Varghese Mathai
OCP Articles
22/3/13

St. Mathew Ch 4.1-11

There are times in our struggle with the adversities of mortality when we become weary, weakened, and susceptible to the temptations that seem to be placed in our pathways. A lesson for us lies in the account of the life of the Savior.

The temptations of Christ are recorded by the three Evangelist, St. Matthew, St. Mark, and Luke. Christ and the Holy Spirit were the only two sources from which the narrative could originate, and these two Divine Persons is one in every respect as the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

When we read about the temptations of Christ, many questions may come in our mind.

The differences on this incidents by the Evangelist’s presentations

1.  Was Jesus tempted during the forty days, or after completion of forty days of fasting?

2. Whether these three temptations were the only one, or there were more?

According to St. Matthew’s account, we understand that after Jesus had fasted for forty days, the devil came to him. St. Luke also points out that these three specific temptations occurred after the forty days of fasting (St. Luke. 4:2-3). The Lord may have endured many temptations during the forty days, but the three temptations were the culminating, most intense testing, of Jesus’ wilderness solitude. St. Luke records, When the devil finished tempting Jesus in every way, he left him for a while (4:13). Obviously, this does not mean that Satan tempted Jesus only with these specific one. He left him for a while means his attempt were not stopped. This is evident from the following incident, when Jesus told the disciples that He was going to Jerusalem to suffer and die by the hands of the chief priests, Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him “God forbid it, Lord” he said “That must never happen” Jesus turned around and said to Peter “Get away from me, Satan, You are an obstacle in my way, because these thoughts of your don’t come from God but from man. Important thing to notice is that. Peter took him aside then why Jesus turned around”, to talk to Peter? It was not required when a person is standing aside. That means Satan was after Him, but found that by this Satan entered in the mind of Peter. That is why he commanded ‘Go away Satan”. It is a commandment to Satan to get rid off from St. Peter.

3.  What is the proper sequence of the temptations? Matthew gives one and Luke another is it contradictory?

Neither Matthew nor Luke claim to represent the chronological sequence. Luke may have recorded the scene from the standpoint of geography, relating the two in the wilderness first, and then the one on the temple’s pinnacle. Matthew records that after the temptation on the high mountain, Jesus said, “Get thee hence, Satan.” Matthew’s order, therefore, may be the chronological sequence, but there is no contradiction between the two inspired writers. In our daily life also we can notice that when two media gives news the matter may be one but the presentation are not one and same.

Theological explanations on the temptations.

1.  How could it be said that the Holy Spirit led Jesus into temptation?

The Holy Spirit did not lead Jesus into temptation but He led him into the wilderness. God Himself is the origin of knowledge and wisdom, and Creator of all things knew Satan’s nature and he would utilize this moment of Jesus’ physical weakness and exhaustion to tempt him. Satan would consider this “an opportune time,” and he would look for other “seasons” as well. The devil did the tempting. God sent his Son into a world of trials and temptation, and for the incarnate Son, the difficulties are a part of being in the flesh but being a Full man and Full God he overcomes it. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit tempted Jesus to do evil, for God never tempts any one (St.James.1:13). The devil was the direct agent through which the temptation came. God sent his only one Son Christ into the world to die. His redemptive mission involved a sacrificial death, and the redemptive Calvary was paved with suffering, testing, and temptation, through which Jesus was perfected, to serve as high priest for humanity (Heb. 2:10).

2.   If Jesus is God, and God not being tempted, how could Jesus have been tempted?

Here are some hidden truths and facts which cannot be seen by a common man’s eye and thoughts. Certain phenomenon which needs insight by God’s blessing for its revelation but manifested by Faith in God. First, the Bible teaches the deity of Christ (Jn. 1:1; Col. 2:9). Second, it also teaches that he was tempted (Matt. 4:1; Heb. 4:15). Similarly, God can not die; but Jesus died. How was this possible? The incarnation of Christ — a miracle by which God, the Son, took on the nature of humanity — made many things possible that were not possible. By coming in the flesh, Jesus was not only capable of dying, but he was also subject to the other characteristics of being a man — hunger, weariness, etc. Likewise, being in the flesh made it possible for the God-man to be tempted, as the Scriptures testify.

3.  Whether Jesus had actually sinned?

Our High priest is one who can not feel sympathy for our weakness. On the contrary, we have a High Priest who was tempted in every way that we are, but did not sin. When John the Baptist first saw Jesus and recognized Him as Messiah, he spoke of his Sin-bearer who to experience God’s wrath as the Lamb of God. The next day, John see Jesus coming to him and said, there is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He wore all the sins of the world and gave ransom His own life in the Cross. By the sin of one man everyone got the inborn sin and by the death of Christ every one god redemption from the bondage of sin. Satan tempted His till the cross, but the SON OF THE WOMEN BROKEN THE HEAD OF THE SERPANT AT LAST.

Lessons to learn from the temptations, that Jesus has over come after the forty days lent.

1.  Satan always tempts Godly men and the righteous people.

Satan replied would Job worship you if he got nothing out of it.  The Lord said to Satan “everything he has is in your power, but you must not hurt Job himself. Hence forth Satan tried to keep on tempting Job. Job.1.9-12. Now, concerning the temptation of Jesus we can seen that  directly after He was declared to be the Son of God, and the Savior of the world, he was tempted; great privileges, and special tokens of Divine favour, will not secure any from being tempted.

2.  Others are tempted, when drawn aside of their own lust, and enticed

But a person is tempted when he is drawn away from God and trapped by his own evil desire. Then his evil desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and sin, it is full grown gave birth to death. James.1.14-15. Adam and Eve hide themselves away from God when they sinned for the desire of the flush as they have been trapped by Satan.The desire to eat the forbidden fruit leads to their spiritual death.

3.  Spiritual pride, Power leads to temptations.

On second temptation Satan tempted Christ to presume upon his Father’s power and protection, in a point of safety. Blessed are those who are poor. Here Lords warns against us about the spiritual poverty as well of proud of spirit. The parable of the sinner and the Pharisee clearly warns about our spiritual pride. Nor are any extremes more dangerous than despair and presumption, especially in the affairs of our souls. Let us not, in any place, be off our watch. The holy city is the place, where he does, with the greatest advantage, tempt men to pride and presumption. It is possible for a man to have his head full of Scripture notions, and his mouth full of Scripture expressions, while his heart is full of bitter enmity to God and to all goodness.

4.  For Pomp and Glory of the World we are tempted for Idolatry.

Satan tempted Christ to idolatry with the offer of the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. The glory of the world is the most charming temptation to the unthinking and unwary; by that men are most easily imposed upon. Christ was tempted to worship Satan. In my daily life O my mind you think and meditate, for righteousness, and justice am I given prior importance. Or for my material needs and possessions I ignore the ethics and moral values as well the Gods commandments. Am I giving more importance to the wealth of the world than my Lord and my God? If so, definitely I had fallen in Satan’s trap of worshiping Satan despite my Lord and my Savior, who had redeemed by His Holy Blood and Flesh in the Calvary on the cross.

Source:
Independent

Varghese Mathai
OCP Articles
17/3/13

(St. Luke Ch.13.10-17)

As we have crossed the Mid-Day of the Great Lent, the church had chosen a very thoughtful miracle for devotional thoughts and to straighten themselves through repentance and confession for their relief from sickness in respect of Body mind and soul. The miracle is one out of the six unique miracles recorded in his book by the evangelist St. Luke.
In this hectic pace of the modern world we are miniscule items among the millions who feed the selfish ‘my world’ to flourish. In the churches, communities, offices and everywhere else, it becomes a mechanical approach. But Jesus sees, calls, touches and heals us in compassion with real love for his children.
We can see here different approaches by the Almighty God our Lord Jesus Christ and How should be our approaches towards Him?

1.The compassionate and genuine way of Jesus

It took 18 years for a crippled woman who was a regular churchgoer to be accepted, loved and healed from her infirmities. The first day when Jesus had seen her, He called and healed her thus freeing her from shame and sickness. He is our creator and He knows very well our weakness and also know when and how to heal us. No more details are given in the scripture about this lady, but we can assume that she used to come to the Synagogue regularly and with a firm faith that A day she will be getting freedom from this bondage and shame.

2. His reaction towards hypocritical Church leaders

The religious leaders could not and did not do anything for her. The temple priests were upset that Jesus had healed her on Sabbath day, to which Jesus out rightly called them “You hypocrites”. He did so because they would untie their animals and care for them on Sabbath Day, but refused to rejoice when a human being was freed from satanic bond and healed. They could not see beyond the law to Jesus’ compassion in healing the crippled woman. Actually healing is the work of God and it can be through the intercession of the Holy Chosen Authorized consecrated people, but their evil deeds have forbidden them to heal this lady in the name of the Almighty God for the last 18 years.

3. How important the faith is and the premise for obtaining healing
The healing power of Jesus Christ is shown on the basis of a living faith, not confessed directly to Jesus Christ by the crippled woman. But found out by Jesus Christ, certainly who knew that this woman came regularly to the synagogue. Jesus Christ, has taken the initiative of healing. He knows the suffering of every person and settles, at the same time, the place, time and way of comforting suffering and healing the human’s disease. In this case, the initiative to heal the woman also shows the freedom of God, as well as the sympathy for the one who suffers, for the sick one.

4. Handicap or physical illness are the will of God and to suffer it patiently

In most of the healing miracles of Jesus we can notify that the ailing individuals had directly pleaded or confessed to Jesus or somebody had interceded or pleaded on their behalf. But this lady who was suffering for the last 18 years had any grievance or grief for her crippled body but was eager to come regularly to the synagogue to give her strength to suffer what the Lord had given her. Whereas, think about ourselves? Sometime at the time of distress ad trouble we even used to exclaim that to me only is given all these troubles.

5. No limitation on time or days for Good Deed and a continuous process.

The fact that the Savior reproves the leader of the synagogue, who said that healings should not be done during a Sabbath day, He shows that good must be done any time, on a feast day too, We must do good to our fellow beings both on a week day and on a feast day because merciful love for our fellow beings must be shown at all times as we are created in the image of the Merciful God and we must be merciful too.

6. A crippled body bounded by Satan but Straight Soul which he could not bound

We can see that Jesus Christ had straightened the sick body only because the soul of the crippled woman was straight. How much trouble she might have faced throughout these 18 years to come to her Lords house? Satan was troubling and forbidding her always so that she may not approach the Holy place. This is why the Savior relates that “bounded by Satan for the last 18 years of her body only”. A straight soul to a cripple body straightened and was healed (Her body only required healing). Jesus had not mentioned herein that her soul was bound by Satan, but Satan was not allowing her physically to approach her Savior.

7.A Straight body with a crippled soul bound by Satan

Here the Gospel warns about our straight body, but with a crippled soul. This must be healed and improved. This miracle calls us during this Advent period, to improve our soul through the Sacrament of Holy Confession, for receiving forgiveness of the sins and to untie the Satan’s bondage. We are also called to do good and merciful deeds, to help the sick, helpless, and crippled. So, the Gospel of the healing of the crippled woman is a Gospel of mercy, of doing Good. The crippled woman is a teacher of strong faith, of humble prayer and of long patience.

8. Showing gratitude for the blessing received.

The Gospel says: and she began praising God. So, we also learn from her the need to be grateful; when we receive the blessing from God. We should not rejoice and forget about the benefactor, but thank God, the benefactor and giver of life and salvation.

Let us show our gratitude towards Almighty God by Worshipping Him and it is through this gratitude that we show the confirmation of the good received, that we spiritually grow, that we spiritually edify ourselves through the fact that the gifts received from God. Let us be also be merciful as He is and express this by helping the needy from the savings we have made thorough abstaining from luxury food. Let us remember that our lent will be incomplete if it is not accompanied with prayer repentance and charity deeds and for a successful Holy Advent.

Source:
Independent

Varghese Mathai
OCP Articles
17/3/13

The Orthodox Church on Sixth Sunday of the Great Lenten, observe as the Sunday of the Blind Man to commemorate the miracle of Christ healing the man who was blind since birth. This miracle is recorded only in the Gospel of Saint John 9:1-41.

Few meditations on this enlightening miracle -

1.Jesus healed the blind man though the blind man did not plead for it, but a miracle which manifest Jesus mission in the world.

The complete healing of the blind man is a marvelous example of synergy, the cooperation of man with God’s will. It happened on one feast day (Sabbath) in Jerusalem: after Jesus had finished His sermon and was leaving the Temple. He saw on the street a man blind from birth. This man had been born thus from his mother’s womb, that is, he had been born without eyes. He was not aware that Jesus was passing by him and had not heard that, He is on the way back from the Temple. Here Jesus had made it clear about His mission in this world “as long as it is day, we must keep on doing the work of Him who sent me, night is coming when no one can work. Further to notify is that our Lord has in His hand a scroll, which directs us to His statements, “I am the light of the world,” (John 9:5), and “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has chosen me to bring good news to the poor. He, has sent me, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at free those who are oppressed,” (Luke 4:18). These are clear statements of the Gospel of salvation that comes through Christ.

2.The concepts about Sickness by the disciples as well as of the Jews were corrected by Jesus.

The Jews thought that every misfortune befalling a man was punishment of God for his sins. If the misfortune befell a child, then they considered that to be the punishment for sins of his/her parents. When the disciples saw this, they asked their Teacher, “Teacher whose sin caused him to be born blind? Was it is his own or his parents sin? (John 9.2) There was another reason for the disciples to ask this question, because when the Lord had healed the paralytic at the Sheep’s Pool, He had told him, “Listen you are well now; so stop sinning or something worse may happen to you” (John 5:14); so they wondered, if sickness was caused by sin, what sin could have been the cause of this blind man being born without eyes. Our Lord corrected them by giving this answer “His blindness has nothing to do with his sin or his parent’s sins. He is blind so that God’s power might be seen at work in him”. (John 9.3).

3.To receive God’s Blessings, Faith on God and Obedience to His commandments are the pre-requisites.

When Christ spat on the ground, and made a paste out of the clay and anointed the blind man’s “eyes”, we can understand that Jesus desires to pass certain message. And making clay with His spittle, the Lord anointed him therewith. He sent the man to Siloam, that he might go and wash therein. And having washed as he was told, he came away seeing, and he beheld the Divine Light. Having, like an abundance of wealth, the form and members which comprise this, our mortal flesh, the man who was blind from birth could neither imagine nor think what the form or nature of this world could be; for he also was endowed with a genuine lack of eyes. In order to heal the man blind from birth, Jesus could have simply given the word: And the blind man would have begun to see. Therefore, if He now anointed the eyes of the blind man, He did it not because a healing power was contained neither in the clay nor in the pond of Siloam; but so that by touching his eyes, He would awaken in him faith and show the onlookers that the blind man received the words of the Savior with Faith and Obeyed the commandments.

4.Many of Christ’s healings recounted in the Scriptures consists of two healings.

The blind man who was not having any eyes from his mother’s womb: And had seen no man and the nature at all; who did not know Christ, Jesus first healed his physical eyes, and upon meeting him again, healed the eyes of his soul. He who was formerly blind both in his physical eyes and those of his soul now could clearly see out of both. The Miracle of the Blind Man is replete with references to spiritual blindness, and supplication to be delivered from it. “You were born and brought up in sins, and you are trying to teach us?” (John 9.34) And they cast him out. The common phenomenon of judging the individuals as well as his parents are implied in their words. Jesus Christ heard that they had cast him out; and having found him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of man? The healed man answered, “And Who is He, Sir that I can believe in Him?”Jesus said to him, “You have already seen Him, and it is the one who is talking to you.”Then, the healed one with great joy said, “Lord, I believe;” and he knelt down before Jesus” John 9.35-38. Here we can see two aspects which lead the healed man’s spiritual insight. We can see the two aspects which leads the healed man to receive the insight. First the interrogation by the Pharisees and apart from the rejection by his parents, made him strong to confess Christ even though he was in distress. Secondly when Jesus opened his inner heart and gave him the real conviction, he worshipped Jesus. Similar two sided healing of Jesus can be seen in the Samaritans Lady at well (John 4.1-30), the healing of the paralyzed man brought by the four men (Luke 5.17-25), Healing of the paralytic at the Sheep’s Pool, (John 5:6-15). These three incidents showed the striking way that God gradually illumines a soul. These events were recorded for our benefit, and together with many other events and meditations , helps us to see the diverse manner in which Christ heals and illumines a soul, and also serves as an instruction to us, who are also being gradually illumined, more or less according to our reaction to God’s grace.

5.A generation who are suspicious and could not accept the Truth.

The neighbours and those who before had seen that he was blind were amazed and said, “Is this not the blind man who sat and begged?”Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “He only resembles him.”He himself said, “I am he who was blind.”Then, they said to him, “How were your eyes opened?”The healed man answered, “A man named Jesus made clay, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ I went and washed and I received sight.”Then, they said to him, “Where is He?” The healed man answered, “I know not.”They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. The Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. And the healed man said to them, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.”The healed man said, “He is a Prophet.”The Pharisees did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight. They called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” The envious Jews did not want to believe in this miracle, even though it was obvious that it had happened. They interrogated the man in a threatening way. This man had never seen Christ, and knew very little about Him.

6.The unjustifiable leader’s domination in the Synagogue!

His parents answered, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. But how he now sees, we do not know, nor we do know who opened his eyes. Ask him, he is of age; he will speak for himself.”His parents said this because they feared the Pharisees, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus of Nazareth to be Christ the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, he was to be put out of the synagogue, that is, to be considered an apostate from their faith and law. Therefore his parents, out of fear of the Pharisees, said, “He is of age, ask him.” What a pathetic attitude and action of the non-affectionate parents who did not care of their own flesh and rejected him for society sake. How beautiful it would have been, if they have rejoiced with their child and would have received the blessings from Messiah. Despite they gave due importance to the prominent leaders of the synagogue and were afraid to confess the Truth. Today also there are no exemptions in the Church, who dominates the positions by their influences and popularity; but the righteous are expelled or subject to threats if leader’s vested interests are questioned!

7.Insults, rejections, oppressions etc., are the symptoms and ingredients for strength to confess the Lord.

As the absurdity of the Jew’s questions and their true motives became apparent, the healed blind man understand a little about Christ. It is clear that he still did not understand things completely, but he nevertheless showed remarkable courage, and rebuked the foolish Jews with an ironic question, in response to another foolish inquiry by them: “I have already told you he answered and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? May be you too, would like to be his disciples?” (John 9:27). This courageous rebuke incensed the council, and they cursed him and roared like lions: “You are that fellow’s disciple; but we are Moses disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses, as for that fellow, however, we do not even know where from he come” (John 9:28-29). He who was blind stood alone, and undefended. His parents had deserted him, and he understood that he was in danger of being put out of the synagogue. Many men would back down in such an instance, and try to appease the leaders, because of fear. He still did not understand completely from “when” Jesus was, but his breast was filled with conviction and courage, as he sealed his fate among those who love the world more than God, and said: “What a strange thing that is! You do not know where he comes from, but he cured my eyes. We know that God did not listen to sinner, he does listen to people who respect him and do what he wants them to do. Since the beginning of the world nobody has ever heard of any one giving sight to a person born blind. Unless this man came from God he would not be able to do a thing” John9.30-33. Here very important thing to notice is that everybody hears the scripture. Especially the Pharisees who claims be the masters on the scripture and studied them in the Synagogues and made long discourses on it have not received the insight of Lords mission, but the person (Blind man) who was illiterate, but listen it by sitting outside the Temple, got better conviction as the Holy spirit works in him at the time of his distress and made him strong. The above courageous confession of the healed man was a reminder from a lay man about the long awaited Messiah prophesied. But the evil had stopped them to hear it and for the spiritual insight.

8.This miracle is warning of the Final Judgments.

Apart from the scroll mentioned above the scroll may also represent the role of Christ as Judge as depicted in Matthew and Revelation, and also later in the same passage on the healing of the blind man, “Jesus said, “I came to this world to judge, so that the blind should see and those who see should become blind. Some Pharisees who were there with him heard him say this and asked him “surely you don’t mean that we are blind too? Jesus answered if you were blind then you would not be guilty, but since you claim that you can see, this means that you are still guilty. John 9.39-41.

At this time of Great Lenten let me ask to me, O my soul are the white colored tomb and claims that I know and is holy to worthy of to be accepted by the Lord or are you blind without recognizing His Calls of repentance and accepting Him.

Source:
Independent

Varghese Mathai
OCP Articles
11/2/13

Is God always an angry God?  Does He wish that mankind to be subjected to His wrath or He is Merciful, Graceful and Forgive His children?

 Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of His great love for us, God who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgression. It is by grace you have been saved. Eph.2.3-5. In order to understand the meaning of Mercy we ha2ve to relate it with Grace. Mercy is not getting what we deserve for our evil deeds (withheld punishment). Grace is getting the blessings or forgiveness what we do not deserve due to our evil deeds. Mercy can also mean pity or compassion. Turn to God and pray to him now that he is near. Let the wicked leave the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the Lord, our God he is merciful and quick to forgive.Iss.55.6-7. Happy are those whose sins are forgiven, whose wrongs are pardoned Ps.32.1. Then I confessed my sins to you, I do not conceal my wrongdoings. I decided to confess them to you and you forgave all my sins. Though he is quick tempered, He is graceful, merciful and compassionate. He knows very well that we are mortal and knows our weakness very well. He do not wish destruction of His creation the human who have been made like God.

Characteristics of Godly wrath-

1.Godly wrath is vastly different from the wrath of man.(James1.20)
2.The wrath of God is always in accordance with the standards set down in scripture for man’s conduct and the warning God has given for disobedience Duet 29.26-28, 30.15-20, 2Sam12.9-10, 2Kings 22.10-13, 24.2, 2Chron19.8-10,34.18-28, 36.15-16, Jerm22.11-12, 44.2-6
3.The wrath of God is in accordance with the deeds of men. God’s wrath is always in direct proportion to man’s sins Pslm28.4, Is59.18, Jerm17.10, 21.14, 25.14, Ezk20.44, 25.14, 36.19
4.God’s wrath is slow and controlled, not sudden and explosive Ex.34.6, Num14.18
5.Gods’ wrath comes after warning of Judgement like Noah days Gen6-9, Sodom and Gomorrah Gen19.
6.God’s wrath is always provoked by man’s sin. Deut. 4.25, 9.18, Jerm25.6-7, 32.32.
7.God’s wrath is not exercised in sin but in righteousness Rom2.5, James 1.19-20.

What are the curses pronounced in Old Testament for disobedience? (Duet 27.1-26)

i)God’s curse on any one who makes an idol of stone, wood, or metal and secretly worship it, the Lord hates idolatry.
ii)God’s curse on anyone who dishonour his father or mother.
iii)God’s curse on anyone who moves a neighbour’s boundary mark.
iv)God’s curse on anyone who leads a blind man on wrong direction.
v)God’s curse on anyone who deprive foreigners, orphans and widows of their rights.
vi)God’s curse on anyone who disgrace his father by having intercourse with any wives of his father.
vii)God’s curse on anyone who has sexual relations with an animal.
viii)God’s curse on anyone who had intercourse with his sister or half sister
ix)God’s curse on anyone who had intercourse with his mother-in-law.
x)God’s curse on anyone who secretly commits murder
xi)God’s curse on anyone who accept money to murder an innocent person
xii)God’s curse on anyone who does not obey all of God’s law and commandments.

Followings are few important events from the O.T in Bible, which caused Gods anger on His people and how he had forgiven them.

1. Disobedience of Adam, God got angry, but He had given them an opportunity to repent.

When we go through the Old Testament, the first incident of God’s anger is towards Adam and Eve. In the beginning God has given only one commandment to Adam and that was only to obey Him. He said to him ‘You may eat any kind of fruit in the garden except the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must not eat the fruit of that tree, if you do so you will die the same day” Gen 2. 16-18. God has given all the freedom to first man with three conditions-

i)You can eat all the fruits of the garden.
ii)You must not eat the fruit of knowledge
iii)If you eat it you will die on the same day.

He was supposed to be obedient to God nothing else. But Satan trapped him and he had sinned. God Almighty God called him, where are you. He answered, I heard you in the Garden, I was afraid and hid from you because I was naked. Almighty given both of them an opportunity to repent and ask forgiveness to his creator the Almighty God. Adam blamed God and his companion Eve, Eve told the serpent cheated me. Gen.3.8-13. How, nice it would have been if, both of them have repented before God and God would have granted them forgiveness? But what was the reward. The sin of the father of mankind is given to his ancestors as Original sin.

Non Obedience of what the Lord had commanded us to do is also subjected to anger of God. This disobedience can be seen in King Saul also. Lord commanded to King Saul, through His Servant Samuel that “Go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Don’t leave anything; kill all the men, women, children and babies; the cattle sheep and donkeys” 1.Sam 15.3. But they did not obey it and preserved the good one which in their eyes are good and brought Agag alive. Samuel said “Which does the Lord prefer: Obedience or Offerings and sacrifices? It is better to obey Him than to sacrifice the best sheep to Him. Rebellion against Him is as bad as witchcraft and arrogance is as bad as idolatry? ” Because, you rejected Lord’s commandment, He has rejected you as King” 1Sam 15.22-23.

2.Cain get angry and zealous over his brother, God had given him warning for repentance but his wicked mind made him to do tricks with his brother and ultimately killed him.

Both Cain and Abel offered to God. But God was pleased with Abel only. Cain became furious and he scowled in anger. God has warned him “sin is crouching at your door. It wants to rule you, but you must overcome it Gen 4.7. Despite this warning what he did? Instead of repenting of his evil thoughts, as the devil dominates his mind, he played a tricky game with his brother, his own blood, the son of his own mother and father. Then Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let us go out in the fields. When they were out of the fields, Cain turned on his brother and killed.Gen.4.8.

Even after that brutal murder, the graceful God has given him an opportunity to repent for his evil deed and to disclose the cruelty committed before the merciful God for forgiveness. The Lord asked him, where is your brother> Hen answered I don’t know. Am I supposed to take care of my brother? God in his anger replied. Why you had done this terrible thing. Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground like a voice calling for revenge. We have to remember and testify ourselves that am I eligible to stand in the Church and before God in the Holy Eucharist, if I do not reconcile with my fellow being. If I had pained him, definitely He keeps on asking to my conscious, How can you love me son, if you did not love your brother and in harmony with you fellow being, how I can accept your offerings? The answer may be I DONT KNOW YOU!

3.The heavenly beings get involved in adultery then God got angry and reduced their life span to 120 years, but because of only one person ‘Noah’ his descendents were saved.

The wickedness of mankind tremendously increased than before and adultery became a cause for the destruction of the world. When mankind has spread all over the world, and girls were being born, some of the heavenly beings saw that these girls are beautiful so they took the ones they liked. When the Lord saw how wicked everyone on earth was and how evil are their thoughts were all the time, he was sorry that he had ever made them and put them on the earth. He was so filled with regret that he said, I will wipe out these people I have created. But the Lord was pleased with Noah. I have found that you are the only one in all around the world who does what is right. Gen Ch. 6 and 7. Here we can see the merciful God not to destroy the mankind who are made in his own image not be subjected to destruction of wiped off from the earth because of a righteous man Noah.

