit in
his
Divinity, has in these last days, become incarnate of the Holy Spirit
and
Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and thus became man, consubstantial with us
in
His humanity but without sin. He is true God and true man at the same
time,
perfect in His Divinity, perfect in His humanity. Because the One she bore
in
her womb was at the same time fully God as well as fully human we call her
the
Blessed Virgin Theotokos.
When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord
Jesus
Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human
hypostasis
came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person
of
the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it
with
His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and
unconfusedly
united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from
each
other in contemplation (theotia) only.
The hypostasis of the Logos before the incarnation, even with His
divine
nature, is of course not composite. The same hypostasis, as distinct
from
nature, of the Incarnate Logos, is not composite either. The unique
theandric
person (prosopon) of Jesus Christ is one eternal hypostasis who has
assumed
human nature by the Incarnation. So we call that hypostasis composite,
on
account of the natures which are united to form one composite unity. It is
not
the case that our fathers used physis and hypostasis always
interchangeably
and confused the one with the other. The term hypostasis can be used to
denote
both the person as distinct from nature, and also the person with the
nature,
for a hypostasis never in fact exists without a nature.
It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity,
eternally
begotten from the Father who in these last days became a human being and
was
born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union
we
confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the
human,
with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine
nature,
including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly
united
with the created human nature with all its properties and functions,
including
natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate who is the
subject
of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.
We agree in condemning the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. We
neither
separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His divine nature, nor
do
we think that the former was absorbed in the latter and thus ceased to
exist.
The four adverbs used to qualify the mystery of the hypostatic union belong
to
our common tradition - without co-mingling (or confusion)
(asyngchytos),
without change (atreptos), without separation (achoristos) and
without
division (adiairetos). Those among us who speak of two natures in Christ,
do
not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union; those among us
who
speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ do not thereby deny
the
continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and the human,
without
change, without confusion.
Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the
whole
faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries. We are agreed
also
in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit,
who
proceeds from the Father alone, and is always adored with the Father and
the
Son.
The Joint Commission also appointed a Joint Sub-Committee for
Pastoral
Problems between churches of the two families, composed of the following
ten
persons.
- Metropolitan Damaskinos, Co-President, Ex officio
- Bishop Bishoy, Co-President, Ex officio
- Prof. Vlassios Phidas, Co-Secretary, Ex officio
- Bishop Mesrob Krikorian, Co-Secretary, Ex officio
- Metropolitan Georges Khordr of Mt Liban
- Metropolitan Petros of Axum
- Prof. Gosevic (Serbia)
- Prof. Dr. K. M. George (India)
- A nominee of Patriarch Ignatius Zaka Iwas of Syria
- Metropolitan Gregorios of Shoa
This Joint Sub-Committee will have its first meeting from December 5th to
9th
in Anba Bishoy Monastery and will prepare a report for the next meeting of
the
Joint Commission.
It was also decided that the next meeting of the Joint Commission
would
be held in September 1990 at Chambesy, Geneva, to consider :
a) The report of the Joint Sub-Committee on Pastoral Problems.
b) Conciliar formulations and anathemas. (Rev. Prof. John S.
Romanides,
H. E. Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios).
c) Historical factors. (Prof. Vlassios Phidas, Rev. Father Tadros Y.
Malaty).
d) Interpretation of Christological dogmas today. (Metropolitan Georges Khodr
of Mt Liban, Bishop Mesrob Krikorian, and Mr. Joseph Moris).
e) Future steps.
It was also decide that the name of the Joint Commission would be
Joint
Commission of the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox
Metropolitan Damaskinos Papandreouy Bishop Bishoy
Metropolitan of Switzerland Bishop of Damiette
Orthodox Co-president of the Joint General Secretary Holy Synod
Commission. Coptic Orthodox Church and
Orient. Orth. Co-president of
the Joint Commission.
Prof. Vlassios Phidas Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios
Co-Secretary Metropolitan of Delhi
Sec. to Synod for Inter Ch. Relations
Mr. Joseph Moris Faltas
Dipl. Theol. Assistant
Co-Secretary
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGYPT, 31 January - 4 February, 1990
Anba Bishoy Monastery - Wadi El-Natroun
Report of the Joint Sub-Committee about the Pastoral Problems
I- The General Committee of the Joint Theological Dialogue between
the
Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, met at Anba
Bishoy
Monastery - Wadi El-Natroun, during the period 31/1 - 4/2/1990. In
an
atmosphere of hearty love and Christian brotherhood, both His
Eminence
Metropolitan Damaskinos, Bishop of Switzerland and His Grace Bishop Bishoy
of
Damiette, chaired the works of the Committee.
At the inaugural session His Holiness Pope Shenouda III welcomed and
addressed
the members, focussing on the importance of the joint agreement concerning
the
issue of Christology, the text of which was signed by the Joint Commission
for
the Theological Dialogue in its meeting in summer 1989. He also pin
pointed
the widespread acceptance of this agreement by everybody.
Moreover, he showed great interest in the joint work between our
churches
taking part in the dialogue, to overcome our pastoral problems.
Furthermore,
he drew the attention of the Committee to the importance of mutual
recognition
of Baptism, and taking into consideration marriage, divorce, etc .......
Both of the two Secretaries of the Committee Professor Vlassios Vidas and
Mr.
Joseph Morris Faltas, recorded the outcomes of these discussions and then
put
them down in the present text of the Report, which expresses the spirit of
the
discussions and the final proposals of the Joint Sub-Committee for
Pastoral
Affairs.
II- The Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a clear
feeling
that they live in, and confess Jesus Christ in the same faith, that is
fed
continuously and uninterruptedly from the fatherly apostolic source of
the
early centuries. The lack of mutual understanding of the
Christological
explanations and expressions, did not affect the substance of the faith,
in
the humanity at its fullness and the divinity at its fullness of the
Incarnate
Logos Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God (Monogenis Eiou Oheou).
This common feeling did not only yield many fruits, in the attempts
of
brotherhood and theological initiatives and discussions, but also yielded
the
common spiritual experience of the believers.
The greatest criterion of the fatherly apostolic tradition is that it
formed
the teachings, worship of God, the conception of asceticism, and
the
ecclesiastic life in general. It also identified in the past, and even
more
today, the deep meaning of brotherhood and spiritual approach between
the
Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
In this respect, it is worth confirming that while the faith unifies
us,
history keeps us distant, or isolates brotherly believers from each
other.
This is because it creates ecclesiastical practical problems, which often
are
more difficult in its outcomes than those of the historical difference,
which
are caused by theological expressions or dogmatic explanations.
In fact, the start of the official theological dialogue between the
Orthodox
Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches always indicates the wealthy
faith
and tradition that we possess, and the common basis of our faith through
the
common theological texts. However, this alone does not automatically
solve
the problems of our ecclesiastical relations existing since many
centuries.
And although these problems do not have a deep theological cause, they
renew
the feelings of suspicion and pain among us, and will diminish the value
of
the theological fruits of our official dialogue that we started together.
Our assessment of the historical theological problems through our
theological
dialogue differs from our assessment of these problems through our
practical
ecclesiastical relations. This does not express our commitment as in
the
theological dialogue we all express our agreement of our
overcoming
approximately fifteen centuries on one hand, and in our
ecclesiastical
relations we still abide to the preservations of the past on the other.
In this case, we give a perception that either the theological dialogue
is
theoretical and will remain without practical outcomes in the liturgical
life
of the Church, or that the actual liturgical practical life of the Church
does
not interact with its theological reality.
Only love and common sincere desire in unity are able to complement what
is
lacking in our relations through the common faith and ties of love.
The reaction in the Christian world regarding the fruits of our
theological
dialogue, proves the importance of the effort exerted.
Today the approaching and common work between the Orthodox Church and
the
Oriental Orthodox Churches, is increasing continuously, not only due to
our
feeling of the same spirit, but also due to the need of the Christian
world
for the dogmatic and moral principles.
Denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ, authenticity of the Holy Bible,
the
problem of ordination of women to priesthood, and the problems facing
the
spiritual life, impose on us a common witness, not only in the area of
the
Ecumenical Movement, but also to the civilised world of today.
The things that separate us can be overcome by the spirit of love,
mutual
understanding, and through our common witness to the whole world.
The proposals of the Sub-Committee for Pastoral Affairs can be identified
in
two areas :-
1- The relation of the two Orthodox Families.
2- Our common relations with the rest of the Christian world.
1 - In the area of the relation between the two Orthodox families:-
a) The official ecclesiastical acceptance by the two parties of
the
theological agreement related to the Christology and the joint
theological
text signed by the joint Committee for the dialogue, as this will also
apply
to the ecclesiastical relations.
b) The clear official acceptance and recognition of the Baptism performed
by
the two families through the spirit of our common tradition and the unity
of
the mysteries and its distinctions as regards the gifts granted on one
hand,
and on the other, we can not separate Christ of the mysteries from Christ
of
the faith.
c) Regular attempts in our joint theological work to benefit of the fruits
of
our theological dialogue in the writings and publications of each of the
two
families, towards a farther objective to create ecclesiastical relations.
This
can be realised through exchanging the theological writings, professors
and
students of the Theological Institutes.
d) Preparation of publications to the congregation of the two families to
be
acquainted with what is taking place in the theological dialogue, and
the
relations existing between us.
e) Joint confrontation of the practical problems in the two families such
as
the problems of marriage - divorce (consideration of the marriage as
having
taken place) etc . ....
f) Preparation of a book containing information about the churches taking
part
in the dialogue.
g) A summary of the most important Christological terms together with a
brief
explanation and analysis, based upon the fathers' theology and writings.
h) Preparation and publication in different languages of a separate
pamphlet
comprising the joint text agreed upon in the meeting of the committee held in
July 1989, related to our agreement on the issue of Christology, and
its
necessity for the unity of the Church.
2 - Regarding our relation with the external world :-
The following is of utmost importance from the practical point of view :
a) Serious joint work of the two families to adopt the same attitude
in
relation to the theological dialogue within the framework of the World
Council
of Churches (WCC) and with the countries of the whole world through
the
ecumenical movement.
b) To issue a joint communique against the modern conceptions, which
are
completely in contradiction with our Apostolic tradition, whether
those
related to the faith and the campaigns of suspicion, or those related
to
ecclesiastical issues, such as the ordination of women, and the moral
issues.
c) As regards the issue of the woman's position in the church and also
not
allowing her to be ordained as a priest, the attitude of our churches is
the
same. Also the joint General Committee for the Dialogue can issue
a
declaration indicating the importance of the theological basis, which
will
depend upon the outcomes of the World Orthodox Summit Meeting held in
Rhodos
in 1988, as well as the address of H.H. Pope Shenouda III to the meeting
of
the Anglican Churches held at Lambeth 1988, and other sources.
d) The common work in view of neutralising the trends of proselytism among
the
churches.
e) The joint work to confront the religious groups who use twisted
and
dangerous means to mislead believers from the faith, such as
Jehovah's
witnesses, Adventists, etc ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENEVA, September 23 - 28, 1990
Orthodox Centre of Ecumenical Patriarchate - Chambesy
Joint-Commission of the Theological Dialogue between
the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
INTRODUCTION
The third meeting of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue
between
the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches took place at
the
Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Chambesy, Geneva,
from
September 23rd to 28th, 1990.
The official representatives of the two families of the Orthodox Churches
and
their advisors met in an atmosphere of prayerful waiting on the Holy
Spirit
and warm, cordial, Christian brotherly affection. We experienced the
gracious
and generous hospitality of His Holiness Patriarch Dimitrios I, through
His
Eminence Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland in the Orthodox Centre of
the
Ecumenical Patriarchate. We were also received two grand receptions, one
at
the residence of Metropolitan Damaskinos and the other at the residence of
His
Excellency Mr. Kerkinos, the Ambassador of Greece to the United Nations,
and
Mrs Kerkinos.
The 34 participants (see list of participants) came from Austria,
Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, India,
Lebanon,
Poland, Switzerland, Syria, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R. (Russian Church,
Georgian
Church and Armenian Church), and Yugoslavia. The six days of meetings
were
co-chaired by His Eminence Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland and
His
Grace Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette. His Eminence Metropolitan
Damaskinos
in his inaugural address exhorted the participants to ``work in a spirit
of
humility, brotherly love and mutual recognition'' so that ``the Lord of
the
Faith and Head of His Church'' will guide us by the Holy Spirit on
the
speedier way towards unity and communion.
The meeting received two reports, one from its Theological
Sub-Committee,
which met at the Orthodox Centre, Chambesy (20-22, 1990), and the other
from
its Sub-Committee on Pastoral Relations, which met at the Anba
Bishoy
Monastery, Egypt (Jan 31 - Feb 4, 1990). The following papers which had
been
presented to the Theological Sub-Committee were distributed to
the
participants:
1. ``Dogmatic Formulations and Anathemas by Local and Ecumenical Synods
within
their Social Context'', Rev. Prof. John S. Romanides, Church of Greece.
