Orthodox Unity

Christology
between the Chalcedonian
and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches

Essay by Andrew Fanous
Supervised by Prof. Maria Hatjigeorgiou
Middlebury College, October 2002

Christology has always been one of the most important topics for the Catholic Church (The term Catholic Church refers to the Universal Church, or the Church of the early Christianity. The term as it is used here does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church). It was the reason for the first major schism in the Church at the council of Chalcedony in 451 AD. This research is an attempt to clarify the doctrine of both the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches concerning the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. It will also shed light on the historical circumstances of the fourth ecumenical council as well as some of the major heresies concerning Christology in the early Church.
The Eastern approach towards theological dogma has always been an apophatic one. Therefore, it is crucial to understand what the early Church did not approve about the Nature of the Lord and what She fought against when affronting heresies. The first major heresy related to Christology was that of the Alexandrian priest Arius. Arianism “maintained that the Son was inferior to the Father [is essence].” (T. Ware, The Orthodox Church, (London: Penguin Books, 1997) p. 22) He therefore denied the divine component in Christ and, hence, made the mystery of incarnation ineffectual. St Athanasius of Alexandria fought this heresy in the first ecumenical council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Nicene Creed proclaimed that Christ is homoousios (One in essence) with the Father, true God from true God. The second major heresy was that of Nestorus, the patriarch of Constantinople. Nestorianism maintained that the Humanity and the Divinity of Christ were so separated that He became two persons instead of only one. The patriarch therefore separated between the two Natures. He believed that the Saint Virgin Mary should be called Christokos (Mother of Christ) instead of Theotokos (Mother of God), for she did not bring the Incarnate Word of God, but Jesus Christ the man. According to him, the Divinity was accompanying the Humanity of Jesus, in the same way the Spirit of God accompanies the saints, but not in a complete unity. He even stated that the divine component departed from Jesus the man on the cross. Thus, Nestorius called Christ Te?f???c, or the carrier of God. Nestorianism is against the doctrine of salvation, because in case the Humanity of the Lord Jesus was not united with his Divinity, then He cannot offer an infinite and unlimited atonement for the forgiveness of the sins of people in all times. St Cyril of Alexandria was the defender of the Orthodox faith against Nestorianism in the ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381 AD. He used the expression “Mµ?a f?s?? t?? Te?? ????? sesa???µ???” (One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate) in order to affirm the Orthodox vision of our Lord Jesus Christ having a united Nature of two Natures, two in one, as one person (T. Malaty, Christology according to the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, (Alexandria: St. Georges Coptic Orthodox Church) p. 4). Both Natures in Christ are in a state of indivisible and insoluble hypostatic union. This union preserved for the two Natures their own properties without any mixing or any changing in the person of Christ. The council of Constantinople also asserted the name Theotokos to the Saint Virgin Mary, for she gave birth to the Incarnate Word. The last heretic view of Christology before the Chalcedonian Council was the heresy of Eutyches (378-454 AD), an archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. In his eager opposition to Nestorianism, Eutyches maintained that the Human Nature of Christ disappeared in His Divinity, like the disappearance of a drop of vinegar in the ocean. He further claimed that there were two natures in Christ before unity, but only one after, for the Divinity absorbed the Humanity. He therefore denied the human component of the Lord Jesus, again demolishing the doctrine of salvation. Eutychianism was condemned as heresy in the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, and further condemned by both the Council of Chalcedony and the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.
In light of these heresies, one can see how both the Chalcedonians and the Non-Chalcedonians went to Chalcedony in 451 AD. The Chalcedonian Churches viewed the council as a defender of Orthodoxy against Eutychianism. The Non-Chalcedonians, on the other hand, adopted Miaphysitism (and not Monophysitism) in order to defend Orthodoxy against Nestorianism. The latter held dear the Mµ?a f?s?? expression of St Cyril. The Chalcedonian Churches asserted that Christ is in two Natures, while the Non-Chalcedonian Churches avowed that He was from two Natures. The Non-Chalcedonians were accused of Monophysitism (The term Monophysitism was never actually used until the seventh century). The term suggests that were close to the Eutychian heresy, which they unmistakably anathemize. The Non-Chalcedonian Churches prefer to be called Miaphysites, in allusion to the Cyrilian Mµ?a f?s??. Monophysitism suggests the exclusion of all