According to theologians ark of Noah is the symbol of Christ who was expected, stating that, the vessel had its door on the east side- the direction from which Christ would appear at the second coming and that the bones of Adam were brought abroad, together with gold, frankincense and myrrh (the symbol of nativity of Christ). He also stated that the ark floated to and fro in the four directions on the waters, making the sign of the Cross. What a wonderful plan the Almighty God had for the salvations of the mankind who are righteous have the eternal life. Then how can we say that He is the one who is destructive God? Noah gets the word: build an ark in seven days. His sons cut the necessary trees in three days, and much furious sawing and hammering follows. But there’s no rest, as they need to round up all the animals. Noah boards the animals, then his sons, their wives, and his wife (who packed a ferocious picnic). He made all this in hurry without asking Almighty how is it possible? An important think to note is that, all his neighbours and friends have noted it. But they do not believe on what he might have told them so that their mind were so wicked and could not repent and would have been saved from the wrath of God. We have note here that Almighty God gave opportunity to others of that day that is why he ordered Noah to build the Ark by himself. As He is the shelter to all his creations God himself would have made other arrangement to save the life of Noah and his family. His intention was to use as an instruments, so that others may turn from their wickedness and turn to God so that they may not perish.

4.He also destroyed the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah- Abraham interceded repeatedly, but could be found single righteous from both cities to be saved.

Three angels visited Abraham God’s hand-picked founder of his chosen nation, Israel. They came disguised as men, travelers along the road. Two of them went down to Sodom and Gomorrah, to observe firsthand the wickedness in those cities.

The other visitor, who was the Lord stayed behind. He revealed to Abraham that he was going to destroy the cities because of the evil ways of their people. Abraham, a special friend of the Lord, began to intercede with God to spare the cities if there were righteous people in them. First Abraham asked if the Lord would spare the cities if fifty righteous people lived there. The Lord said yes. Boldly, Abraham kept bargaining down, until God agreed not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if even ten righteous people lived there. Then the Lord departed. When, the two angels arrived at Sodom that evening, Abraham’s nephew Lot met them at the city gate. Lot and his family lived in Sodom. He took the two men to his home and fed them. Then all the men of the city surrounded Lot’s house and said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (Genesis 19:5). By ancient custom, the visitors were under Lot’s protection. Lot was so infected by the wickedness of Sodom that he offered the homosexuals his two virgin daughters instead. Furious, the mob rushed up to break down the door. The angels struck the rioters blind! Leading Lot, his wife, and two daughters by the hand, the angels hurried them out of the city. The girls’ fiancés would not listen and stayed behind. Lot and his family fled to a tiny village called Zoar. The Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying the buildings, the people, and all the vegetation in the plain. Lot’s wife disobeyed the angels, looked back, and turned into a pillar of salt.

5.Worshiping the Gold Calf by the Israelites – the wrath of God is forgiven when Moses intercede to God.

As the wrong deeds of Human started growing reached in high degree, the need for Law and order arises. As the Israelites sins and wrong things increased, Almighty God had decided to give them a Law and order policy. In the beginning, there was only one commandments “Obey God”, now He had decided to impose the Ten Commandments on them. Idol worship prevailed among them when the children of God get mingled with men of the earth and their girls. Aaron took the earrings, melted them, poured the gold into a mould, and made a gold bull-calf. The people said ‘Israel this is our god, who led us out Egypt. Then Aaron made an altar in front of the God-calf. Early the next morning they brought some animals to burn as sacrifice and others to eat as fellowship-offerings. The people sat down for the feast, which turned into an orgy of drinking and sex.

The Lord said to Moses, Go back down at once, because your people whom you led out of Egypt have sinned and rejected me. They have already left the way that I commanded them to follow and they have worshiped the Gold-calf. I am angry with them, and I am going to destroy them. Then I will make you and your descendants into a great nation. Ex.32.1-10. Violation of the Lord’s first commandment of the Ten Commandments by His own people made him angry over them.
In this incident, we can see three types of people.

I)The unfaithful, non-grateful and wicked God’s own children, who totally ignored Almighty God, who had delivered them miraculously by His might ad Power from their slavery in Egypt.

II)A shepherd, who was supposed to lead his sheep in the right path ignored his responsibility. Aaron, though he knows that whatever he is doing to please the people were wrongs and non-pardonable before Almighty God. But, he acts according to the wish of the multitude! Is it not the same situation among most of the Shepherds of the generation of the day? What would be the answer to the Lord?

iii)A faithful shepherd who stands in between the Almighty God and his folk. As Almighty God calms down he intercedes, “Lord why should you be so angry with your people, whom you have brought from Egypt with great might and power”. “Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”. “Remember the solemn promise you made to them to give their descendents as there are stars in the sky”. So, the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened Ex. 32.11-14.

But, He had punished certain people. The Lord answered “it is those who have sinned against me whose name I will remove from my book”. So the Lord sent a disease on those rebellious people, because they had caused Aaron to make the Gold Calf. This is the warning for the present generation of the church who cause the Shepherds to decide wrongs because of their rebellion and prominence in the church.

How horrible and terrific is my mind the child of God it was and it is; and this would be the same question Lord have to me also. Sex and adultery even to sisters and own children? What would be His wrath for all my evil deeds? “Repent” “Repent” “Repent”. Turn to God who redeemed us from the bondage of sin, the bondage of Satan. Almighty God warns us. Are we hearing His warning to us?

Contd. Part II

Source:
Independent

Varghese Mathai
OCP Articles
30/1/2013

Bartholomew was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus and is usually identified with Nathaniel, who is mentioned in the St. John 1. He was introduced to Christ by Philip, another of the twelve apostles as per (John 1:43-51), where the name Nathaniel first appears. The theologian considers the presence of Nathaniel of Cana, in Jesus’ miracle at the Marriage at Cana recorded in St. John chapter 2. He is also mentioned as “Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee” in John 21:2. The name Nathaniel is the one used for him in John’s Gospel. The relationship between Philip an Nathaniel is noted as per John 1:43-51. Bartholomew Greek name, transliterated “Bartholomaios” comes from the Aramic bar-Tolmay, meaning son of Tolmay or son of the furrows (perhaps a ploughman).

According to the Coptic Orthodox Church, his martyrdom is commemorated on the 1st day of the Coptic Calendar (1st day of the month of “Thout), which currently falls on September 11 corresponding to August 29 in the Gregorian calendar. His feast is June 11 in Eastern Christianity, and August 24 in both forms of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

New Testament references

In the East, where Bartholomew’s evangelical labours were expended, he was identified as Nathanael. According to Abdisho bar Berika (often known as Ebedjesu in the West), the 14th century Nestorian metropolitan of Soba and Elias, the bishop of Damascus, Nathanael is mentioned only in the Gospel according to John. In the Synoptic gospels, Philip and Bartholomew are always mentioned together, while Nathanael is never mentioned; in John’s gospel. On the other hand, Philip and Nathanael are similarly mentioned together.

Guiseppe Simore Assemani specifically remarks, “the Chaldeans confound Bartholomew with Nathaniel”. However, some Biblical scholars reject this identification.

As Bartholomew

Bartholomew is listed among the Twelve Apostles of Christ in the three Synoptic gospels, Mathew 10.1-4, Mark 3.13-19, and Luke 6.12-16. Bartholomew also appears as one of the witnesses of the Ascension of Jesus Acts 1:4, 12, 13; however each time he is named in the company of Philip. He is not mentioned in St. John.

As Nathanael

In the Gospel of John,1:45-51 Nathanael is introduced as a friend of Philip. He is described as initially being skeptical about the Messiah coming from Nazareth, saying: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”, but nonetheless, follows Philip’s invitation. Jesus immediately characterizes him as “Here is a man in whom there is no deception.” Some scholars hold that Jesus’ quote “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you”, is based on a Jewish figure of speech referring to studying the Torah. Nathanael recognizes Jesus as “the Son of God” and “the King of Israel”. He reappears at the end of John’s gospel 21.2 as one of the disciples to whom Jesus appeared at the Sea of Galilee after the resurrection.

Tradition

Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, states that after the Ascension, Bartholomew went on a missionary tour to India, where he left behind a copy of the Gospel of Matthew. Other traditions record him as serving as a missionary in Ethiopia, Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Lycaonia. Along with his fellow apostle Jude, Bartholomew is reputed to have brought Christianity to Armenia in the 1st century. Thus both saints are considered the patron saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church.He is said to have been martyred in Albonopolis in Armenia. According to one account, he was beheaded, but a more popular tradition holds that he was flayed alive and crucified, head downward. He is said to have converted Polymius, the king of Armenia, to Christianity. Asyages, Polymius’s brother, consequently ordered Bartholomew’s execution.The 13th century Saint Bartholomew Monastery was a prominent Armenian monastery constructed at the site of the martyrdom of Apostle Bartholomew in the Vaspurakan Province of Greater Armenia (now in southeastern Turkey)

Mission in India

Two ancient testimonies exist about the mission of Saint Bartholomew in India. These are of Eusebius of Caesarea (early 4th century) and of Saint Jerome (late 4th century). Both these refer to this tradition while speaking of the reported visit of Pantaneus to India in the 2nd century.

The studies of Fr A.C Perumalil SJ and Moraes hold that the Bombay region on the Konkan coast, a region which may have been known as the ancient city Kalyan, was the field of Saint Bartholomew’s missionary activities.

Bartholomew’s relics

The 6th-century writer in Constantinople, Theodorus Lector, averred that in about 507 Emporor Anastasius gave the body of Bartholomew to the city of Dura-Europos, which he had recently re-founded. The existence of relics at Lipari, a small island off the coast of Sicily, in the part of Italy controlled from Constantinople, was explained by Gregory of Tours by his body having miraculously washed up there: a large piece of his skin and many bones that were kept in the Cathedral of St Bartholomew the Apostle, Lipari, were translated to Beneventum in 803, and to Rome in 983 by Holy Roman Emperor Otto II, conserved at the basilica of San Baartolomeo Bartolomeo allIsola. In time, the church there inherited an old pagan medical centre. This association with medicine in course of time caused Bartholomew’s name to become associated with medicine and hospitals. It is also believed that Some of Bartholomew’s skull was transferred to the Frankfurt Cathedral, while an arm is venerated in Canterbury Cathedral.

Source:
Independent

Varghese Mathai
Contributing Editor
24/1/13

The three day let originated in Syriac Orthodox Christian tradition and then spread to other oriental orthodox traditions including the Coptic and Armenian Churches. The Origin of this feast was to commemorate a miraculous cessation of plague which broke out in the region of Beth-Gammae. When stuck with disaster, the faithful of the place gathered in the church to pray and began to do great acts of penance and the plague ceased suddenly. Since it is observed three day it is known also as moonu nombu. It is a common practice in most of the church to have the Vasantha prarthana yanjam alos during this lent by carrying lighted candles and reciting the special prayer (mar aprems memera during the time of distress and plague)

Traditionally in Indian Orthodox Church, Holy Eucharist is celebrated only at the end of the fasting and not during the other days of the lent.

It is not worthless that the Indian Orthodox Church has canonized this blessed fast at this special time, while approaching to the Holy Forty Days Fast (i.e., the Great Lent). The words “forty days” have a special importance because we are approaching a death that Christ went through for the sake of all humanity. It is in other words Christ’s death in exchange for the destruction of humanity. All of humanity was under threat of destruction and annihilation in no lesser way in Christ’s day than when the world was annihilated by the forty days flood, which came on it because of the escalation of sin at that time. The impending crisis led the only begotten Holy Son to leave His glory, put on humanity, and suffer to save the world. He died Himself as ransom for destruction of human, rose from the dead, so that His death and resurrection would become an endless source of repentance and salvation. He became a sign for whoever desires to see it – not just so that men could have a sign from heaven: “We wish to see a sign from you” (Matt 12: 38), but so that they could inherit heaven itself.

It was Christ’s death and resurrection, and the Forty Days Fast the Lord undertook for the sake of all humanity, that was the payment for every shortcoming in piety or fasting. It is to be notified that, Baptism is only completed by total immersion in water three times, as in the story of Jonah’s descent into the depths of the sea. For this reason, we see that Christ’s anointing to serve came at the moment he rose out of the water, as did the encouragement to commence the forty days fast. If we skip ahead in time, or follow the Church ritual, we enter immediately into the week of suffering, then of death and resurrection.

The voice of the Lord came to Jonah saying: “Go at once to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before me.” But Jonah fled and descended into the depths of the sea (the whale’s belly) and remained there for three days. According to the Gospel’s, Christ descended into the abyss three days and three nights and in Jonah’s words: “Out of the belly of Sheol , I cried” (Jonah 2:2). This makes the book of Jonah both practical and visionary, every word and sentence firmly points to Christ. We can consider Jonah to be like John the Baptist in the New Testament, who cried out “Prepare the way of the Lord”.

Jonah is a living symbol of Christ. Christ’s baptism led Him into the holy forty days lent, then to the cross, and finally to resurrection. This is exactly the same as Jonah descending into the waters prior to going to Nineveh to preach repentance, where he proclaimed that the city would be destroyed in forty days. This contains a hidden sign that forty days were significant in God’s plans and was in fact the period of time set for destruction (the Flood). In the fast, the Lord Himself completed that forty days period for the sake of the whole of humanity.

As for the flight of Jonah, it is apparent that he found the message difficult to bear. But after he had descended into the waters and remained there for three days something happened to him. The whale vomited him on the shore and the Lord repeated the original instruction: “Get up, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I tell you” (Jonah 3:2). But this time Jonah obeyed him. Spending three days in the depths, it seems, reformed his attitude towards Nineveh. Something mystical happened here; Jonah’s descent into the water – his baptism – was in fact a passing through death and resurrection on behalf of Nineveh. The real transformation which the humanity requires occurred. We are already transformed as God’s Children through the Holy baptism, but due to the worldly affairs we get stained, and require cleansing, the repentance and remission of sins which has to be obtained through these Holy Lents so as to participate in his death and resurrection once again. Through this lent we have to experience the mystical act of God in us similar to that of Jonah had from the belly of the big fish to the shore of hope as far in the belly of the big whale of sins.

How wonderful are these powerful signs and how magnificent is the Church that, with the right touch, can designate a fast or a special feast! These definitions are inspirational and visionary to us to listen and understand, and not like the Scribes and Pharisees, who asked the Lord to show them a sign whilst ignoring the signs that had already been given.

The Church brings these scriptures into full view during these days so that we can absorb them for ourselves: first from Jonah, and secondly from Nineveh, because Jonah and Nineveh have two messages for our lives.
1. Jonah speaks to us of the Christ who came from afar, and

2. Nineveh severely reproaches us: “The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it … An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matt 12:41, 39).

Jonah could not bear to preach destruction. In the gospel of St Luke there is an interesting but very mystical allusion, that reveals a relationship between the warning of Nineveh’s people about the great danger they are going to face and the death that Jonah had faced for their sake: “For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation” (Lk 11:30).

An important fact to be notified herein is that people of Nineveh knew that Jonah had passed through the suffering of death in the belly of the whale for three days, and then risen for the sake of their salvation. The Gospel of St Luke here means that as Jonah, in his person and not only through his mission, was a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of man also, in Himself, is a sign to this generation, through His death and resurrection.

For us it is very difficult to say much about Jonah’s experience during those three days and nights, but are sure of the impact of Christ’s three days and nights in the abyss, and His resurrection:
“He led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (Eph 4:8).

Jonah went and preached to the people of Nineveh to spare them from God’s anger, through the suffering of his death and his preaching! It seems that he told them what had happened to him.

Another very interesting and important thing to notify here is that, what happened in Nineveh. As soon as the king knew what had happened to Jonah, and heard his preaching, he rose from his throne, took off his royal clothes, laid aside his pomp, beauty and vain pride, and put on sackcloth. All the people put on sackcloth, which is a robe made of goats’ hair, very rough on the skin.
He ordered that food should be withheld from everyone, old and young, even the infant at the mother’s breast, and even all the animals. How terrible! It is as if the whole of creation is included in Nineveh’s three days of repentance.

A city with one eighth of a million inhabitants, all of whom repented, and the Lord forgave them because of the determined collective repentance and the astute leadership of that just and conscientious king, who was able, through his wisdom, to avert the sentence of death from his people. What a wonderful example of the concern and wisdom of the shepherd! Are we lacking now a day’s such good shepherds. Whether it should be a matter of concern for the church to lead its sheep to its left and to its right so that they may not become the lost sheep and not at all able to find them.
So, it is not because of a sign in heaven or earth that humankind will repent and have its sins forgiven, but through humility, fasting, prayer and a meekness of heart before the Omnipotent God!

As far as we realize our sins, though they are numerous, we have to repent our sins, have to turn to God, so that He will forgive our sins as St Peter says in Act.3-18.

Beware of ourselves that, if the times of refreshment are hindered then the fault is ours. Nineveh was striding swiftly and surely towards the deep pit of destruction, but through taking a courageous and honest stand in response to the warning of judgment, it managed to obtain for itself a pardon from heaven.

Do we feel it as very difficult for this repentance and thus to receive the blessing of Almighty God?, remember that Nineveh’s king, people, women, children, and cattle knew the quick way to safety. What is hindering us, making us turn right and left, asking for the advice of old and young alike, while the door of salvation stands open before us. Nineveh sets us an example of how simple and sincere repentance is able to open up the doors of heaven and bring forth a total amnesty for the inhabitants of a whole city, without exception, a city which the Bible tells us did not know its right from its left.

As we approach the holy forty days we need a humble hearts like those of the king of Nineveh and his people. The mere mention of the fasting cattle bent over their troughs is a reproach because when I turn to my own soul I found within me the vicious haughty beasts of a lion among deer. How many instincts I have within my soul that need to be humiliated by hunger and sackcloth! O city of the Lord, how full my soul is with these things! How wonderful it is for my soul to sit like Nineveh in holy sackcloth and ashes! During these holy three days lent and the holy forty days it is good for you, my soul, to bind all your fierce, animal instincts, and not to think you are the daughter of the great city that knows its right from its left, because sin is not overcome except by him who has tasted that, which Nineveh have tasted.

The sign of Nineveh is not in any way inferior to the opening of the eyes of the blind, feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fish, the coin in found in the mouth of the fish or changing the water to wine.
The sign of Nineveh surpassed every sign except for Christ’s death and resurrection. The distinctive of the sign of Nineveh is that it was led to repentance through the call of a prophet. The voice that calls us now is greater than that of any prophet.

Jonah’s call was to death or repentance, but Christ offers us His death, a living power, charged with life, and able to resurrect us from sin and death!

Source:
Independent

Varghese Mathai
21/1/13

Is Jonah and Salvation of Nineveh a Historical event or a Parable?

Jonah (782 BC) was an actual figure in history. The of authenticity being an Historical man can be verified by II Kings 14.25 “He [Jeroboam II] was the one who re-conquered all the territory that had belonged to Israel from Hamath Pass in the north to the Dead Sea in the South. This was what the Lord the God of Israel, had promised to his servant the prophet Jonah son of Amittai from Gath Hepher.

Another very important evidence to consider Jonah as an historic man is the words of Jesus Christ himself in St. Mathew Ch.12:38-39. “Then some teachers of the law and some Pharisees spoke up ‘Teacher’ they said ‘we want to see you perform a miracle’”. How evil and godless are the people of this day? Jesus exclaimed. ‘You ask me for a miracle’? No! The only miracle you will be given is the miracle of the prophet Jonah. Jesus called him as a prophet and further confirmed that it is a miracle of God!

Jonah is highly important in Islam as a prophet who was faithful to God and delivered His message. In Islam Jonah is also called Dhul-Nun in Arabic means ‘The One of the Whale’. Chapter 10 of Qur’an is named Jonah although directly refers only in verse 98.According to their tradition Jonah comes from the tribe Benjemin.

According to Judaism the book of Jonah is one of the 12 Minor Prophets included in the Tanakh. According to their tradition Jonah was the boy brought back to life by Elijah the prophet and hence shares some his characteristics. But it is not considered I Christian Tradition.

Western analysts claim that the book of Jonah is fictitious. Those who are more open-minded say that Jonah represents the eldest son (in the parable of the lost son), because when Nineveh was saved Jonah was sad like the eldest son who would not enter the house. The profound truth could be that, Jonah refused to go to Nineveh because even though he proclaims its destruction, he was sure that God is patient and slow to anger and would inevitably forgive them in the end. Hence, he wished to avoid two pains. First to prophesy destruction, extremely difficult for a kind soul and secondly the Merciful God who would relent from His anger and Jonah would appear to be the one criticising a foreign people. According to Church Fathers, Jonah could not be the eldest son, who was sad at Nineveh’s redemption, but he is a type of Christ. He is the outstanding prophet of salvation, who is not less than other Old Testament prophets, but probably greater than them in gentleness and finesse, one comparable to Job, who also, like Jonah, was wronged.
But for an Atheist the most unbelievable miracle in the Bible is the event when Jonah was in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights. The one who accept Him and his dominion over His creation, they will believe Him even though above to human understanding or even unproven by any one. God, the creator, has power and with His command, the sea can make the waves rough and high or make it calm. The whales will obey its creator’s command, swallow a man or vomit him. By God’s mighty power the impossible is possible to keep a man alive in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights. Nothing is impossible for God for there is no proof, only Faith is required.

Now let us compare Jonah with us who are the generation of the day.

Jonah resembles in many aspects Moses. Moses doubts about God’s plan on him and his doubt was whether the people of Israel will accept him as a Messenger sent by the Lord of hosts. Ex.4.1. Then Moses answered the Lord.”But suppose the Israelites do not believe me and will not listen to what I say. What shall I do if they say that you did not appear to me” Here as a symbol a stick has been provided to him. The difference is Moses plight was for the deliverance of Gods own people the Israelites, where as for Jonah was for the people who doesn’t know God of hosts and who were the main enemies of his own people the Israelites. The difference in the case of Jonah, Lord Almighty God made Jonah himself, as a symbol for the people of Nineveh. His transformation occurs in the belly of the big fish is the symbol, which made the people of Nineveh, who were not knowing the Lord Almighty God, to believe the Almighty’s warning, sent to them through His messenger Jonah.

1. Jonah was called by God and said Arise and Go to Nineveh; He wished not to go. Are we not of disobedient like Jonah and desperate for our wish to be done and not of His?

Prophet Jonah was commanded by God to go to Nineveh, capital of Assyria, the historic enemy of Israel, to warn the sins of its people, the city is doomed to destruction. Jonah was unhappy with the assignment, because of the fear that he might be too successful, that people of Nineveh may repent and thus escape destruction. And so he takes passage on a ship travelling westward, bound for Tarshish on the coast of Spain, at the opposite end of the then known world. Are we not of the same character? Despite His wishes goes in the opposite direction and keeps on praying for the success of our own wish but recognize it very late? Are we not having the same attitude to see the end of those who we hate or count them as our opponents or enemies? When any perils or disaster comes in their lives are we not judging or are not reluctant to say that, it happened to them as a reward for their evil deeds?

2. Jonah recognises that it is not so easy to evade the Divine charge. Do we recognize it in our life?

Jonah, hearing God’s directive to announce the imminent destruction, fled to the harbour city of Jaffa and there boarded a ship going in the opposite direction. We can understand Jonah’s concern and reaction. The mission would be thankless and difficult; the chances were that he would at best be ignored or at worst ridiculed. Why me? What do I need this for?” And so he tried to flee from the presence of God, to escape from the responsibility of serving God as He wished. No one knows when, like Jonah, he may be singled out to do God’s work. A supernatural storm arises; the ship is sinking all the sailors of the boat start calling their gods, while Jonah try to hide himself from God and fell asleep in the bottom of the ship; the heathen mariners cast lots to see who is to blame for the danger that has come upon them? Now in the hand of the heathen people he was subjected accusation and the finger of accusation points at the mysterious stranger, Jonah. He requests that they cast him into the sea and, sadly, they do so. Here we can see a man of despair who wished to die and flee away from God, Further incidents made him to understand, how deep is the plan of Lord?

3. At the belly of the whale Jonah understood that even he wished to put an end of his life it is in the safe hand of God and Nothing can happen beyond the plant of Almighty God.

The storm abates and Jonah is swallowed by a great fish. There he turns in prayer to God, a prayer of repentance. Just imagine being in side of a whale for three days and nights we can understand his suffering. God was teaching him a lesson to learn that he is helpless and he cannot die or live without the mercy of God. Inside the whale, Jonah started praying, his repentance and confession about his disobedience to the Lord. The merciful God answered his prayer and asked the whale to vomit him onto the land. As God commanded, the whale vomited Jonah.

Here also Jonah did not understand or ignored the miraculous acts of Almighty as the Whale swallowed him unhurt. Similarly at the time of troubles we become upset and allow these problems to monopolize our thoughts and drain away our emotional energy until something happen which bring us to a situation to re think at the sudden tragic death of a dear one or a friend, an automobile accident which leaves someone permanently disabled, an incurable disease discovered in an acquaintance. Then suddenly our problem which had seemed so important begins to evaporate. We feel foolish and ashamed.

4. Jonah understood God’s universal concern His Mercy and compassion on all living things, despite his eagerness to witness the destruction of Nineveh.

Jonah’s failing was not only that he permitted himself to be entrapped in self pity, but also he could not identify with the plight of other human beings, and became angry with God for sparing their lives. Once again, God had to teach him of the concern for others. Lord asked Jonah to preach in Nineveh. Now Jonah knew that he had to obey God even though he had his reasoning’s before. The salvation is for the Jew, only the people of God not for the Gentiles. The City of Nineveh was a walking distance of three days. . He was supposed to walk three days towards the city of Nineveh, but after the first day, he cried out to the people that in forty days the city will be destroyed by God. He had no compassion or mercy in his speech to the people in the City of Nineveh. He just followed the order of the Lord even though he did not want to do so. The ordinary citizens of Nineveh heard Jonah’s preaching and they began to change from their wickedness and repent their sins. The word reached the king, and he proclaimed fasting for the whole nation. Everyone did the fasting and prayer without any food or beverages. It started from the king’s palace, the rich and poor, babies and even the animals. The cry from the city reached to the Lord and God had compassion on the city and changed His decision to destroy the city and decided to save it.

Jonah waited to see what would happen to the city. When he discovered that God had forgiven the people and did not destroy the city, Jonah was very angry at God and he wished to be dead than to witness the salvation of gentile nation. The closing verse has that marvellous, ironic ending: “You have had pity on the gourd, for which you have not laboured, neither made it grow; which came up in a night and perished in a night; should not I have on Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left, also much cattle?”Like Jonah, we seem to have lost some of the basic human qualities of concern, compassion and love for men and women we do not personally know.

Source:
OCP Articles

Edited and Compiled by Ajesh T Philip
20/1/13

O sinner, be not discouraged, but have recourse to Mary in all you necessities. Call her to your assistance, for such is the divine Will that she should help in every kind of necessity – Saint Basil the Great
“If anyone does not believe that Holy Mary is the Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead” – Gregory of Nazianzus,To Cledonius,101(A.D. 382)~

“Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. The first thing which kindles ardour in learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than the Mother of God?” – Saint Ambrose

The Virgin Mary’s Feasts

The Orthodox Church has incessantly extolled Virgin Mary’s virtues and canonized her as a patron saint of the church, repeating her name in church prayers day and night. Our church has set commemorative days for the Virgin Mary to be celebrated all the year round.

It was a common practice in the church to celebrate commemorations of saints and martyrs after heavenly abodes following the termination of their spiritual struggle on earth. The Holy Virgin Mary and St. John, however, were exempted.

