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-Co