natures in one while Miaphysitism suggests the unity of two Natures in Christ (T. Malaty, Christology according to the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, (Alexandria: St. Georges Coptic Orthodox Church) p. 6). While Mono suggests one simple Nature, Mia refers to a composite Nature. Non-Chalcedonians affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God, who took a perfect manhood without sin, and who bore the human sins on the cross and died for the sake of all humanity. They also acknowledge that Jesus made his human body one with his Divinity without mixing nor mingling nor changing. Non-Chalcedonians reject the Council of Chalcedony, for it adopted the Tome of Leon, bishop of Rome, which accepted two natures in Christ after the union, instead of the Mµ?a f?s?? of St Cyril of Alexandria. The Tome used the term en dues physes (In two natures), which has no Greek tradition. The Tome stated that Christ is two: a God and a man; one fascinates with miracles while the other is subject to degradation and sufferings. While the Non-Chalcedonians in their refutation of the Council attack the Tome more than the council’s definitions, the Byzantine Chalcedonians did not comment on the Tome as much as on the Chalcedonian definition. Indubitably, this brought the Christological position of both to become very close to each other. However, for the Council did not use the 12 Chapters of St Cyril against Nestorius, Non-Chalcedonians condemned it as a pro-Nestorian one. It can be therefore concluded that, theologically, both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox one have identical and common understanding of Christology.
The second component of the Chalcedonian controversy was not theological, but rather political. At the beginning of the fifth century, Egyptians and Syrians were welcoming their eighth century of Greek and Roman occupation. Their countries were exploited for the benefit of the rest of the Empire. Hence, national movements were arising in these provinces and religious guides were considered as national leaders. In Egypt, for instance, the use of the national Coptic language was starting to supplant the use of Greek, the language of the Byzantine occupants. Furthermore, following their chief role in the first ecumenical councils, the whole Christian world regarded the Alexandrian fathers as champions of the Orthodox faith. The Church of Alexandria was therefore occupying an unchallenged first place of honor in the Eastern part of the Empire. This was equally resented by Constantinople and Rome. The first claimed to be “second Rome” and, as the capital of Byzantium, demanded the first place of honor in the East. Rome resented the pioneering role that the Church of Alexandria played in shaping the Christian doctrine in the different ecumenical councils. As the Metropolitan Methodius of Aksum clearly notices: “Rome was annoyed by the extraordinary vitality of the Church of Alexandria and its active Patriarch” (M. Fouyas, Theological and Historical Studies, (Athens) vol. 8 p. 15). Indubitably, the goals of the Church of Rome, the Church of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor coincided to eliminate the growing power of the Church of Alexandria and the mounting nationalistic and separatist spirit of Egyptians and Syrians. The Tome of Leon was consequently endorsed by the council and fiercely implemented by the emperor Mercian. Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria during the Chalcedonian Council, was condemned for excommunicating Leo, the bishop of Rome, and not because of heresy (Even though Miaphysitism was condemned by the council, Dioscorus was never condemned of heresy, but rather because he did not attend the last three meetings of the council and because he excommunicated Leo, the bishop of Rome. M. Fouyas, Theological and Historical Studies, (Athens) vol. 8 p. 14, 15). For he was able to defend and offer proof of his Orthodox faith, Dioscorus was prevented from attending the last three meetings of the council by force. He was exiled to the island of Gagra where he deceased. Non-Chalcedonians were persecuted by their Byzantine brothers and many sacrificed their lives to defend Miaphysitism. The local patriarchs in Egypt, Syria and Armenia were exiled, and Byzantine patriarchs were appointed by the emperor in their places. These harassments, however, reinforced nationalism in these countries and assisted in Byzantium loosing both Egypt and Syria to the Arabs in the seventh century.
Now that it became clear that the rupture between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches was mainly due to political matters, one can expand more on this common Christological faith shared by both Orthodox families. Both families agree on the hypostatic union in the Incarnate Logos. The Incarnate Logos is one indivisible person. St Cyril used two examples in order to clarify this great mystery. The first example is the unity of the soul and the body in one human nature, where two previously separate natures before the union (the soul and the flesh) become one man after union. Neither the flesh nor the soul have their natures altered after the union in order to form the one man. The second metaphor employed by St Cyril of Alexandria is that of the iron united with the fire. Both the iron and the fire have different natures. After their union, they form one new nature where neither the nature of fire nor that of iron is altered. The new nature is that of fire with iron. Nevertheless, it is still fire and iron. When the iron is struck, the fire is struck as well. However, the iron suffers while the fire does not. A parallelism can be drawn with the suffering Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, united with His unaffected Divinity. The union of Christ’s Divinity with the human nature in the womb of the Saint Virgin Mary is a real, intrinsic and hypostatic union (H.H. Pope Shenouty III Patriarch of Alexandria, The Nature of Christ, (Cairo: Coptic Orthodox Theological College) p. 15).