Apart from the celebration of the Feast of the Virgin Mary’s presentation in the temple, the Feast of the Virgin Mary for the blessing of the crops, the Feast of the Virgin Mary of the sowing and the Feast of the Virgin Mary for blessing of the vineyards is also celebrated.

Syrian Orthodox poets called the Potters attribute setting these feasts of the Virgin Mary to John, the Evangelist. Those poets’ quotes: “With dew and drizzle the land of Ephesus was prinkled when St. John brought the message that Virgin Mary commanding her Feasts to be celebrated three times a year. The Feast of the Virgin Mary of the sowing is in January (14-15). In May it is the Feast of the Virgin Mary for blessing the crops (14-15) and in August is her Feast of the blessing of the vineyards (14-15), which are the symbols of mysteries of life”.

These three Feasts are on the fifteenth day of the above mentioned months. Assumption of the Virgin Mary replaced the Feast of the Virgin Mary for blessing the Vineyards, which falls on August 15th. Due to the sacredness of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, the church instructed that, the faithful should go on a fast in preparation for the celebration of this feast. It is called the Virgin Mary’s Fast. In the past this fast used to last for fourteen days starting on August the first, during which the faithful used to have one Meal a day. This meal was free of meat, eggs or dairy product. It consisted mainly of vegetables and beans usually taken in the evening. The faithful also refrained from consuming any drinks.

Legendary Story Behind this feast:

At the time of their flight to Egypt…. The force of Herodesh followed them…. They asked to people who were harvesting the wheat in field… about the Joseph, Mary & Jesus, they answered “while we were sowing seed, 3 of them passed this way on a donkey…” It is believed that on their way, Mary and her son Jesus blessed the sowed seeds and hence it matured and sprouted within no time….and Jesus was escaped from the Herodesh and hencewe celebrate this feast.

Prayers:

How greatly appealing the discourse about the Mother of God, the Holy Virgin Mary is! Our Holy Church fathers had had extensive scrutinizing studies of her biography; inspired ecclesiastical poets wrote beautiful poems in glorification of her; celebrated artists sculpted the most beautiful statues of her and skillful painters filled the world with her splendid portraits. The Virgin Mary is the Patron Saint of the most magnificent Cathedrals the faithful have erected for her worldwide.

Church fathers praised the Virgin in poetry and prose while celebrating her feasts and set rites included in huge volumes called (Fanaquith). The book of daily offices repeated weekly and called (Shehimo) includes hymns in poetry and prose sung daily in the morning and evening. The themes of these songs are the declaration of the Orthodox doctrinal concept of the Virgin Mary and the confession of faith in her.

Some excerpts are quoted from the book of daily offices and stated hereinafter: in relation to the feasts of the Virgin Mary and the aim of celebrating these feasts the prayer of the first office on Monday night reads: “Oh, Virgin Mary, Mother of God, may your name be a source of blessing. May you answer the prayers of those, close and others far away? May you heal the sick and beseech (your son) to give courage to the oppressed. May you expel the evil within those tormented? May the power of your intercessory prayers have mercy on us, hallelujah, and may your prayer support us”.

The prayer said on Monday evening reads: “May the commemoration of the blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, be eternal, because in her virginity she gave birth to Jesus, the king, the savior of the whole universe, hallelujah. May her prayer be with us”.

A hymn sung on Thursday evening reads

“Oh, blessed Virgin, who became the Mother of God in chastity and holiness and without the seed of a man, may you, on this commemoration day of yours, have mercy on us so that the dead will have rest and the living may have hope…Though you are so far away from us in the flesh, yet your prayers are always with us. So may you implore the hidden power (the Son), who descended from His throne and dwelled in you, to forgive us”. The prayer said on Friday evening includes a Litany by Mar Jacob of Serugh (+521) that reads:

“How beautiful and pleasant the commemorative day of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who became the Mother of the Son of God, is! May you, Oh God, through the intercessory prayer of hers, keep wrath away from all those who, in faith, seek refuge in her”.

In the prayer of the first office, said on Saturday night St. Jacob says: ” Let us venerate the day of the blessed (Mary), glorify it with extreme love, with faith, “watchfulness” and long vigil, and by going on giving alms and praying, for (the virgin) doubles the reward of those who venerate her”.
May you, Oh Holy Saint, distribute, on your day, your gifts among our gathering who are thirsty for your prayers and litanies.

May the Lord be the fence that protects all those who venerate you, and may the Lord keep all blows and wrath away from them…. The power that strengthens you is that which empowers us so that we become able to praise you. This power calls on us, through your prayers, to join the abodes of light May the Lord count all those, dead and alive, who venerate your commemorative days and seek you as a refuge, among the Choir of Angels. The congregation rises to you, Oh Lord, on the day of your mother, genuine praise sung to sweet melodies. May you draw the sign of the Cross on their highly elevated gates and keep them away from distress. Glory be to you, your father and to the Holy Spirit.

The Virgin Mary in the Holy Scripture

Our study of the life of the Holy Virgin and for our elaboration of her Holy life, we have had to depend on the books of divine inspiration and on the extensive exegesis and hermeneutics of the Holy Book that our church fathers have left for us. According to the teachings of church fathers, dozens of prophecies declared by the divine inspiration are stated in the Old Testament which has been fulfilled in the Virgin Mary. She is the woman referred in God’s promise of salvation by saying: “Her seed shall bruise thy head” (Gen. 3:15). Her seed is Jesus Christ who was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of the seed of a man. She is the new Eve and her son Jesus is the new Adam. In the same way God took a rib from Adam and created Eve, the first woman, the incarnated God, the second Adam, was in the renewal of creation, born of the virgin, who is the second Eve. She is the Virgin, Prophet Isaiah (8th century BC) referred to in his famous prophecy: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name (Immanuel). (Is 7-14), ” which being interpreted is, (God with us) (Mat 1:23).

Source:
OCP Articles

E S John
29/6/2012

Part- 6

Role of Judas

We are no way different from Judas who obscured and defied the Lord’s commandments and warnings which focusing on his hypocritical and suicidal crimes. All the disciples said, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny
you”, mt.26: 35, including Judas while the head money of his Lord was kept safely in his purse. He was right that he wouldn’t deny but only betray his Master, unlike the other fellow disciples. Look at the audacity of the villain
or weakling who saluted Jesus, “Hail Master. And he kissed Him”, Mt.16: 49. He, therefore, desecrated the first institution of the Holy qurbana and the second institution of the commandment of love, Jn.13: 34-35. His loving kiss was for 30 silver coins. Apart from his genetic disorders which I don’t want to ponder over here, he was also faced with the ripples of the internal feuding scenario over the leadership and supremacy tussles among the senior and junior peers even at the Last supper. I have given in my books all such hallucinations and delusions that he was preyed into towards the end of his tumultuous journey, hence no room in repeating here. The internal rivalry and intrigues for power games in any institutions, clubs, religious venues or families will have many helpless victims of circumstance.

In order to quell these destructive forces, they were offered with 12 thrones at different stages even at the last hour, yet the power of the diabolical forces seized them for betraying and denying by breaking their solemn oaths within few hours. Had they been satisfied with the Lord’s offers of thrones, the only ultimate reality, there wouldn’t have been any denials or betrayals which ended up in untoward catastrophes. Those 8 apostles who obviously were not involved in any power wrangling also got the thrones without any rise and falls. St.Thomas and St.Philip wanted to know the way to the Father, and got the clue for it later on, Jn.14. Our fate also is the same. Our only aim is to get salvation. Does it need any `sthanam or manam’ in the church? “Nearer to church is far away from God” is a true old saying. The bribery money that he accepted 2 days before was craving in the prince of perdition’s mind while he accepted the Holy qurbana from the grieving Master. Are we different in any way from him? No. Jesus could
wash their feet only, not their minds, because of man’s free will.

Part 7

Judas did charity works at the expense of the chaste faith. That is by rebelling against the Lamb who forewarned them that the Word Incarnate came from Heaven to redeem mankind from the sloth of sin. But the traitor sold Him for money, and he in turn bartered his soul for eternal fire. Here again we face the same duplicate scenario now. The God’s everlasting love that flows from the throne of Grace and mercy is replaced by the Judas’ love of charity works, as amplified by the cost of the ointment that Mary spent for anointing the feet of the Lord, Jn.12. The modern generation is sick of parish /church’s unwanted extravaganzas of stereotyped celebrations and pomp, consequently giving some money for charity works of the church and claim superiority as salvation earners and the hinge pins of parish/ church affairs became the prominent zeal. We emulated the faith vandalism of Judas by replacing the sacrament of Holy Confession with ‘husoyo’ prayers, the same that the son of perdition did at the first institution of the sacrament of Holy qurbana. He didn’t cleanse his mind by answering the charges Jesus made then and before also, Jn.6, despite the Lord washed his feet. We stopped the flow of God’s grace upon us by abstaining from the sacrament of Confession before receiving the Holy Mysteries. The present once in a year confession, the eligibility right for parish voting, is like our National census which determines the population of the country or electoral role registration. One who goes for confession for few times a year is apparently gossiped as a sinner by the majority the saved ones. Even without confession, the seemingly born again believers take part in the Holy qurbana by ‘husoyo’ prayers every celebration, because the unwritten policy of the church is to abstain from receiving it is a sin. We copy and follow anything that happens in other imperial or the charismatic churches.

The gloomy but glorious earthly, outward era that dawned towards the end of the 1970s flourished exuberantly in material wealth and high-tech, angelic living conditions which began by sedating the sanctimonious faith that we have been resuscitating in all possible ways.

This is a reflection of the philosophy of Judas who didn’t believe in the mystical body of Christ, but doing charity works which Jesus started with His money that He received from the devoted small community, Lk.8: 1-4. Now the church authorities are playing with the money and the trust which the devotees have entrusted upon them, but trampled over the apostolic faith by importing heresy and pagan celebrations into the body of Christ for the sake of grabbing money from the faithful flock. Just as the Jews prodded over the commandments and the creed of Moses, and killed Jesus, we also grieved the Holy Ghost and sacrificed our sacred faith by substituting it for money and wealth. Real estate and Political spirituality are the product of such teachings of that God is love; hence a loving God can be pleased by giving help and money to the suffering flock. The Red Cross, World Vision and other charity organizations give their reports, showing that 90% of the money they collect are for Administrative costs, the balance that reaches in the underdeveloped countries is used for military hardware after a good share is taken by the distributors. Such Judas’ works are adorned with high glamour, at the same time dishonoring, denying and wailing the Creator who is all in all in our everyday life. Worship comes in the first part of the Mosaic commandments; the second part is the work for the downtrodden and the marginalized ones. All these imperatives are explained meticulously in the Creed that was given separately in the 5 books of Moses. St.Paul and all other apostles died for Jesus, the pioneer and protector of our faith …, Heb.12: 2; 11; 6, not for Judas who cared the charity portfolio by embezzling money. St. Paul gave importance to faith, Rom.3.27; Heb.11 and 12), so also the Lord said that if we have faith, not love (a byproduct of faith), mountain can be moved from its place. Before the onset of the high-tech era we tried to cultivate the right faith and used to live as a loving community because it was imperative to lead that life in such a way due to our daily necessities which were manned by human power, not by electrical appliances and countless insurance schemes.

Part 8

The impact of science and technology

Just as the WORD became MAN, Jn.1; 1-4, the created universe and its order came into its pattern in a scientific formula by God’s utterance. It must have started with a single cell organism of ameba and then developed as animals in the sea which came as amphibian and developed and reached up to the stage of chimpanzee age during its metamorphosis changes, Ps.146: 6; 148: 5-6. But God made man in His own image and likeness with His own hands, not by His words, making a MISSING LINK in between chimpanzee and man. In other words, God also works in a scientific formula that He used in the creation of everything under the earth as well as in Heaven, Ps.33: 6-9. Man is also a passing shadow on the face of the earth; thus he also vanishes after either praising by worship or abusing God by the free will that he is adorned with. Man is created as a servant of God, Is.49: 3, and he expected to worship
Him on accounts of His mercy and grace that He bestowed upon him, Is.40: 12-31 &1. Man is created to worship God and then earn a place in the musical band of the fallen Lucifer legion that once used to worship the Almighty in timelessness. But man becoming a dupe of the devil uses his intelligence and the power of the inner knowledge by which he claims credit and superiority on the mysteries that are shrouded within the created order of scientific and technological knowledge, particularly at this time when the most of the mysteries are unfolded, so that the boastful men are befooled and misled by the petty technological invention which helped in degenerating the quality of inner life. The eminent scientists and biologists accept and approve that God is the author of science and technology, but the pigmy scientists and charlatans defy the Creator and worship the Devil, with the aid of all bodily passions. Thus God finds a reason for the arrogant and proud man to be humiliated by rejecting him to the infernal darkness and collecting the obedient ones to His Eternal abode. Thus an era of rebellion, as in the days of Lucifer, by atheists, agnostics, Gnostics, humanists, rationalists, hypocrites and irreligious and moral hunchbacks and perverts of all types will pave the world to be buried in the sulpherous ashes of the bottomless pit. The following is the obvious sign and sigh of the last phase of human history.

The high-concrete separation walls between the neighbors that invited an era of isolation felt the necessity of giving out the excess money to the charity institutions by nuclear families which having only one or two children. The carnage of money by the super powers which wanted to bring everything under their control made unbridgeable fissures in our National and international relationships and communities. The long -suffering miseries that caused by a culture of gun and hate, the weapons of mass destruction and human bombs and terrorism of religious, ethnic,
tribal and national and international dimensions triggered for at least a minority of the world population that are uprooted from its habitats have become a perennial urge for the world communities and rulers to settled down
them in make shift accommodation lately. An unnatural and artificial life in our hybrid society that invite a higher standard of high-tech life needed money, electronic infrastructural transport and communication facilities for
giving minimum comforts of shelter and food, especially clean drinking water. Money, money, everywhere money, but is not accessible to have a peaceful life for about 90% of the world populations. Money and power games can’t buy peace. Slums under the shades of high rise flats and buildings are the naked realities of global society that mint money out of fossil energy and natural resources. God is ousted out to the polar areas where He is destined to fight and defeat the incoming and exiting diabolical forces of hell. Money, support and help are to be provided where man is treated as mere animals. Man loves the animal word more than he loves his own species because he identifies himself with the darker animals that are emerging from the abysmal word, Rev.13: 1, so much is the cruelty waged man against man. Hence charity help and works are of paramount importance in today’s torn apart globe.

Espionage, spying, watching the movements

By secret ways by National and international secret organizations by advanced technical know-how which we started during the world wars make man not to love his own brethren. It has become imperative in preying upon others to cast an eye on everybody, even our own kiths and kin and neighbours. Hacking of communications and torturing innocent people is the byproduct of a high-tech life scenario. The whistle blowing Association and neighborhood watch are such products that even pry into our private life for selfish petty reasons. Love between individuals has evaporated
and consequently a legal-minded society and social order and club life paradigm of buccaneer and Epicurean life thrive by whistle-blowing and secret communications. A time is dawned that nobody loves one another, but is linked
by a superficial relationship with the expressions or salutations by ‘please’ ‘sorry’ ‘don’t worry’ greetings. In order to meet these challenges religions, world bodies and governments are forced to throw away their religious values and ethical precepts because it is proved that only the international treachery and mafia system could thrive when man is struggling for basic necessities of everyday life and fundamental rights that are enshrined in our constitutions and religious and moral codes/teachings. Terrorism and fanaticism and racial and ethnic tensions aggravate and man is at loggerhead within himself because individualism has become the religion of the open society that craves for money and power. Counterfeit money is another evil that the rulers are faced with enormous
challenges.

As a result of such vicious outcomes, what we have to lament is the sedation of churches and spirituality by the
underground forces of mafia systems as of a major concern. Such an adverse social complexity made it inevitable for the religious hierarchy to inculcate the mass that God is love, and unless we love God, we are doomed to perish. But the irreligious and moral idiots embrace charity work as the weapons to replace the main religious agenda of worship, forgetting that the absolute faith in God is the ultimate strength that can only give an answer to our problems and getting salvation thereby. No congenial time or ability to practice religion when our physical and mental life is in turmoil with TV and all other electronic mass media which became the bible and worship, together with goes the amorous lifestyle of a pagan and atheistic community baffled by the scientific and high-tech cosmetic mesmerism. The licentious lifestyle of an abrasive society which craves for equality of sex, a false and power-generating bargain, has cut the nuclear families into pieces by the dynamite of divorce and equal opportunity acrobatics. One has to realize that during the high-tech era man doesn’t live by the earthly trinity of sex, lunatic drugs and nerve-breaking mad music alone; he needs the healthy food for his inner appetite, too.

Disparities that divide the community into many strands have given rise to many forms of irreligious outcomes of promiscuities and fads. The money-making culture of sub-cultural strands dominated the world stage by musical pop groups and bands and immoral lifestyle which all thrive by self-consuming pleasures with an omnivorous taste. These
young stars and celebrities minted money by using all the electronic vices, together with bloomed so many international sports and their clubs, drug and sex industries and sex-trafficking and pornography of a myriad types. To become a luminary of any sort has become the ultimate aim of each individual. Corruption of all types in seen and unseen realms flourished in epic proportion that forced the rulers to change the law to simmer to everybody’s de-facto relationship for quenching the lust of the flesh only. These groups thrived by money and technology that is imported from the nether world from where emerges the beast which is illustrated in the Book of Revelations, Rev.13. In this darkness where nobody can work, Jn.9, is a glaring sign of the Doomsday reality.

The high-tech era means making money and becoming like shining international stars of many types. The computer technology has turned the world upside down. Man to man relationship is substituted with machine to machine relationship that wiped out our heart to heart bond and affection. The 13 members of a youth group yielded 1
billion dollar by the Face Book dealing this week is only an example. Not only the young celebrities and luminaries make money but others who work in the IT field and off shore drilling and similar other industries and workplaces fetch a huge sum as their salary which in turn touches all the facets of our life at large. One who has no life experience receive this sort of huge money and spent it extravagantly for satisfying their body passions because religion lost its flavour at the feet of Mammon who rule the world with its fiscal might now, 1.Jn 5: 19. The money that grabbed by selling the body passions are the main chunk of the charity money which ate away the pure apostolic faith of depositing our soul into the hands of God by penitential religious life and prayers because the church and its institutions now represent for giving a voice for the ones who make insidious incendiarism, not for the ones who aspire for worshipping God in truth and spirit. “For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through these cravings that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs”, 1.Tim.6: 10. Thus the age of Judas has dawned again at the close of the age without any warnings or our knowledge, though a kind of a harmonious society survived before the onset of a petroleum age somewhere before the close of the 1970s. The intrinsic, elemental or unearthly love that we thirst for now has been gulped by the greed of money and cheap popularity, and the cosmic type of love has already become a thing of the past that will be explained in Part 9, so also corrupting the apostolic faith by the influence of money and high-tech paraphernalia is a sign of our spiritual degradation.

E.S.John, Australia

Prof E.S.John,
Australia
16/5/2012

Role of Judas

We are no way different from Judas who obscured and defied the Lord’s commandments and warnings which focusing on his hypocritical and suicidal crimes. All the disciples said, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you”, mt.26: 35, including Judas while the head money of his Lord was keptsafely in his purse. He was right that he wouldn’t deny but only betray his Master, unlike the other fellow disciples. Look at the au dacity of the villainor weakling who saluted Jesus, “Hail Master. And he kissed Him”, Mt.16: 49. He, therefore, desecrated the first institution of the Holy qurbana and the second institution of the commandment of love, Jn.13: 34-35. His loving kiss was for 30 silver coins.

Apart from his genetic disorders which I don’t want to ponder over here, he was also faced with the ripples of the internal feuding scenario over the leadership and supremacy tussles among the senior and junior peers even at the Last supper. I have given in my books all such hallucinations and delusions that he was preyed into towards the end of his tumultuous journey, hence no room in repeating here. The internal rivalry and intrigues for powergames in any institutions, clubs, religious venues or families will have many helpless victims of circumstance.

In order to quell these destructive forces, they were offered with 12 thrones at different stages even at the last hour, yet the power of the diabolical forces seized them for betraying and denying by breaking their solemn oaths within few hours. Had they been satisfied with the Lord’s offers of thrones, the only ultimate reality, there wouldn’t have been any denials or betrayals which ended up in untoward catastrophes. Those 8 apostles who obviously were not involved in any power wrangling also got the thrones without any rise and falls. St.Thomas and St.Philip wanted to know the way to the Father, and got the clue for it later on, Jn.14. Our fate also is the same. Our only aim is to get salvation.

Does it need any `sthanam or manam’ in the church? “Nearer to church is far away from God” is a true old saying. The bribery money that he accepted 2 days before was craving in the prince of perdition’s mind while he accepted the Divine Liturgy from the grieving Master. Are we different in any way from him? No. Jesus could wash their feet only, not their minds, because of man’s free will.

E.S.John, Australia

Department of Church Research and StudiesIntroduction

THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH was founded in AD 52 by St Thomas, one of the twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ. At least from the fourth Century, the Church accepted Catholicos of Seleucia – Ctesiphon (Patriarch of Babylon) as the Spiritual Head. At least from the 17th Century, the Church followed the West Syriac Liturgy and gradually the Patriarch of Antioch was accepted as the Spiritual Head. In these periods East & West Syriac Bishops were present in Malankara. But the local Archdeacons (upto 1653), Mar Thoma Methrans (1653 – 1815), Malankara Metropolitans (1815 – 1934) spiritually and temporally administered the Church.

The Catholicate of the East was established in 1912. After adopting the Constitution in 1934, the Catholicos of the East cum Malankara Metropolitan is administering the Church spiritually and temporally. In 1975, the name “Marthoma”, the traditional title of Malankara Metropolitan was reinstated in the name of Catholicos of the East.

Udayamperoor Synod (AD 1599) and Coonan Cross Oath (AD 1653) are the major events in the history of Christianity in India. Under the Portuguese political power during this period helped the intervention of Rome in the affairs of the Malankara Church and in certain instances it resulted in a literal subjugation of the Church at least in certain areas and parishes by the Roman Pope. It was however not unanimously accepted by the Malankara Church.

Mar Gregorios Abded Jaleel, Syriac Metropolitan of Jerusalem, sent by Patriarch of Antioch arrived Malankara in AD 1665. The two Churches (Antioch & Malankara) were linked by very intimate relations since then as both are Orthodox Churches in the West Syriac (Antiochian) liturgical traditions and practices.

HH Mar Ignatius Pathros III (IV), Patriarch of Antioch visited Malankara during 1875 – 1877. He convened a Synod at Mulanthuruthy, consecrated Holy Mooron, consecrated six Bishops and divided the Church into seven Dioceses for administrative purposes.

Two rival Patriarchs of Antioch viz., HH Mar Ignatius Abdalla II and HH Mar Ignatius Abded Masiha II visited Malankara during 1909 – 1913. Abdalla II excommunicated Malankara Metropolitan Vattasseril Geevarghese Mar Dionysius VI in 1911. Abded Mesiha II declared the excommunication invalid and reinstated Mar Dionysius VI.

Unfortunately, the Church was split into two factions, viz., the Bava group (later Patriarchal Party) and the Methran group (later Catholicos Party). On 15th September 1912, HH Mar Ignatius Abded Masiha II installed HH Mar Baselius Paulos I as the first Catholicos of the East in Malankara. Excommunication on Mar Dionysius VI was withdrawn by Patriarch HH Mar Ignatius Elias III in 1931. Church Constitution was adopted on 26th December 1934.

Litigation started in 1913 ended in a Supreme Court Verdict in 1958. On 16th December 1958, the two factions united and became one Church. Patriarch and Catholicos accepted each other and 1934 Constitution was adopted in the unified Church. HH Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacob III was invited by the Holy Synod of Malankra Church as the Chief Celebrant for the installation of HH Mar Baselius Augen I as the fourth Catholicos of the East in Malankara on 22nd May 1964.

1960s can be considered as the Golden Age of the Church. The unified Malankara Church honoured the HH Patriarch of Antioch with the Primacy of Honour as the First among Equals and gave him all the privileges mentioned in the Constitution of 1934 (Articles 1, 101, 114, 118).

Both Antioch & Malankara Churches participated in the Oriental Orthodox Heads of Churches Conference held at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1965, as two independent, interdependent and autocephalous Churches. Both Churches are members of WCC in this status. The Catholicos ordained three bishops (1966) and consecrated Holy Mooron (1967) during this period. The honorofic titles “His Holiness” & “Moran” were used for the Catholicos.

Conflicts started in 1970 and the Church again split into two factions viz., Orthodox and Jacobite in 1975. HH Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacob III consecrated a subordinate Catholicos for the Jacobite faction.

After the Supreme Court verdict of 1995, negotiations started for reconciliation, but without success. In 2002, HH Patriarch Mar Ignatius Zakka I consecrated a new Catholicos (Maphrian) for the Jacobite faction renamed as the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church.

To attain peace, reconciliation and unity which is now a dream of the major portion of the faithful in both factions of the Church, this protocol was prepared and approved by the two Holy Synods of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (SOCA) and the Malankara Orthodox Church (MOC).

Protocol between the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (SOCA) and the Malankara Orthodox Church (MOC)
1. For the sake of recognition of the hierarchical succession of the Malankara Orthodox Church (MOC), and in accordance with this protocol, the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (SOCA) recognizes the autocephally (independence) of the MOC.

2. His Holiness, the Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, being the successor of St. Peter the Apostle, has the first position of honor, in accordance with the Church traditions, and the resolutions of the canonical ecumenical councils confessed by the two Churches and also due to the historical links between the two Churches, in a manner that does not belittle the independent status of the MOC. (MOC Constitution Articles 1, 2).

3. The SOCA belongs to the SEE of SAINT PETER and MOC belongs to the SEE of SAINT THOMAS and confess one Orthodox Doctrine, in mutual Communion and each of them having its own independence.

4. In order to manifest and affirm the spiritual relations between the two Churches, HH the Patriarch of Antioch and HH the Catholicos of the East should be mentioned in all the Holy Qurbanas. The name of the Patriarch of Antioch to be mentioned first.

5. Each Church has her own Holy Synod to care for her affairs.

6. To assure the oneness in the Apostolic Orthodox faith and Tradition, a general Holy Synod of both Churches is desirable to be convened as and when the need arises.

7. Each Church has the liberty to chose its own Patriarch / Catholicos. But in order to manifest the close relations between the two Churches; the other Church will send a delegation to attend the election process as guests.

8. In any future consecration and enthronement of a Patriarch / Catholicos for either one of the two Churches, a delegation should be sent from the other Church. Patriarch / Catholicos of the other Church should be the Chief Celebrant. (Resolution 4 of the Kaphartuto Synod in AD 869 Hudaya Canon 7:1 and MOSC Constitution Article 101, 114)

9. It is desirable that both Churches invite each other to major occasions in order to strengthen mutual relations.

10. In meetings of official dialogues with other confessions, on matters of faith, which are not on the level of the Oriental Orthodox Family, each Church will invite the other Church to send at least one member of the Holy Synod to attend. The two Churches will consult each other on world wide ecumenical affairs.

11. A permanent joint committee is to be formed out of the members of the two Synods to monitor the implementation of this protocol and to promote the cooperation of the two Churches in different areas such as:

1- Exchange of visits of: Patriarchs, Catholicos, Metropolitans, Bishops, Priests, Monks, Professors, Students and Deacons should be encouraged.

2- Theological education.

3- Christian Education: Sunday schools. Youth and Family programmes.

4- Social services and Development projects.

5- Pastoral Care: Both Churches should be given the chance to extend their pastoral care to their people in a foreign country.

12. This protocol once approved by both Holy Synods and signed by the Primates of the two Churches, will make any previous agreement and/or protocol between the two Churches null and void.

13. The text of this protocol, being approved by both Holy Synods and signed by the Primates of the two Churches, has come into effect and should be publicized and circulated to all the dioceses and parishes of both Churches as well to the Heads of sister Churches.

14. Any addition or amendments of this protocol should be discussed and approved in the joint meeting of the two Holy Synods.

15. This protocol has been prepared in the Malayalam, Syriac, Arabic and English languages. If misunderstandings arise in matters of interpretation, the English version shall prevail.

The above protocol of 15 articles, together with the introduction, a total of 4 pages (in the English version), pursuant to article 13 of this protocol, it is hereby signed by the Heads of both Churches in 2010.

Introduction is prepared by Vipin K. Varghese (S. Pampady).

Protocol is prepared by Paulson P Varkey (Akapparambu) & Verghis John Thottappuzha on the basis of Coptic – Ethiopian and Coptic – Eritrean Protocols.

Verghese John
(OCP Associate and Director- Dept. Of Publications)

Prepared by – George Alexander, Secretary and Spokesperson – June – July 2014
Edited by – Ahira Sanchez (OCP Associate)
Department of Church Research and Studies – OCP Society

Visit the Addis Ababa Conference Portal:
http://www.theorthodoxchurch.info/aacp/

The six ancient Oriental Orthodox (OO) Churches, Coptic, Syrian, Armenian (Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin & Armenian Catholicate in Cilicia), Indian, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches, include within their scope the British Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church in India, the Brahmavar Orthodox Community (organized into episcopal diocese), the French Coptic Orthodox Church, the Armenian Patriarchates in Jerusalem and Constantinople (which are considered autonomous). These churches continue to provide witness of Jesus Christ and his teachings to the world. Despite the huge political, religious, and geographical challenges, these ancient churches have survived and provide the true essence of holy Orthodoxy to the modern world.

With the survival of ancient Orthodoxy in mind, it is time we focus on strengthening alliances between sister OO churches to ensure future conciliar unity. As we all know, the relations between local Orthodox Churches are of conciliar nature. The Coptic Pope, presently Pope Tawadros II, is considered to be the spiritual father of the OO Communion and is given primacy of honour among the OO Churches as a part of the homage paid to the Alexandrian Throne of St Mark the Evangelist. However, while the Coptic Pope does enjoy primacy of honour, he does not have any authority over sister churches.

Existing Gaps

There are a number of existing gaps between the ancient OO churches that need to be addressed by both church leadership and laity. One reason for the existing gaps is ignorance; many OO Christians themselves are unaware of their sister churches. For example, this author has met several Copts who are not aware that the British Orthodox Church is canonically a part of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. An OO Christian should have a basic understanding on the autocephalous and autonomous nature of the communion of the Church.

It is the tendency of most OO clergy and laity to focus solely on their churches which contributes to the existing gaps between the ancient OO churches. Let us consider the case of pilgrimage. There are limited common pilgrimage centres for OO churches. In the Holy land, there are pilgrimage centres for the Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches. Apart from the Holy land, there are several other important centres of Orthodox Christianity such as in Egypt, India, Syria, Armenia, Lebanon, Ethiopia, and Eretria. However, these centres remain unknown to the majority of those belonging to the OO communion. And while it is true that visiting pilgrims may not have a chance to visit all sister OO pilgrimage centres, the leadership of the communion of OO churches has a great responsibility in educating their faithful about the culture, worship, traditions, and specialties of the sister OO churches, or else they will remain alienated. Sunday school as well as other forms of theological education serve in equipping OO clergy and laity on the fundamentals of the OO communion. Efforts must be taken to form a common syllabus shared within the OO communion and dedicate exclusive learning sessions based on that syllabus.

If we also consider the case of what is considered to be the Orthodox Diaspora, another reason for the gaps between the ancient OO churches is evident. There are several ethnic OO churches throughout the world, but they remain to themselves. Interactions between sister OO communities of the Orthodox Diaspora happen once in a blue moon. Inter-orthodox celebrations on special occasions such as the Nativity do occur as well as gatherings at ecumenical events with other church communities. However, while there has been such interactions, they have not resulted in a permanent conciliar global structure for OO churches.

Action must be taken to establish a sense of common identity for OO churches, which should commence at grass root level. For example, the Armenian Orthodox Christians living in a village in Armenia should be aware that there exists a church built by St Thomas, which is more than 1500 years old, and that it belongs to her sister church in India. Likewise, the faithful in India and Ethiopia should have a good understanding of the Armenian Genocide and sufferings of the Armenian Orthodox Christians. At the very least, Orthodox Christians should be aware of the names of the Patriarch/Catholicos of their sister OO churches. Every OO Christian should develop a common understanding of the ancient OO communion.

The Addis Ababa Conference

In the year 1965, the entire family of the OO communion came together on a single platform at the Addis Ababa Conference in Ethiopia. It was a great occasion of unity and Orthodox brotherhood. All OO church primates were seated together; they spoke and worshiped together. A number of decisions were reached but stopped short at their implementation, including the establishment of a common theological education and research centre. Of course, there has been cooperation at different levels, mutual visits, and theological exchange programmes; regional Oriental Orthodox Councils in the UK and USA have been formed with lively activities and the heads of OO churches in the Middle East also have began to meet regularly (starting in 1996 at the St. Bishoy Monastery ), but none of those efforts have paralleled that of the spirit and objectives of the Addis Ababa Conference.

It can be assumed that the failure to implement all the decisions of the 1965 Addis Ababa Conference is a result of political, cultural, and regional barriers. However, it stands that there is a continued participation of OO churches in the World Church Council (WCC) and that relations with other ecumenical bodies have been consistently maintained. Hence, the question arises: if the OO churches are able to participate in ecumenical movements, despite of their political, cultural, and regional barriers, why is it that to this day they cannot work together on establishing and maintaining a common platform as intended with the 1965 Addis Ababa Conference with their sister OO churches?

It has been nearly fifty years since the 1965 Addis Ababa Conference but nothing significant has been achieved by the OO churches. What should have already taken place by now is conciliar unity, the healing of internal schisms (in particular between the Syrian Orthodox and the Indian Orthodox Churches) and the pursuing of inter-Orthodox dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox communion.

We should keep in mind that the 1965 Addis Ababa Conference happened while there was unity and peace between the Syrian Orthodox and the Indian Orthodox Churches. But since then a conference of such nature has not been achieved and it is partly due to the existing disputes between the Syrian and Indian Orthodox Churches along side with the ecumenical dialogues that hinder inter-Orthodox relations from thriving. There are other responses to the question of why conciliar unity between OO sister churches has not yet been achieved. Persecution, political instability, and war are normally considered to be causes for the diminish in direct interactions between OO sister churches. However, these excuses are not justifiable when in fact the OO churches frequently participate in WCC activities, and ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Anglican communities. For the past several years the OO churches have taken part in an annual ecumenical dialogue with the RCC. Interactions between OO families take place the day before the ecumenical dialogue with the Vatican and their interactions are limited to that meeting. Most OO prelates come together on a platform created by the Vatican to have dialogue with Vatican delegates; yet the OO prelates have not yet come together to form their own platform in the pursuit of healing schisms such as that of the Syrian Orthodox and Indian Orthodox Churches. The interactions between the OO churches must go beyond ecumenical consultations, and go beyond that of the 1965 Addis Ababa Conference.

As stated before, although none are comparable to the 1965 Addis Ababa Conference, there have been efforts for inter-Orthodox dialogue and unity. One notable effort is the formation of OO councils of the Orthodox Diaspora; there are OO councils functioning in the UK and in the USA. However, it is evident that inter-Orthodox disputes hinder full participation of OO churches in all councils of the Orthodox Diaspora. These disputes, along with other problems, prevent the councils from developing into full-fledged national centres. Consider the dispute between the Syrian and Indian Orthodox Churches; due to the dispute, the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church is not a member of the Oriental Orthodox Council in the USA. Disputing churches need to set aside their disparities and reach a consensus despite disagreement in order to begin healing the schism, or else remain in alienation. Other councils should be established in all areas where communities of OO faithful are present; for instance, there is a need for councils in the Gulf region, Africa, Australia, etc. These national OO councils of the Orthodox Diaspora should act as secondary structures to the World OO Council.

Schism and Oriental Orthodox Unity

The OO churches have gone through less internal schisms in comparison to the EO communion. At present we have four major challenges: the dispute between the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Indian Orthodox Church; the schism between Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Synod in Exile; the status of the Antiochian Syrian Orthodox Church and her relations with the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church; and the sad plight of the Eritrean Orthodox Church where the church remains divided due to interference of the Eritrean authorities.

The dispute between the Syrian Orthodox Church in India and the Indian Orthodox Church has deeply affected the unity of the OO communion. An inter-Orthodox platform mediated by all churches of the OO communion can do wonders in bringing disputes to an end, or at the very least establish a common platform to discuss important matters. We have classical examples of overcoming schisms and disputes; particularly between the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Churches.

The Armenian Orthodox Church is also a classic model of Orthodox concilliar unity with two Catholicates and two Patriarchates; they exist as one single church with concilliar hierarchical structure, despite the various internal and external challenges.

Local Orthodox churches always respect the autocephalous and autonomous nature of sister churches with whom they are in communion with and do not interfere in internal matters unless they are invited to do so. However, to overcome schisms there must be mutual and consistent efforts to build an inter-Orthodox platform for mediations and the forming of protocols. Division bears no good fruit; rather, unity is strength. The church leaderships should keep searching for opportunities to build a common platform for unity and peace. There is no room for personal agendas, politics, or ego. Jesus Christ is the head of the Orthodox Church, His Body and His Bride. All are under Him and they are His servants, and it is our duty is to preserve Christian Orthodoxy and hand it over to the next generation as well as to help the heterodox Christians understand their lost Orthodox past.

The Case of Ethiopian Synod in Exile and the Antiochian Syrian Orthodox Church

The OO churches should inquire for opportunities on opening inter-Orthodox dialogues with the Ethiopian Synod in Exile and the Antiochian Syrian Orthodox Church. Despite the controversies associated with both churches, none can deny their Orthodox origin. A mechanism should be developed within the OO family to mediate dialogues with those churches who are in schisms with the mainstream churches.

Opening Dialogues with Former Churches of Oriental Orthodox traditions

The Old Orthodox Church of Thozhiyoor and the Malankara Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar, which are located in India, owe their origin to the Syrian and Indian Orthodox Churches. Although they have a Protestant nature, the very essence of their origin is none other than Orthodox.

Dialogues with Other Churches

Apart from the mentioned churches, there are a number of other churches that are directly or indirectly connected to Oriental Orthodoxy. A number of non-canonical churches claiming the lineage of Archbishop Rene Vilatte have formed into the Federation of St Thomas Christians in the USA. There are also a number of non-canonical churches that claim to be associated with different OO mainstream churches or that claim to have Orthodox origin such as the Celtic Orthodox, the French Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church of the Gauls. However, in order to establish unity with these non-canonical churches, the OO communion should develop a definite mechanism for dialogue with them. The idea is to develop continued and constructive dialogues in order to overcome schisms.

Dialogue for Unity with Eastern Orthodox Family

The dialogue for unity with the EO family is an unrealised dream. There have been serious efforts for unity in the past and several agreements have been reached. Both family of churches have come to the conclusion that they share the same Christology and adhere to the same faith. However, the divisions continue to widen. Many prelates and laity of the EO family still address those of the OO family as Monophysites; despite the fact that OO churches reject such teachings regarding the one nature of Christ. This is fundamentally due to ignorance, lack of interest and interaction between both family of churches, and the absence of a continued and constructive theological dialogue. As many EO Christians do not consider the OO as Orthodox at all, they regard the OO churches as heretics or as non-Chalcedonian churches. Both families invest a lot of their time, money and resources in participating in ecumenical dialogues with the Vatican and in the WCC and yet there continues to exist a huge gap between the EO and OO communions. We must revamp the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the EO and the OO. But to rekindle dialogue with the EO, the OO should first be strengthened within. In general, there should be a refocus in the approach of the strengthening of the Orthodox Church and that is to give priority first to inter-Orthodox issues and then secondly to ecumenical matters.

United Voice against Persecution

Christians are persecuted day by day around the world in different forms and by different extremists groups. A united voice again persecution must be formulated. As the Lord Jesus Christ has said in the Gospels, “And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”; the OO churches should always be united against persecution and injustice. A strong unified voice of the OO churches will have a lasting effect. While several individual statements have been made by individual OO churches as well as by ecumenical bodies, such as the WCC and the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), a unified declaration is still to be made by the OO churches as one communion for the detained canonical Patriarch Abune Antonios of Eritrea. The detained Orthodox hierarch and persecuted Christians in Eritrea remain in suffrage.

United Presence in Mass Media

The united presence of OO churches in mass media is of great importance. The challenges and sufferings of the Orthodox Christians, their life, and way of worship should be communicated to the whole world. The presence of OO churches, the priorities, and coverage given by mass media for the churches’ events should be reassessed. Much of secular media tends to ignore the OO churches and regard the Vatican and the WCC as the focal points of discussion. A development of a common media centre for OO churches in different languages should be a matter of utmost concern and should be established as it can effectively help the OO churches to communicate their issues to the rest of the world. The whole world should have access to information about these ancient churches and, for this to become a reality, a unified effort and unison of policies on mass media should be defined.

The Orthodox churches should also use mass media to their advantage to promote inter-Orthodox relations amongst themselves and sister churches. In general, each OO church should allow contributions of sister Orthodox churches in their events as well as in their publications and educational resources. Orthodox mass media and educational resources should be expanded with the objective to educate the faithful on sister Orthodox Christian churches, including that of the EO communion. The purpose is to further develop a general understanding of Orthodoxy and create awareness among sister Orthodox churches of present issues in other sister Orthodox churches.

Our Priority: Orthodox Unity or Ecumenism

Let ecumenism bring in wonderful results; however, our first priority must be to unite with our own Orthodox brethren and then, once unified, face ecumenical dialogue together as one family. We have seen several OO primates making apostolic trips to the Vatican to engage in brotherly encounters with Pope Francis. The smiles, gifts, and hugs exchanged between the primates of the various OO churches and Pope Francis are commendable. As Orthodox Christians, we also love to see such brotherly affection exchanged between the hierarchs and faithful of all OO churches. However, it seems that some Orthodox ecumenists only have reunion with the Vatican in mind, dismissing completely what should be the priority. If you desert your own brethren, do not shake hands, nor smile at your own family, then what is the use of shaking hands with a stranger? Let us first embrace our own brothers and come to terms with them; at the very least, we should be able to try to sit together and have a loving conversation over a cup of coffee. While we do have annual prayers for Christian unity, likewise, we need prayers and active efforts for inter-Orthodox unity and the healing of schisms.

However, at times it seems to be that ecumenism is treated as the only priority and such focus displaces efforts for inter-Orthodox unity. There are many people who think that the RCC and other heterodox Christian communities are taking major advantage of the internal disputes within the OO family. The Vatican has taken the opportunity to make several agreements with some of the churches of the OO communion. Apart from the annual Oriental Orthodox- Roman Catholic Dialogue, the Vatican has held separate dialogues with the Indian Orthodox Church and Syrian Orthodox Church in India, succeeding in making various types of agreements with both warring Orthodox churches in Malankara (India). It seems that both churches are competing with each other, to see, who is the first, to sign agreements with the Vatican. This will in fact weaken Orthodox unity and to an extent has already become a reality. Once OO churches begin to participate in ecumenical dialogues with the Vatican as one unified voice,that is when they will really strengthen the position of Oriental Orthodoxy. What need is there for separate dialogues with Indian and Syrian Orthodox Churches? The Pan-Oriental Orthodox system is what will help the churches develop a conciliar line of control in ecumenical engagements. In the light of increased persecution, we need a united Christian voice. However, in the efforts to unify, the true faith of Orthodoxy should not be compromised nor should a common platform be used to make liberal theological agreements with non-Orthodox churches. We do, however, need enhanced social cooperation with other churches to improve relations.

In the past, there have been numerous occasions for OO primates to share a common platform, but some of them refrained from participating due to the existing disputes with sister OO churches. We are in such a situation that OO church delegates only come together on a platform created by the Vatican for ecumenism. Let ecumenical dialogue flourish and let it bear fruits of Christian unity. The focus of ecumenism is well and good; however, it must not undermine the efforts to build conciliar unity in the OO family. Let us first commence to initiate a dialogue between our sister OO churches and pave our way towards the establishment of permanent Orthodox unity.

Protecting Common Rights and Mutual Support

Read:Indian Orthodox Church Letter Sent to the His Holiness Pope, Major Archbishop of Malankara Catholic Rite and other Roman Catholic Prelates

All sister churches share equal responsibility in protecting common rights of the OO communion and at the same time extending a helping hand to support each other. As stated before, “unity is strength”. I’ll give an example to demonstrate the need for inter-Orthodox unity and how it would help ensure the protection of common rights. The Indian Church has been a victim of canonical violations by the Malankara Catholic Rite (An Eastern Catholic Rite in Indian that is in communion with the Pope of Rome) since 2005. The primate of the Malanakra Catholic Rite Major Archbishop and Cardinal Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal has stolen the canonical titles of the primate of the Indian Orthodox Church. The titles like Successor of Apostolic Throne of St Thomas and Malankara Metropolitan are canonical privileges of Catholicos of the East who is the primate of the Indian Orthodox Church. This title was stolen and officially published on the Malankara Catholic Rite’s website and in their official documents. This incident is equal to a situation where as if the Coptic Catholic Patriarch would be claiming the canonical titles of the Coptic Pope; the Armenian Catholic Patriarch claiming the titles of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Armenia; the Syrian Catholic Patriarch claiming the titles of Syrian Orthodox Patriarch; or the Ethiopian Catholic Archbishop claiming the canonical titles of Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarch. This is a serious canonical violation that should not be accepted and has been officially brought up to question by the Indian Orthodox Church several times to which the Vatican has not yet responded. This issue has never been an official point of discussion in any of the Oriental Orthodox – Roman Catholic dialogues and the Indian Orthodox Church has participated in all sessions without fail. Why is it then that the Vatican has not responded to the numerous complaints made by the Indian Orthodox Church? Without a doubt, the Vatican is being two-faced. They express ‘love and ecumenism’ using the smile of the Pope to win hearts, and the pomp and glory of the RCC to woo the Orthodox ecumenists; yet at the same time the RCC supports the Eastern Catholics who attack the Orthodox Churches.

It’s clear that each sister church in the OO communion has a responsibility to support and help its sister churches in times of need. The Vatican should not so easily be trusted for support and correction of injustices we suffer today as a church in division. The sister churches of the OO communion should support each other and participate in the ecumenical dialogues with the Vatican as one integrated OO communion. The sister churches should go for mutual bargaining and perhaps go as far as to withdraw from the ecumenical dialogues with the Vatican because of the canonical violation made by a RCC rite against an OO sister church until reparations are made. What we need is a strong inter-Orthodox alliance which will help ensure the protection of our common rights as an Orthodox communion.

There are several ideas to be implemented. Mentioned below are some important points for reflection:

International Headquarters and Secretariat for Oriental Orthodox Churches: A world council for OO churches should be developed with a full-fledged secretariat/headquarters at a desirable location. It should consist of a good administrative organization with a strong financial background and with a solid focus of implementing programmes and projects developed to benefit the members of OO churches. National level councils and local councils should be developed under the guidance of the Global Headquarters. Annual/timely meetings of OO primates and delegates should be organized to promote and ensure solid and intimate relations among all sister churches. Various organizations like youth forums and clergy councils should be developed. Steps should be taken to resolve any existing disputes between the OO churches by creating practical protocols and mediating compromises to avoid disputes in the future.

Education and Mission Activities: There should be establishments of an international University, Academy, and Research Centre for theological and secular education (with special emphasis on Orthodox Christian Research, Human Resource Development, Leadership, Morality, Music, etc). There should be opportunities for mutual exchanges of faculty members, and the development of student and internship programmes for the benefit of all church members. Also, providing mutual cooperation in mission fields and the development of a common Orthodox Mission Training and Research Centre should be considered for implementation for the strengthening and growth of the OO communion.

There are several OO clergy and laity who are perusing their theological education in Roman Catholic or Protestant institutions. Rather than developing an Orthodox frame work of theology, as students they are most likely to develop a Latin or Protestant understanding of theology. This is very evident in India, where the Theological institutions of both Syraic Orthodox and Indian Malankara Orthodox Churches are affiliated to a Protestant University. There still exist a number of Latin and protestant influences in the life of Syriac and Indian Orthodox faithful in India. Examples are the use of rosary instead of prayer ropes, Latin images instead of Orthodox icons. But certain positive changes are taking place for sure.

The danger in the development of a heterodox understanding of theology as the principal world view is that those with such theological framework could participate in ecumenical dialogues with the Vatican and would most likely be more liberal in reaching a consensus that could compromise the true Orthodox faith. There is an extreme need for the development of inter-Orthodox centres of theology, exchange of resources, and development of OO chairs and study centres in secular universities, even though there are quality centres like SOAS, Coptic study centres, Armenian Theological Faculty at the Yerevan University.

Oriental – Eastern Orthodox Dialogue for Unity: There is the need for a common platform for regular dialogues between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches for communion in the faith as a continuation of the existing agreement. The halted dialogue process should be revamped. An international council should be established for the purpose of resuming official dialogue at regular intervals of time, quick and timely follow-ups of its results, encouragement of mutual visits, cooperation in theological education, mission-work development organizations, and other areas of common interest.

Pan-Oriental Orthodox Council

There should be consistent and constructive steps from all OO prelates, clergy, and laity to strengthen this ancient communion of Christ and His Apostles. Each one of us who are part of the ancient OO communion have a mutual responsibility as there are a number of challenges to be dealt with. The challenges of language, culture, geography, political orientation, and ethnicity are to be triumphed over. The most important thing is to initiate the effort and attempt a common conciliar union. These things are only possible through consistent and serious dialogue.

The year 2015 marks the 50th anniversary of the great and holy 1965 Addis Ababa Conference; it also marks the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, one of worst crimes committed against humanity. Let there be a new beginning in the year 2015; a new chapter in the life of the ancient OO Communion.

Jesus Christ and Dialogue for Unity

We know that Jesus Christ held dialogues with those who criticized him, and never took arms against them. Instead, He won their hearts with His holiness, His words, His charisma, and with His love. He debated with learned philosophers and theologians of the synagogue, but never rebelled against them or refrained from his dialogue. We saw His fury only when some people tried to contaminate the holiness of the Jerusalem Temple with trade and business. The Orthodox Church is the living body of Christ and both faithful and episcopacy have a great responsibility in contributing to the healing of schisms and unite the broken body of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

Source:
Dept of Church Research and Studies – Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE Society

(Phanar, March 6-9, 2014)

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Through the grace of God, the Primates of the Most Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, to the Orthodox faithful throughout the world, all of our Christian brothers and sisters as well as every person of goodwill: we extend God’s blessing and our greeting of love and peace.

“We always give thanks to God for all of you and mention you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith, labor of love, and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess. 1.2-3)

1. Having convened by the grace of our compassionate God, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, at the Phanar, from March 6-9, 2014; having deliberated in fraternal love on matters concerning our Holy Church today; and concelebrating in the Patriarchal Church of St. George on the glorious occasion of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, we address you with these words of love, peace and consolation.

Inasmuch as our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church dwells in the world, it also experiences the challenges of every age. Faithful to Holy Tradition, the Church of Christ is in constant dialogue with every period of time, suffering with human beings and sharing their anguish. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and to the ages” (Heb. 13.8).

The trials and challenges of history are especially acute in our days, and Orthodox Christians cannot remain uninvolved or indifferent to them. This is why we have assembled “together in one place” (Acts 2.1) in order to reflect on the problems and temptations facing humanity today. “There is fighting without and fear within.” (2 Cor. 7.5) These Apostolic words are also valid for the Church today.

2. In reflecting upon people’s suffering throughout the world, we express our support for the martyrdom and our admiration for the witness of Christians in the Middle East, Africa, and other parts of the world. We call to mind their dual martyrdom: for their faith as well as for the safeguarding of their historical relationship with people of other religious conviction. We denounce the lack of peace and stability, which is prompting Christians to abandon the land where our Lord Jesus Christ was born and whence the Good News spread to the entire world.

Our sympathy extends to all victims of the tragedy in Syria. We condemn every form of terrorism and defamation of religion. The kidnapping of Metropolitans Paul and Youhanna, other clergymen as well as the nuns of St. Thecla Convent in Maaloula remains an open wound, and we demand their immediate liberation.

We appeal to all involved for the immediate cessation of military action, liberation of captives, and establishment of peace in the region through dialogue. Christians in the Middle East are a leaven of peace. Peace for all people also means peace for Christians. We support the Patriarchate of Antioch in its spiritual and humanitarian ministry, as well as its efforts for reconstruction and the resettlement of all refugees.

3. We fervently pray for peaceful negotiation and prayerful reconciliation in the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. We denounce the threats of violent occupation of sacred monasteries and churches, and pray for the return of our brothers presently outside of ecclesiastical communion into the Holy Church.

4. A fundamental threat to justice and peace – both locally and globally – is the global economic crisis. The ramifications of this are evident on all layers in society, where such values as personalintegrity, fraternal solidarity and justice are often wanting. The origins of this crisis are not merely financial. They are moral and spiritual in character. Instead of conforming to the worldly idols of power, greed and hedonism, we emphasize our vocation to transform the world by embracing the principles of justice, peace, and love.

As a result of self-centeredness and abuse of power, many people undermine the sacredness of the human person, neglecting to see the face of God in the least of our brothers and sisters (cf. Matt. 25.40,45). Many remain indifferent to the poverty, suffering and violence that plague humanity.
5. The Church is called to articulate its prophetic word. We express our genuine concern about local and global trends that undermine and erode the principles of faith, the dignity of the human person, the institution of marriage, and the gift of creation.

We stress the undisputed sanctity of human life from inception until natural death. We recognize marriage as the union of man and woman that reflects the union between Christ and His Church. Our vocation is to preserve the natural environment as stewards and not proprietors of creation. In this period of Great Lent, we exhort our clergy and laity to observe a spirit of repentance, to experience purity of heart, humility and forgiveness, bearing witness to the timeless teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ in society.

6. This Synaxis of Primates is a blessed occasion for us to reinforce our unity through communion and cooperation. We affirm our commitment to the paramount importance of synodality for the unity of the Church. We affirm the words of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, that “the name of the Church signifies unity and concord, not division.” Our heart is set on the long-awaited Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church in order to witness to its unity as well as to its responsibility and care for the contemporary world.

The Synaxis agreed that the preparatory work to the Synod should be intensified. A special Inter-Orthodox Committee will work from September 2014 until Holy Easter of 2015, followed by a Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference to be convened in the first half of 2015. All decisions at the Synod and in the preparatory stages are made by consensus. The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church will be convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople in 2016, unless something unexpected occurs. The Synod will be presided by the Ecumenical Patriarch. His brother Primates of the other Orthodox Autocephalous Churches will be seated at his right and at his left.