2. ``Anathemas and Conciliar Decisions - Two Issues to be settled
for
Restoration of Communion among Oriental Orthodox and Eastern
Orthodox
Churches'', Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios, Metropolitan of Delhi, Orthodox
Syrian
Church of the East.
3. ``Historical Factors and the Council of Chalcedon'', Rev. Fr.
T.Y.Malaty,
Coptic Orthodox Church.
4. ``Historical Factors and the Terminology of the Synod of Chalcedon
(451)'',
Prof. Dr. Vlassios Phidas, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.
5. ``Interpretation of Christological Dogmas Today'', Metropolitan
George
Khodr, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.
6. ``Interpretation of Christological Dogmas Today'', Bishop Mesrob
Krikorian,
Armenian Apostolic Church of Etchmiadzin.
The six papers and the two Sub-Committee reports, along with the ``Summary
of
Conclusions'' of the Fourth Unofficial Conversations at Addis Ababa
(1971)
which was appended to the reports of the Theological Sub-Committee, formed
the
basis of our intensive and friendly discussion on the issues and actions to
be
taken. A drafting committee composed of Metropolitan George
Khodr,
Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, Archbishop Kashishian, Archbishop
Garima,
Rev. Prof. John Romanides, Metropolitan Matta Mar Eustathius (Syria),
Prof.
Ivan Dimitrov (Bulgaria) with Prof. V. Phidas and Bishop Krikorian
as
co-secretaries, produced the draft for the Second Agreed Statement
and
Recommendations to Churches. Another drafting committee composed of
Prof.
Papavassiliou (Cyprus), Bishop Christoforos (Czechoslovakia),
Metropolitan
Paulos Mar Gregorios and Liqaselttanat Habtemariam (Ethiopia), with Fr.
Dr.
George Dragas as secretary, produced the draft for the Recommendations
on
Pastoral Issues.
The following is the text of the unanimously approved Second Agreed
and
Recommendations.
SECOND AGREED STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHURCHES
The first Agreed Statement on Christology (Annex 1) adopted by the
Joint
Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and the
Oriental
Orthodox Churches, at our historic meeting at the Anba Bishoy
Monastery,
Egypt, from 20th to 24th June, 1989, forms the basis of this Second
Agreed
Statement on the following affirmations of our common faith and
understanding,
and recommendations on steps to be taken for the communion of our two
families
of Churches in Jesus Christ our Lord, who prayed ``that they all may be
one''.
1. Both families agreed in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both
families
confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only
begotten
of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate
and
was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us,
perfect
man with soul, body and mind ($ \nu o \upsilon \zeta $); He was
crucified,
died, was buried and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to
the
Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of
all
creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested
the
Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of
His
glory, according to the Scriptures.
2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism
of
Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say
that
Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God
and
by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by
nature
God, became by nature man, by His incarnation in the fullness of
time.
3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite
by
uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy,
which
He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human
nature,
which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural
will
and energy.
4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and
wills
are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without
change,
without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished
in
thought alone.
5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one
Hypostasis
of the Logos Incarnate.
6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do
not
fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the
letter
(433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.
7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to
maintain
their traditional Cyrillian terminology of ``One nature of the
Incarnate
Logos'', since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the
Logos
which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The
Oriental
Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the
two-natures
formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is ``in
thought
alone''. Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John
of
Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (pages 77, 184-201), and
to
Eulogius (pages 77, 224-228) and to Succensus ((pages 77, 228-245).
8. Both families accept the first three ecumenical councils, which form
our
common heritage. In relation to the four later councils of the
Orthodox
Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are
the
teachings also of the four later councils of the Orthodox Church, while
the
Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as
their
interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to
it
positively.
In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the
Orthodox
Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of
the
veneration of icons taught by the council are in basic agreement with
the
teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long
before
the convening of the council, and that we have no disagreement in this
regard.
9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as the
above
common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families
have
always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological
faith,
and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may
have
used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith
and
continuous loyalty to the apostolic tradition that should be the basis of
our
unity and communion.
10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the
past
which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the
last
obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed
by
the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of
anathemas
and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the councils and
the
fathers previously anathematised or condemned are not heretical.
We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps:
A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against
all
Oriental Orthodox councils and fathers whom they have anathematised
or
condemned in the past.
B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas
and
condemnations against all Orthodox councils and fathers whom they
have
anathematised or condemned in the past.
C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by
the
Churches individually.
Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and
Love,
we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable
Churches
for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead
us
to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays.
Signatures of the Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the
Churches-
Chambesy, 28 September 1990,
Eastern Orthodox Oriental Orthodox
Metropolitan Damaskinos Metropolitan Bishoy
Co-President Co-President
(Ecumenical Patriarchate) (Coptic Orthodox Church)
Prof. Vlassios Phidas Bishop Dr. Mesrob Krikorian
Co-Secretary Co-Secretary
(Greek Orth. Patr. Alexandria) (Armenian Church of Etchmiadzin)
Prof. Athanasios Arvanitis Metropolitan Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios
(Ecumenical Patriarchate) (Orth. Syrian Church of the
East)
Metropolitan Chrysostomos Dr. Joseph M. Faltas
of Peristerion Assistant Co-Secretary
(Ecumenical Patriarchate) (Coptic Orthodox Church)
Ecumenical Patriarchate Coptic Orthodox Church
Prof. Father George Dragas Bishop Serapion
Greek Orth. Patr. Alexandria Coptic Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Petros of Aksum Father Tadros Y. Malaty
Greek Orth. Patr. Antioch Syrian Orth. Patr. Antioch
Metropolitan George Khodr Metropolitan Eustathius Matta
Rouhm
Metropolitan Damaskinos
Russian Patriarchate Armenian Church of Etchmiadzin
Mr. Nikolai Zabolotski (see co-secretary)
Russian patriarchate Catholicosate of Cilicia
Mr. Grigorij Skobej Archbishop Aram Keshishian
Serbian Patriarchate Catholicosate of Cilicia
Prof. Stojan Gosevic Archbishop Mestrob Ashdjian
Bulgarian Patriarchate Orth. Syrian Church of the East
Dr. Ivan Zhelev Dimitrov Father George Kondortha
Gregorian Patriarchate Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Metropolitan David of Sukhum Archbishop Abba Gerima of
Eluvabur
Gregorian Patriarchate Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Mr. Boris Gagua Rev. Habte Mariam Warkineh
Church of Cyprus
Horepiskopos Barnabas of Salamis
Church of Cyprus
Prof. Andreas Papavasiliou
Church of Greece
Metropolitan Meletios of Nikopolis
Church of Greece
Prof. Father John Romanides
Polish Orthodox Church
Bishop Jeremiasz of Wroclaw
per
Metropolitan Damaskinos
Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia
Bishop Christoforos of Olomouc
Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia
Father Joseph Hauser
Finish Orthodox Church
Father Heikki Huttunen
per
Metropolitan Damaskinos
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENEVA, September 23 - 28, 1990
Orthodox Centre of Ecumenical Patriarchate - Chambesy
Joint-Commission of the Theological Dialogue between
the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PASTORAL ISSUES
1. The Joint-Commission of the theological dialogue between the
Orthodox
Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, at its meeting at the
Orthodox
Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in Chambesy, Geneva from September
23rd
to 28th, 1990, received a report from its Joint Pastoral Sub-Committee
which
had met at the Anba Bishoy Monastery in Egypt from 31st January to
4th
February 1990. The report was the starting point for an extended discussion
of
four types of pastoral issues:
I. Relations among our two families of Churches, and our preparation
for
unity.
II. Relations of our Churches with other Christian Churches and our
common
participation in the ecumenical movement.
III. Our common service to the world of suffering, need, injustice and
conflicts.
IV. Our cooperation in the propagation of our common faith and
tradition.
I. Relations among our two families of Churches
We feel as a Joint Theological Commission that a period of intense
preparation
of our people to participate in the implementation of our recommendations
and
in the restoration of communion of our Churches is needed. To this end
we
propose the following practical procedure.
2. It is important to plan an exchange of visits by our heads of Churches
and
prelates, priests and lay people of each one of our two families of
Churches
to the other.
3. It is important to give further encouragement to exchange of
theological
professors and students among theological institutions of the two families
for
periods varying from one week to several years.
4. In localities where Churches of the two families co-exist,
the
congregations should organize participation of one group of people -
men,
women, youth and children, including priests, where possible from
one
congregation of one family to a congregation of the other to attend in
the
latter's eucharistic worship on sundays and feast days.
5. Publications:
(a) We need to publish, in the various languages of our Churches, the
key
documents of this Joint Commission with explanatory notes, in small
pamphlets
to be sold at a reasonable price in all our congregations.
(b) It will be useful also to have brief pamphlets explaining in simple
terms
the meaning of the Christological terminology and interpreting the variety
of
terminology taken by various persons and groups in the course of history
in
the light of our agreed statement on Christology.
(c) We need a book which gives some brief account, both historical
and
descriptive, of all the Churches of our two families. This should also
be
produced in the various languages of our peoples, with pictures and
photographs as much as possible.
(d) We need to promote brief books of Church History by specialist
authors
giving a more positive understanding of the divergencies of the fifth,
sixth
and seventh centuries.
6. Churches of both families should agree that they will not
re-baptize
members of each other, for recognition of the baptism of the Churches of
our
two families, if they have not already done so.
7. Churches should initiate bilateral negotiations for facilitating each
other
in using each other's church premises in special cases where any of them
is
deprived of such means.
8. Where conflicts arise between Churches of our two families, e.g.
(a)
marriages consecrated in one Church annulled by a bishop of another
Church;
(b) marriages between members of our two families, being celebrated in
one
church over against the other; (c) or children from such marriages
being
forced to join the one church against the other; the Churches involved
should
come to bilateral agreements on the procedure to be adopted until
such
problems are finally solved by our union.
9. The Churches of both families should be encouraged to look into
the
theological curriculum and books used in their institutions and make necessary
additions and changes in them with the view to promoting better
understanding
of the other family of Churches. They may also profitably devise
programmes
for instructing the pastors and people in our congregations on the
issues
related to the union of the two families.
II. Relations of our Churches with other Christian Churches in the
world
Our common participation in the ecumenical movement and our involvement in
the
World Council of Churches needs better co-ordination to make it more
effective
and fruitful for the promotion of the faith which was once delivered to
the
saints in the context of the ecumenical movement. We could have a
preliminary
discussion of this question at the Seventh Assembly of the WCC at
Canberra,
Australia, in February 1991 as well as in regional and national councils
of
Churches and work out an appropriate scheme for more effective
co-ordination
of our efforts.
11. There are crucial issues in which our two families agree fundamentally
and
have disagreements with the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. We
could
organize small joint consultations on issues like :
(a) the position and role of the woman in the life of the Church and
our
common Orthodox response to the contemporary problem of other
Christian
communities concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood,
(b) pastoral care for mixed marriages between Orthodox and
heterodox
Christians,
(c) marriages between Orthodox Christians and members of other religions,
(d) the Orthodox position on dissolution or annulment of marriage, divorce
and
separation of married couples,
(e) abortion.
12. A joint consultation should be held on the burning problem of
Proselytism,
vis-a-vis religious freedom to draw the framework of an agreement with
other
Churches, for the procedure to be followed when an Orthodox or
Oriental
Orthodox person or family wants to join another (Catholic or
Protestant)
Church or vice-versa.
13. A special joint consultation should be held on the theology and
practice
of Uniatism in the Roman Catholic Church, as a prelude to a discussion
with
the Roman Catholic Church on this subject.
14. We need to have another joint consultation to co-ordinate the results
of
the several bilateral conversations now going on or held in the past by
the
Churches of our two families with other Catholic and Protestant Churches.
III. Our common service to the world of suffering,
need, injustice and conflicts
15. We need to think together how best we could co-ordinate our
existing
schemes for promoting our humanitarian and philanthropic projects in
the
socio-ethnic context of our peoples and of the world at large. This
would
entail our common approach to such problems as :
(a) hunger and poverty,
(b) sickness and suffering,
(c) political, religious and social discriminations,
(d) refugees and victims of war,
(e) youth, drugs and unemployment,
(f) the mentally and physically handicapped,
(g) the old and the aged.
IV. Our co-operation in the propagation of the Christian Faith
16. We need to encourage and promote mutual co-operation as far as possible
in
the work of our inner mission to our people, i.e. in instructing them in
the
faith, and how to cope with modern dangers arising from
contemporary
secularism, including cults, ideologies, materialism, aids,
homo-sexuality,
the permissive society, consumerism, etc.
17. We also need to find a proper way for collaborating with each other
and
with the other Christians in the Christian mission to the world
without
undermining the authority and integrity of the local Orthodox Churches.