This Orthodox faith finds support in the Holy Scriptures, especially the Holy Gospels. The Gospel according to St Luke says: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35) Undeniably, that Jesus is to be born demonstrates His Human Nature, and for He is the Son of God accounts for His Divinity. However, the Saint Virgin Mary did not bear a human and a god, for she gave birth to only One. Hence, she bore and gave birth to the Incarnate God. In the Gospel according to St Matthew, it is mentioned that: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which is translated, God with us” (Matthew 1:23 and Is 7:14) He who is conceived in the womb of the Saint Virgin Mary is not a new Person coming into existence, but the eternal Word of God who is using her womb as His throne (P. Gillquist et al, The Orthodox Study Bible, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers) p. 5). The virginal conception of Christ is a declaration of His Divinity and He being a child and a Son are affirmations of His Humanity. When the Saint Virgin Mary, with the Lord in her belly, went to visit Saint Elizabeth, the latter said: “But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Matthew 1:43) That Saint Elizabeth calls Saint Mary the mother of my Lord shows that there exists no separation between Divinity and Humanity in the Incarnate Word, even before His birth. Saint John the Evangelist commences the Gospel according to him saying: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) This accounts for the divine mystery of the unity of Christ’s Person and Nature. Later in the Gospel according to Saint John, the Lord Jesus Christ talks about Himself saying: “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven” (John 3:13) Who is that who came down from heaven but the Divine Christ who attributes this to Himself as the Son of Man as a sign of the unity of His Nature? (T. Malaty, Christology according to the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, (Alexandria: St. Georges Coptic Orthodox Church) p. 14) Many other biblical passages account for the unity of Christ’s two Natures by attributing to the Son of Man many divine powers such as the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 9:6) and the eternal judgment (Matthew 16:27, Matthew 25:31-34 and John 5:22). Equally, the Bible attributes to the Lord some properties of His Human Nature, as St Paul says: “for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8) All this explains the unity of Divinity and Humanity in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Commenting on the above biblical passage, Saint Gregory the bishop of Nyssa says: “On account of the union achieved between the flesh which is taken and the Godhead which takes, names are communicated and given to each mutually in such a way that the divinity is spoken of in human term and the humanity in divine terms. Thus Paul calls the Crucified One the Lord of Glory; and He who is adored by the whole creation, above, below and upon the earth, is called Jesus” (Ad. Theoph. (Alex.) adv. Apollinarius. PG 45: 1278 A (Latin)) In the Theophany, (The Baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ) “a voice came from heaven, saying This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17) This passage is another demonstration of the unity of the two natures in Christ, for the voice coming from heaven did not say this is the Human Nature of My Son, for His Humanity and His Divinity are not separated for one single second or for the twinkle of an eye. Furthermore, the use of the word This in its singular form demonstrates the one Nature of our Lord. Saint John the Evangelist says: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him” (John 1:18) The only begotten Son is God the Incarnate Word, the second Hypostasis, who declared the Father to humanity when He incarnated. While He is in the bosom of the Father, His Incarnated Person declared the Father to us. This also accounts for the unity of Christ’s Nature. When the Orthodox faithful then talk about the Nature of Christ, they talk about one Nature of two Natures, one Nature that has all the characteristics of the Divine and all the characteristics of the Human. They talk about one Nature where neither the Divine got transformed into the Human, nor got the Human transformed into the Divine.
The Mµ?a f?s?? dogma is a crucial one for the salvation of all humanity; otherwise the early Christian Church would not have run into all these troubles in order to define the framework of Christology. Since the Lord of glory was crucified (1 Cor 2:8), and His Humanity suffered while in complete unity with His Divinity, and the sacrifice of the cross is attributed to the Incarnate Son of God, therefore this sacrifice has the power to forgive the unlimited sins committed against God the unlimited. Although the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ could not be made to suffer, yet all the events of salvation through the cross were attributed to the Son of God Himself, and not to His body as if It were in separation with His Divinity (T. Malaty, Christology according to the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, (Alexandria: St. Georges Coptic Orthodox Church) p. 21). St Peter addresses the Jews saying: “But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of Life” (Acts 3:14,15). Here St Peter uses the divine term Prince of Life in order to avoid the separation between the two Natures in Christ, for their unity on the cross is crucial for our salvation. If, as the Tome of Leo declared, only the Humanity of the Lord was subject of sufferings, with no mention of Its union with His Divinity, then humanity would have received an incomplete salvation with the death of a mere man. It is undeniable that Christ’s Divinity cannot be subject to pain, but His suffering Humanity must have been in complete union with His Divinity. Suffering can be then attributed, not to the human component, but rather to one unlimited Nature of Christ. Addressing the bishops of Ephesus, St Paul says: “Shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Here he attributes the blood to God, while God is a Spirit, and the blood is the blood of Christ’s humanity. However, this expression indicates the one Nature of the Incarnate Word because what should be attributed to Christ’s Humanity is also attributed to His Divinity with no distinction. There is thus no separation between the Lord’s two Natures. It is this unity that makes our salvation a feasible one.
For there exists no doctrinal divergence between the Christology of both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, a number of attempts have been made to restore the unity of both families. In 543 AD, the emperor Justinian condemned three semi-Nestorian chapters that were included in the documents of the Council of Chalcedony. In 553 AD, the second Council of Constantinople confirmed Justinian’s condemnation of the Tria Kephalia. This condemnation, however, did not solve the problems, for some Chalcedonians were not pleased with the results of the Council, and some Non-Chalcedonians were still not convinced of the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonian doctrine. The exile of the Alexandrian patriarchs by the Byzantines, and the persecutions of the Egyptians and the Syrians, made the Non-Chalcedonians hostile and mistrustful towards their Chalcedonian brothers. In the seventh century, a number of patriarchs and emperors again attempted to reconcile the Miaphysites with the Chalcedonians. Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, suggested a doctrine of two natures but one divine-human operation or energy and one will in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. In 638 AD, the emperor Heracles officially declared the doctrine concerning the One nature and the One Will in his well-known Ecthesis. Honorius, bishop of Rome, also joint the reconciliation efforts. Egyptians, Syrians and Armenians were enthusiastic and satisfied in expectation to see the oneness of Christ somehow emphasized. However, as the Arabs invaded Egypt, Syria and Armenia, the adherents of the Two Natures exerted pressure on the emperor Constantine IV (668-685 AD) to reject the Ecthesis and reaffirm the Chalcedonian doctrine. The Roman bishop Honorius and the Alexandrian Patriarch Honorius were condemned with Eutyches as haters of God. Patriarch Severus of Antioch was also described as scorner of God. Centuries went by, during which the position of Arab Muslims in the Mediterranean East was asserted; Egyptian, Syrian and Armenian Orthodox became a minority in their own countries; and the Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks. It was not until the twentieth century that the two Orthodox families declared their deep feelings for unity. Four unofficial consultations were held between 1964 and 1971 AD, where both families found themselves in full agreement of the Christological dogma (Refer to Appendixes 1 to 4 for a summary of the conclusions of these four unofficial consultations). In 1985 AD, the two sister families started dialogue at the official level. Five official meetings were held between 1985 and 1990 AD (Refer to Appendixes 5 to 9 for a summary of the conclusions of these five official dialogues) but yet full unity has not been achieved.
In his farewell prayer, our Lord Jesus Christ said: “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are” (John 17:10). It is the Lord’s heart desire that all faithful be one; that they may be united in His One Body, having one faith and one mind. There is no doubt that what the Church of God had suffered in the fifth century grieved God’s heart. It is our responsibility now, as Orthodox Christians belonging to both families, to heal the wounds of the Church through the oneness of faith and to live as testimonies for the Holy Spirit who lives and works in us; that we live as the light of the world and the salt of the earth so that everyone “may see [our] good works and glorify [our] Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