7. Inseparably interconnected with unity is mission. The Church does not live for itself but is obliged to witness to and share God’s gifts with those near and afar. Participating in the Divine Eucharist and praying for the oikoumene, we are called to continue this liturgy after the liturgy, sharing the gifts of truth and love with all humankind, in accordance with the Lord’s last commandment and assurance: “Go ye, and make disciples of all nations . . . And lo, I shall be with you until the end of the ages” (Matt. 28.19-20).

8. We live in a world where multiculturalism and pluralism are inevitable realities, which are constantly changing. We are conscious of the fact that no issue in our time can be considered or resolved without reference to the global, that any polarization between the local and the ecumenical only leads to distortion of the Orthodox way of thinking.

Therefore, even in the face of voices of dissension, segregation, and division, we are determined to proclaim the message of Orthodoxy. We acknowledge that dialogue is always better than conflict. Withdrawal and isolationism are never options. We reaffirm our obligation at all times to be open in our contact with “the other”: with other people and other cultures, as well as with other Christians and people of other faiths.

9. Above and beyond all challenges, we proclaim the good news of a God, who “so loved the world” that He “dwelt among us.” Thus, we Orthodox remain full of hope. Despite all tensions, we nevertheless dare to hope in the “almighty God, who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev. 1.8) For we remember that the last word – the word of joy, love, and life – belongs to Him, to whom is due all glory, honor and worship to the ages of ages. Amen.

At the Phanar, the 9th of March, 2014

+ Bartholomew of Constantinople

+ Theodoros of Alexandria
+ Theophilos of Jerusalem
+ Kirill of Moscow
+ Irinej of Serbia
+ Daniel of Romania
+ Neophyte of Bulgaria
+ Ilia of Georgia
+ Chrysostomos of Cyprus
+ Ieronymos of Athens
+ Sawa of Warsaw
+ Anastasios of Tirana

Source:

2014

MINUTES (PRAKTIKON) OF THE DELEGATION OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF ROMANIA & OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM.

On the 20th and 21st of February 2013, an official delegation of the Romanian Patriarchate consisting of His Eminence Metropolitan Nifon, Archbishop of Târgovişte and Patriarchal Exarch, Rev. Prof. Dr. Viorel Ioniţă and Rev. Fr. Michael Tiţa, Patriarchal counsellor, was received by His Beatitude Theophilos III, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in the presence of the Committee of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem made up of His Eminence Archbishop Aristarchos of Constantina, Chief Secretary, His Eminence Archbishop Theophylaktos of Jordan, Patriarchal Representative in Bethlehem and Rev. Archimandrite Galaction, Superior in Ramalla.

The visit was also due to the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate aimed at mediating in clarifying aspects of the relations between the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Romanian Patriarchate.
After discussions in a spirit of Christian Orthodox communion, the two sides agreed on the following points ad referendum to the Holy Synod:

The Memorandum signed in Bucharest on the 11th of December 2012 between the delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Romanian Patriarchate was accepted as the basis of the present Minutes.

The restoration of full communion between the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and of Romania should be also regarded as a matter of urgency in view of the need to accelerate the process of preparation of the Great and Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church.

To this purpose, the Romanian Patriarchate recognizes fully and unreservedly the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in the Holy Land with its pastoral implications.

Regarding the status of the church and the pilgrim’s hostel in Jericho, the Romanian Patriarchate should remain the owner of these buildings, while the spiritual, liturgical and ecclesiastical use of these buildings should depend on the canonical blessing of the Patriarch of Jerusalem:

a) The priests serving in the church of these buildings should be appointed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the basis of recommendation of the Patriarch of Romania. It is of course understood that the Patriarch of Jerusalem may Himself or with his clergy liturgically use this church whenever he decides to do so;

b) All priests celebrating the Divine Liturgy in the church should commemorate at the anaphora (ἐν πρώτοις μνήσθητι) only the Patriarch of Jerusalem, while at the Great Entrance the priests may commemorate also the name of the Patriarch of Romania;

c) The Antimision will be received from the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

The Romanian Patriarchate will avoid in the future to build churches or shrines on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem without written agreement.

Concerning the status of Archimandrite Ieronim Creţu, who was deposed from the rank of priesthood, it was agreed that the Patriarchate of Jerusalem will lift up this canonical measure, and the Romanian Patriarchate will call him back to Romania.

Concerning the Representation of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, it was agreed that a special Statute should be worked out as soon as possible, by the two sides.

His Beatitude Theophilos III, Patriarch of Jerusalem has given his consent to the above Minutes (Praktikon).

Jerusalem, 21st February 2013
The Committee of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem:
His Eminence Archbishop Aristarchos of Constantina, Chief Secretary,
His Eminence Archbishop Theophylaktos of Jordan, Patriarchal Representative in Bethlehem,
Rev. Archimandrite Galaction, Superior in Ramalla.
The Delegation of the Romanian Patriarchate:
His Eminence Metropolitan Nifon, Archbishop of Târgovişte and Patriarchal Exarch,
Rev. Prof. Dr. Viorel Ioniţă,
Rev. Fr. Michael Tiţa, Patriarchal counsellor.

Source:

November 12, 1991

A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter.

To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch:

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obey, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavor and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.

Having recognized the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christianity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.

Thus, the following decisions were taken:

1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.
2. The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.
3. Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.
4. Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arises.
5. Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.).
6. If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom’s Church will preside.
7. The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.
8. What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.
9. In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divine Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.
10. If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.
11. If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest’s parish.
12. Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.
13. Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.
14. Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.
    We ask God’s help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.

Damascus
12 November 1991

Patriarch Ignatios IV 
of the Greek Antiochian Church

Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas
of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

Source:

December 9-10, 2005  -    -  St. Aphrem Syrian Orthodox Monastery, Ma‘arat Saydnaya, Damascus

Friday and Saturday, December 9-10, 2005, the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Church, His Holiness Patriarch Zakka I of the Syrian Church and His Holiness Catholicos Aram I of the Armenian Church-Catholicosate of Cilicia, held their 8th meeting, at St. Ephrem Monastery, Ma’arat Saydnaya, Damascus, Syria.  This fellowship was founded in 1996.

During their deliberations, the three Heads addressed issues related to the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and its theological dialogues with various churches, and discussed matters related to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Churches of the Reformation, the World Council of Churches and the Middle East Council of Churches. The socio-political situation in the Middle East as well as the theological seminaries, the youth and the publication sub-committees of the Oriental Orthodox Churches acquired special attention.

The three Heads extended their blessings and appreciation to the Standing Committee, who convened its meeting December 7-8.  At the end of their meeting, the three Heads signed a Common Declaration encouraging the active participation of their faithful in evangelism, diakonia, Christian education, theological formation and youth activities as genuine expressions of life and witness of their Churches.  Additionally, issues related to theological dialogues and ecumenical collaboration on global and regional levels, as well as human rights, social justice, peace and inter-faith relations were highlighted.

The 9th meeting of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, His Holiness Patriarch Zakka I and His Holiness Catholicos Aram I will be hosted by the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, in Antelias, Lebanon, in November 2006.

The following is an article written by H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy printed in El Karaza Magazine, December 23, 2005

His Holiness Pope Shenouda III traveled to Damascus on Thursday evening December 8, 2005 accompanied by H.G. Bishop Mousa and Mr Girguis Saleh, the Secretary General of the Middle East Council of Churches, to attend the Supreme Heads meeting of the Oriental Orthodox churches in the Middle East.  Upon arrival in the Damascus International Airport, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III was welcomed by H.H. Patriarch Mar Ignatius Zakka I of Antioch and all the East for the Syrian Orthodox; Mr Hazem Ahdy Khairat, the Egyptian Ambassador in Damascus; along with His Eminence Abraham of Jerusalem, His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, Hegomen Mar Thawfelous George Salibeh, Archbishop Siboeh Sarkessian, Archimandrite Narik Alimazian, Mar Elia Bahi the Patriarchal Assistant and also Hegomen Antoniuos Sobhy, our priest in Jordan; Fr. Philopateer Abba Pishoi our priest in Lebanon and Syria; with the VIP Officials of the Egyptian Embassy and a group of the Coptic congregation in Syria.

They all then headed to Mar Evraam Al Suriany’s monastery in Ma’aret Seydnaya.  The next day and after the arrival of HH Catholicos Aram, a luncheon meeting was held then the official meeting commenced in the attendance of the three Patriarchs and members of the Standing Committee.

HH the Pope and His accompanying delegate headed to Damascus International Airport where HH Patriarch Mar Zakka was bidding them farewell along with the Egyptian Ambassador and their eminence Metropolitan Abraham, Archbishop Siboeh, Archimandrite Narik, and Mar Elia Bahi, also Hegomen Antoniuos Sobhy, Fr Philopateer Abba Pishoi and the VIP Officials of the Egyptian embassy. HH returned back safely to the mother land at 23:00 hrs of Saturday where at HH arrival there were a large number of the Rev Metropolitans, bishops, members of lay Council and church lay
members.

Standing Committee: 
The Standing Committee had previously prepared the agenda of the meeting as well as the proposed common declaration of the Rev Heads meeting of the three oriental orthodox churches in the Middle East the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian Churches. The committee was convened on the morning of Wednesday 7/12 till Friday morning 9/12.

Meeting of the Reverend Supreme Heads of Churches:

HH Catholicos Aram I of the Armenian Orthodox of the Great House of Cilicia arrived from Antlias, Lebanon via the desert road at Mar Evram’s monastery in Ma’aret Seydnaya on Friday noon 9/12 accompanied by Metropolitan Kegham the Archbishop of Beirut for the Armenian Orthodox where he met with HH Pope Shenouda III and HH Patriarch Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.  Meetings commenced in the attendance of the Standing Committee members and Mr Girguis Saleh in order to review the agenda and the proposed common declaration.

The meeting was then continued on Saturday morning 10/12 where the rest of the agenda points were discussed and the common declaration was read aloud, the three Rev supreme Heads also exchanged presents and souvenir gifts were presented to the attendees. Photos were taken during the meeting and also at the gate of Mar Evram’s monastery with the Rev monks and then with the nuns of Mar James’ convent as well as with the students of Mar Evram’s Seminary and some of their professors.

It is to be noted that in this declaration a felicitation was extended to HH Patriarch Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas on His 25th anniversary of His enthronement as a Patriarch and Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church.

At the Egyptian Embassy in Damascus:

HH the Pope and HH Patriarch Mar Zakka then headed with their accompanied delegates to the Egyptian Embassy upon the invitation of the Egyptian Ambassador where HH met there with the Ambassador of Norway, Ambassador of Morocco, of the Vatican and the Palestinian activist Nae’f Hawatma.  HH also met with Sheikh Salah Keftaro and some of the Muslim Sheikhs where it was a loving and friendly meeting. Mr Ambassador of Egypt gave a word of welcome saluting HH Pope Shenouda III, HH Patriarch Mar Zakka and all the guests who were attending.  Then HH the Pope gave a word expressing His thanks to the Ambassador for his welcoming spirit which he showed them, HH also gave a spiritual word about peace.

Source:

]]> Oriental Orthodox Documents http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2013/12/the-2nd-meeting-of-the-heads-of-the-oriental-orthodox-churches-in-the-middle-east/ In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. We, Pope Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark, Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East and Catholicos Aram I, Catholicos of the Armenians of the Great House of Cilicia, and the members of […] http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/?p=757 Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:59:40 +0000

St. Ephrem Monastery, Ma’arat Saydnaya, Damascus, Syria April 19-21, 2007

C O M M O N    D E C L A R A T I O N

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; Amen.

We, Pope Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark, Patriarch Mar Ignatius Zakka I, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, and Catholicos Aram I, Catholicos of the Armenians of the Great House of Cilicia, give thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ for granting us, once again, the opportunity to pray and to reflect together on issues and challenges of common concern, at St. Ephrem Monastery, in Ma’arat Saydnaya, Damascus, Syria. This is the tenth time that we meet as Heads of Churches within the framework of the Fellowship that we have established in 1996. The Standing Committee that we have appointed has joined us.

In our meeting here in Ma’arat Saydnaya we reaffirmed our unity of faith that, for centuries, has been the basis of our common doctrinal position and theological teachings. Deeply rooted in the Holy Scriptures, the Apostolic Faith and Tradition, the three Ecumenical Councils (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, and Ephesus 431) and the teachings of our Church Fathers, our unity has sustained the life and witness of the Churches of the Oriental Orthodox Family becoming a living source of spiritual strength and missionary engagement. For the Oriental Orthodox Churches the full communion and the visible unity of churches are based on the unity of faith which is manifested through Eucharistic communion and other Sacraments of the church.

In our unity of faith we are not confined to the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches; we feel also responsible to strive for the unity of all churches, both in our region and in different parts of the world. We consider the visible unity of church a priority. We remain firmly committed to the ecumenical movement both through the World Council of Churches, as a global ecumenical fellowship, and the Middle East Council of Churches, as a regional ecumenical fellowship. We will continue our active role in the World Council of Churches. We express our satisfaction for the adoption of the consensus decision making by the World Council of Churches. The Ninth General Assembly of the World Council of Churches has already conducted its business in Porto Allegre, Brazil, according to this procedure. We encourage the Permanent Committee on Consensus and Collaboration to continue the mandate of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches. We will also continue our active role in the Middle East Council of Churches, and we look forward with hope to the next General Assembly of the M.E.C.C. in Cyprus, November 26-30, 2007.

H.H. Pope Shenouda III and H.H. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I extend their deep gratitude to H.H. Catholicos Aram I for his ecumenical commitment for so many years and his leadership in the World Council of Churches, especially as its moderator for the last fourteen years.
In our endeavor for the unity of the church, our Churches are engaged in a number of bilateral theological dialogues. We believe that these theological dialogues with the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and Reformed Churches will further affirm the orthodoxy of the Christological teachings of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Those theologians, who used to call us monophysite (single nature), have came to realize that we are miaphysite (one united nature), following the teachings of our common father St. Cyril of Alexandria. There still exist differences of doctrinal, ecclesiological, liturgical and ethical nature, which need more dialogue and discussion with other churches. We should keep in mind that the reception of the agreements of theological dialogues by the churches needs time and patience.

Concerning the Theological Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Families, His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I has commissioned the new co-president of the Joint Commission of the dialogue Metropolitan Emmanuel of France to meet Catholicos Aram I asking his assistance for the reactivation of this theological dialogue. Subsequently the two co-presidents of the Joint Commission, Metropolitan Emmanuel and Metropolitan Bishoy met at the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, Antelias, Lebanon, on April 17, 2007 and discussed the future steps.

The International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches held its fourth meeting from January 28 to February 3, 2007 in Rome. The fifth meeting of the Commission will take place at St. Ephrem Syrian Orthodox monastery, Ma’arat Saydnaya, Damascus, Syria, from January 27 to February 2, 2008, by the invitation of Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I.

The Archbishop of Canterbury H.G. Rowan Williams recently sent a delegation to visit us in Lebanon, Egypt and Syria to discuss the possibility of resuming the work of the Commission of Theological Dialogue between our Churches and the Anglican Communion. In order to be able to achieve this goal, we expect that the Archbishop of Canterbury hold an official meeting with Catholicos Aram I, who is in charge of the theological dialogues of our Fellowship. The purpose of this meeting will be to clarify the current situation in the Anglican Communion, share with the Archbishop the views and concerns of our three Churches, and discuss practical steps for the resumption of the dialogue.

We received through Catholicos Aram I an invitation from the Lutheran World Federation to strengthen relations with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and to establish an instrument for regular bilateral contacts. We welcome this invitation. We will convey this invitation also to the other Churches of our Family.

We are fully aware of the events surrounding us in our region. Our churches are called to work constantly for the just peace in the Middle East. The Christian-Muslim dialogue has been integral to the history, civilizations and cultures of the Middle East. Our churches in this region have been in existential dialogue with Islam. Due to emerging new situations and new developments taking place especially in Iraq and Palestine, continuous efforts must be made to deepen mutual respect and understanding between Muslim and Christian scholars and community leaders. Everybody has the right to explain and defend his or her religion without becoming aggressive and offensive towards the other religion. The same should apply to media which became a highly sensitive agent affecting the relations between cultures, religions and nations.

We condemn all forms and expressions of violence. Religion should be a promoter of love, hope and reconciliation, peace, justice and human rights. Religion cannot be exploited for non-religious purposes. We urge all those who, for one reason or other, use violence to resolve their problems. The problems must be resolved through dialogue, mutual understanding and mutual respect.

We focused our attention on Iraq which is exposed to the destructive activities of evil forces. This prevailing critical situation obliges a great numbers of people, both Muslims and Christians, to emigrate from their homeland. We encourage the United Nations (U.N.) and all the humanitarian organizations to support the suffering people of Iraq, wherever they are, till the Lord gives their country security and stability.

We believe that the peace process must continue with new impetus, and the Palestinian people must have its independent state and the right to return home. Israel must implement all Resolutions of the U.N. Security Council by withdrawing from the occupied Arab territories, including the Farms of Shabaa in South of Lebanon, Golan Heights and Jerusalem. Only full justice will bring about comprehensive, real and permanent peace in the Middle East.

We pray and hope that the Lebanese leaders may soon reach, through frank dialogue, to mutual understanding leading Lebanon to security, peace, and unity with the participation of all communities.

We noted with satisfaction that the Christians in Iran are participating in the social, cultural and economic life of the country and enjoying the freedom of practicing their Christian faith.

We greet the President of the Republic of Syria, His Excellency Dr. Bashar Al-Assad, the heads of all religious communities and the people of Syria. We noted with joy that the Christians in Syria are engaged in a renewal process: they are experiencing religious freedom; they are organizing church activities; they are building new churches and monasteries; and they are playing an active role in society and contributing to the progress of the country.

We appeal to our faithful, in the Middle East and throughout the world, to remain firmly attached to the Gospel, its values and imperatives, and participate more actively in the church’s total life and witness. We are committed to intensify and deepen further our collaboration within this Fellowship. We are also committed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to give a renewed efficiency and vitality to the witness of our Churches particularly in educational, theological, diaconal, evangelistic and ecumenical spheres.

As we conclude our Tenth Meeting, we would like to express our thanks to His Holiness Patriarch Mar Ignatius Zakka I for his warm hospitability.

May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all the faithful of our Churches.

Shenouda III
Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark

Mar Ignatius Zakka I 
Patrairch of Antioch and All the East

Aram I
Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia

Source:

]]> Oriental Orthodox Documents http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2013/12/fifth-meeting-of-the-heads-of-the-oriental-orthodox-churches-in-the-middle-east/ This meeting was held at St. Ephrem’s Monastery at Ma’arrat Seydnaya, Damascus, Syria,  from 7-9 March 2002 and issued the following Common Declaration In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. We, Pope Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark of the Coptic Orthodox […] http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/?p=751 Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:47:15 +0000

This meeting was held at St. Ephrem’s Monastery at Ma’arrat Seydnaya, Damascus, Syria,  from 7-9 March 2002 and issued the following

Common Declaration

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

We, Pope Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark of the Coptic Orthodox Church; Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East of the Syrian Orthodox Church; and Catholicos Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia of the Armenian Orthodox Church, an d the members of the Standing Committee: H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, H.G. Bishop Moussa, H.E. Metropolitan Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, H.E. Metropolitan Theophilus George Saliba, H.G. Bishop Sebouh Sarkissian, and Archimandrite Nareg Alemwzian, who are with us, give thanks to God for bringing us together once again in the context of this Fifth Meeting of the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East, 7-9 March 2002 at the St. Ephrem Monastery of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Ma’arat Seydnaya, Damascus, Syria.

From the dawn of Christianity our three Churches have shared the same apostolic heritage and the one faith. In our Common Declarations of our four previous meetings (St. Bishoy Monastery, Wadi Natroun, Egypt, 10-11 March 1998; St. Ephrem Monastery, Ma’arat Seydnaya, Damascus, Syria, 13-14 February 1999; Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, Antelias, Lebanon, 4-9 May 2000; St. Mark’s Centre, Cairo, Egypt, 15-17 March 2001) we have affirmed our strong attachment to our common spiritual heritage and unity of faith expressed in the first three Ecumenical Councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381) and Ephesus (431), and through the teachings of our holy fathers. We have also affirmed our holy fathers’ rejection of all kinds of heresies in the course of our respective histories. We have recommitted ourselves to the decisions taken by our Churches in the context of our common witness and service to our faithful in the world and particularly in the Middle East, where the Christian witness has been faithfully carried on by our fathers since the apostolic era. We must preserve what we have inherited from our fathers, saints and martyrs as a sacred treasure to be cherished by all generations.

We have studied issues of common concern that have emerged since our last meeting. We have received a report from the Standing Committee, and taken the following actions:

I. Inter-Church Relations and Bilateral Dialogues

A. Oriental Orthodox Churches-Eastern Orthodox Churches

1. Based on the proposal of the Joint Commission of Theological Dialogue between the two Orthodox families, we encourage the publication in local languages of studies dealing with the Christological agreements signed by the two families (1989, in Egypt, and 1990 and 1993, in Switzerland). We believe that such publications will significantly help our faithful to understand more fully the findings and the results of this dialogue, aimed at the restoration of full communion between the two families.

2. We welcome the initiation of ecumenical collaboration with the Russians. The Coordinating Commission met 19-21 March 2001, and the Joint Commission for the Relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East met 3-5 September 2001 in Moscow, Russia. The purpose of these meetings was to deepen the collaboration with the Church of Russia and to clarify the existing difficulties concerning the reception of the agreed Christological statements signed by the two Orthodox families.

3. Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I and Catholicos Aram I welcomed the visit made by Pope Shenouda III to His Holiness Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople (Istanbul), 13-16 September 2001. This meeting was an occasion to discuss issues related to inter-Orthodox relations and participation of our Churches in the ecumenical movement. The two Heads of Churches also discussed ways of advancing the theological dialogue between the two Orthodox families, and in this context they asked H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy to continue his contacts with the Orthodox Churches as Co-chairman of the Theological Commission.

B. Official Dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion. We received the report of the meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the World Anglican Communion, in Midhurst, England 17 July-1 August 2001. This report includes the agenda, membership and procedures and working plan. Six representatives of the Oriental Orthodox Churches participated in this meeting. The aim of the meeting was to upgrade the dialogue from a Forum to a Commission in response to the request of the Anglican Communion and to set the agenda and methodology for the future work of this Commission. We participated in the work of the Preparatory Committee with three delegates representing each of our three Churches and we will continue our active participation in this theological dialogue.

C. Official Theological Dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church

We have received an invitation from the Vatican to start an official theological dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicos Aram I and H.E. Cardinal Walter Kasper discussed this project and they emphasized the importance of bilateral theological dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. Following this discussion, the initiative was further discussed by H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy and Cardinal Kasper. Cardinal Kasper proposed that the Preparatory Committee meet next autumn in the Vatican. An invitation will be sent from the Vatican to all the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. On the basis of their response, a formal theological dialogue will be initiated with the Roman Catholic Church.

D. Official Theological Dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC)

The full report of the first phase of this dialogue had already been sent to our Holy Synods and the Executive Committee of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) for study, discussion and action.

We consider theological dialogues of decisive importance for the visible unity of the Church. Pope Shenouda III and Patriarch Zakka I express their great appreciation to Catholicos Aram I who has been following closely the initiatives and the developments in this important area of our ecumenical witness.

II. Ecumenical Collaboration

A. World Council of Churches

1. We have received the Communiqué of the last meeting of the Special Commission for the Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches, in Berekfurdo, Hungary, 15-20 November 2001. We discussed with particular attention the report of the section on Consensus Decision Making. The report includes a proposal to form a ‘Standing Committee’ (Parity Committee) with half of its members Orthodox and the other half from the other members of the Council, to address ‘Orthodox concerns’. We were informed that the next meeting of the Special Commission will be in Helsinki, Finland, 27 May-2 June 2002, where the full report of the Commission will be finalized to be presented to the Central Committee of the WCC in September 2002. We fully support the idea of ‘consensus decision making’ and the idea of establishing a Standing Committee in order to ensure more active Orthodox participation in the life and witness of the Council.

2. We express our appreciation for the important role that the Faith and Order Commission is playing in the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement at large. We welcome the participation of the Oriental Orthodox participants in the Inter-Orthodox Consultation organized by the Faith and Order in Moscow, Russia, 5-11 September 2001 on “Confessing the One Faith” to “Confessing the Apostolic Faith as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381)” which was suggested by Pope Shenouda III to the Faith and Order Commission. The Faith and Order Commission should continue its vital task by initiating reflection processes on questions related to ecclesiology and controversial theological and ethical matters.

3. As to the ongoing discussion on Ecumenical Forum where our family is represented by H.E. Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, we believe that the Ecumenical Forum may promote wider participation of all Churches and ecumenical organizations in the ecumenical movement. We welcome this project, however it needs further clarification. In the same time we urge that the participation in such Forum must be based on the confession of the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of the one Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

B. Middle East Council of Churches

1. We received a letter from the General Secretary, Rev. Dr. Riad Jarjour, expressing his best wishes for the success of this meeting. We appreciate his continuous support to our family of Churches.

2. We encourage the decision taken by the Executive Committee of the MECC at its recent meeting in Cairo, 18-20 February 2002, concerning the formation of a committee with the mandate of dealing with proselytism. In fact, proselytism has negative effects on the ecumenical activities in the region. We urge therefore that all churches and ecumenical organizations look at this issue with utmost responsibility and in an ecumenical spirit.

3. Based on our discussions at the same meeting of the Executive Committee, regarding the report of the Unit on Faith and Unity, we believe that the MECC should maker great efforts to promote discussion and dialogue on issues of faith and dogma among the member Churches. Such collaboration, as Pope Shenouda III pointed out in the Executive Committee, will help our faithful to challenge all heretical movements such as Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists and Mormons, as well as negative Bible criticism, etc.

4. We find that the Council is performing an important role in the life of the Churches in the Middle East and that it needs more support from our Churches to re-activate its tasks, implement its programmes and achieve its aims. We believe that re-assessing the work of the Council is of vital importance in order to make the Council’s ecumenical witness more relevant and efficient.

5. With regard to the post of General Secretary, we believe that our family of Churches in the Middle East should nominate one of its members as a candidate for the post of General Secretary upon the termination of the period of the current General Secretary.

III. Sub Committees

We listened to the reports of the Sub-Committees and we mandated the Sub-committee for Theological Seminaries to pursue the establishment of a Department of Oriental Studies in our seminaries. We have appointed a coordinator and a moderator for each Sub-Committee as follows:

A.     Sub-Committee for Theological Seminaries

H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, Coordinator;

Subdeacon Jerjes Ibrahim Saleh, Moderator.

B. Sub-Committee for Youth

V. Rev. Archimandrite Nareg Alemezian, Coordinator;

Subdeacon Razek Syriani, Moderator.

C. Sub-Committee for Publications

H.E. Metropolitan Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, Coordinator;

V. Rev. Archimandrite Norayr Ashedian, Moderator.

We find both helpful and necessary the recommendation of the Sub-Committee for Publications that a common book (which will include the history of each of our three Churches) be published in Arabic, Armenian and other languages. Such a publication will certainly help our faithful to know each other better and to deepen their historical bonds and common faith in Christ.

We appreciate the work of the Standing Committee and encourage it to continue supervising the activities of the Sub-Committees.

IV. Christian-Muslim Relations

After the tragic events of 11 September, 2001, international regional and local conferences were held, in which the Churches of our family actively participated and significantly contributed.

We urge the international community to lift the unjust sanctions imposed on Iraq, which have caused much suffering and pain to the Iraqi people.

At the end of our meeting, we thank the Lord for leading our deliberations and decisions. We ask Him to grant us His abundant grace and wisdom to enable us to work for the preservation of the apostolic faith and the unity of His holy Church. We also pray that God may grant our faithful and all of humanity the hope that peace, justice and goodness will prevail in the whole world.

We thank the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch for its brotherly love and warm hospitality. We also thank all who worked, prayed and assisted us for the success of this meeting.

Glory be to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

Pope Shenouda III  –  Mar Ignatius Zakka I   -  Catholicos Aram I

9 March, 2002

Source:

]]> Oriental Orthodox Documents http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2013/12/third-meeting-of-the-heads-of-the-oriental-orthodox-churches-in-the-middle-east/ Third Meeting of the Heads of the  Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East from 4th-9th May 2000 Antelias in the Lebanon. The third meeting of the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East was hosted by the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia at its headquarters at Antelias in the Lebanon from 4th-9th May. In addition […] http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/?p=748 Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:42:10 +0000

Third Meeting of the Heads of the  Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East from 4^th-9^th May 2000 Antelias in the Lebanon.

The third meeting of the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East was hosted by the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia at its headquarters at Antelias in the Lebanon from 4^th-9^th May. In addition to the Patriarchs (His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church, His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I of the Syrian Orthodox Church and His Holiness Catholicos Aram I of the Armenian Orthodox Church-Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia) were members of the Standing Committee: Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta and Bishop Moussa from the Coptic Church; Metropolitan Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim of Aleppo and Metropolitan Theophilus George Saliba of Mount Lebanon from the Syrian Church; and Bishop Sebouh Sarkissian, Patriarchal Vicar for Damascus, and Archimandrite Nareg Alemezian of the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia.

They began their deliberations on 8^th May with a common prayer service celebrated in St. Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral to mark the Second Millennium of the Birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and issuing a Pastoral Letter addressed to thefaithful throughout the world.

Plans were made relating to participation by the Copts and the Syrians in the 2001 commemoration when the Armenian Orthodox Church will celebrate the 17^th Centenary of the Proclamation of Christianity in Armenia.

Particular discussion took place concerning the various Official Theological dialogues in which the Oriental Orthodox churches are currently involved.

Foremost among these is that between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Following a general assessment of the results of the 15 years-long Official Theological Dialogue, the necessity was underlined of its continuation aimed at the full communion of these two families of Orthodox Tradition. In response to the invitation of His Holiness Alexy I, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, addressed in a letter to Pope Shenouda III dated 12 April, 2000 to initiate a bilateral dialogue with the Coptic Orthodox Church and then the Oriental Orthodox Churches, it was thought to be more appropriate to continue in a more organized way the Official Theological Dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox families. Meanwhile, they welcomed mutual pastoral visits with the clear understanding that they should not be selective and include all the Churches of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox families. They also welcomed the pastoral agreement reached between the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa regarding the mutual recognition of the sacraments of holy matrimony blessed in their respective churches in the cases of mix marriages.

The Roman Catholic Church has expressed a wish to start an Official Theological Dialogue with the Coptic Orthodox Church with the possible extension of it to the Oriental Orthodox Churches but it was felt that before making any engagement in a formal Theological Dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, the following points should be taken into consideration:

1) the clarification of the future relations of the Oriental Orthodox Churches with the Pro Oriente;

2) the appointment of a mixed preparatory committee to prepare the agenda and discuss methodologies, procedures and other aspects related to this Dialogue.

After this preparatory work, the Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Churches would be ready to engage in an Official Theological Dialogue with the hope that in the near future other members of the Oriental Orthodox family will join us. Pope Shenouda III and Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I requested Catholicos Aram I to discuss the modalities and other important matters related to this Dialogue both with the Roman Catholic Church and the other members of the Oriental Orthodox family.

As a follow-up to a resolution passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, had extended a formal invitation to the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches to start the Official Theological Dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion.

It was decided to appoint a preparatory committee to meet with the representatives of the Anglican Communion to prepare the agenda and clarify the modalities of this Dialogue. Once again, Catholicos Aram I was asked to discuss this matter with the other Churches of the Oriental Orthodox family.

The first phase of the official dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches will end in January 2001 with the meeting of the Commission at the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia. In the light of the theological discussions over the last seven years, it was considered important to continue this Dialogue if the WARC would take the same position. However, it was felt to be important that a new agenda, procedures and guidelines be set for the next period.

Deep satisfaction was expressed for the active participation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the global ecumenical movement through the World Council of Churches. Ms. Teny Pirri-Simonian, Executive Secretary of Church & Ecumenical Relations and the official representative of the WCC at this Meeting, reported on the new programmatic framework, priorities and activities of the WCC in general, and the work of the ‘Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches’ in particular. She underlined the positive impact of the Annual Meetings of the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East on the ecumenical movement and particularly on the Orthodox Churches – WCC relationship and co-operation.

We re-affirmed our commitment to the ecumenical movement through the World Council of Churches and our serious engagement in the work of the Special Commission that aims at a greater Orthodox participation and role in the WCC.The Patriarchs also expressed their deep satisfaction for the significant role that their Churches were playing in the Middle East Council of Churches. The Rev’d Riad Jarjour, the General Secretary of the MECC, extended his thanks for the full and continuous support of the three Heads to the ongoing work of the Council and reported on the activities of the Council, highlighting some of the challenges and concerns that this regional ecumenical structure is facing. The Patriarchs emphasised the vital necessity of re-evaluating the ecumenical work of the MECC vis-à-vis the changing conditions and new developments in the region.

A Sub-Committee for the Oriental Orthodox Youth was appointed to prepare special programmes for joint activities of the youth of our Churches. This Sub-Committee will meet at the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias, Lebanon, in September 2000.

A Sub-Committee composed of the Deans of the Oriental Orthodox Theological Seminaries was also appointed. This Sub-Committee will explore practical ways and possibilities to organise mutual exchange of teachers and seminarians, as well as joint programmes in the area of Christian education and ministerial formation. The meeting of this Sub-Committee will take place at St. Ephrem’s Monastery in Damascus-Syria, in October 2000.

The recent translations of the books of Pope Shenouda III into Syriac and Armenian, with reprints of some of them into Arabic was welcomed. Publications were considered a vital tool for Christian education and theological formation. Therefore, with the aim of further organising and co-ordinating the efforts of the Churches in this area, a Sub-Committee for Publications was established. This Sub-Committee will meet at St. Bishoy’s Monastery in the Wadi N’atrun, Egypt, in November 2000. It was recommended to this Sub-Committee to publish the history of all three Churches in Arabic, Syriac, Armenian and English, and to provide news related to the three Churches to be printed in each church’s official newsletters in the ‘News From Sister Churches’ section, and also to prepare the updated address book of our Churches and church-affiliated organisations.

The Standing Committee will co-ordinate and supervise the work of these three Sub-Committees, and report back to the Patriarchs.

Source:

At both the  SPECIAL CONVENTION of our Archdiocese held in Pittsburgh, PA, (July 16-18) and the biennial CLERGY SYMPOSIUM held at the Antiochian Village (July 19-22) there were many references to and much discussion about the SCOBA-sponsored PANORTHODOX BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE hosted by our Father and Primate METROPOLITAN PHILIP a decade ago (November 30-December 2, 1994) at the Antiochian Village. Two (2) bold and challenging documents were produced by the twenty-eight (28) hierarchs who were present for that historic convocation:

Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference Approves New Episcopal Assemblies throughout the World

At the invitation of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, delegates from the fourteen Autocephalous Churches participated in the historic Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference, meeting at the Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy-Geneva, Switzerland on June 6-12, 2009. The Conference was a direct result of the Synaxis of the Heads of all the Orthodox Churches, convened by His All Holiness at the Ecumenical Patriarchate October 10-12, 2008. At that time, all the participants expressed their “desire for the swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements, such as in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, with a view to overcoming every possible influence that is foreign to Orthodox ecclesiology.”

At the October meeting of the Heads of the Autocephalous Churches, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew called upon them to “activate the 1993 agreement of the Inter-Orthodox Consultation of the Holy and Great Council in order to resolve the pending matter of the Orthodox Diaspora.” This agreement provided a plan to establish an ‘Episcopal Assembly’ with appropriate authority for the bishops to guide the entire Church in each of the regions of the so-called Orthodox Diaspora.

Acting as formal representatives of the Autocephalous Churches, the members of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Conference in Chambésy affirmed “that is the common will of all of the most holy Orthodox Churches that the problem of the Orthodox Diaspora be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be organized in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church.” The Conference decided to establish an “Episcopal Assembly” in specific regions which are beyond the boundaries of the Autocephalous Churches. The Conference initially identified twelve regions throughout the world. The Episcopal Assembly will include all the canonical Orthodox bishops in a given region such as North America. The representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch (in this case, Archbishop Demetrios of America) will chair the Episcopal Assembly in each region. The Assembly will meet yearly and will have an Executive Committee which will meet every three months. Other committees, composed of clergy and laity, will be established to address particular concerns.

The texts that are linked below are the official English Translations and official Greek texts issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Communiqué, the Decision, and the Regulations.

Links to all three below (PDF format)

• Communiqué
• English

Decision

• English

Regulations 

• English

Source:

October was not a month of especial cooperation in the global Eastern Orthodox communion. Protesting the appointment in March of an archbishop for Qatar by the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Antioch withdrew its participationfrom “all the Assemblies of Canonical Orthodox Bishops abroad.” The Antiochian Patriarchate claims sole authority over the small Gulf state though at present it has no parishes of its own there. The assemblies affected by this decision include thecanonical episcopal council in North America, which counts several Antiochian bishops among its officers.

Meanwhile, following a visit to Indonesia by Serbia’s Patriarch Irinej, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitanate of Singapore expressed dismay that “the Church of Serbia never informed the local canonical Orthodox Metropolitan.” This comes after a series of incidents over the summer in which its sister see in Hong Kongunilaterally excommunicated clergy of another legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction serving in the Philippines.

A 2009 meeting in Chambésy, Switzerland appointed Orthodox regional assemblies to resolve issues like these. Its goal was to reach a modus vivendi in canonically fresh territory through gradual cooperation, seeking to carry out Christ’s commandments and minister to the whole world. Why, despite such good will, have occasional clashes persisted?

Orthodox Christians in the United States (along with Western Europe) enjoy a relatively well-established church infrastructure, and even before Chambésy our hierarchs have collaborated on everything from college ministry to pastoral discipline to social witness. We are learning to overcome the legacy of generations of canonical setbacks, including decades in which sister congregations had broken communion with one another. Many of these outward wounds have been healed, most notably the 2007 restoration of communion between the Russian Church Abroad and those churches which recognized the Church of Russia during the Soviet era.

But despite this reconciliation among local brethren, we still lack a permanent resolution to the patchwork of canonical Orthodox bodies that hold overlapping authority in the Americas, Western Europe, Asia, and Oceania. Chambésy addressed all these lands except Asia, since the existing bishops on the ground were so sparse that they could hardly constitute an assembly of their own. Hence the recent controversy.

Besides violating Orthodox ecclesial order, these disputes also portray Orthodoxy in the most unflattering light imaginable. I have already mentioned over half a dozen Orthodox governing bodies in passing. When he providentially encounters the Church, small in numbers as it is, the unfamiliar American must first navigate all kinds of terminological and organizational hurdles: “Is that church up the street Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, or something else? Why are those different, and why should I care, since my grandparents came to America from Norway and Vietnam?”

I set aside the question of whether he will feel welcome if he does, in fact, choose to visit an unfamiliar church with a strange name. St. Paul has a name for an impediment like those encountered by our hypothetical inquirer: skandalon.

There are plenty of obstacles to order and witness on the home front as well. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which Antioch has accused of overreach in the Gulf, has long been dominated by ethnically Greek hierarchs; only one Orthodox Palestinian currently holds episcopal office in the Holy Land. This has led to disaffection for the Church among many Orthodox-born Palestinians and Jordanians, some of whom have fled for other churches. And Antioch faces upheaval of its own, as the newly-elected Patriarch John (in Arabic, Youhanna) seeks to lead a Church for all Syrians in the midst of a divisive and deadly civil war. In a bitter twist, the Church of Antioch has just withdrawn from North America’s Assembly of Bishops, which oversees International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC)—one of the only relief agencies still active inside Syria’s borders.

The Chambésy process is the worst form of Orthodox church government for the 21st century, except for all the others. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has the power to bring bishops together, but he cannot force them to accept an unwelcome edict. When disputes arise, they must be resolved honestly by brother bishops and their flocks, even if the solutions are slow to come.

Last Saturday the Antiochian Orthodox Church commemorated St. Raphael of Brooklyn. Born in Beirut and educated in Syria, Turkey, and Russia, he humbly and tirelessly served the diverse Orthodox flock in America in the early 20th century as their bishop. Even if churches of Slavic rite celebrated his memory back in February, he is a reminder to all Orthodox in this land that despite our formal divisions, we remain one body in Christ.

While our Church is hampered by human weakness and pettiness, much of the world is still what Protestants would call a mission field. The Orthodox Church has great riches, if like Fr. Raphael we allow ourselves to overcome our own ethnic allegiances and allow Christ to shine forth.

Ivan Plis is an Orthodox Christian in the Washington, DC area. Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Source:

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.

Source:

Rev John H Erickson, Dean
Symposium on 1700th Anniversary of Christian Armenia
October 27-28, 2000

Henry Chadwick, distinguished church historian and veteran observer of the ecumenical scene, is fond of remarking that the chief reason for Christian division today is division itself.  Whatever may have been the issues initially leading to division, a division once established very quickly takes on a life of its own, as each side tries to justify its own role in the division.  Differences that would not in themselves have been church-dividing are invested with new meaning, to the point of becoming symbols of division rather than examples of legitimate diversity.  Signs of particular divine favor are discovered on each side, whether in supernatural portents or in the steadfastness of new confessors and martyrs.  Competing ecclesial structures are erected.  Anathemas are hurled.  And even if the issues that led to the division are eventually resolved, the division itself – buttressed in these many ways – remains.

Certainly these generalizations hold true if we look at the long history of relations between the Eastern, or Chalcedonian, Orthodox Churches and the Oriental, or Non-Chalcedonian, Orthodox Churches.  As these commonly-used designations suggest, both families of churches regard themselves as orthodox, as “right-believing,” or (more accurately) as “right worshipping.”  But they have differed on their position with regard to the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the definition on Christological dogma made at that council.  Thus their long and often painful division goes back over 1500 years.  In recent decades relations have begun to improve, yet developments have been both encouraging and frustrating.  Encouraging – because theological dialogue, first informal in the 1960s, then formal in the 1980s and 1990s, has led to the conclusion that the Christological issues that initially prompted the division of these churches have been resolved, so that continued division can no longer be justified on dogmatic grounds.  Frustrating – because the division does continue.  At this point the reason for the division of our churches seems to be division itself.  A closer review of relations between our churches in the last decades of the twentieth century may place in sharper relief both how far they have come in their quest for unity and also how many divisive and potentially divisive issues remain.

In this year in which we commemorate the 1700th anniversary of Armenian Christianity, it may be useful to begin our review with another anniversary year, 1951, the 1500th anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon.  In a letter commemorating that anniversary, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople quoted with approval St. John of Damascus, who in the eighth century observed that those who do not accept the terminology of Chalcedon were “nevertheless Orthodox in all things,” and he called for theological dialogue with the Non-Chalcedonian churches.  The openness of Patriarch Athenagoras stands in contrast to the way in which Chalcedon was presented in popular literature of the period.  On the Chalcedonian side, Chalcedon then as now was numbered as the fourth of the seven ecumenical councils; and just as the other ecumenical councils, it was remembered chiefly in terms of the heresy condemned.  Just as I Nicaea had condemned the Arian heresy, I Constantinople the Macedonian heresy, and Ephesus the Nestorian heresy, so also Chalcedon had condemned the monophysite heresy.  Those whom the Eastern Orthodox (or for that matter Western Christians) today refer to as Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonians were most often called monophysites in popular books of the period.  The genesis of this heresy and its condemnation at Chalcedon were presented more or less like this:  The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) quite rightly had condemned Nestorius for emphasizing Christ’s humanity to the point of separating Him into two persons; by contrast Nestorius’ chief opponent, Cyril of Alexandria, emphasized Christ’s divine nature, and followers such as Eutyches quickly enough carried this to an extreme, to the point of denying Christ’s human nature; so Chalcedon, basing itself on the carefully balanced Christology of the Tome of Pope Leo of Rome, quite rightly condemned this monophysite heresy, this heresy which held that Christ had but one nature, viz. the divine.

This, of course, is the stereotype that was widespread among the Eastern Orthodox circa 1951.  No doubt comparable stereotypes existed among the Oriental Orthodox.  For most Orthodox, however, whether Eastern or Oriental, the climate of opinion has changed considerably since 1951.  Why?

(1)    First of all, we must acknowledge the contribution of the modern ecumenical movement.  Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches have criticized certain developments within the ecumenical movement, and quite rightly.  At the same time, both have benefited from the ecumenical movement in diverse ways.  The very dialogue which has brought these churches so close to the point of unity and full communion is, in many respects, a product of the ecumenical movement and, more specifically, of the close contacts and resulting friendships which this movement has made possible.  Back in the early 1960s, two then-young staff members of the World Council of Churches, Nikos Nissiotis and Paul Verghese – later Mar Paulos Gregorios – of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, sensed the fundamental unity of the Eastern and Oriental churches.  They succeeded in winning over their respective church authorities, and in turn – at first in conjunction with meetings of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches – a series of informal consultations began (1964-71).  In an atmosphere of mutual respect, relatively free from the cultural and political pressures that had doomed earlier attempts at reunion, leading theologians from both sides [1]  were able to address the subject of Christology from a fresh perspective, concentrating not on what divides (as in older polemical literature) but rather on what unites (in this case, our common father from the early Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and his formulation “one incarnate nature of God the Word”).

Already the joint statement issued by the first of these informal consultations (Aarhus 1964) could declare:  “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….  On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement.  Through the different terminologies used by each side, we found the same truth expressed.”  The second informal consultation (Bristol 1967) extended agreement to include virtually every hitherto-disputed aspect of Christology:  “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.  These four adverbs” -  which of course lie at the heart of the Chalcedonian definition – “belong to our common tradition.  Both affirm the dynamic permanence of the Godhead and the Manhood, with all their natural properties and faculties, in the one Christ.” [2]

Building on the work of these and subsequent informal consultations, an official Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches began to meet in the 1980s.  In its agreed statements on Christology, the Commission repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed the churches’ full agreement on the substance of the faith, notwithstanding differences in terminology.  “In the light of our four unofficial consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and our three official meetings which followed (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” (Chambesy 1993).  Indeed, as the documents of the dialogue point out, “Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided Church of the early centuries” (Anba Bishoy 1980), including, for example, the veneration of icons. [3]

(2)    While the modern ecumenical movement has contributed significantly to the progress in relations between our churches, we must acknowledge an even greater debt to modern historical scholarship.  During the twentieth century, our churches began to engage not only in synchronous dialogue – dialogue with each other and with other churches involved in the ecumenical movement – but also in diachronous dialogue – dialogue with their own past.  They discovered, among other things, that their popular presentations of the period of church history in question were gross oversimplifications.  After Chalcedon, Christological positions whether among those accepting the council or those rejecting it were much more varied and fluid than popular presentations suggested, making it difficult any longer to view one “side” as purely orthodox or the other as purely heretical.

Among those rejecting Chalcedon, there were indeed some who put forward positions that quite properly could be described as monophysite, most notably Julian of Halicarnassus, who asserted that Christ’s body was by nature incorruptible from the moment of the union, even before the resurrection, so that “even though Christ wept over Lazarus, it was his incorruptible and divine tear that raised him from the dead.”  But as modern specialists beginning with Lebon demonstrated conclusively, mainstream “monophysites” like Severus of Antioch simply sought to continue the mia physis Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. [4]   They spoke of “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” but this did not mean that they denied the fullness of Christ’s humanity.  In fact, much of their energy was spent in combatting the apthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus and others like him, who compromised the fullness of Christ’s humanity by arguing that it was essentially different from our own. [5]

At the same time that Non-Chalcedonian “monophysitism” was being reassessed, Chalcedonian diphysitism was also being reassessed.  Reacting again the older and characteristically Western approach which saw ancient church history and dogmatic development as culminating and indeed ending with Chalcedon, scholars like Fr. John Meyendorff called attention to developments after Chalcedon and indeed to neglected aspects of Chalcedon itself. [6]    As Fr. Meyendorff often emphasized, at Chalcedon it was not just the Tome of Pope Leo of Rome that was the touchstone of orthodoxy.  Whenever a difficult moment arose in the proceedings, the witness of Cyril, not just of Leo, was invoked.  In addition, as Meyendorff and other scholars pointed out, Chalcedon itself left a number of issues unresolved, both in Christology and in the inseparable area of soteriology.  Many – indeed perhaps the majority – of those who rejected Chalcedon did so on the grounds that it could be interpreted in a Nestorian way and that it had rehabilitated certain Nestorian sympathizers – personages like Theodoret of Cyrus, who with some justice have been labeled crypto-Nestorian.  This possibility was eliminated only after yet another council, the fifth ecumenical council by Eastern Orthodox reckoning, in Constantinople in 553, during the reign of Emperor Justinian.  This council once again emphasized the authority of St. Cyril, condemned the suspect Nestorian sympathizers, and fully incorporated into its definition the “theopaschite” formulations which those rejecting Chalcedon had long regarded as essential for orthodoxy.  The hymn “Only-begotten Son,” generally ascribed to Justinian and sung each time the Divine Liturgy is celebrated, testifies to the continuing importance of this council’s understanding of Christology within the Byzantine tradition.

Only-begotten Son and Word of God:  Thou art immortal,
yet for our salvation Thou didst deign to be incarnate
of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary,
and without change Thou didst become man and wast crucified, O Christ our God,
trampling down death by death;
Thou art one of the Holy Trinity,
glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
Save us!

After 553, there would be no thought of rejecting or simply ignoring Chalcedon within the Byzantine imperial church, but it was also clear that Chalcedon could be interpreted only in the light of the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and, behind that, the soteriology of St. Cyril.  In short, Chalcedon, the fourth of the councils regarded as ecumenical in the Eastern Orthodox Church, does not stand alone.  It must be read in the light of the fifth and subsequent councils.

The modern ecumenical movement and modern historical scholarship have indeed helped bring our churches closer.  They are now able to view both each other and their own histories in a new perspective.  But we should not conclude from this that the present rapprochement is simply the result of modern relativism or the “pan-heresy of ecumenism,” as some self-styled traditionalists might charge.  Even during the long centuries of division there were some on both sides who recognized that differences between the churches’ preferred Christological formulations were essentially verbal rather than substantive.  And during those centuries there also were efforts to reach agreement and to restore communion.  These early efforts are instructive and merit closer examination.  They illustrate what both sides – at the time at least -  regarded as the proper basis for reunion.

Attention already has been drawn to Emperor Justinian’s efforts in the sixth century to address the legitimate concerns of those who did not accept Chalcedon.  The council which he summoned did not in fact achieve its goal of unity.  By that point both sides had begun to erect parallel, competing hierarchies, and ethnic, national and political issues were further aggravating what had begun as a theological dispute.  The chief reason for division was becoming division itself.  Yet efforts at reunion continued – and indeed intensified – under Justinian’s successor, Justin II, who issued what has been called “a manifesto of Neo-Chalcedonian theology.”  Addressing all his Christian subjects, he affirmed that orthodox Christology can be expressed both in Cyrillian terms (“one incarnate nature of God the Word”) or in Chalcedonian terms (“the difference of natures is not annulled by the union…”); and he called on all parties to unite on the basis of orthodoxia, avoiding “unnecessary disputes about persons or words, since the words [used on either side] lead to one true belief and understanding.” [7]

One problem, of course, is that emperors of this and every age tend to become impatient when their initiatives are not immediately crowned with success.  In Christian antiquity imperially sponsored dialogue too often alternated with imperially sponsored persecution of dissidents.  No doubt some churchmen were happy to go along with the persecutions, just as they went along with the dialogues.  But there also were those who rejected force.  One such was John the Faster, a sixth-century patriarch of Constantinople.  “What did the dissidents do or say that deserves persecutions?” he asked.  “If pagans have been justified and amnestied, how can I persecute Christians who are blameless in their Christianity and, so it seems to me, have more faith than we?”[8]   Another noteworthy figure is John the Merciful, Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria, who is honored as a saint by both sides because of his even-handed charity.

During this early period there were also important developments in how each side viewed the ecclesial status of the other.  In the wake of Chalcedon, some self-proclaimed champions of akribeia, or “strictness,” on both sides tried to ransack the archives of the churches to expunge the names of long-dead “heretics” and insisted on the rechrismation and reordination of those “repenting” of their former adherence.  This approach, however, was vigorously resisted and ultimately defeated by moderate churchmen on both sides, who explored the proper limits of oikonomia, or “prudent pastoral management.”  For example, Severus of Antioch, leading Non-Chalcedonian theologian of his age, railed against what he called “the heresy of the self-appointed reanointers,” i.e., those of his fellow Non-Chalcedonians who advocated rechrismation of Chalcedonians.  On the Chalcedonian side too, we can see an analogous development in canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, a synod which for the Chalcedonian Orthodox possesses ecumenical authority:  Those coming over from among the Non-Chalcedonians are to be received simply by profession of faith, not by anointing with chrism or, a fortiori, by rebaptism.

While much of this discussion of oikonomia and its limits proceeded case by case, there was at least one attempt at a systematic presentation, a special treatise on the subject by the seventh-century Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria Eulogius.  His work expresses what I take to be the accepted position of Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians like:  (a) By oikonomia a temporary concession can be made in matters of practice to avoid irremediably damaging the peace of the Church (e.g., Paul’s circumcision of Timothy); (b) by oikonomia differences in theological terminology can be tolerated indefinitely; (c) by oikonomia technical barriers to communion – an occasional heretic’s name in the diptychs and other vestiges of past error – can simply be ignored.  But in no case may present purity of faith be compromised.

The proper basis for unity is orthodoxia, even if this is expressed in different Christological formulas.  This was the conviction of leading figures on both sides in antiquity.  This also was the conviction of the theologians who participated in the informal consultations between the churches in the 1960s and 1970s.  This also forms the basis for the agreed statements issued subsequently by the official Joint Commission for Dialogue.  But as is pointed out so often, orthodoxia involves not only right belief but also right worship, and in antiquity and continuing in the Middle Ages many differences in worship that would not in themselves have been church-dividing came to be invested with new meaning, becoming symbols of division.

Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine.  The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches.  By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist.  Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared:  “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9]   By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine.  Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes:  “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos.  This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10]   Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ.  The Byzantine Church quickly enough responded in kind.  The Synod in Trullo (691-92) almost certainly had Sahak’s treatise in mind when it decreed that any bishop or presbyter who does not mix water with the wine in the eucharist is to be deposed, on the grounds that he thus “proclaims the mystery incompletely and tampers with tradition” (canon 32). [11]   Very possibly Trullo also had Armenian liturgical practice in mind when it decreed “Let no man eat the unleavened bread of the Jews…” (canon 11).  In any case, in subsequent  polemical literature the issue of the bread and wine of the eucharist figures prominently, frequently to the exclusion of deeper theological reflection.  Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology,  the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences.  So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology.  Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!

Other liturgical practices became equally divisive.  Consider, for example, the Trisagion:  “Holy [is] God!  Holy [and] mighty!  Holy [and] immortal!  Have mercy on us!”  The origins of this troparion are disputed, Non-Chalcedonians claiming an Antiochian provenance and Chalcedonians attributing it to a heavenly vision when earthquakes were threatening Constantinople in 438-39.  Even more disputed its interpretation.  To whom is the troparion addressed?  In its original form, it may have been addressed to Christ.  This, in any case, is how the Non-Chalcedonian Patriarch Peter the Fuller of Antioch understood the troparion when he interpolated the theopaschite clause “who was crucified for us” into it sometime between 468 and 470, i.e., at a time when many Chalcedonians regarded any theopaschite formula with deep suspicion.  Quickly enough the Trisagion became yet another bone of contention.  Among Non-Chalcedonians, Catholicos Sahak III went so far as to trace the origins of the Trisagion, interpolation and all, to St. Ignatius of Antioch at the end of the first century.[12]   In response to his claims, the Synod in Trullo (691-92) condemned the interpolation “as being foreign to true piety”; and by the time of the earliest Byzantine commentary on the Divine Liturgy, that of Patriarch Germanos I in the early eighth century, the troparion was being interpreted as addressed to the three persons of the Trinity, “Holy God” referring to the Father, “Holy Mighty” to the Son, and “Holy Immortal” to the Holy Spirit. [13]

One final example illustrates particularly vividly the ease with which a minor liturgical difference can be transformed into a symbol of division.  In the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian liturgical traditions, a week of strict fasting – variously called the Fast of Heraclius, the Fast of Ninevah or the Forefast (Arachavorats) – preceeds the “Forty-Day” Great Fast of Lent.  The same week in the Byzantine tradition calls only for abstinence from meat, not from dairy products.  The historical development of the fasting practices of these various liturgical traditions is complex, but the differences between them were not the result of any dogmatic differences. [14]   Yet in the context of church division, these differences came to be given a polemical explanation.  Here is the rubric given in the Byzantine Triodion for Cheesefare Sunday, which introduces the week in question:  “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week.”  What one side does is enough to prompt the other to do the opposite!  We see here the tragic way in which our sense of ecclesial identity has, in the context of division, been formed by opposition rather than by reference to a common faith.  The characteristics by which we identify ourselves and our churches as “orthodox” all too often have been simply those extrinsic elements which make us different from others.

Must differences of worship, once invested – however artificially – with dogmatic significance, continue to divide?  In the course of the Middle Ages, a few conciliatory voices could be heard.  Worthy of special mention is St. Nersess the Graceful, who in the twelfth century entered into some very promising discussions with the Byzantine didaskalos Theorianos, head of the patriarchal school and ambassador of Emperor Manuel Comnenos.  St. Nersess agreed, first of all, that there was indeed unity of faith, Chalcedon notwithstanding.  He writes:  “I find nothing in the horos [of Chalcedon] against the Orthodox faith, and I am astonished that those before us opposed it so strenously.”[15]   He also is able to place an irenic interpretation on the liturgical diversity that distinguished the churches.  For example, he observes concerning the Trisagion:  “…whether one says [it] to the Holy Trinity, as you do, or to the Son alone, as we do, both are pleasing to God when they are said without contention.”[16]   Unfortunately, initiatives towards reunion in St. Nersess’ day were not carried through.  The vartabeds of eastern Armenia were slow to respond.  The “guardians of Orthodoxy” in Constantinople were less than enthusiastic about the emperor’s ecumenical initiatives whether towards the Armenians or towards the Latins.[17]   Perhaps more importantly, with the Battle of Myriocephalon (1176) the last remnants of Byzantine hegemony in eastern Anatolia were swept away, eliminating whatever political advantages either side might have gained by reunion.

Are current efforts to restore unity any more likely to succeed than those of the twelfth century?  Certainly the modern ecumenical movement has provided a more auspicious “political” climate than that of the twelfth century, and modern scholarship has provided a clearer, more dispassionate understanding of many of the issues which have divided our churches in the past.  Reflecting some of the progress that has been made in discussion of liturgical differences, the Joint Commission’s subcommittees on liturgical and pastoral issues, meeting in Damascus in February 1998, agreed – among other things – “that the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches basically maintain the old liturgical traditions in their local liturgical types, which co-existed in the undivided Church”; and they also declared

that liturgical issues have to be theologically clarified to indicate that they are in agreement with our common Christological Statements.  For example, the expression “who was crucified for us” in the Trisagion hymn can be properly understood only in a Christological interpretation, while the hymn without this phrase can be understood both in Trinitarian and Christological senses.  In the same spirit, the use of unleavened bread and unmixed wine by the Armenian Orthodox Church in the eucharist can be explained without any implications for the Christological consensus. [18]

But one can sense that, in the course of the last decade, the impulse towards reunion of the churches has slowed.  Articles published in the late 1980s and early 1990s, soon after the Joint Commission issued its agreed statements on Christology, could speak optimistically of “recent strides toward reunion” and “last steps to unity.” [19]   Since then, however, progress has slowed considerably.  Opposition to reunion on the basis of the agreed statements of the Joint Commission has been mounting in Greece, Russia, Jerusalem and, on the Non-Chalcedonian side, Ethiopia.  An unsigned article in a “traditionalist” Orthodox periodical, reflecting this changing tide of opinion, bears the title:  “Patriarch Bartholomew Attempts to Strong-Arm the Church into Union with the Monophysites.” [20]   Particularly strident, and certainly more influential, has been the 1995 “Memorandum of the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain [Mount Athos] Concerning the Dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Anti-Chalcedonian Churches.” [21]   Many more examples could be given.  This opposition to the work of the Joint Commission does not appear to be based on Christological concerns.  The Athonite memorandum, for example,  refers to the actual substance of Christology only twice, and even then it fails to explore the contents of the “monophysite heresy.” [22]   Objections coming from both sides have focused rather on liturgico-canonical issues, and more specifically on the anathemas which the churches hurled against each other during their many centuries of division.  According to the 1990 agreed statement of the Joint Commission, “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 anthemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.” (para. 10)  But so far this has not been done.  Instead, in “traditionalist” quarters on both sides, the same kinds of questions have arisen:  How can we lift these anathemas without betraying our holy fathers who imposed them in the first place?  How can we enter into communion with those who honor as saints precisely those whom our holy fathers in the past anathematized as heretics?

One can read statements from both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox arguing precisely this.  For example, according to a popular presentation of the position of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahido Church:

…to lift the anathemas imposed in the past upon those Chalcedonian Fathers and to accept them as saints would dishonor those Oriental Orthodox Church Fathers who condemned the Chalcedonians….  Since these anathemas have been observed for about 1500 years by our Holy Fathers as inscribed in our liturgical texts and hymnody, they shall not be lifted. [23]

Much the same attitude can be seen in the memorandum from the monks of Mount Athos, which vigorously objects to “purging the liturgical books of texts which refer to the Anti-Chalcedonians as heretical.”  As the memorandum continues:

The sacred services of many confessors of the Faith, of many righteous Fathers, and especially the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Council in Chalcedon will be mutilated….   We ask:  Are all the texts referred to above simply ornamental elements in Orthodox hymnology so that they can be painlessly and harmlessly removed, or are they basic elements of Orthodoxy, whose removal will cause the eradication of what we understand as Orthodoxy.

The memorandum from Mount Athos also rejects that line of thinking which “considers that the anathemas were laid upon the heretics by the Ecumenical Councils in a spirit lacking love, while today, since love now exists, union can be accomplished.”  “Such a way of thinking,” the memorandum states, “directs a profound blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, through Whose inspiration these decisions were made, and against the sacred memory of the Holy Fathers, whom the Churchs calls God-bearers, Mouths of the Word, and Harps of the Spirit….”

Practically inseparable from the question of anathemas is the question of the meaning and authority of ecumenical councils.  The Oriental Orthodox regard three councils as ecumenical, the Eastern Orthodox, seven.  It was in councils four through seven that Oriental fathers like Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch were condemned; and it was in these councils that Leo of Rome, condemned as crypto-Nestorian by the Orientals, was hailed as a pillar of right belief.  According to the Joint Commission for Dialogue, a sufficient basis for reconciliation is the fact that both families of churches confess the faith of all seven of the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Chalcedonians, even though they do not accord the same ecumenical authority to all these councils.  But is this sufficient?  According to some Eastern Orthodox, the Orientals must indicate their full and unqualified acceptance of seven ecumenical councils; they must accept not only the substance of the faith of these councils but also their disciplinary norms and terminology — and presumably also their anathemas.  For example, Patriarch Diodorus of Jerusalem in 1997 wrote a letter to Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch protesting, among other things, the latter’s eagerness to move forward to reunion on the basis of the work of the Joint Commission.  “According to Holy Tradition,” Patriarch Diodorus avers, “the Non-Chalcedonians ought to accept absolutely and completely all the terms and canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, in its entirety, as well as the following Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, also in their entirety.” [24]

For the Chalcedonian Orthodox, can the anathemas pronounced at councils four through seven be lifted?  If so, how?  This question sometimes has been approached from a juridical perspective:  Who has the authority to lift an anathema?  In this perspective, the answer would appear to be clear:  An anathema can be lifted, but only by a body of the same or greater authority as the one which imposed it.  The Joint Commission in 1993 urged that “the lifting of anathemas should be made unanimously and simultaneously by the heads of all churches of both sides.”  But are “the heads of the all the churches” the juridically competent body?  Not according to the memorandum from Mount Athos, which denounces this “decision of the Joint Commission concerning the possibility of lifting an anathema placed by an ecumenical council.”  According to the memorandum, this is “alien to the sound mind of the Church” and “offends the fundamental consciousness of the Church concerning the authority of the ecumenical councils.”  From this juridical perspective, only another ecumenical council would have the authority to lift the anathemas imposed by councils four through seven, though in a pinch presumably a Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church would do – when and if such a council meets.

But the issue of the anathemas – and along with it the issue of the number of ecumenical councils – is not simply a juridical question.  It is a question of the identity and historical consistency of Orthodoxy itself, a question of the unity of the Church not only in space, with other professing Christians here and now, but in time, with the holy fathers and mothers of all ages.  In this perspective, it becomes a matter of considerable significance whether one labels a given individual a saint or a heretic.  As Metropolitan John Zizioulas has pointed out, membership in the Church does not mean simply the enjoyment of an a-temporal communion with Christ.  It implies entering into communion with the saints of all the ages, as expresssed among other places in the diptychs, the calendar, and liturgical observances.  And here by “saints” we should not think simply of those conspicuous for their personal sanctity.  As Zizioulas points out, “saints are signs of the glory of God in this world not so much as individuals as in the context of the communion of saints, the advance guard of the One Body.  ‘Saint’ therefore is a relational term; if relationship is broken — if unity is broken — the meaning of sanctity itself dramatically shifts.” [25]   Can any body, even an ecumenical council, attempt to overturn the decision of a previous ecumenical council concerning who is a holy father and who is a heretic without calling into question the unity and continuity of the Church through time?  This is the question which the memorandum from Mount Athos raises when it denounces “the attack upon the validity and authority of the Holy Ecumenical Councils by the decision of the Joint Commission that the Anti-Chalcedonian heresiarchs Dioscorus, Jacob, Severus, etc. be considered not heretical but Orthodox in their thinking.”  As the memorandum continues, “The consciousness of the Orthodox Church recognizes that infallibility and authority in the Holy Spirit is in the ecumenical councils and refuses to accept the possibility of revising the decisions of an ecumenical council by another ecumenical council without the latter council being considered as an heretical conventicle…” [26]

How can one respond to such denunciations?  Certainly ancient writers like Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria would appear to be far more generous and forgiving. Here it is important to consider what kind of authority we ascribe to ecumenical councils.  The memorandum from Mount Athos uses the word “infallibility.”  This may be an unfortunate choice of words, the result of an understandable but regrettable reaction to Roman claims of papal infallibility.  (We see here another example of the way in which ecclesial identity has, in the context of division, been formed by opposition, in this case by opposition to Roman Catholicism.)  It would be more accurate to say simply that the ecumenical councils have inerrantly defined the faith and delineated the boundaries of true piety.  But even if we speak of the “infallibility” of ecumenical councils, certainly this infallibility does not imply full and direct divine inspiration for each and every statement made in the course of these councils.  It does not, for example, mean that councils and council fathers cannot be mistaken concerning matters of fact or inconsistent in their terminology.  Councils – even ecumenical councils – do not invent or produce the faith of the Church.  Rather, they bear witness to it.  Therefore the adequacy of their words for this faith – and the appropriateness of their terminology and of their anathemas – must always be evaluated in the light of this faith.

Let us turn specifically to anathemas as these have been pronounced by successive ecumenical councils.  These show an interesting progression as we move from earlier councils to subsequent councils.  At the time when a given error or heresy is most pressing, an anathema, if pronounced, is usually quite specific about the position that is being condemned.  The first ecumenical council at Nicaea, for example, reacting against the heresy which subsequent generations have called Arianism, concluded its creed with the following words:  “And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a difference substance (hypostasis) or essence (ousia} [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.” [27]   As we come to later councils, the formulation becomes much less specific about the errors in question.  Instead, it tends to be attached specifically to the person of Arius rather than to the position which he espoused:  Anathema to Arius!  We see a similar progression when it comes to other heresies.  In the early stages of the Christological controversies, St. Cyril’s Twelve Anathematisms directed against the theology of Nestorius are quite specific.  For example, the fourth anathematism reads:  “If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to only the Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God:  let him be anathema.” [28]   These anathematisms were included verbatim in the acts of the third ecumenical council, Ephesus (431 A.D.), but thereafter formulations generally are content simply to anathematize Nestorius.  In other words, a kind of theological “short-hand” develops.  Instead of anathematizing a heretical position, which may be rather cumbersome to summarize and explain, we give this position a name and anathematize it as a heresy – Arianism or Nestorianism – or, more often, we associate it with a specific person and anathematize him – Arius or Nestorius.

In the case of Arius or Nestorius, the meaning of this “short-hand” is reasonably clear to the point of being self-evident.  By saying “anathema to Nestorius” we are saying “anathema” to the positions denounced by St. Cyril in his Twelve Anathematisms and thereafter by the Council of Ephesus.  But in some cases this “short-hand” can deceive.  If we are very clear about what is being condemned, well and good.  But if we rely simply on the “shorthand” of later councils, we may be misled.  This point may be illustrated by reference to what Chalcedonian Orthodox regard as the sixth ecumenical council, III Constantinople (681 A.D.), which proclaimed anathema to Dioscorus “hated of God” and to the “impious” Severus of Antioch.  This council was faced by the heresies of monotheletism and monenergism, which held that there was but one will and one natural energy in Christ.  As frequently the case when faced with a new challenge, orthodox churchmen on the one hand denounced these heresies as dangerous innovations, but on the other they tried to demonstrate that the new heresies were simply old, long-condemned heresies in disguise.  Like the monks of Mount Athos, like the fathers of the ancient councils generally, and for that matter like the heretics who assembled in the various ancient pseudo-councils, the fathers of III Constantinople wished to demonstrate the historical consistency of their own position and at the same time, the coherence of their opponents’ position with that of earlier heretics.  Thus at III Constantinople the contemporary monothelites were seen as holding, among other things, the heresy of Apollinarius, who had held that Jesus Christ did not possess a human rational soul (nous) – a heresy which, according to III Constantinople, was condemned at I Constantinople (381 A.D.). In fact the story of I Constantinople is much more complex than a reading simply of the acts of III Constantinople would suggest; at I Constantinople itself, the question of Apollinarius’ teaching seems to have been tangential at most. [29]   So also, at III Constantinople the monothelites were seen as holding the heretical positions condemned at Chalcedon and II Constantinople (553 A.D.), which the council associated respectively with Dioscorus and Severus, among others.  Hence, in the course of a long series of anathemas pronounced at the final session of the council, we find the names of Dioscorus and Severus.  Clearly, by the time of III Constantinople popular opinion did associate these names with heretical positions condemned at earlier councils.  And this tendency continues in later centuries.  For example, hymnography for the Feast of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (July 16 – originally the commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon) can exhort the orthodox to “abhor” Dioscorus and Severus along with a multitude of other heretics.  But these formulations – these “short-hand” notes from later times – in fact are very misleading.

Let us first consider the case of Dioscorus.  While III Constantinople can say anathema to Dioscorus and regard him as a progenitor of the monothelite heresy, this does not accurately reflect the views and activities of Dioscorus or how the Council of Chalcedon actually dealt with him.  At that council Dioscorus was indeed deposed, but as the acts of the council indicate, “it was not for the faith that Dioscorus was deposed but because he had excommunicated the lord Leo, archbishop [of Rome], and that summoned three times, he did not come.  This is why he was deposed.” [30]   He did not in fact espouse the teaching of Eutyches, whose teaching concerning Christ and whose person were condemned at Chalcedon.  To use the words of Fr. John Romanides, an Eastern Orthodox theologian deeply engaged in the theological dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox:  “The backbone of the Orthodox tradition is the fact that the Logos became consubstantial with us.  There can be no doubt that Dioscorus agrees with this fact and so could never be accused of being a monophysite along with Eutyches.”[31]

Let us also consider the case of Severus.  He clearly affirms the basic Christological truth that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with His Father in His divinity and consubstantial with us in His humanity.  In other words, he does not fall into the heresy of Eutyches condemned at Chalcedon, which denied Christ’s consubstantiality with us and thus His full humanity.  But Severus uses technical terms like hypostasis and physis in ways very different from the later formulations of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy.  If read on his own terms, he is not guilty of either the heresy of monophysitism or the heresy of monotheletism as these have been condemned by the ecumenical councils. [32]    His terminology may seem idiosyncratic, but it is hardly less so than that of most of his contemporaries, whether Chalcedonian (like Leontius of Byzantium) or Non-Chalcedonian.  In other words, he was misunderstood, perhaps deliberately, perhaps inadvertently, by the time that Constantinople III labeled him “infamous” and anathematized him as one of the progenitors of monotheletism.

Here a further question may be posed.  What weight should be given to an objection raised by Patriarch Diodorus in his letter to Patriarch Ignatius:  “Are we to believe that they [viz., the theologians of the period in question] did not correctly understand those present in the Synods with whom they communicated in a common language and education?”  But while it certainly is true that these theologians were working in the same language, Greek, it does not follow that they used technical terms – especially those with a philosophical coloring – in the same way.  We sometimes face the same problem today.  English now serves as an international language in much the way that Greek did in antiquity, but as a frequent participant in international meetings once remarked, “We live in a world in which everyone knows English — bad English!”  A concrete word like “shoe” will be understood in much the same way by virtually every speaker of the English language, even by those for whom English is a second language, but a word like “existential” or “natural”  will mean different things to different people, even to those whose only language is English.  And of course the problem becomes even more complicated in the case of theologians who worked in different languages.

The faith of the ancient councils – I Nicaea, I Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, II Constantinople, III Constantinople, II Nicaea – is consistent, whether one labels all seven or only the first three as ecumenical.  But their terminology is not always consistent.  I Nicaea, for example, used the words hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, while the later councils took great pains to distinguish them.  So too, the anathemas of the ancient councils are not always consistent.  Too often we have mistaken the “short-hand” of later periods for historical fact.  The conclusion of the Joint Commission therefore is quite appropriate:  “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” (1990 Chambesy Agreed Statement, para. 10).  But will this happen any time in the foreseeable future?

The question at this point is whether we really desire unity more than our present disunity.  Will we continue to be divided simply by the power of division itself?  Certainly at the present time we seem to prefer the disunity of the status quo.  Our cherished anathemas and preferred formulas give us a sense of security.  Without them, our very identity seems threatened.  Of course, much of Christian doctrine arose precisely because of the need to define the truth in opposition to heresy.  But the words in which the truth are expressed are not the same as the truth itself.  Failure to recognize this can lead to the kind of situation described by St. Gregory of Nazianzen.  He notes how, when we try to lift a handful of water to our lips, some can be found slipping through our fingers:

In the same way, there is a separation not only between us and those who hold aloof in their impiety, but also between us and those who are most pious – a separation in regard both to such doctrines as are of small consequence and to expressions intended to bear the same meaning. [33]

Certainly this is the situation in which the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox find themselves today.  If our church families can overcome the division of centuries, if they can recognize in each other the same one faith, if they can enter into a life of communion in the deepest sense of that word, their reunion will be a sign of promise for all Christians.

———–

[1] Participants included, among others, Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff, John Karmires, John Romanides, John Zizioulas, Paul Verghese and V.C. Samuel.
[2]  Reports of the four unofficial dialogues (1964-1971) are published in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10.2 (1964-65), 13 (1968), and 16.1 and 2 (1971).
[3]  At this point the agreed statements and proposals of the Joint Commission are available in English translation most conveniently in St. Nersess Theological Review 1.1 (1996) 99-110.
[4]  J. Lebon, Le monophysisme Severien (Louvain, 1909).
[5]  On Severus’ Christology and its significance for dialogue today, see most recently John Behr, “Severus of Antioch:  Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Perspectives,” St. Nersess Theological Review 3.1-2 (1998) 23-35.
[6]  See especially his Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood NY:  St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975).
[7]  Evagrius, Eccl. Hist. 5.4, cited by J. Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood NY:  St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989) 262.
[8]  John of Ephesus, Hist. Eccl. 5.15, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks (Paris – Louvain:  1935-36), cited by Meyendorff, Imperial Unity 264-5.
[9]  La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, ed. G. Garitte (Louvain:  Peeters, 1952) 242-4, cited by M. Findikyan, “Liturgical Usages and Controversy in History:  How Much Diversity Can Unity Tolerate?” St. Nersess Theological Review 1.2 (1996) 197, to whose discussion of liturgical diversity the present summary is deeply indebted.  On this episode and others from this crucial period in Armenian ecclesiastical relations with Constantinople, see now Nina Garsoian, L’Eglise Armenienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (Louvain:  Peeters, 1999), esp. 267-77.
[10]  Girk’ Tlt’oc’ [Book of Letters], ed. J. Ismireantz (Tiflis:  1901) 475-76; French trans. with extensive commentary M. van Esbroeck, “Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691 et quelques documents armeniens annexes au Quinisexte,” in The Synod in Trullo Revisited, ed. G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone (Rome:  Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995), 323-454 at 431; English trans. M. Findikyan, “Liturgical Usages…” 198-99.
[11]  The canon in question takes pains to correct Sahak’s manifestly incorrect interpretation of a passage from St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew:  Chrysostom was condemning the ancient sect of the Hydroparastatae, who substituted water for wine in the eucharist, not those who mix water with the wine.  On this and other aspects of Sahak’s treatise and its importance in the history of Byzantine – Armenian relations, see van Esbroeck, “Le discours…” passim.
[12]  On Sahak’s argument and Trullo’s response, see van Esbroeck, “Le discours…” passim.
[13]  R.F.T[aft], “Trisagion,” in the Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1991) 2121; S.P. Brock, “The Thrice-Holy Hymn in the Liturgy,” Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review  7.2 (1985) 24-34; V.-S. Janeras, “Les byzantines et le trisagion christologique,” in Miscellanea liturgica in onore di sua eminenza il Cardinale Giacomo Lercaro 2 (Rome:  1967) 469-99.
[14]  See T.J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (New York:  Pueblo, 1986) 168-222.
[15]  Theoriani Disputationes cum Armeniorum Catholico I, PG 133:204B, cited by A. Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood NY:  St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994) 116.
[16]  Encyclical Letters of St. Nersess Shnorali (Jerusalem:  1871) 138, cited by M. Findikyan, “Liturgical Usages…” 207.
[17]  The expression is that of Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1993) 386-88 et passim.
[18]  Communique of the Meeting of the Subcommittees on Liturgical and Pastoral Issues, 2-5 February 1998, Damascus, Syria, points 3 and 4 (typescript).  The English text – practically incomprehensible in the original press release – has been lightly modified for greater grammatical and lexical clearity.
[19]  See, for example, John Meyendorff, “Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians:  The Last Steps to Unity,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33.4 (1989) 319-329; Thomas FitzGerald, “Toward the Reestablishment of Full Communion:  The Orthodox-Orthodox Oriental Dialogue, “Greek Orthodox Theological Review 36.2 (1991) 169-181; Theodore Pulcini, “Recent Strides Toward Reunion of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches:  Healing the Chalcedonian Breach,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 30.1 (1993) 34-50.
[20]  In Orthodox Life 45.3 (1995) 39-41, where it is followed by a lengthy critique of the work of the Joint Commission and of the churches participating in it.
[21]  Ser. no. ph2/116/455, May 14/27, 1995 – typescript.
[22]  See the trenchant critique of the memorandum by A. Golitzin, “Anathema!  Some Historical Perspectives on the Athonite Statement of May, 1995,” St. Nersess Theological Review 3.1-2 (1998) 103-117, especially 106-9.
[23]  The Ethiopian Tewahido Church (New York?:  n.d.) 108.
[24]  Letter no. 361, May 17, 1997.
[25]  “Ecclesiological Issues Inherent in the Relations Between Eastern Chalcedonian and Oriental Non-Chalcedonian Churches,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16 (1971) 144-62 at p. 149.
[26]  Cf. the extremely valuable assessment of D. Wendebourg, “Chalcedon in Ecumenical Discourse,” Pro Ecclesia 7.3 (1998) 307-332 at p. 330:  “Why is so much made of the question, ‘Three or seven ecumenical councils?’ if a consensus has nevertheless been reached on the substance of Christology?  This question is of such great importance because it is directly concerned with the identity of the divided churches, identity understood not simply in a psychological sense, but in a theological one.  It is a matter of the relation of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church to the concrete history of the church.  Both sides concede to each other that they are legitimate representatives of faith in Christ, and that means filled with the Holy Spirit.  But each side has existed for fifteen hundred years in a distinctive way, characterized – positively – by a distinctive expression of faith in Christ and negatively – by being distinguished from those who do not share this exposition.  Can the concrete historical form of their path under the guidance of the Spirit be detached from a ‘substance’ of the presence of the Spirit without this presence of the Spirit becoming a purely abstract reality?”
[27] Trans. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 2, vol. 14, 3.
[28]  Ibid. 211.
[29]  For a convenient presentation of I Constantinople see Archbishop Peter L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils:  The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (Crestwood NY:  St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,1996) 101-42.
[30]  Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, in Session 5, quoted by L’Huilllier, Church of the Ancient Councils 189, with further discussion of the case of Dioscorus.
[31]  “Leo of Rome’s Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria’s Support of Eutyches, and the Lifting of the Anathemas,” paper (as yet unpublished?) presented at the November 1993 meeting of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Geneva) 6.
[32]  On this subject see most conveniently John Behr, “Severus of Antioch…” 23-35.
[33]  Or. 21.35.
Source:

On 2/15 January, 1935, a year and a half before his death, the President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Blessed Metropolitan Anthony, reported to theSynod on the desirability of convening a Second All-Diaspora Council with the participation ofclergy and laity. In his report, Metropolitan Anthony wrote: “The conditions in which our Church Abroad finds itself, having no support from any state and growing thanks to a great degree to the work of pious parishioners, necessitates the invitation of representatives of the flock for their closest participation not only in parish matters, but in social matters in general. Such participation by the laity in Councils [Sobors] in Moscow, Stavropol and later in Sremskije Karlovtsy in 1921 was in many ways beneficial. For us hierarchs it is very important to learn from the flock of their spiritual and other needs, and on the other hand, measures that are worked out with the participation of the clergy and laity can be established upon more multifaceted and detailed consideration. Of course, while speaking of such participation by the clergy and laity in Conciliar work, in no way do we have in mind the manifestation of some sort of ecclesio-democratic program. Hierarchal supervision and privilege–or rather, the obligation of bishops to declare the final word–must remain firm in continuity with the Holy Canons and the practice of the recent Russian Councils. Incidentally, it must be noted with satisfaction that thus far, at our Councils, it was the laity that especially zealously guarded the preservation of the fullness of the canonical rights of the hierarchy. In the diaspora there has only been one Council with the participation of clergy and laity. The plan to convene a second such Council remained unfulfilled for various reasons, one of which one may consider the developing church troubles. The easing of divisions within the Church of recent times gives reason to say that this last reason, if it has not disappeared entirely, then in any case it cannot be considered sufficient to justify the further delay of a Council, which, if it will not be able to lead us to unity, it will still be important for the Russian Church Abroad, united around the Council of Bishops and the Synod.

It musn’t be forgotten that the First Church Council in the Diaspora in Sremskije Karlovtsy in 1921, though subject to certain reproach, was still able to help strengthen the organization of the Church Abroad. Still, one cannot but see the beneficial significance of the diocesan meetings in some of our dioceses, as, for example, in Harbin [in China--transl.]. All this gives us reason to expect that the convening of an All-Diaspora Council now would help unite the Church Abroad, strengthen its organization and bring its material situation in order.

But no lesser a task for the Council, if not greater, will be to show the Orthodox Russian Diaspora the paths of spiritual rebirth and the education of the emigration, the examination and development of measures to fight sectarianism, anti-ecclesiastical currents abroad, and, finally, to the extent possible, bring the healing of wounds inflicted upon souls by troubles in the Church. Towards this goal I would joyfully welcome the participation in the Council of representatives of Russian Church organizations which are not now fully united with us, with the condition, of course, that they express a willingness to submit to decisions made by the Council with the participation as full members of their representatives. More than once have we invited hierarchs who have left us to reestablish unity; it would seem that a new invitation of them and to representatives of their flocks could serve the goal of church unity.”
In concluding his report, Metr. Anthony offered to create a Pre-Council Committee at the Synod of Bishops under the presidency of Archbishop Anastassy. This Pre-Council Committee was formed and it was recommended that the Council be convened in 1936. However, due to circumstances, the Council was delayed. In 1936, Metr. Anthony died, which also delayed the Council. It was finally convened in 1938.

In the “Decree” of this Council was the following decision, among others: “The Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, with the participation of the clergy and laity, must act on the basis of the Word of God, the Holy Canons and the laws of the Russian Orthodox Church, inasmuch as these laws are applicable to the conditions of contemporary life of the Church Abroad.”
“The Second All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church is convened on the territory of the Serbian Orthodox Church under the aegis of His Beatitude the Patriarch of Serbia, who is the honorary President of the Council.”
“Bishops, members of the Council, form a Conference of bishops who have the deciding vote in all decisions of the Council.”
“The President of the Conference of bishops is the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the President of the Synod of Bishops.”
“By the authority of the Word of God and of the Holy Canons, all decisions of the general sessions of the Council are subject to the confirmation of the Conference of Bishops and assume validity only upon the signature of the latter.”

The following bishops took part in the Second All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of 1938: 1) Metropolitan Anastassy, President of the Synod of Bishops, 2) Archbishop Seraphim, head of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe, 3) Archbishop Germogen, member of the Synod of Bishops, 4) Meletii, Archbishop of Harbin and Manchuria, 5) Archbishop Feofan, Secretary of the Synod of Bishos, 6) Archbishop Vitaly of Eastern America and New Jersey, 7) Archbishop Seraphim of Boguchar, head of the Russian Orthodox communities in Bulgaria, 8) Archbishop Nestor of Kamchatka and Petropavlovsk, 9) Archbishop Tikhon, President of the Scholarly Committee of the Synod of Bishops, 10) Bishop Seraphim of Germany, 11) Bishop John of Urmia, 12) Bishop Benjamin of West Virginia and Pittsburgh, 13) Bishop John of Shanghai. Besides 13 bishops, there were also 26 priests and 58 laymen (97 members in all).

The opening of the Council took place on Sunday, 1/14 August, preceded by momentous events: memorial services for Metr. Anthony and Patriarch Varnava. After the services, all the clergymen and members of the Council headed for the monument to Russian soldiers across the street from the Iveron Church. There a memorial litany was performed and the first prayer for the repose of the soul of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II, Tsarina Alexandra, the Heir, Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarinas Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia and all those who fell in the field of battle while laying down their lives in the struggle for Faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland.

At the foot of the monument to the struggles of the Russian people, in memories and prayers for the passion-bearers for God’s Truth and for the much-suffering Russian nation, arose an ecclesio-national coalition of Russian people, the “Tikhonites-Karlovites.”

The Council lasted from 1/14 until 11/24 August, 1938. Many especially interesting and content-filled lectures were read (see Acts of the 2nd All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Belgrade, 1939). In conclusion, the Council issued two wonderful, moving Epistles: one titled“To the Russian People Suffering in the Fatherland,” the other “To the Russian Flock in the Diaspora.”

I.M. Andreev, “Brief Overview of the History of the Russian Church from the Revolution to Our Day,” Jordanville, 1952.

Source:

October 2001

An extraordinary session of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was held from 23-31 October 2001 in the Synodal building in New York City. Thirteen bishops took part in the Council. Those hierarchs who did not attend the Council had the opportunity to come and openly declare their positions on a series of matters, but declined to participate. The main reason for the convening of the Council was the election of a new First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Metropolitan Vitaly over the course of several years had not served in church, did not visit parishes and dioceses and also as a result of his health due to his old age could not delve into daily church matters. Certain forces constantly tried to exploit Metropolitan Vitaly’s weakness for their gain.Vladyka Vitaly very much desired to mark the 50th anniversary of his episcopacy in July 2001 and after that, as did the Blessed Metropolitan Anastassy, to retire.

In the tradition of the Church Abroad, all the sessions of the Council of Bishops were held in the presence of the Protectress of the Russian Diaspora, the Kursk-Root Miracle-working Icon of the Mother of God. A moleben was served before the Icon before the start of the Council. Every day during the Council one of the Bishops performed the Divine Liturgy in the lower church of St. Sergius of Radonezh—one of the bishops helped in the altar and the others sang on the kliros.

On Wednesday, 24 October, the bishops convened in the Cathedral of the Our Lady of the Sign. A panikhida was served for the reposed First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy and Philaret; and then a moleben before the Icons of the Kursk-Root Mother of God, the Holy New Martyrs of Russia, St. Patriarch Tikhon and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco the Miracle-worker. Bishop Agapit of Stuttgart opened the submitted ballots (all of the bishops of the Church Abroad, including those who were absent and retired had the opportunity to submit their ballots) and announced the candidates. After counting the votes, the result was announced: for the first time in 65 years the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was elected after the first round of ballots. By the Will of God, His Eminence Archbishop Laurus was chosen. Vladyka Laurus, with his characteristic humility, quietly accepted his election as an obedience, relying on the Lord and on the support of his brethren.

Metropolitan Vitaly came to the afternoon session of the Council, assumed the president’s seat, congratulated the new First Hierarch and the entire Council of Bishops and called upon everyone to work in peace and unity of spirit. The Council of Bishops thanked Vladyka Vitaly for all of his labors for the good of the Church.

The enthronement of the First Hierarch was scheduled for Saturday and Sunday. Vladyka Laurus asked that his cross and panagia be brought from Holy Trinity Monastery, which had belonged at one time to Metropolitan Anastassy of blessed memory and Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko)—these two hierarchs had a special influence on the spiritual formation of the new First Hierarch.

On Sunday morning, Metropolitan Laurus was greeted by the bishops vested in their mantles. A special joy could be sensed in the Synod Cathedral, a certain simpleness, and all present truly felt themselves to be members of a single church family. At the end of liturgy, a moleben was served to the Mother of God and All Russian Saints, and then Archbishop Alypy of Chicago and the Midwest read the prayer for the enthronement. Metropolitan Laurus uttered the words of response of the prayer and blessed the flock.

Vladyka Metropolitan then made an appeal to the flock. He said that what he feared most proved to be his fate and that he accepts the election only in obedience to God, obedience to the Church, obedience to the Council of Bishops.
At the end of liturgy a feast was held at Protection Church in Nyack, NY, but the sorrowful events following the election of Metropolitan Laurus could not go unmentioned, specifically, the departure of Metropolitan Vitaly from the Synodal house and his declaration bearing his signature that he does not recognize the Council, and his call to schism. At the end of the feast, Metropolitan Laurus remembered the past labors of Metropolitan Vitaly for the good of the Church. He said that he genuinely loved Vladyka Vitaly and his soul was very, very burdened with grief that Vladyka Vitaly was surrounded by ill-wishers who dragged him into schism.

The subsequent sessions of the Council of Bishops were mainly devoted to the events connected with the new schism. Epistles to the flock were composed, as well as a response to the Moscow Patriarchate. Both the “left” and the “right” expressed their opinion to the Council of Bishops that a unification of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with the Moscow Patriarchate either had already occurred or was about to occur at any moment—the “right” threatened schism, and the “left” was jubilant. But the Council of Bishops of 2001continued on the traditional path of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia: it stated that the unity of the Russian Church is to be desired, but only when there is unity of mind with regard to fundamental Church matters. As a result, both the “right” and the “left” were disgraced, and the sober, middle, royal path was taken—the path of truth and love, devoid of extremes.

In the first interview with Metropolitan Laurus the question was posed: Your Eminence, what problems faced by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia require the speediest resolution?

Vladyka Metropolitan responded:
“Before the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which is a part of the Universal Orthodox Church, lie all those same eternal problems which the Lord Jesus Christ laid before His Church.

These are, first of all, the preaching to the world of the Gospel of Christ; secondly the spiritual nourishment of the people of God, and thirdly, prayerful and repentant expectation of the Second Glorious and All-Praised Coming of the Lord.
Unfortunately, we contemporary Orthodox Christians often forget these truly important aims. We concentrate our attentions on what is temporary and fleeting, spend inordinate amounts of time on empty quarrels that we should be using for repentance.

I must say that at the present time the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is subject to attacks and misunderstandings both from the left and right for the reason that it is alien both to the extremes of liberalism, modernism and ecumenism and to the extremes of fanaticism, militant fundamentalism and feelings of proud contentment.
To walk along this middle, royal path as does the Russian Church Abroad is very, very difficult, but it is the true path and one cannot stray from it.”

 Source:

The Act of Canonical Communion of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia with the Russian orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate

Signed on 17 May 2007 at Moscow. 

We, the humble Alexy II, by God’s mercy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, jointly with the Eminent Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, having gathered at a meeting of the Holy Synod (date) in the God-preserved city of Moscow; and the humble Laurus, Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, jointly with the Eminent Bishops, members of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having gathered (time, place);

Being guided by the effort towards reestablishing blessed peace, Divinely-decreed love, and brotherly unity in the common work in the harvest-fields of God within the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church and her faithful in the Fatherland and abroad, taking into consideration the ecclesiastical life of the Russian diaspora outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate, as dictated by history;

Taking into account that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia performs its service on the territories of many nations;

By this Act declare:

1. That the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, conducting its salvific service in the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods, and other ecclesiastical bodies that were formed through history, remains an indissoluble, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.

2. That the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property, and civil matters, existing at the same time in canonical unity with the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

5. The name of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church and the name of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are commemorated during divine services in all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia before the name of the ruling bishop in the prescribed order.

6. Decisions on the establishment or liquidation of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are made by her Council of Bishops in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

7. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are elected by her Council of Bishops or, in cases foreseen by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, by the Synod of Bishops. Such elections are confirmed in accordance with canonical norms by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

8. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are members of the Local Council [ Pomestny Sobor ] and Council of Bishops [ Arkhiereiskij Sobor ] of the Russian Orthodox Church and also participate in the meetings of the Holy Synod in the prescribed order. Representatives of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia participate in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the established manner.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.

11. Appeals on decisions of the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are directed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

12. Amendments to the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by her supreme legislative authority are subject to the confirmation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in such case as these changes bear a canonical character.

13. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia receives her holy myrrh from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

By this Act, canonical communion within the Local Russian Orthodox Church is hereby restored.

Acts issued previously which preclude the fullness of canonical communion are hereby deemed invalid or obsolete.

The reestablishment of canonical communion will serve, God willing, towards the strengthening of the unity of the Church of Christ, of her witness in the contemporary world, promoting the fulfillment of the will of the Lord to “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:52).

Let us bring thanks to All-Merciful God, Who through His omnipotent hand directed us to the path of healing the wounds of division and led us to the desired unity of the Russian Church in the homeland and abroad, to the glory of His Holy Name and to the good of His Holy Church and Her faithful flock. Through the prayers of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, may the Lord grant His blessing to the One Russian Church and Her flock both in the fatherland and in the diaspora.

Source:

]]> Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox Documents http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2012/12/the-community-of-st-gregorious-of-parumala-in-dindigul-exposed/ Mr Ajesh T Philip presenting the icon of St Gregorious to Mr Xavier OCP News Service(Exclusive) 24/10/2012 * Mr Ajesh T Philip discovered the lost Orthodox Community of St Gregorious of Parumala in Dindigul. Read more here ” The Lost Orthodox Christians of St Gregorious of Parumala in Dindigul”  Dindigul/Tamil Nadu: As part of the decision of […] http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/?p=689 Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:31:51 +0000

Mr Ajesh T Philip presenting the icon of St Gregorious to Mr Xavier

OCP News Service(Exclusive)
24/10/2012

* Mr Ajesh T Philip discovered the lost Orthodox Community of St Gregorious of Parumala in Dindigul.

Read more here ” The Lost Orthodox Christians of St Gregorious of Parumala in Dindigul”

 Dindigul/Tamil Nadu: As part of the decision of the Executive Committee Secretary George Alexander and Mr Ajesh Phillip (OCP Ambassador and Correspondent) visited the St Gregorious Community in Dindigul on 20^th October 2012. The OCP delegation met with Mr Paul (P-A-L) Raj and his family members. On behalf of the Executive Council they were presented with a Raja Ravi Varma Painting of St Gregorious of Paumala. On 22^nd October the delegation met with Mr Xavier who is presently practicing Siddha Medicine and interviewed him in detail about their relations with St Gregorious of Parumala. After the interview he was presented with an icon of the Saint. Mr George thanked the family members for their courtesy and wholehearted cooperation.

The objective of the visit was to study more on the details and life of this isolated community. The discovery and reporting about this community had brought certain ambiguity about their history and connections with St Gregorious of Parumala. After reading the report many people connected the community to the Missionary works of Metropolitan Alvariz Mar Julius. Hence there aroused a deep requirement to bring more clarity on this lost Orthodox community.

OCP  Delegation presenting the painting of St Gregorious to Mr Paul Raj

Ajesh T Philip & George Alexander

Department of Church Research and Studies
Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE Society

The Family

The family consists of Paul Raj his brother Xavier and their family members. Paul Raj has five children and his brother Mr Xavier has three kids. Mr Xavier is the practitioner of traditional Siddha medicine. He also operates a clinic in Madhurai apart from his consultation works in Dindigul. He has resided in Kerala around ten years in Chengannur from where he acquired specialized training Siddha Medicine although he has received the Siddha medicine skills as part of the fmaily traditions. Mr Paul Raj has also worked as mason at Chengannur even at Chegannur Bethel Orthodox Church.

Paul Raj’s and Xavier’s parents (Susai and Anthony Ammal) hailed from Mamsapauram, Rajapalam near Thirunalveli. Their parents have worked at tea estates in and around Kumali area. The family is traditional Christians.

Mysterious Connections to St Gregorious of Parumala (Historical)

The family is still unaware of their historical connection to St Gregorious. Mr Xavier described that his forefathers (Periyappa or great grandfather) had an intimate spiritual connection with St Gregorious of Parumala. But he is unaware how the connection began. At the same time their contemporary presence in Kerala in the form of Siddha Medicine studies and mason job should have helped them to pay frequent visits to the Parumala Church. It is interesting to note that Mr Xavier visited Kelara(Parumala Church) for the first at the age of nine, but even before that he knew about Parumala Ayya from his parents and used to make intercession prayers.

Xavier strongly stated that they were not part of the Roman Catholic Church, but since their migration to Dindigul they were forced to practice Roman Catholicism since they were left out with any other options. Xavier also added that their spiritual relation with the great Saint of Parumala is hereditary passed on from generation to generation.

Mr Xavier inside his clinic

Strong Belief in the Intercession of ‘Parumala Ayya’

The Family has got great reverence for the Saint of Parumala and strongly believes in the intercession and blessings. Paul Raj’s youngest daughter did not have children after three years of marriage. Their deep intercession prayers in the name of St Gregorious have gifted them with a baby boy. Their testimony reveals the deep rooted faith and relation with Parumala Ayya. Xavier confirms that he use to have miraculous vision of Parumlala Ayya while sleeping where the saint prompts him to make pilgrimage to the Parumala Church.

Birth of ‘Parumala’ inside Parumala Church

Xavier’s fist daughter was born inside the Parumala Church. He explains the incident as follows…

Twenty years back, Mr Xavier and his wife visited the Parumala Church on bicycle but unfortunately it was a day of strike in Kerala. His wife was pregnant and it was the ninth month for her. Suddenly the pain began and she gave birth to a baby girl with the help of some nuns who were present inside the church. Hence they gave the name “Parumala” to their first born daughter as they consider her birth as a great blessing from the saint.

The Siddha Clinic run by Mr Xavier

Siddha treatment in the name of St Gregorious of Parumala

The Siddha treatments performed with the blessing of the great saint, especially for neurotic problems, impotency and serious fractures. The medicinal plants are collected from the nearby hills of Dindigul Chirumalai and Pandrimalai. Local belief is that these two hills had fallen from the hands Hanuman while carrying the hills with ‘Mrithasangivini’ in his hands. He prints business card in Tamil with the photo of St Gregorious of Parumala and he has distributed it to several places like Sri Lanka, South Africa.

Card with the picture of St Gregorios of Parumala

Claim of a Community of  St Gregorious in South Africa

Once a South African family came for Siddha treatment and they where healed. They got very much inspired by the blessing of St Gregorious of Parumala.  They took several cards of Pruamala Ayya from Xavier. Xavier claims that an indigenous community in the name of St Gregorious has been formed in South Africa recently. This community practice intercession prayers in the name of St Gregarious.

Possibility of Metropolitan Julius Alvariz Connection

Some literature sources reveal that Dindugul was one of the Mission centers of the Saintly Archbishop Mor Julius Alvariz of the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church with the possibility of more than hundred families. Also Tirunelveli is one of the oldest Christian centers including the presence of Orthodox Christians. This is the place from which Paul Raj’s and Xaviers’ father hails from. The OCP delegation showed the picture of Metropolitan Mor Julius Alvariz to Mr Xavier but he could not recognize the Bishop. But there shall be a possible link between the origin of this community and the missionary toils of Saintly Mor Julius Alvariz and his reunion movement to the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church.

Common Roman Catholic Cemetery and the separate family Cemetery

Family Cemetery

The family has a separate cemetery apart from the Roman Catholic Church Cemetery to which they belong at present. The family cemetery is located almost 100 meters away from the common cemetery. They light candles every evening at the family graveyard, a tradition from their forefathers which is Orthodox in nature. Their great grandfather was buried in Dindigul but some how they lost the exact place. Later with the help of a map they located the exact position of the burial place and constructed their fmaily cemetery.

 Painting of St Gregorious kept inside the Clinic near the small bottle which contains blessed oil from the Parumala Church

Charity Activities

Mr Xavier runs an unregistered trust in the name of St Gregorious of Parumlala. He spends a part of his earning to help local people in distress especially those who are suffering with various illness.

The Ravi Varma painting of St Gregorious of Parumala gifted by the OCP delegation on 20^th of October was taken to the their Church and was blessed by the local Priest.

Follow Up

The Executive Council of Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE will have discussion about this community with the hierarchy of the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church. OCP Society will provide all necessary moral support to the community of St Gregorious of Parumala.

Ajesh T Philip: Ajesh Philip has acquired his Masters in Botany and  bachelors in Education and teaching. He is currently perusing Ph.D on Ethno-gynecological studies on the tribes of Idukki,Kerala-India at Gandhigram Rural University. His areas of interest is Orthodox Liturgy and Church history. He has several years of experience serving youth organizations of the Indian Malankara Orthodox Church. He serves as the Ambassador and Correspondent of OCP Society and Media Network and as a consultant to OCP Department of Church Research and Studies.

George Alexander: George is the Secretary of Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE. He holds a Post Graduate Degree in Social Work  and a Minor Research Degree in Social Sciences . He is a writer, orator and human resource trainer. He  has three books and numerous articles to his credit. His areas of interest are Orthodox Church management, contemporary Orthodoxy, Pan-Orthodox  unity, inter-Orthodox policies and relations.

Copyright © 2012 OCP Media Network.All rights reserved. No part of the article/news or photos shall be published in any format or in any form without prior permission of the publisher.For republishing permission contact – theorthodoxchurch.info@gmail.com

Only direct link to this article is permitted to post in websites, blogs and social media networks.

Department of Church Research and Studies – Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE Society

“ By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat and wept
When we remembered Zion”
(Psalm 136) The Orthodox Study Bible

It is indeed sad that the Orthodox Churches in Ukraine are split into different denominations. Am not going into the history of the conflicts., rather I will try to discuss some ‘practical steps’ to find solutions to end schism in Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

The Ukrainian Orthodoxy is now divided into UOC- MP, UOC-KP, UAOC and UOC-Cannonical, where UOC – MP remains the only Canonical Church. Dialogues are being initiated between UOC-MP and UOC- KP which has generated some hope. UAOC have also taken steps by sending request to Ecumenical Patriarchate in order to get accepted into the canonical league which is well and good.

Effects of Schism

The politics and unhealthy competition between Orthodox Churches have resulted in ‘ double advantage’ for other groups like UGCC and protestant denominations. It has been reported that large number of protestant groups are emerging in Ukraine, which is traditionally an Orthodox hub. Due to schism several families in Ukraine are divided. People find themselves in serious trouble with worship and hence protestants find it a good pasture to ‘Evangelize’. Even UGCC is benefiting a lot from the schism. UGCC finds this a good opportunity to pull ropes to get it recognized as one of the ‘National Churches’ in Ukraine. It is not UGCC alone but the dream of all Eastern Catholic Rites to get recognized as the ‘National’ Church in the respective country since all Eastern Catholics have serious identity crisis, they are neither Roman nor Orthodox. The recent move by UGCC to construct a Cathedral in Odessa is part of this hidden agenda.

Orthodox Churches in Ukraine are very much responsible to preserve the faith and safeguard the loss of flocks to heretic teachings. But how far is this possible with divisions among Orthodox Churches? The priority should be given to Orthodoxy, the one holy catholic apostolic church of Lord Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy and its value should be preserved. “Put Orthodoxy first and not personal agenda or political interests” . It is the duty of the Church to preserve Orthodoxy in Ukraine.

Practical Thinking

First of all a National Council for Orthodox Churches should be formed in Ukraine, an exclusive council to deal with the issues of Orthodoxy. The council should have equal participation of all Orthodox churches in Ukraine. A good office structure shall be developed with mutual cooperation. The council shall be responsible for holding dialogues between Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. The Moscow Patriarchate and Ecumenical Patriarchate should have representation in the Council. The council is not to be dominated by a single Church, but should be a stage for the equal participation and cooperation between all Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. The National Orthodox Council should also involve Oriental Orthodox Churches (Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches) in Ukraine( Eg The Armenian Orthodox Church in Ukraine).

The Canonical Issue

As mentioned earlier UOC-MP is the only canonical Church in Ukraine. It would be highly recommendable that Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Moscow Patriarchate recognize the canonical status of the rest of the two Orthodox churches ie, there shall be three canonical Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, UOC-MP, UOC-KP, UAOC, which shall be in full communion with Ecumenical Patriarchate, Moscow Patriarchate and rest of the Orthodox Churches. Allow internal autonomy for for each Church. None shall interfere in the internal matter of others church. Common discussions and decelerations shall be made via the National Council.

Recognizing UOC-KP and UAOC will not be compromise by the Moscow Patriarchate, but it will definitely strengthen the position and presence of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. Hence the three canonical Orthodox Churches can also safeguard their own interest. All existing positions of the hierarchy and clergy in each Church can be retained in the present manner. So there is no fear of compromise on position nor power.

A protocol shall be signed between EP, MP, UOC-MP, UOC-KP, UAOC to ensure present and future aspects of Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. The protocol shall include all details regarding canonical status, defined areas of operation, manner to solve conflicts (present and future), encouraging inter-Orthodox collaborations, titles of each primate, jurisdiction etc . The National Orthodox Council of Ukraine shall deal with common ecumenical matters pertaining to Orthodox Churches in Ukraine. The National council shall also involve non-chalcedonain Orthodox churches in Ukraine (Eg .Armenian Orthodox Church).

“Experience the power of United Orthodox Witness”

If UOC-KP, UAOC are willing to enter EP as Metropolitan Churches they shall be allowed for the same or they can enter canonical Orthodox in the present status. UOC-KP as a Patriarchal Church and UAOC as a Metropolitan Church. It is an agreement within disagreement, a dialogue for unity with freedom and prosperity. Here unity does not mean amalgamation of one church into another nor imposing force on any Church to subjugate them. Extra care should be exercised not to hurt the feelings of your counterpart while having dialogue.

Every Church has her own individual interest, which is well and good. But such interest should not hinder the unity of Orthodoxy. It should not challenge, prosecute nor overrule Orthodoxy, which is the One, Holy , Catholic Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ. Such interest should result in promoting unity and fraternal relations between Orthodox Churches. It is not Pope of Rome nor the WCC should decide for Orthodoxy, but we Orthodox should decide for our self, our future. We should not allow Ecumenism to swallow Orthodox unity and faith!!!

If we can have dialogues with WCC, Rome, cooperate with heterodox and drink coffee together, why cant we have dialogues with our Orthodox brethren?

As an Orthodox Christian I know that people are well aware of what I have written, especially the Church hierarchy and are well informed and know better than me on these issues. I have not visited Russia nor Ukraine, but it is out of my love for Orthodoxy I have written this article. I belong to the Indian Orthodox Church. But I have seen and experienced the bitterness of schisms, administrative and power conflicts between the Syrian and Indian Orthodox Churches. Let us not repeat the mistake again. Orthodox unity is the need of the hour, let us stand united.

George Alexander
Secretary & Spokesperson
Orthodoxy Cognate PAGE

Source: