Home » Posts tagged 'Orthodox Church'
Tag Archives: Orthodox Church
Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches
Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches
November 12, 1991
Hypostasis in St Severus of Antioch
by Fr Peter Farrington
The Monastic Concerns Regarding Unity And Reconciliation of Traditions
By Bishop Suriel [Published in St. Nersess Theological Review 3:1-2 (1998) 118-124]
I wish to thank St. Vladimir’s and St. Nersess Seminaries for their kind invitation to attend this symposium and to speak to you today.
What are the Oriental monastic concerns regarding unity and reconciliation of traditions?
I truly believe that this is a very important subject that perhaps has not been discussed very much so far in the dialogue between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. We need to know what the monastic tradition teaches us in this regard and what is its viewpoint with regards to unity.
We need to remind ourselves of the aim of monasticism. Monasticism was meant to unite man with God, man with his fellow man, and also man with nature. This was the ideal that the early fathers were aiming for and succeeded in achieving. It was St. Arsenius who said, “Strive with all your might to bring your interior activity into accord with God, and you will overcome exterior passions.” He also said, “If we seek God, he will show himself to us, and if we keep him, he will remain close to us.” Unity and reconciliation between man and God is what those early monastics sought. They also sought unity with their fellow man. Abba Isaac said, “I have never allowed a thought against my brother who has grieved me to enter my cell; I have seen to it that no brother should return to his cell with a thought against me.” Also Saint Anthony the Great said, “Our life and our death is with our neighbour. If we gain our brother, we have gained God, but if we scandalise our brother, we have sinned against Christ.” We also see that these monastics were living in harmony with the nature that surrounded them. Saint Paul the hermit had a crow bring him half a loaf of bread each day and on the day that Saint Anthony visited him, the crow brought them one whole loaf of bread. They also ate from whatever the nature around them provided, for example dates. They also used the palm trees for their living: to weave baskets, to keep themselves busy, and for these baskets to be sold in the cities to provide for their bread. It was a harmonious life indeed.
Another important way that monasticism should be a way to unity is through prayer. Even though the monk leaves the world, its troubles and wars, yet he prays for peace. He prays for unity and for the healing of schism. It is the life of prayer without ceasing. As Saint Paul tells us to pray at all times. The power of prayer especially by those who have consecrated their lives for it definitely has the effect to solve many disputes.
So then, the point I am trying to make here is that monasticism should be a point of unity in all aspects of life and not something that divides. It is the source of spirituality and piety in the Church. We need to remember also that we have many common monastic fathers whom we revere and honour in both of our Orthodox families. Great fathers such as Saint Anthony the Great, Saint Macarius the Great, Saint Pachomius, the Syrian fathers Saint Isaac and Saint Ephrem, Saint John Cassian and Saint Palladius, just to name a few. We really have so much to unite us in monasticism, and it is these roots that can bring our traditions closer together and unite us once again by God’s grace. These fathers that came from different backgrounds were also willing to learn from each other. We see for example Saint John Cassian and Saint Palladius coming to Egypt to learn monasticism at its source. The lives of these great men and their sayings deepened the spirituality of Christian life. They were also a source of inspiration to many who repented at reading or hearing about them. One famous example was that of Saint Augustine, who was deeply affected by the biography of Saint Anthony that was written by Saint Athanasius the twentieth Pope of Alexandria.
Monasticism should also be a source of strength and a torchbearer for correct teaching and Orthodoxy. It preserves the true faith for us and fights against heresies. The monastic fathers did not remain quiet when it came to heresy. They looked for unity amongst Christians, but this unity was built upon unity and oneness in faith. This was exactly the case with Saint Anthony the Great. He defended the faith against the Arian heretics. It was said that, “he was well acquainted with their schisms,…and he even exhorted every man to withdraw himself from them, for he used to say, ‘Neither in the discussion of them nor in their result is there any advantage.’” When the Arians came to spread their poison in the desert he cast them out from the mountain like the other wild beasts and vipers. He even went down to Alexandria to defend the Orthodox faith against the Arian heresy. Of course he was so well known and respected all over the world, and his words had their influence and confirmed the people in sound doctrine.
It was similar with Abba Agathon, who was willing to accept any type of ridicule and insult except to be called a heretic. At being called a heretic he replied, “‘I am not a heretic.’ So they asked him, ‘Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.’ He replied, ‘The first accusations I take to myself, for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God. ’”
If we look for a moment at some sad history, we see that many monks had to endure many tribulations. Several emperors attempted to force Coptic monks to accept the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. One such famous monk was Saint Samuel the Confessor. Otto Mienardus, in his book titled Monks and Monasteries of the Egyptian Desert, speaks of Saint Samuel’s theological activities and especially his keen opposition to the decrees of Chalcedon when an attempt was made to impose the decrees upon the monks. “Saint Samuel was imprisoned and beaten, and after severe questioning, was about to be publicly flogged when the civic authorities saved his life.”
If we now move to the current situation, we see that monasticism is still playing a positive role in leading us towards unity and reconciliation. Several of the official dialogues between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox took place at Saint Bishoy Monastery in the ancient site of Scetis, which dates back to the fourth century. So, monasticism today still regards that working towards reconciliation and sharing the same faith as vital to its survival. It is also of great importance to note the work of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria. His Holiness has worked so hard in planning, attending and participating in many of these dialogues. In fact under his leadership the Coptic Orthodox Church was the first Church to accept the Agreed Statement of 1990 signed in Chambesy, Switzerland. He takes the subject of unity seriously and again this is stemming from his monastic roots. He is a great theologian, and he did not only gain a Bachelor of Theology’ from the Seminary in Cairo, but did extensive reading and research while he was a hermit at El-Sourian Monastery in Wadi Natrun. Even though he is the Pope and Patriarch he has not forgotten for one single instant that he is a monk first. That is why he spends approximately half of each week at the Monastery of Saint Bishoy. This time is spent in contemplation, prayer and writing.
From the Coptic Orthodox point of view, we have no reservations with regards to unity with the Eastern Orthodox. The Coptic monks as well as all of the Coptic community are well aware of all of the agreements that have taken place so far. In the official magazine of the Coptic Orthodox Church named El-Keraza (Preaching), His Holiness Pope Shenouda III always publishes the latest news on the dialogue. Also many articles are written to explain the process of the dialogue and the decisions that have been taken by our Holy Synod with this regard. I can say with confidence that our people are for this unity and so are all of the monks. I know that I myself am awaiting for this blessed day, when I can partake of the Eucharist with my brothers in the Eastern Orthodox Church. When I was serving our parish in Hawaii, before I was ordained as a Bishop, I had very good relations with the Greek Orthodox priest, Fr. George Bessinas. Since we did not yet have our own church, on many occasions he would allow us to use his church for our services. It was a relationship of love and mutual respect. One day he invited me to attend a liturgy of the Pre-sanctified gifts. It was very moving experience for me and I enjoyed it so much. But at the same time it was such a painful experience for me, because I could not share in the Body and Blood of Christ with him. I pray and hope that this day will come soon, when we can be fully united in Christ the incarnate Logos.
Another important point I wish to make that is evident today, is the effect of monasticism to unite people of non-Orthodox background. Recently I was reading a wonderful article by Tim Vivian titled “The Monasteries of the Wadi Natrun, Egypt: A Monastic and Personal Journey” that was published this month in the American Benedictine Review. At the end of his article Tim Vivian states, “For the first time in my eight-year monastic journey, I was connecting what I had learned from books with what I could study in the field and hold in my hands; for only the second time in my academic career, I was teaching the subject I care about the most, and I saw monastic spirituality connect with my young students; visiting the Coptic monasteries of the Wadi Natrun showed me the many strengths and beauties of ongoing monastic tradition; I marvelled at the monastic renaissance taking place in Egypt, and I could only admire these monks and lay Christians who devote themselves to Christ in the face of persistent adversity.” Perhaps monasticism will also play an important role in restoring the whole Christian Church to one faith. One flock for one Shepherd, Who is Our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
I think that for us Copts – and I am speaking as a monk also, if there are any concerns with regards to reconciliation, they would be with regards to the monks of Mount Athos and some Traditionalist groups within the Eastern Orthodox Church. The document titled, “Declaration of Mount Athos Against Reunion with the Non- Chalcedonians” concerns me somewhat. To go through it in detail is beyond this lecture, but let me mention a few brief points. In this document the Eastern monks are demanding “the unconditional acceptance of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and of their sacredness and universality by the Non-Chalcedonians.” Well, first of all, we were not even part of these councils to begin with, and did not take part in the decision making. So, how can we just accept them as such? In a recent paper by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, the Co-President of the Official Dialogue, he stated, “ …the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the (Eastern) Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.”
The Eastern monks continue to say things like denouncing the Joint Commission of the dialogue, naming Saints Dioscorus, Jacob and Severus as heretics, and stating that there is radical disagreement between the Joint Commission and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. The document also questions, “Has there not been a scandalous deception in the information given to the people of God?” They are also in opposition to the removal of any texts which degrade or attack the Oriental Orthodox in Eastern liturgical books. I feel that this type of spirit on the part of our brothers the Eastern Orthodox monks of Mount Athos will only divide even further and delay reconciliation between the two families of Orthodoxy. I know that committees have been set up to produce books to explain and clarify the positions and teachings of both families of Orthodoxy. I hope that these books will be a great source of help in clarifying the Agreed Statements even further and press the move towards unity. I believe that one other important way by which monks from the different traditions can come to understand each other is through an exchange program. Monks from Mount Athos could spend some time in Oriental monasteries in Egypt, Syria or Armenia and also perhaps some Oriental Orthodox monks could spend time becoming familiar with the monastic tradition on Mount Athos. This may help to bridge the rift that has lasted for fifteen long centuries now.
There is also another group named, “The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies,” which attacks the Oriental Orthodox Churches severely, especially the Coptic Orthodox Church. They call us all sorts of names such as “The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics”; “The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non- Orthodox.” Very harsh and damaging words, indeed destructive and far from the spirit of ecumenism that we are living in the 1990’s. Such a group may be a minority, but they certainly have a loud voice and can [harm] relationships between the average people who do not know better. I do not wish to harp on the negatives, but they are certainly a concern for us. Please remember also that quote from Abba Agathon, “But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.” None of us could wish this upon anyone, to be separated from God, yet such people are insinuating such an idea.
Fr. George Dragas in a paper titled “The Rapprochement of the Orthodox and Orientals” also thinks that the reason for such negative reactions is lack of information. He states, “In my opinion, however, such negative reactions are primarily due to a lack of information on the recent history of constructive contacts between the two Orthodox families of Churches and especially on the very significant theological classifications and agreements which have been made from both sides in many ‘consultations,’ both unofficial and official, as well as in new constructive and fundamental theological researches by individual theologians.” Another important point that Fr. George Dragas makes in his paper is that in the teachings of Saint Athanasius and Saint Cyril we have a common foundation for modem dialogue. He says, “It should be pointed out that Orthodox share with the Oriental Orthodox certain unquestionable patristic authorities. They share common fathers and common patristic conciliar decisions. The great Alexandrian fathers St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, as well as the great Cappadocians, St. Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. John Chrysostom … and also the first three ecumenical councils … are wholeheartedly accepted by them. Is this not sufficient ground for orthodox rapprochement? … Indeed I believe that these particular authorities provide all that is necessary for orthodox advance and consolidation.”
There can be no doubt, then, that the monastic tradition can have an important role in bringing this dialogue to complete fruition, culminating with the lifting of the anathemas and – along with the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in His Church – the restoration of the one glorious and undivided Orthodox Church of God.
[Source: St. Nersess Theological Review 3:1-2 (1998) 118-124]
From “Common heritage, divided communion : the declines and advances of inter-Orthodox relations from Chalcedon to Chambesy” by Fr. Kenneth F. Yossa
Antipaty and Ennui
It must be considered that for the better part of devout Orthodox who belong to one or other communion—particularly those living in a multicultural environment—would in all likelihood not stop to consider their neighbors of the other “heretical” in any real fashion. Indeed, short of the name “Orthodox” in their respective institutional tides, it might be said that most Orthodox faithful outside one communion know little or nothing of the other, except perhaps the fact that a fracture of communion exists (particularly in regard to acceptance of the general councils) and that the manner of worship is different.
There are, at the same time, Orthodox faithful and clergy who not only consider the “other side” as heretical and even know much of the history of the “Chalcedonian schism” but (in varying degrees) deny outright the progress made in inter-Orthodox dialogue. As a consequence, they sometimes openly brand faithful from outside their own communion as schismatics or heretics in an archaic, “medieval” fashion. Perhaps the most vociferous of these are found among those identified earlier as hypertraditionalist Orthodox believers.
Such proponents are found particularly in Eastern Orthodox communities and commonly hold that members of the “other” communion of churches (i.e., Oriental Orthodox) are definitely schismatic and probably, at best, heretical. In other words, they are considered members of churches which do not represent the authentic heritage and institutions of Orthodoxy. Such opinions are frequendy accompanied by a firm and sometimes vehement opposition to Orthodox involvement with ecumenical activity in general.
SOURCE: Fr. Kenneth F. Yossa. “Common heritage, divided communion : the declines and advances of inter-Orthodox relations from Chalcedon to Chambesy” (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2009) 187-188.
Nationalism, Ethnocentrism and Thinking in Terms of “Diaspora”
The great patriarchal sees of the Old World, although significantly more fluid and more expansive than would have been the case in the medieval period, still bear the deep imprint of national, ethnic or regional identification. This is not to be disparaged of itself, since such identities have become an integral part of world Orthodoxy’s ethos. In fact, this can be one of the most positive aspects of Eastern Christianity.
“The Church,” as Metropolitan John of Korce notes, “does not deny ethnicity, because to deny it would be to deny the mystery of personhood and the particularity of each individual; instead the Church transcends ethnicity.” At the same time, Orthodoxy must guard against various eccentric and incidental elements in church life, leading to isolationism or parochialism.
Many Orthodox Churches are unable to take a critical stance with regard to culture, because in several cases a local Orthodox Church may be too closely identified with the original culture in which it grew up. When this identification becomes exclusively ethnocentric or nationalist, it may weaken the church in its prophetic, renewing and reshaping role with regard to society and culture in general.
Armenian Catholicos Aram has further identified sources of tension which foment difficulties currently found in general ecumenism, what he terms the “de-institutionalization of the ecumenical movement.” Of the several he cited, two are especially applicable here, namely,
1) the fears which arise from globalization are causing churches to “strongly affirm their identity” in the face of multiculturalism which is viewed as potentially dangerous and,
2) a type of insecurity created by ecumenical priorities which, “conditioned by missiological and ecclesiological self-understandings, often clash rather than intersect.”
SOURCE: Fr. Kenneth F. Yossa. “Common heritage, divided communion : the declines and advances of inter-Orthodox relations from Chalcedon to Chambesy” (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2009) 210-211.
Two Families of Orthodox
For over fifteen hundred years the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox churches and the Oriental Orthodox churches have remained separated. Only thirty years ago they came together for the first of four unofficial theological consultations : Aarhus (1964), Bristol (1967), Geneva (1970) and Addis Ababa (1971).
These were followed by the establishment of a Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which has held four meetings : Chambesy, Geneva (December 1985), Anba Bishoy monastery, Egypt (June 1989), Chambesy II (September 1990) and Chambesy III (November 1993). Ignorance of the remarkable advance towards the eventual reunion of the “two families” is still widespread and it is a sad reflection on the lack of understanding of what has been agreed already that some journals, commenting on the recent reception of the British Orthodox Church by the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, are still impugning the Orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox churches with accusations of the Monophysite heresy.
There is, of course, always the zealot fringe, which has rather foolishly and improbably attempted to stigmatise the deep and careful deliberations of the Joint Commission as just another step in the liberal, ecumenist sell-out, preferring – for its own reasons – to re-open old wounds rather than pour out the healing balm of charity and truth. In accordance with the Bulletin’s declared policy of explaining our common understanding of the Orthodox faith, we published in this issue the key texts issued by the Joint Commission.
Members of the Joint Commission included official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.
First Agreed Statement (1989)
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 the 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 (he mia hypostasis) tou Theou Logou sesarkomene, and in the 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 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 (theoria) 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 the 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 commingling (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. 
Second Agreed Statement (1990)
The first Agreed Statement on Christology adopted by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and 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 agree 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 (nous); 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 (sunqetoj) 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 (th qewria monh). 20
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” (“mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh”), 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” (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 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 that 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 of 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 have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for 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 Fathers previously anathematized 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.
Recommendations on Pastoral Issues (1990)
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 co-operation in the propagation of our common faith and tradition.
I. Relations among our two families of Churches
1. 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 organise 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 rebaptize 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 being 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
10. 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 W.C.C. 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 organise 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,.
12. A joint consultation should be held on the burning problem of Proselytism, vis-a-vis religious freedom to draw up the framework of an agreement with other Churches, for the procedure to be followed when an Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox person or family want 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 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 discrimination,
(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, homosexuality, the permissive society, consumerism, etc.
17. We also need to find a proper way for collaborating with each other and with other Christians in the Christian mission to the world without undermining the authority and integrity of the local Orthodox Churches.
Proposals for Lifting of Anathemas agreed at Chambesy, Geneva, 1st-6th November 1993
1. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology at St. Bishoy Monastery 1989, and of our Second Agreed Statement at Chambesy 1990, the representatives of both Church families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations of the past can be consummated on the basis of their common acknowledgement of the fact that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are Orthodox in their teachings. In the light of our four unofficial consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and our three official meetings which followed on (1985, 1989, 1990), we have understood that both families have loyally maintained the authentic Orthodox Christological doctrine and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways.
2. The lifting of the anathemas should be made unanimously and simultaneously by the Heads of all the Churches of both sides, through the signing of an appropriate ecclesiastical Act, the content of which will include acknowledgements from each side that the other one is Orthodox in all respects.
3. The lifting of the anathemas should imply :
a. that restoration of full communion for both sides is to be immediately implemented;
b. that no past condemnation, synodical or personal, against each other is applicable any more;
c. that a catalogue of Diptychs of the Heads of the Churches should be agreed upon to be used liturgically.
4. At the same time the following practical steps should be taken
a. The Joint Sub-Committee for Pastoral issues should continue its very important task according to what had been agreed at the 1990 meeting of the Joint Commission.
b. The co-chairmen of the Joint Commission should visit the Heads of the Churches with the view to offering fuller information on the outcome of the Dialogue.
c. A Liturgical Sub-Committee should be appointed by both sides to examine the liturgical implications arising from the restoration of communion and to propose appropriate forms of concelebration.
d. Matters relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction should be left to be arranged by the respective authorities of the local churches according to common canonical and synodical principles.
e. The two co-chairmen of the Joint Commission with the two Secretaries of the Dialogue should make provisions for the production of appropriate literature explaining our common understanding of the Orthodox faith which has led us to overcome the divisions of the past, and also co-ordinating the work of the other Sub-Committees.
Those wishing to study these issues in greater depth might care to consult Christology in the Coptic Church : The Nature of God the Word Incarnate by Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty in ECNL (The Journal of the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association), New Series No. 29 (Autumn 1989); The Council of Chalcedon, A Step too far ? The 1993 Constantinople Lecture delivered by The Right Reverend John Dennis, Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, in ECNL, New Series No. 38 (Spring/Summer 1994); and The Nature of Christ by H.H. Pope Shenouda III.
1. The English text inadvertently omits he mia in parenthesis, which is found in the official Greek text.
2. Sobornost, incorporating Eastern Churches Review, Volume 12:1 (1990) carried the full English text of this statement on pages 78-80, in addition to an article Convergence in Christology : Amba Bishoi 1990 by William Taylor on pages 80-84.
3. The full text of the second Agreed Statement and Recommendations on Pastoral issues, both issued at Chambesy II are to be found in Eastern Churches Journal, Volume 1, No. 1 (Winter 1993/94), pp. 118-130. A slightly abbreviated version also appears in Anglo-Orthodoxy, Volume 13, No. 2 (Dormition 1994).