Bibliography:
1- The Holy Bible.
2- Fouyas, Methodius. Theological and Historical Studies. Athens, 1985.
3- Gillquist, Fr. Peter. The Orthodox Study Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.
4- Malaty, Fr. Tadros Yakoub. Christology according to the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. Alexandria: St. Georges Coptic Orthodox Church, Sporting, 1986.
5- H.H. Pope Shenouty III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of Saint Mark. The Nature of Christ. Cairo: Coptic Orthodox Theological School, 1991.
6- Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin Books, 1997.

Appendixes:

Appendix 1
The first Consultation, Aarhus 1964

Over 3 days, 15 theologians from both families met in Aarhus in Denmark for informal conversations. They recognized in each other the one Orthodox faith. The theologians declared in a common statement: “On the essence of the Christological dogma, we found ourselves in full agreement.” The well known phrase used by our common father, St Cyril of Alexandria Mµ?a f?s?? t?? Te?? ????? sesa???µ??? was at the centre of the conversations. Through the different terminologies used by each side, they saw the same truth expressed. Both sides expressed their common belief in a unity that is based on the theological basis or on the unity of faith and not just through pastoral and social cooperation. The faith must be expressed in theological terms, but terminology is sometimes misunderstood. Theologians of both families agreed on the need of setting the terminology that explains their mutual concepts of Christology, overcoming the terms which can be misunderstood. Every family thought that her terminology only can protect the church from heresy. The Chalcedonians accepted their term Two Natures against Eutychianism, while the Non-Chalcedonians adopted their expression of One Nature of Two Natures against Nestorianism.
The two families accepted the unity of the Divinity and the Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ without separation or division and also without confusion or changing. 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 Chalcedony 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 both families in the last fifteen centuries should be recognized and studied together. They should not, however, continue to divide them.

Appendix 2
The second Consultation, Bristol 1967

Theologians from both families first affirmed new areas of agreement and then discussed the questions that still remained to be studied and settled. Based on the teachings of common fathers of the universal Church, they approached the Christological question from the perspective of salvation. Both approved that God became by nature man that man may attain to His uncreated glory. Ever since the fifth century, both families have used different formulae to confess their common faith in the One Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect Man. The Eastern Orthodox affirmed two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the One Lord Jesus Christ. The Oriental Orthodox affirmed 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, and without separation. The four adverbs belong to their common tradition. Both affirmed the dynamic permanence of the Divinity and the Humanity, 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 nor confuse. The two families also discussed the continuity of doctrine in the Councils of the Church, especially the mono-energetic and monothelite 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.
Secondly the two families began to explore adequate steps to restore the full communion between their Churches. They recommended that a joint declaration be drafted with a formula of agreement on the basic Christological faith in relation to the nature, will and energy of the One Lord Jesus Christ, for formal and authoritative approval by the Churches. They also saw a need to further examine the canonical, liturgical and jurisdictional problems involved (such as the anathemas, the acceptance or non-acceptance of some Councils, and the agreements necessary before formal restoration of communion.

Appendix 3
The third Consultation, Geneva 1970

The third unofficial conversations yielded a four part Summary of Conclusions. The first is concerned with the reaffirmation of Christological agreement. The second deals with the existing differences between the two families. The third is an attempt towards a statement of reconciliation. The fourth explores some practical steps that can contribute to the efforts of unity.
Concerning the reaffirmation of the 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, theological and spiritual writings, they rediscovered other mutual agreements in all important matters: liturgy and spirituality, doctrine and canonical practice. They concluded this part by declaring “Our mutual agreement is not merely verbal or conceptual, it is rather 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.”
Both families of Churches, however, acknowledged that 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:
1- 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 first three ecumenical Councils. The Oriental Orthodox Churches recognize that during the fourth council in Chalcedony the Alexandrian patriarch Dioscorus was condemned because he dared to condemn Leo of Rome. The Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize that in that council, Anatolius of Constantinople considered Disocorus as an Orthodox. Historically, therefore, the Oriental Churches cannot accept the council that anathemized their Orthodox leaders. They can nevertheless accept recent reinterpretations of its Christology, for it is very close to their traditional concept. Both families feel that the council will constitute no obstacle once both sides lift up the anathemas against Leo of Rome, Dioscorus of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch and others. Concerning the last three councils, once the anathemas are lifted up, the Oriental Churches feel they will find in their contents subjects they were not exposed to, such as the iconoclastic controversy. In the Oriental Churches’ area, the defense of the veneration of icons was never an issue, for icons were never attacked. These councils, consequently, will not represent a problem for the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
2- 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 recognized 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.
3- 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.
Theologians of both families 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.
Finally, both sides acclaimed some practical steps taken by both sides in order to contribute to the efforts of unity. Visits between the two families on the levels of heads of churches, bishops and theologians were praised. Some Oriental Orthodox students have been studying in Eastern Orthodox Theological Institutions and it was hoped that there would be more exchange both ways at the level of theological professors, church dignitaries and students. Although it was realized 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 also formed to have the following functions:
1- Publish in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review a report on this meeting in Geneva.
2- Produce a resume of the three unofficial conversations, which may be studied by the different churches
3- Publish a handbook of statistical, historical, and theological information regarding the various Churches.
4- Explore the possibility of an association of all the Theological Schools.
5- Publish a periodical which will continue to provide information about the Churches and to pursue further discussions.
6- Make available to the Churches the original sources for an informed and accurate study of developments.
7- Encourage theological consultations on contemporary problems.
8- Explore the possibilities of establishing a common research centre for Orthodox theological and historical studies.
9- Explore the possibility of common teaching material for children and youth.

Appendix 4
The fourth Consultation, 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 of both Churches 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 leveled 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 program 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.”

Appendix 5
The first Official Dialogue, Geneva 1985

After two decades of unofficial theological consultations, the first official dialogue between the two Orthodox families finally occurred. Theologians of both families agreed upon taking into consideration the following main themes:
1- Problems of terminology.
2- Conciliar formulations.
3- Historical factors.
4- Interpretation of Christological dogmas today.

Appendix 6
The second Official Dialogue, Corinth 1987

Theologians met in order 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 and 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, it was 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 and 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 also affirmed that the term “Theotokos” used for the Saint Virgin Mary is a basic element of faith in our common tradition.

Appendix 7
The third Official Dialogue, Scetis, Egypt 1989

In this dialogue, 23 theologians represented 13 Orthodox Churches of both families. The main item for consideration was the report from Corinth on common Christological convictions. An agreed Statement was approved for transmission to the 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, Saint Cyril of Alexandria “the one nature of God's Word Incarnate.” They confirmed that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos and that the Holy Trinity is one True God, one Ousia in three Hypostases or three Psrosopa. 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 inseparable and unconfused united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation only. The agreed condemnation of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies meant that they neither separate nor divide the Human Nature in Christ from His Divine Nature, nor do they 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.

Appendix 8
The fourth Official Dialogue, Scetis, Egypt 1990

In this dialogue, theologians noted that while the faith unifies both families, history keeps them distant because it creates ecclesiastical practical problems, which often are more difficult to rectify than the historical differences of theological expressions. They recognized that although these problems do not have a deep theological cause, they renew the feelings of suspicion and pain, and will diminish the value of the theological fruits of the official dialogues unless ties of love and common sincere desire for unity complement their 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 program 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 common relations. 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).
2 - The common relations with the rest of the Christian world:
The recommendations that were offered for a joint front included:
a- To adopt the same attitude in theological dialogues with the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical movements.
b- To issue a joint communiqué against the modern conceptions which are completely in contradiction with their Apostolic tradition, whether related to faith or ecclesiastical issues, such as the ordination of women, and the moral issues.
c- Common work in neutralizing the trends of proselytism and the confrontation of religious groups, who mislead believers from the faith, such as Jehovah's witnesses and Adventists.

Appendix 9
The fifth Official Dialogue, Geneva 1990

The fifth Official Dialogue was held at the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Theologians produced a Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the Churches. They reaffirmed their 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 Saint 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 unity and communion. They recommended that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide them should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of the 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.
The relations among the two families of Churches were also discussed. They felt that a period of intense preparation of their people to participate in the restoration of communion of the Churches is needed. This should include an exchange of visits by the heads of Churches and prelates, priests and lay people of each one of the 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 a summary of Christological terminology as it was used in history and in the light of the agreed statement on Christology, a descriptive book about all the Churches of the two families, brief books of Church History giving a more positive understanding of the divergences of the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries. They recognized each other’s baptism and suggested that where conflicts arise between Churches of the two families over marriages or annulments, the Churches involved should come to bilateral agreements on the procedure to be adopted until such problems are finally solved by the union.
Another topic of discussion was the relations of the Orthodox Churches with other Christian Churches. They agreed the 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).
They called for the co-ordination of the existing schemes for promoting their humanitarian and philanthropic projects in the socio-ethnic context of their 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.
Finally, both families showed interest in working towards the propagation of the Christian faith. This includes mutual co-operation in the work of their inner mission to their people, and also collaborating with each other and with the other Christians in the Christian mission to the world.

Christology between the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches

Christology
between the Chalcedonian
and the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches