Draft:Joint Commission of the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches

• Comment: There exists both this article and Draft:Joint Commission Of The Theological Dialogue Between The Orthodox Church And The Oriental Orthodox Churches. Since they seem to cover the same topic, the original editor should decide which one they want to proceed with, and the other will be treated as a duplicate and be redirected. Bkissin (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This title is far too long, please shorten it. TheBritinator (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

---

The Joint Commission of the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, also known as The Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches was a quasi-official joint theological commission of the two main streams of Orthodox Christianity, which are commonly known as Eastern Orthodox (EO) and Oriental Orthodox (OO).

The Joint Commission is one of several ecumenical initiatives in the past few decades to "heal the wounds of schism" between the five main branches of Christianity. The Commission is most well-known for producing two Agreed Statements on Christology that attempt to bridge the centuries-long divide between the Dyophysite Christology of the Eastern Orthodox Church (as well as all mainstream branches of Western Christianity, including Catholicism and Protestantism) on the one hand and the Miaphysite Christology of OO churches on the other.

This ecumenism should be seen in the context of the fourth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which resulted in the schism between Oriental Orthodox and Chalcedonian Christianity, the latter of which includes the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant branches. At present, the Chalcedonian schism still stands, and several anathemas and condemnations resulting from the last four ecumenical councils continue to divide Oriental Orthodoxy from Eastern Orthodoxy.

Precursors

First Unofficial Consultation in Aarhus, Denmark

From August 11 to August 15, 1964, consultations were held between representatives of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches on the sidelines of a meeting of the Faith and Order Commission. At these consultations, it became increasingly clear that the differences between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox positions on Christology and the nature of the Incarnation were not irreconcilable in themselves, but the attendant history of anathemas and counter-anathemas would be an obstacle toward true communion between the schismed churches.

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.

These consultations included the following participants

Name	Institution or location	Jurisdiction	Sect
Bishop Emilianos (Timiadis)	World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland	Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople	Chalcedonian
G. Florovsky	Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.	Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople	Chalcedonian
J. S. Romanides	Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School, Brookline, MA, U.S.A.	Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople	Chalcedonian
Vitaly Borovoy	World Council of Churches, Geneva	Russian Orthodox Church	Chalcedonian
J. Meyendorff	St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Tuckahoe, NY, U.S.A.	Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America	Chalcedonian
J. N. Karmiris	University of Athens, Athens, Greece	Church of Greece	Chalcedonian
G. Konidaris	University of Athens, Athens, Greece	Church of Greece	Chalcedonian
Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan	St. Nersess Armenian Theological School, Evanston IL	Armenian Apostolic Church	Non-Chalcedonian
Bishop Karekin Sarkissian	Armenian Theological Seminary, Antelias, Lebanon	Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicosate of Cilicia	Non-Chalcedonian
Archbishop Mar Severius Zakka Iwas	Mosul, Iraq	Syrian Orthodox Church	Non-Chalcedonian
Metropolitan Mar Thoma Dionysius	Mount Tabor Monastery, Pathanapuram, Kerala, India	Orthodox Syrian Church of the East	Non-Chalcedonian
Father N. J. Thomas	Mount Tabor Monastery, Pathanapuram, Kerala, India	Orthodox Syrian Church of the East	Non-Chalcedonian
Habte Mariam Worqineh	Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia	Ethiopian Orthodox Church	Non-Chalcedonian
V.C. Samuel	Theological College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia	Orthodox Syrian Church of the East	Non-Chalcedonian
Karam Nazir Khella	Philosophische Fakultat Hamburg; Theological Faculty Cairo	Coptic Orthodox Church	Non-Chalcedonian
Getachew Haile	Haile Selassie I University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia	Ethiopian Orthodox Church	Non-Chalcedonian

The Joint Commission

The First Agreed Statement

The First Agreed Statement of the Commission, signed at the Anba Bishoy Monastery in Wadi El-Natroun in June 1989, affirmed the fundamental commonalities between the Dyophysite and Miaphysite positions.

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.

Christological spectrum during the 5th–7th centuries showing the Monophysite position on the extreme right and the Nestorian position on the extreme left.

Both sides found common ground in their rejection of the two extremes of the classical Christological debate, i.e., the strict Alexandrine, or Monophysite, position which holds that Christ has only a divine nature, as well as the strict Antiochene position which upholds a radical separation of Christ's divine and human natures. The agreed theological statement therefore explicitly rejects both the Nestorian heresy ("We neither separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His divine nature") and the Eutychian or Monophysite heresy ("nor do we think that [the human nature] was absorbed in [the divine nature] and thus [the former] ceased to exist"). In this middle ground, the statement asserted 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. The four adverbs used to qualify the mystery of the hypostatic union belong to our common tradition – without commingling (or confusion), without change, without separation and without division. 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.

The participants appear to have found this common ground by referring to the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, who is venerated by Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians alike. Since Cyril used the formula "mia physis ton Theou Logon sesarkomene" (the one physis or hypostasis of God’s Word Incarnate), the agreed statement suggests that while monophysitism is beyond the pale of Nicene Christianity, miaphysitism is not.

The Second Agreed Statement

The second agreed statement was signed in Chambésy near Geneva, Switzerland, at the headquarters of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Switzerland. The second statement largely clarified and interpreted the first statement, with particular reference to pastoral matters, anathemas, and the acceptance (or lack thereof) of the last four ecumenical councils.

The second statement also explicitly stated the validity of both the Oriental Orthodox terminology of the Incarnation ("one nature of the incarnate Logos") and the Eastern Orthodox terminology (two natures in Christ that are distinct "in thought alone"). Thus, no changes to the terminology used by either side were proposed, and the participants of the commission stated

we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways

While both sides agree that the underlying causes of the schism --- ostensibly Christological --- have been thus addressed, the commission did not come to a definitive agreement about the latter four ecumenical councils, which continued to be a stumbling block for the reconciliation of the two sides.

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 [i.e., the points made in the Second Agreed Statement] 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.

Both sides agreed in principle that they "should" lift all anathemas against Councils and Fathers of the other side, but no concrete steps were taken in this regard:

"The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually... we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action"

2014 Communique

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the first unofficial consultations in Aarhus, Denmark, the Joint Commission met again in November 2014 in Athens, Greece and a communique was released which acknowledged the ecumenical work done so far and pointed out that ...

Responses

The activities of the Joint Commission have elicited a range of responses from Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. The Monastic Community of Mt. Athos, for instance, has denounced the Commission and its statements.

See also

• Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
• Chalcedonian Schism