PART V

BILATERAL DIALOGUES BETWEEN EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCHES

AND OTHER CHURCHES AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS
 (71) BILATERAL THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUES OF ORTHODOX CHURCHES
– A GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1

Fr. Viorel Ionita

The Orthodox Church has a long standing experience of dialogue with other Christian traditions, al-
though the dialogues or better to say the conversations of the past have had a specific character, being
either motivated by political interest or carried out by individual theologians. The theological dialogues
initiated during the second half of the XX century are specific, first of all because they are carried out
on behalf and with the participation of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, as well as on the bilateral
level with the respective partner churches. Of utmost importance for these theological dialogues were the
decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Conferences, which began in 1961 after thorough preparation under the
leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The original purpose of these conferences was to prepare for
Orthodox Council, which would take path-finding new decisions for the life of the Orthodox churches.
At the first Pan-Orthodox conference (24 September - 1 October 1961, Rhodes, Greece), the relations
to the other churches were considered according to the position of the respective churches in relation to
the Orthodox Church2:
1. Study of ways of bringing closer and uniting the Churches in a Pan-Orthodox perspective, in other
words promoting the inter-Orthodox co-operation.
2. Develop friendly relations to “the lesser Ancient Oriental Churches, that is to the Oriental Orthodox
Churches, in view “of establishing union with them.
3. Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church: a) Study of the positive and negative points between the
two Churches (in faith, in administration, in church activities – especially propaganda, proselytising,
the Uniatism; and b) Cultivation of relations in the spirit of Christian love, with particular reference to
the points anticipated in the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920.
4. Orthodoxy and the Churches and Confessions emanating from the Reformation: a) Confessions lying
further from Orthodoxy (1. Lutheranism, 2. Calvinism; 3. Methodists and 4. Other Protestant Confes-
sions), b) Confessions lying nearer to Orthodoxy (1. Anglican Church; 2. Episcopalians in general).
Study of the best relations to cultivate and of drawing them closer, especially the Episcopalian and
Anglican Churches, to the Orthodox Church, in the light of existing definite assumptions,
5. Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism; Advancement of relations with them in the spirit of former theological
discussions and their started intentions and inclinations to unite with the Orthodox Church;
6. Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement.
At the 1966 preparatory conference in Belgrade, the foundation was laid for a dialogue between the Ortho-
dox churches and the Anglican Communion, as well as between the Orthodox churches and the Old Catholic
churches of the Union of Utrecht. The fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference (5-15 June 1968, Chambésy, Switzer-
land) decided to found an Inter-Orthodox Commission for dialogue with the Lutheran World Federation (LWF).
The official visit of a delegation from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) to the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in Constantinople in July 1979 marked the preparation for the start of the official theological
dialogue between the Orthodox churches and WARC. Thus the conditions for dialogue between the Orthodox
1
See Pr. Prof. Dr. Viorel Ioniţă, “The Vision of Unity in the Multilateral Dialogues and in the Bilateral Dialogues
of the Orthodox Churches with other Churches”, Studii Teologice, seria III-a, anul IV, nr. 3, iulie-septembrie, 2008,
p. 7-58.
2
Ibid., p. 71-72.
428 Chapter (71)

churches and the churches of the Reformation were given, “continuing the many contacts and conversations
between Orthodoxy and Protestantism since the 16th century.3
The most detailed as well as the most important decisions in relation to the bilateral theological dialogues
of the Orthodox Church at the world level were taken by the third Panorthodox Preconsiliar Conference
(Chambésy, Switzerland, 20 October – 6 November 1986) through the text on the „Relations of the Orthodox
Church with the Christian World. Although this text is to be finally adopted by the Great and Holy Synod of
the Orthodox Church, it can and should already serve as a basis for the on-going theological dialogues of
this church. This text sets a series of guidelines for how the bilateral dialogues shall be continued including
the role and the responsibility of each Autocephalous Orthodox Church.
Based on these Pan-Orthodox decisions, initiatives were taken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to enter into
the following theological dialogues at the world wide level:
1) Orthodox - Anglican (since 1973);
2) Orthodox - Old Catholic (from 1975 to 1987);
3) Orthodox - Roman Catholic (since 1980);
4) Orthodox – Lutheran World Federation (since 1981);
5) Eastern Orthodox - Oriental Orthodox (from 1985 to 1993);
6) Orthodox – World Alliance of the Reformed Churches, since 2010 the World Communion of the Re-
formed Churches (since 1988).
The fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference also decided that the theological dialogue with the Lutheran churches
in particular should be prepared, in a first phase, by the autocephalous Orthodox churches in bilateral conver-
sations with various Evangelical churches. The first Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference reaffirmed this
decision in 1976.4 This laid down the pan-Orthodox basis for the bilateral theological dialogues between the
various Orthodox churches and Evangelical ones on the regional level.5 Besides these theological dialogues
3
Athanasios Basdekis, Die Orthodoxe Kirche. Eine Handreichung für nicht-orthodoxe und orthodoxe Christen und Kirchen
(The Orthodox Church. A handbook for non-Orthodox and Orthodox Christians and Churches). Frankfurt am Main, Otto
Lembeck Press, 2001, p. 24.
4
See Irenikon, L, 1977, Nr. 1, pp. 99-100.
5
In this category are the following bilateral theological dialogues:
1. Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) and the Russian Orthodox Church, since 1959, known as the Arnoldshain
conversations after the place where the first meeting was held. The most important topics in this dialogue have been: 1.
Salvation; 2. Word and Sacrament; 3. Eucharistic Fellowship and 4. Service and Witness in the Church.
2. EKD and Ecumenical Patriarchate, since 1969, known also as the Constantinople Dialogue. Various aspects of Ec-
clesiology have been discussed, such as 1. Eucharist, Church and Ministry or 2. The Holy Spirit in the life of the church.
3. EKD and Bulgarian Orthodox Church, since 1992. This dialogue began in 1978 as a bilateral dialogue between the
Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Federation of Protestant Churches in the German Democratic Republic. Known as
the Herrnhuter conversations, this dialogue dealt with topics as: 1. Proclamation of the Gospel; 2. the Source of Faith; 3.
Baptism and Eucharist; and 4. the Ordained Ministry.
4. EKD and Romanian Orthodox Church, since 1979, known as the Goslar conversations. Topics discussed have been:
1. Scripture and Tradition; 2. Different aspects of the Sacraments; 3. Justification, Theosis and Synergia. The issue of
ecclesiology was also discussed. At the 10th meeting between the two churches in Cluj (Romania, 14-20 November 2002),
the theme was “The Nature and the Unity of the Church of Christ - the Historical Difference between the Churches”.
The final statement of this meeting described the relation between the two churches as follows: Although our churches
are still on the way towards full mutual recognition and therefore towards acceptance of eucharistic fellowship, neither
wishes to deny that the other is, in principle, a church. So the Romanian Orthodox Church can clearly recognise in the
EKD a way of being church. On the basis of our common faith in Jesus Christ, as authoritatively expressed in the Holy
Scriptures and in our common Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and especially on the basis of baptism, the Romanian
Orthodox Church can also speak of a certain degree of fellowship with the EKD from which it is still divided. And, for
its part, the EKD, despite the sometimes very different forms of expression of church life in the Orthodox churches, can
see in these churches the realisation of essential elements of being church in accordance with the Gospel.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Viorel Ionita 429

at the regional level, it should be noted that there are also theological conversations between Orthodox and
different other churches on the national level.6

Orthodox Anglican dialogue

The Anglican-Orthodox dialogue started in Oxford (1973) and decided from the beginning not to adopt statements
at each meeting, but to work on the chosen themes until they are mature to be adopted as common statement.
The meetings in between used to adopt reports, which constituted the basis for the agreed statements. According
to this methodology from 1973 until 2006 three statements were adopted: 1. The Moscow Agreed Statement
(1976); 2) the Dublin Agreed Statement (1984); and 3) the Cyprus Agreed Statement (2006). If the first statement
is rather short (6 pages), the second and the third ones are well elaborated, with a preface, an introduction and
footnotes, including the list of the participants during the whole period of work on the respective document.
At the end of the first meeting in Oxford “it was decided that the debates for‘common doctrinal discussions’
between the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church should be continued in three sub-commissions, in 1974
and 1975, each commission having the obligation to discuss one of the three proposed subjects: 1) inspiration and
Revelation in Holy Scriptures; 2) the Synod’s Authority; 3) the Church as Eucharistic Community.7 In the light
of this work, the Moscow statement contains the following topics: 1) the Knowledge of God; 2) The Inspiration
and Authority of Holy Scripture; 3) Scripture and Tradition; 4) The Authority of the Council; 5) The Filioque
Clause; 6) The Church as the Eucharistic Community, and 7) The Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
The Moscow statement ends with the following note: At their meeting in Thessaloniki in April 1977 the Orthodox
members asked that it should be pointed out that, in regard to the words in paragraph 30 of the Moscow Agreed
Statement it is inexact to call the Epiclesis a ‘formula’ since the Orthodox Church does not regard it as such.8
According to this statement, the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue started with some hermeneutic and introduc-
tory questions. Talking about matters of the authority of the council that means of the Ecumenical Councils
the Anglican-Orthodox dialogue discussed the Filioque in the Nicene- Constantinopolitan creed. The result of
these discussions was that the question of the origin of the Holy Spirit is to be distinguished from that of his
mission to the world. It is with reference to the mission of the Spirit that we are to understand the biblical texts,
which speak both of the Father (John 14.26) and of the Son (John 15.26) as sending (pempein) the Holy Spirit.9
In relation to the Moscow statement, we would like to underline also the chapter about the Church as the
Eucharistic Community. First of all the statement notes the six points of the Bucharest Conference of 1935
about the validity of the Anglican ordinations. In the paragraph 24 of this statement we find a very good
description of the relationship between the Eucharist and the Church: The Eucharist actualizes the Church.
The Christian community has a basic sacramental character. The Church can be described as a synaxis or an
ecclesia, which is, in its essence, a worshipping and eucharistic assembly. The Church is not only built up by
the Eucharist, but is also a condition for it. Therefore one must be a believing member of the Church in order
5. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, since 1970. This dialogue, known as the
Sinnappi conversations, has treated among others the following themes: 1. Eucharist; 2. Salvation; 3. Peace and Social Ethics.
6
Such as:
- the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland;
- Lutheran, Reformed and Orthodox in Romania;
- Orthodox-Protestant in France;
- Orthodox-Protestant in Switzerland.
It should also be mentioned that theological conversations have taken place between Orthodox and Lutherans in the United
States and in Australia (For all these dialogues, see Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran Orthodox Dialogues
1959-1994. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1997).
7
Rev. Prof. Dr. Ioan Mircea Ielciu, Notes on the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue, Reseptio, Helsinki, 1/2006, p. 12.
8
Available online: www.anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/resources/index.cfm (last accessed September 2013).
9
Ibid.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
430 Chapter (71)

to receive the Holy Communion. The Church celebrating the Eucharist becomes fully itself; that is koinonia,
fellowship - communion. The Church celebrates the Eucharist as the central act of its existence, in which the
ecclesial community, as a living reality confessing its faith, receives its realization.10 These considerations show
that this dialogue reflected just from the beginning the new developments in the Orthodox theology especially
in relation to the Eucharistic Ecclesiology.
The Dublin statement starts with a preface, in which a reference is made to the late Archbishop Basil
of Brussels, who remarked that “the aim of our Dialogue is that we may eventually be visible united
in one Church.” The introduction of about three pages explains then the whole process of this dialogue
even from the beginning until 1984. The statement itself starts with the following explanation about the
Method and Approach: “In our discussions since the adoption of the Moscow Agreed Statement, and
especially during the last four years, our Joint Commission has endeavoured to keep constantly in mind
the essential link that exists between theology and sanctification through prayer, between doctrine and the
daily life of the Christian community. Keenly aware how dangerous it is to discuss the Christian faith in
an abstract manner, we have sought always to understand how theological principles are expressed in the
living experience of the people of God.11 This is a very important reference for the spiritual atmosphere
in this dialogue.
The Dublin statement deals with the following themes: I. The Mystery of the Church; II. Faith in the Trinity,
Prayer and Holiness; III. Worship and Tradition and ends with an Epilogue. For this study the most important
is the first part on the Mystery of the Church, out of which we will consider mainly the chapter: 1. The Mark
of the Church and 2. Communion and Intercommunion. In the paragraph 8 there is a common confession of
the two parts to the unity of the one Church in Christ: “In the Creed we proclaim the Church to be one, holy,
catholic and apostolic. The Church is one, because there is a ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of us all’ (Eph. 4.5), and it participates in the life of the Holy Trinity, one God in three persons. The
unity of the Church is expressed in common faith and in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; it takes concrete
and visible form as the Church, gathered round the bishop in the common celebration of the Holy Eucharist,
proclaims Christ’s death till he comes (1 Cor. 11.26). The unity of Christians with Christ in baptism is a unity
of love and mutual respect which transcends all human division, of race, social status and sex (Gal. 3.28). This
unity in Christ is God’s gift to the world by which men and women may learn to live in unity with one another,
accepting one another as Christ has accepted them.12
The theme of the Cyprus statement is The Church of the Triune God, as if the two partners in dialogue
would have tried to go back to some more substantial debate on the unity of the Church they confess, be-
fore arriving at the debate about the unity they seek. After a preface and an introduction, very helpful as
background information about the whole text, this statement contains the following nine sections: I. The
Trinity and the Church; II. Christ, the Spirit and the Church; III. Christ, Humanity and the Church: Part 1;
IV. Christ, Humanity and the Church: Part 2; V. Episcope, Episkopos and Primacy; VI. Priesthood, Christ
and the Church; VII. Women and Men, Ministries and the Church; VIII. Heresy, Schism and the Church and
IX. Reception in Communion.
First of all we value in this statement a close link between the Church and the Holy Trinity, as well as be-
tween Christology and Ecclesiology on one side, and between the Ecclesiology and Pneumatology on the other
side. In the Trinity and the Church we would like to underline the link between the local and universal in the
church: The Church is both a local and a universal reality. As the one God is a communion of three persons, so
the universal Church is one communion in Christ of many local churches. She is not a federation of separate
parts. The relationship between the local church and the universal Church is determined by the revelation of
10
Ibid.
11
Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998.
Edited by Jeffrey Gros, FSC, Harding Meyer and William G. Rusch, WCC Publications, Geneva, 2000, p.84-85.
12
Ibid. p. 85-86.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Viorel Ionita 431

the life of the Holy Trinity.”13 The question is how Anglican and Orthodox could apply this ecclesiological
view to their relationship as separate churches.
The Cyprus statement listed a series of issues for further discussion first of all in relation to the ordination
of women with the conclusion: that our theological differences with regard to the ordination of women do not
undermine the agreement we have reached in the previous sections of this statement.14 This clarification was
made not by accident, because the practice of women ordination in the Anglican Church created for many
Orthodox an uncertainty about the continuation of this dialogue.
In the preface signed by the two co-chairmen of this joint commission15 the results of the Commission’s
deliberations are made available here in the hope that Anglicans and Orthodox will come to appreciate the
things they have in common and to understand the nature of their disagreements.16 In this perspective the
contribution of this dialogue has been to clarify as many as possible doctrinal differences between the two
theological traditions and to leave open the still existing differences. The two churches achieved a good deal of
agreement on their way towards unity, but a lot of work is still to be done. Since 2009 the Anglican-Orthodox
dialogue focussed at several meetings on the issue of Anthropology, on which a common statement is expected
to be adopted at a next meeting of the plenary commission.

Orthodox - Old Catholic

There are five stages so far in the dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Old Catholic Churches
gathered in the Union of Utrecht. The first phase from 1871-1888 was marked by the invitation addressed to
the Orthodox Churches to send representatives to the Bonn reunion conferences of 1874 and 1875. During
these encounters ‘it was decided that agreement on the faith of the ecumenical councils, scripture and Tradition,
the office of bishop and the seven sacraments was necessary for unity. Both the developments, which had led
to the declaration of papal infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church and those, which in Protestantism had
led to discontinuity with the early church, were rejected. As for the Filioque, it was agreed that the clause had
been inserted wrongly into the creed but that it was possible to explain it in an orthodox way.’17
The second stage lasted from 1889 - 1917, that is from the establishment of the Union of Utrecht until the
Russian revolution. During this period there was constituted a commission, which never met, but its members
exchanged materials on Filioque, the Eucharist, and the canonical validity of the Old Catholic Episcopal orders.
The third stage (1920-1960) was marked by the relations between the Old Catholics and the Patriarchate
of Constantinople. In that period of time the Old Catholics adopted an agreement of intercommunion with the
Anglicans, which was then much criticised by the Orthodox.
The fourth stage lasted from 1961-1975, that is from the first Pan-orthodox Conference and the official
presentation ‘by the Old Catholics to the Ecumenical Patriarch on 21 June 1970 of the Homologia (which
was first requested in 1904) till the actual beginning of the “dialogue of truth” by the joint commission of
Old Catholic and Orthodox theologians in 1975.’18 This Homologia (Confession) contained among others the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed without Filoque.
The fifth phase comprised the official dialogue held between 1975-87 on the following topics: (1) the
doctrine of God: divine revelation and its transmission, the canon of the Holy Scripture, the Holy Trinity; (2)
13
The Church of the Triune God. The Cyprus Statement of the International Commission for Anglican Orthodox Theological
Dialogue 2006, published by the Anglican Communion Office, London, UK, 2006, p. 18.
14
Ibid. p. 89.
15
Bishop Mark Dyer and Metropolitan John of Pergamon.
16
Ibid. p. 9.
17
Available online: www.utrechter-union.org/english/ecumenical.htm#The%20Old%20Catholic%20–%20Orthodox%20
dialogue (last accessed September 2013).
18
Ibid.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
432 Chapter (71)

Christology: the incarnation of the Word of God, the hypostatic union, the Mother of God; (3) ecclesiology: the
nature and marks of the church, the unity of the church and the local churches, the boundaries of the church,
the authority of the church and in the church, the indefectibility of the church, the synods (councils) of the
church, the necessity of apostolic succession, the head of the church; (4) soteriology: the redeeming work of
Jesus Christ, the operation of the Holy Spirit in the church and the appropriation of salvation; (5) sacramental
doctrine: the sacraments of the church, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, the anointing of the sick,
ordination, marriage; (6) eschatology: the church and the end of time, life after death, the resurrection of the
dead and the renewal of the earth; and (7) ecclesial communion: conditions and consequences. Between 1975
and 1987 the two sides reached formal agreement on all these points.19 According to this list we have here one
of the most comprehensive dialogues with Orthodox participation.
Following a clear agenda and methodology, this dialogue was able to achieve its completion only in a
period of 12 years. For us here of great interest are the two chapters in the section of Ecclesiology, namely:
1. The Unity of the Church and the Local Churches and 2. The Boundaries of the Church. The last common
statement in this dialogue adopted at Kavala, Greece, in 1987, was on Ecclesial Communion: Presuppositions
and Consequences. According to this statement ‘the consequence and expression of reciprocally recognised
fellowship in the faith is the full liturgical-canonical communion of Churches, the realization of organic unity
in the one Body of Christ.’20 If the two churches in dialogue achieve the ‘reciprocally recognised fellowship
in the faith’ they will then enter in full communion with each other. Such an ecclesial fellowship has then to
be ‘elucidated and regulated by the Church on the basis of the tradition of the undivided Church.’21
We have to underline that all the statements in the dialogue between Orthodox and Old Catholics were
adopted unanimously. That means that the two partners equally adopt all the affirmations exposed here.
Meanwhile the Old Catholic Churches decided to introduce the women’s ordination, which made the imple-
mentation of the outcomes of this dialogue difficult for the Orthodox. This fact shows that the dialogue did
not take enough into consideration the real differences between the two churches. This should be the task of
future conversations.

Orthodox - Roman Catholic

The dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church is a specific one due first
of all to the memory of the separation between the two churches. After the schism between Rome and
Constantinople in 1054, the two churches tried on many occasions to restore their unity through different
conversations, particularly the unionist councils in Lyon (1274) and in Ferrara-Florence (1448-1449). If the
union adopted at Lyon was a rather political one, the union of Florence was based on four doctrinal points,
which at that time summarised the doctrinal differences between the two churches: 1. The primate of the
pope; 2. Filioque; 3. The use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist by the Catholics and 4. The catholic
doctrine of the purgatory.
From the historical perspective, more problematic than the four points became the emergence of the Oriental
Catholic Churches (OCC) after the Florence agreement, which actually was never accepted by the Orthodox
Churches. The OCC appeared from the 15th to the 18th century and were parts of the Eastern Orthodox or of
the Oriental Orthodox Churches. They recognised the authority of the pope, but continued to keep their East-
ern/Oriental character. The Orthodox Churches considered the incorporation of the OCC into the Catholic
Church as one of the most radical forms of proselytism. Therefore, from that perspective the relationship of
the Orthodox Churches not only with the OCC but also with the Roman Catholic Church deteriorated more
and more during the last centuries.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid. p. 228.
21
Ibid.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Viorel Ionita 433

The relationships between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches changed in the context of the
Second Vatican Council due first of all to the charismatic leaders of both churches at that time: the Ecumenical
Patriarch Athenagoras and the Pope Paul VI. These two church leaders decided to lift up the anathema from
1054 on the same day in December 1965. This decision was a first radical step of the two churches towards a
true dialogue on equal footing, as requested by the Orthodox. In the preparation for the official dialogue the
Orthodox Churches pointed out from the beginning the problem of Uniatism that means the problem in relations
to the OCC and the danger that the Roman Catholic Church may continue this practice.
The official dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church started in 1980. The
first meeting of the Orthodox-Roman-Catholic Joint Commission (ORCJC) started on the island of Patmos
and concluded its work on the island of Rhodes (29 May – 4 June, 1980). When the Orthodox participants
noted that in the catholic delegation there were representatives of the OCC, they asked that the question
of the Uniatism should be clarified at the next encounters of this joint commission. The representatives of
the Church of Greece resigned from the meeting because of the presence at that meeting of the Eastern-rite
Christians united with Rome. Finally the decision taken at Rhodes was to start this dialogue ‘with what we
have in common and, by developing it, to touch upon from inside and progressively all the points on which
we are not in agreement.’22
It was only at the second meeting of the ORCJC (Munich, Germany, 30 June – 6 July 1982) when a state-
ment was adopted on The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the light of the Mystery of the Holy
Trinity. This statement comprises three sections without subtitles. This dialogue started straight away with
the questions of Ecclesiology. The statement from Munich is a well-elaborated one and of profound theolog-
ical reflection. One of the contributions of this statement is the link between the “Trinitarian koinonia”, that
means the relationship between the three Persons in the Holy Trinity, and the koinonia that takes shape in the
church by celebrating the Eucharist. This koinonia is also eucharistic, eschatological, kerygmatic, ministerial
and pneumatological. “While being a gift of the Trinitarian God, koinonia is also the response of men. In the
faith which comes from the Spirit and the word, these put in practice the vocation and the mission received in
baptism: to become living members, in one’s proper rank, of the body of Christ.”23
The second common statement in this dialogue was adopted in Bari, Italy (June 1987) on Faith, Sacraments
and Unity of the Church.24 This statement constitutes a continuation of the first one. After few lines of explana-
tion about the preparatory process which lead to its adoption, the statement proceeded to an introduction about
the work of the ORCJC since Munich; and then two parts follow: I. Faith and communion in the sacraments,
with the following seven subchapters: 1. True faith is a divine gift and free response of the human person;
2. The liturgical expression of the faith; 3. The Holy Spirit and the sacraments; 4. The faith formulated and
celebrated in the sacraments: the symbols of faith; 5. Conditions for communion of faith; 6. True faith and
communion in the sacraments and 7. The unity of the church in faith and sacraments. The second part of the
Bari document deals with The sacraments of Christian initiation: their relation to the unity of the church. From
our perspective of specific interest are the subchapter 7 of the first part and the second part.
The third common statement of the ORCJC was adopted only a year after the previous one at the New Valamo
Monastery, Finland (June 1988) under the title: “The Sacrament of Order in the Sacramental Structure of the
Church”. The fact that this statement was adopted so quickly underlines the methodology of this dialogue, in
which sub-commissions worked very hard between the plenary sessions. The document from 1988 makes the
link to the previous statements in an Introductory note. The document itself starts with an indication that this
theme is considered “in particular reference to the importance of Apostolic Succession for the Sanctification
and Unity of the People of God.”25 The statement from 1988 comprises the following chapters: I. Christ and
22
Growth in Agreement II p.652.
23
Ibid. p. 655.
24
Ibid. p. 660.
25
Ibid. p. 672.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
434 Chapter (71)

the Holy Spirit; II. The priesthood in the divine economy of salvation; III. The ministry of the bishop, presbyter
and deacon; and IV. Apostolic succession.
In the aftermath of the political changes in Central and Eastern Europe (1989-1990) the relationship between
the Orthodox Churches and the OCC in some former communist countries became more and more tense. This
fact influenced the dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics at all levels including the work of the ORCJC.
The sixth plenary meeting of the ORCJC (Freising, Germany, 1990) did not continue the discussion on the
theological themes as it was the case until 1988, but focused on Uniatism. In relation to the question of Uni-
atism the Freising document stated that “we reject it as a method for the search for unity because it is opposed
to the common tradition of our churches.”26
The ORCJC decided to address this very delicate issue at its seventh plenary meeting in Balamand, Lebanon
(June 1993), where a statement was adopted under the title: Uniatism: Method of Union of the Past, and the
Present Search for Full Communion. The Balamand document is rather short and contains one introduction and
two chapters: 1. Ecclesiological principles and 2. Practical rules. A first point to be underlined is the reference
to the OCC in the following formulation: “concerning the Oriental Catholic Churches, it is clear that they,
as part of the Catholic communion, have the right to exist and to act in answer to the spiritual needs of their
faithful.”27 This declaration is probably the only official ecumenical recognition of the OCC by the Orthodox
Churches at the world level, although not all of them approved the Balamand statement.
The second point to be underlined in the Balamand document is the fact that the two churches are considered
as “Sister Churches” and that is also not accepted by all Orthodox Churches. For some Orthodox theologians
the qualification “Sister Churches” is valid only for the inter-Orthodox relations, because this expression has a
concrete ecclesiological significance. Church leaders on both sides have used this phrase before, but apparently
without taking enough into consideration its ecclesiological implications. From the Orthodox perspective two
churches, which are still divided and accordingly do not share the communion can not be “Sister Churches”.
In other words, in the light of the Balamand document the phrase “Sister Churches” obtained a very clear
ecclesiological connotation, which created additional difficulties in this dialogue.
The ORCJC took again some years before continuing its work. The last statement adopted in this dialogue
was on Ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church. Ecclesial Com-
munion, Conciliarity and Authority. This statement adopted at the last meeting of the ORCJC in Ravenna,
Italy (October, 2007) is introduced with a notice that “the document represents the outcome of the work of a
Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching.”28
The Ravenna document underlines finally that “Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumen-
ical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the
consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of
the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process
of decision-making by the councils.”29 We consider that in spite of the difficulties it had to face, the dialogue
between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church achieved a great deal of consensus in some of
the theological questions addressed and this fact should motivate the two churches to continue their dialogue.

Orthodox – Lutheran

The theological dialogue between the Orthodox churches and the Lutheran World Federation began in 1981
in Espoo, Finland. The theme of the first meeting was The Mystery of the Church; thus the ecclesiological
26
Ibid. p. 680.
27
Ibid. p. 680.
28
Available online: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_
doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html
29
Ibid.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Viorel Ionita 435

question was to be tackled right from the beginning. However, there was no clear methodology, so that
the conversation in Espoo, as well as the next one in Cyprus (Limassol, 1983) did not lead to any concrete
result.30 The first joint declaration in this dialogue was adopted at its third meeting in Allentown, PA. (USA,
1985) on the theme of Divine Revelation. The second common statement was adopted at the fourth meeting
of the Joint Commission in Crete (1987), on Scripture and Tradition. The third common statement was
adopted at the fifth meeting in Bad-Segeberg, (Germany, 1989), on The Canon and the Inspiration of the
Holy Scriptures.31
After some initial difficulties, the dialogue between the Orthodox churches and the LWF moved into a second
phase, in which “classic” themes for the encounter between two theological traditions were discussed, such
as Divine Revelation or Scripture and Tradition. On the conclusions arrived at with regard to these topics, the
third Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1986, in Chambésy, Switzerland, noted that “this dialogue
has begun with favourable prospects, and (this body) hopes that both the academic and the ecclesiological
elements will be equally emphasised and developed.”32
For a third phase in this dialogue, the meeting in Moscow (1990) proposed the theme Authority in and of
the Church. This was to be regarded as an overall theme and to be dealt with through various sub-themes.
The sixth meeting of the Orthodox-Lutheran dialogue (Sandbjerg, Denmark, 1993) discussed The Ecumeni-
cal Councils and Authority in and of the Church. In relation to this subject the common statement underlines
first that for both Lutherans and Orthodox “the teachings of the ecumenical councils are authoritative for our
churches. The ecumenical councils maintain the integrity of the teaching of the undivided Church concerning
the saving, illuminating/justifying and glorifying acts of God and reject heresies which subvert the saving
work of God in Christ”33.
At the seventh encounter of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission (Limassol, Cyprus, 1995) the theme
was Authority in and of the Church: Understanding of Salvation in the Light of the Ecumenical Councils. After
different common reflections on this theme, the final statement adopted in Cyprus concluded that “Lutherans
and Orthodox still need to explore further their different concepts of salvation as purification, illumination,
and glorification, with the use of synergia, which is the Orthodox teaching and tradition and as justification
and sanctification, with the use of sola fide, which is the Lutheran teaching and tradition.”34
In the third phase of the Orthodox-Lutheran dialogue the topic of the nature of the church was dealt with
only indirectly, through the issue of authority and from the perspective of salvation. However, this made it
possible to reach a series of agreements, which can be very significant as basis for the further development of
dialogue, precisely with regard to the discussion of ecclesiology.
Finally, a fourth phase of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox churches and the LWF began at
the eighth meeting (Sigtuna, Sweden, 1998), when the joint Lutheran-Orthodox Commission chose the theme
The Mystery of the Church for its further work. At its ninth meeting (Damascus, Syria, 2000), the Commission
adopted a joint statement entitled The Mystery of the Church: A. Word and Sacraments (mysteria) in the Life
of the Church. At the tenth meeting in this dialogue (Oslo, Norway, 2002) the topic The Sacraments (myste-
ria) as Means of Salvation was discussed, as a further aspect of the overall theme The Mystery of the Church.
The 12th Plenary of the International Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission (2004, in Duràu, Romania,
2004) discussed the theme: The Mystery of the Church. C. Baptism and Chrismation as Sacraments of initiation
into the Church. In the joint statement there was underlined that Orthodox and Lutherans “found that the three
30
See the bibliography in Orthodoxie im Dialog, ed. Thomas Bremer, Johannes Oeldemann and Dagmar Stoltmann, Paulinus
Press, ‘Sophia’ series, Vol. 32, 1999, p. 225.
31
See Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue. Agreed Statements, 1985-1989, Geneva, 1992; see also The Revd Prof. Dr. Viorel
Ionita, Short Presentation of the Orthodox-Lutheran Dialogues, in Reseptio, Helsinki, 1/2006, p. 18-26.
32
Grigorios Larentzakis, Die Orthodoxe Kirche. Ihr Leben und ihr Glaube (The Orthodox Church: its life and faith). Graz:
Styria Press, 2000, p. 201.
33
Available online: www.helsinki.fi/%7Erisaarin/lutortjointtext.html#divi (last accessed September 2013).
34
Ibid.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
436 Chapter (71)

components of Christian initiation are to a large extent included in each other’s rites. These components find
their fulfilment in the Christian’s full participation in the life of Christ and his church through eating his body
and drinking his blood in the holy Eucharist”. The 13th meeting of Lutheran - Orthodox Joint Commission (2-9
November 2006, Bratislava, Slovak Republic) discussed the theme: The Mystery of the Church: D. The Holy
Eucharist in the Life of the Church. In relation to this topic the final statement from Bratislava underlined that
“Orthodox and Lutherans agree that the Eucharist is also a gift of communion granted to us by Christ. In this
communion we are fully united with him and with the members of his body.”35
The 14th plenary of the International Joint Commission on the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox
Church and Lutherans was held from 30 May – 7 June 2008 at the St. George Hotel in Paphos, Cyprus, and
discussed the following topic: The Mystery of the Church. Preparation and the Social and Ecological Dimensions
of the Eucharist. Finally, the 15th plenary session of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission was held from
31 May to 7 June 2011 at Colleg Wittenberg in Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Germany and dealt with the theme:
The Mystery of the Church: The Nature, Attributes and Mission of the Church. In Wittenberg-Lutherstadt this
dialogue celebrated its 30th anniversary, an evaluation of the dialogue as a whole was undertaken including
the issue of how this dialogue is received in the churches involved.

Eastern Orthodox - Oriental Orthodox

The family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches goes back to the rejection of the fourth Ecumenical Council
(Chalcedon, 451), therefore, they used to be called non-Chalcedonian or Old-Oriental Churches. To this
family belong the following five churches: the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate
of Antioch and All the East, the Armenian Apostolic Church (the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at
Etchmiadzin and the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia); the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East
and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches represent the family of the following
16 independent churches, which respect the seven Ecumenical councils: the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the
Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Russian Patriarchate,
the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate,
the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Orthodox Church of the Czech
Lands and Slovakia, the Polish Orthodox Church, the Finnish Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church
of Estonia. Although these two families of churches have been separated since 451, they are close in their
theology, spirituality and liturgy.
The official dialogue between these two families of churches was preceded by a series of four unofficial
theological consultations: Aarhus (1964), Bristol (1967), Geneva (1970) and Addis Ababa (1971). These
consultations were facilitated by the WCC Faith and Order Commission and focused their deliberations on
Christology, which was the most controversial point between the two traditions. The unofficial conversations
proved to be constructive and arrived at the common view that in spite of the different terminology used by
the two theological traditions as well as the different emphasis in the Christological teaching of the two church
families, they confess the same faith in the Person of Jesus Christ. One of the most encouraging achievements
during the unofficial conversations was the agreement in regard to the two wills in Christ, which was the
object of the sixth Ecumenical Council (680/681).36 In this respect the unofficial conversations constituted an
excellent basis for the official dialogue.
The first meeting of the Joint Commission for the official dialogue between the two church families (Cham-
bésy, Geneva, December 1985) published only a communiqué, which indicated that the task of the first meeting
was to establish a methodology for this dialogue. In this respect “a joint sub-committee of six theologians
Ibid.
35

Deacon Aisst. Viorel Ionita, Sinodul al VI-lea Ecumenic si importanta sa pentru ecumenismul actual (The 6th Ecumenical
36

Council and its importance for the today ecumenism), doctoral thesis, Bucharest, 1978, p. 451-454.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Viorel Ionita 437

was set up, three from each side, with the mandate to prepare common texts for our future work”.37 For the
second meeting of the Joint Commission, the aim was “to rediscover our common grounds in Christology
and ecclesiology, the following main theme and subsequent sub-themes were agreed upon: Towards Common
Christology; 1. Problems of terminology; 2. Conciliar formulations; 3. Historical factors and 4. Interpretation
of Christological dogmas today”.38
The first agreed statement in this dialogue was adopted only at the second meeting of the Joint Committee at
the Anba Bishoy Monastery (Egypt, June 1989). This statement underlines that “the four adverbs used to qualify
the mystery of the hypostatic union belong to our common tradition - without commingling (or confusion)
(asyngchytos), without change (atreptos), without separation (achoristos) and without division (adiairetos).
Those among us who speak of two natures in Christ, do not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union;
those among us who speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ do not thereby deny the continuing
dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and the human, without change, without confusion”.39 This para-
graph shows how the two terminologies are combined and reconciled in one common statement. In the same
statement it was also underlined that “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.”40
The second agreed statement between the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Chambésy, Geneva,
September 1990) stressed the decisions of the first statement and formulated some recommendations to the
churches. The first part of this statement, the common position of the two churches in relation to the first three
Ecumenical Councils, is underlined including the condemnation of both Eutychian and Nestorian heresies. In
this respect “Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage.”41 As
for the last four Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox stated that these are in concordance with the faith of the
first three ones, “while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation.
With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.”42
Agreement is also achieved in relation to the teaching of two wills and two energies in the one Person of
the Logos incarnate, that means content wise in concordance with the sixth Ecumenical Council. As for “the
teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the
theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching
and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that
we have no disagreement in this regard.”43
The statement concludes the doctrinal part as follows: “In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christol-
ogy as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have
always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of
the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith
and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.”44
The fourth and last encounter of the first stage of the dialogue between the Oriental and the Orthodox Churches
took place again at Chambésy (November 1993), with a series of Proposals for Lifting of Anathemas. In the
light of the first two agreements, “the representatives of both Church families agree that the lifting of anathemas
37
Growth in Agreement II, p. 190.
38
Ibid. p.190.
39
Growth in Agreement II, p. 193.
40
Ibid. p. 193.
41
Ibid. p. 196.
42
Ibid p. 196.
43
Ibid. p. 196.
44
Ibid p. 196.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
438 Chapter (71)

and condemnations of the past can be consummated on the basis of their common acknowledgement of the
fact that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are Orthodox in their teachings. In
the light of our four unofficial consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and our three official meetings which
followed on (1985, 1989, 1990), we have understood that both families have loyally maintained the authentic
Orthodox Christological doctrine and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have
used Christological terms in different ways”.45 It is also important that the lifting up of the anathemas “should
be made unanimously and simultaneously by the Heads of all the Churches of both sides, through the signing
of an appropriate ecclesiastical Act, the content of which will include acknowledgements from each side that
the other one is Orthodox in all respects.”46
Important for the continuation of this dialogue was the meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Com-
mittee for Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches held at the Orthodox
Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Geneva, from 10-13 March 2005. This committee took
into consideration:
a. the progress to date and the future prospects of this dialogue;
b. the criteria for evaluating the theological work of the Joint Theological Commission and on the reac-
tions to these criteria;
c. the importance of the agreement that has been reached on the Christological issue, and on the refu-
tation of those who objected to the interpretation of the recognition of the “Orthodoxy” of the non
– Chalcedonians;
d. the obscurities of paragraph 8 of the 2nd Agreed Theological Statement, and on the need for these to
be clarified;
e. the theological difficulties of Theological Dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, by the Pro-
fessor of the Theological Academy of Moscow;
f. the bilateral relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and on
the reservations of the Russian Orthodox Church with respect to the text of the Agreed Statements
and
g. the liturgical problems that have arisen in the rapprochement of the two ecclesiastical families and
on ways to address them.
The committee considered that the “Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the pre-Chal-
cedonian Oriental Orthodox Churches is particularly important, as it was proclaimed by the relevant unani-
mous decision of the 3rd Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference (1986), and must therefore be continued
to complete the work of both the Joint Theological Commission and the Sub Committees on the pastoral and
liturgical issues.”47 The concrete recommendations48 made by this committee should lead to a constructive
continuation of this dialogue.
45
Available online: www.monachos.net/library
46
Ibid.
47
Available online: www.centreorthodoxe.org
48
1. The Joint Theological Commission has to plan its work, on the one hand in reference to the reservations or criticism
expressed, either justified or unjustified, on the ambiguous points in the two Agreed Theological Statements (1989, 1990)
and to the consequences deriving from them, and on the other hand in reference to the still pending issues of the two
Sub-Committees because only in this way will it be possible not only to demonstrate the significance of the agreement
reached on the Christological issue, but to plan and prepare as required for the ecclesiastical body.
2. The ecclesiological importance of recognizing and including the doctrinal definitions of the IV, V, VI and VII Ecumenical
Synods must be promoted more fully through special studies on their Cyrillian basis, and the Anathemas must be lifted in
order to restore ecclesiastical communion; these measures presuppose thorough and integrated research of the theological
heritage of both theological traditions and the clarification of the Christological terminology.
3. The planning of the future activities presupposes the immediate assembly, organization, and publication in an attractive
special volume of all the presentations and studies, which refer to the disputed theological issues of the Agreed Theolog-

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Viorel Ionita 439

Orthodox – Reformed

The dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the WARC/WCRC was prepared by a series of consultations
between “Reformed and Greek Orthodox delegations” from 1979 to 1984. The Concluding Affirmations of
this consultation process underlined that “deep soundings were taken on both sides to see if there were suffi-
cient common ground regarding the canon of truth.”49 In the light of this experience a preparatory meeting for
the official dialogue between the two church families took place in Chambésy, Geneva (March, 1986). This
meeting suggested for the Orthodox – Reformed Joint Commission (ORJC)50 the following theme: The doc-
trine of the Holy Trinity on the basis of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.51 The first meeting of the ORJC
took place in March 1988 at Leuenberg, Switzerland, where among others reports were presented “of recent
national conversations between the two bodies.”52 As a first remark to this recommendation we underline the
connection with the different levels of dialogue between the two theological traditions. The second remark is
that the themes of this dialogue are following the structure of the Nicean – Constantinopolitan Creed that is
the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Christology. The theme of Ecclesiology was here debated on the basis of
the achievement on the first themes. This approach expressed the experience accumulated in other dialogues
by the Orthodox.
The theme of the Holy Trinity was then discussed at two consecutive plenary sessions (Leuenberg, 1988,
and Minsk, 1990) and an agreement was adopted only during the third meeting of the ORJC at Kappel-am-Al-
bis, Switzerland (1992). After a short introduction, this document contains the following chapters: 1. The
Self-Revelation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; 2. Three Divine Persons; 3. Eternal Relations in God;
4. The Order of Divine Persons in the Trinity; 5. Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity, the One Monarchy; 6.
Perichoresis: the Mutual Indwelling of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; 7. One Being, Three Persons and 8. The
Apostolic and Catholic Faith. At the suggestion of the Reformed delegation53 an Agreed Statement on the Holy
Trinity, Significant Features was also adopted in 1992, which underlined the ecumenical significance of this
statement.54
The second agreed statement in this dialogue followed only two years later and addressed the doctrine of
Christology (Limassol, Cyprus, January, 1994). In the statements adopted in this dialogue the position of the
two traditions is very clearly exposed as well as the common view on some topics discussed. Talking about
Christology, the Reformed-Orthodox dialogue came unavoidably to the discussion on the issue of icons. In
this respect the statement from Limassol indicated that “The divergent conclusions drawn by the Orthodox
and Reformed traditions on the subject of iconography is a subject related to the above statement which might
well form a point of entry for discussion at a future dialogue.”55
The fifth meeting of the ORJC (Aberdeen, UK, June 1996) started with the theme of Ecclesiology, respect-
fully of the Identity and Unity of the Church, but there was published only a summary of discussions. The
discussions continued during the seventh meeting (Zakynthos, Greece, June, 1998), where a third common
statement on The Church as the Body of Christ was adopted.
ical Statements, or to the refutation of the criticism against them, because in this way appropriate arguments will support
not only the work that has already been accomplished, but also the future prospects of the work of the Joint Theological
Commission and the two Sub-Committees. (www.centreorthodoxe.org)
49
Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Reformed Churches, Volume 2, edited by Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish
Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1993, p. ix.
50
Which included representatives of all Orthodox churches, not only the Greek ones, as in the preparatory process?
51
Ibid. p. x.
52
Ibid. p. xi.
53
Ibid. p. xxiii.
54
See Agreed Statements from the Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue, edited by Lukas Vischer, World Alliance of Reformed
Churches, Geneva, 1988, p.21-24
55
Ibid. p. 23.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
440 Chapter (71)

The two partners agreed that the “Church founded upon Christ has a concrete, visible and historical
form, the apostolic community. This community was expanded at Pentecost and from Jerusalem it spread
to other places. As a historic community it was given a historic mission, to preach the good news of the
Gospel and receive into membership of the One Body of Christ, the Church, all those who received the
good news of the Gospel”.56 The believers are then “engrafted into Christ, put on Christ, are regenerated in
Christ, so that in him they may be restored to their true nature and fulfilled in the Church. What Christ has
done objectively for all in and through his humanity is now appropriated by those who believe and freely
submit to him as their Lord and Saviour.”57 It is also to be noted that the “Baptism is the great sacrament of
entry into the Body of Christ, it is Christ’s gracious gift to all human beings; it is a gift to be freely accepted
and appropriated by each human being.”58 It is quite strange that in this text about the Church as the Body
of Christ there is no reference to the Holy Spirit, what indicates that this text is only a stage on the way to
a more complete statement.
The fourth common statement of the ORJC was adopted in Pittsburgh, USA (April 2000) and focused on
the Membership and Incorporation into the Body of Christ. In this statement, the means for the incorpora-
tion into the Body of Christ are considered the Baptism and the Chrismation. For both sides the “baptism
is a sacrament/mystery of divine grace freely given and freely received, which is not to be repeated.”59 It is
also important to underline that for both Orthodox and Reformed the grace received in the Baptism “confers
forgiveness of sins and rebirth of water and the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for entry into the Kingdom of
Heaven. Nevertheless, there is a difference of understanding between the traditions as to whether this grace
in baptism includes the seal of the Gift of the Spirit. The Orthodox believe that on the basis of Scripture and
Tradition the seal of the Gift of the Spirit is granted through Chrismation. The Reformed include the fullness
of the Spirit in the Baptismal grace. Both agree that they need to engage in fuller exploration of this issue, and
especially the connection between baptism and eucharist.”60 We find here the missing part on the Holy Spirit
from the previous statement.
Continuing discussion in the frame of the theme on Ecclesiology, the 8th plenary session of the ORJC ad-
opted the fifth statement on The Holiness of the Church (Sibiu, Romania, September 2003). This statement is
well structured and after a short introduction contains the following chapters: 1. The holiness of the Church;
2. Holiness as a divine gift and human task and 3. The Saints. The document concludes with some “Conver-
gence and divergence.”61 There are four points of convergence and only one of divergence, namely related
to “the understanding of the Holiness of the Church between the Reformed and the Orthodox”, which “are
clearly related to their divergence in the perception of the reality of the Church, which, they agree, needs to
be explored further.”62
The sixth statement adopted in this dialogue focused on The Catholicity and Mission of the Church (Bei-
rut, Lebanon, October 2005). For both Orthodox and Reformed “the catholicity of the Church means being
in communion with Christ and through Him with God and with one another. It also implies being committed
to mission summoning the whole world to be reconciled to God. The intensive aspect of catholicity finds
its manifestation and fulfilment in the extensive, which is realized through the mission of the Church in the
world.”63 This summary linked catholicity with the mission of the Church.
The last plenary meeting of the ORJC so far took place at Volos, Greece (September, 2007) and addressed
the topic of Eschatology. Second Coming. The Resurrection of the dead. Last Judgment. This is one of a few
56
Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue on the Doctrine of the Church, Reformed World, Volume 57 (1), March 2007, p. 89.
57
Ibid. p. 89.
58
Ibid. p. 89.
59
Ibid. p. 90.
60
Ibid. p. 91.
61
Ibid. p. 97.
62
Ibid. p. 97.
63
Ibid. p. 100.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Viorel Ionita 441

examples of dialogue, at least with Orthodox implication, which addressed the topic of Eschatology. This fact
indicates that the dialogue discussed to the end the Creed. The common statement of the Orthodox and the
Reformed on this topic is of great significance. We would like to underline one affirmation in this statement,
which states that “The resurrection of our Saviour gives meaning not only to man’s life, but also to the end
of his life, because to Christians death is just a transition to the plenitude of eternal life. This plenitude of life
is the fulfillment of a great purpose, that of intimate unification of the Son of God and humanity; man enjoys
this plenitude spiritually first, after being found righteous at the particular judgment and then, also bodily, with
his/her resurrected body and freed from corruption at the final judgment.”64
The Orthodox-Reformed dialogue addressed extensively the question of Ecclesiology and reached in this
respect a great deal of agreement. Nevertheless, there are many open questions, which must be clarified for
the sake of the continuation of this dialogue. As for the theme of Church Unity we could not find here some
substantial contribution. Probably the most successful part of this dialogue is the fact that each one of the two
partners could identify the ecclesiological profile of the other and this fact is extremely important for these
two church families on their way towards unity.

Conclusions

The purpose of all dialogues mentioned above was to investigate how the churches involved could achieve
unity. From the Orthodox perspective, this is the main goal of all these dialogues. The Orthodox believe that the
prayer of the Lord for the unity of all those who believe in Him is a mandate given to the Church throughout
the centuries up to the end of the time.
The Orthodox view of the way towards unity appears quite coherent throughout all these dialogues. This
view is that the unity cannot be achieved without clarifying all the dividing differences between the respective
churches. The basis for the discussion about the visible unity - although the Orthodox do not use too much
this concept - is given in a concentrate form in the Nicean - Constantinopolitan Creed. This creed was taken
as frame of discussions mainly in the Orthodox-Old Catholic and in the Orthodox-Reformed dialogues.
The experience made through these dialogues showed that the Creed cannot be taken separately from its
liturgical context. Speaking about the faith confessed by the undivided Church, the Orthodox do not mean a
theoretical exposition of the faith with no relation to the moral and liturgical life of the Church. In other words,
the faith is confessed not simply mentally or theoretically but also liturgically, spiritually and practically. In this
respect the Orthodox expect that what the churches confess doctrinally should be reflected in their practical life.
Taking this link into consideration we have to underline that one of the missing aspects in the dialogues
we are talking about is the lack of references to the liturgical texts, to the prayers and hymns of the respective
churches. There are very few such references in the dialogues we presented above. These references could
help the dialogue to find a broader expression of the faith confessed by the churches.
The methodological approach in these dialogues was so far mainly focussing on what unites the churches,
in other words the consensus in doctrinal matters was the main purpose of these dialogues. This was a legit-
imate first step, but not helpful enough for a clear image of what really divides the churches, or of how near
they were to each other. For a real breakthrough in these dialogues a necessary next step may be to identify
the real dividing issues between the churches involved and to look for the solutions. Only in that moment the
churches could really know how far they are from one another.
As for the methodology they followed, these dialogues differ from one another. Some of them adopted from
the beginning a clear agenda, like the Orthodox-Old Catholic dialogue. There were other dialogues, which
focussed on very specific issues, which divide the respective churches, as is the case with the Eastern Ortho-
dox – Oriental Orthodox dialogue, which focused mainly on Christology. Finally there were also dialogues,
This statement was put at our disposal by Dr. Lecturer Ciprian Streza, member of the Orthodox Commission at the Volos
64

meeting.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
442 Chapter (71)

which did not adopt a long-term agenda, but developed their topics from one meeting to the other, as is the
case with the Orthodox-LWF dialogue.
These practical aspects indicate that the dialogues presented above were adapted to the different situation
and first of all to the different types of relations between the respective churches. It may be helpful for the Or-
thodox Churches to look how the dialogues they have with different churches relate to the dialogues between
these churches among themselves. The issue of accountability between all these dialogues may help them to
advance one step forward on their way to unity.

Bibliography

1. Vezi Koinonia auf altkatholischer Basis (The Koinonia on Old Catholic Basis), edited by Urs von Arx,
Bern, 1989;
2. Orthodoxie im Dialog. Bilaterale Dialoge der orthodoxen und der orientalisch-orthodoxen Kirchen 1945-
1997. Eine Dokumentensammlung, hrsg. von Thomas Bremer, Johannes Oeldemann und Dagmar Stoltmann,
Paulinus Verlag, 1999
3. Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level,
1982-1998. Edited by Jeffrey Gros, FSC, Harding Meyer and William G. Rusch, WCC Publications, Ge-
neva, 2000
4. Athanasios Basdekis, Die Orthodoxe Kirche, Otto Lembeck Verlag, 2001
5. Agreed Statements from the Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue, edited by Lukas Vischer, World Alliance of
Reformed Churches, Geneva, 1988
6. Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue on the Doctrine of the Church, Reformed World, Volume 57 (1), March 2007;
Orthodox-Reformed Dialogue on the Doctrine of the Church, Reformed World, Volume 57 (1), March 2007
7. Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Reformed Churches, Volume 2, edited by Thomas F. Torrance,
Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1993
8. Accords et dialogues oecuméniques, Textes éditées par André Birmelé et Jaques Terme, Paris, 1995
9. Risto Saarinen, Faith and Holiness. Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue 1959-1994, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
in Göttingen, 1997

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (72) ORTHODOX DIALOGUES WITH THE LUTHERAN CHURCHES

Konstantinos Delikostantis

The relations between Lutherans and Orthodox have a long history, starting with the birth of Protestantism.
Martin Luther in 1519 made reference to the Orthodox Church in his conflict with Rome. Especially, the
non-recognition of the primacy of the Pope by the Orthodoxy served Luther as a point against Rome and as
a proof for existence and legitimacy of the Christian Church outside of the papal jurisdiction. In his dispute
with Eck, Luther defended the Eastern Church against the reproach of being schismatic or even heretic. He
mentioned thousands of its martyrs and saints, the famous theologians and Church Fathers, and called the
Eastern Church “the better part of the universal church”, “meliorem partem universalis ecclesiae”.1
Unfortunately, Luther couldn’t develop his positive view of the Orthodox Church. In course of time he
identified in the history of this church similar developments and problems as in the Roman Catholic tradition.
Even in the Greek Church Luther saw the same powers in action, which led the West to the primacy of Rome,
signs of a progressive decline.2 Luther mentions the “endless quarrel” between Rome and Constantinople
for “the worthless primacy” by means of “vain, week and useless twaddle”.3 Although Luther continues to
make a distinction between the two Churches, and to refer to Eastern Church Fathers and to the accordance
of the principles of the Reformation with the doctrine of the Ancient Church, generally his interest for Or-
thodoxy didn’t cross the limits of an apologetic attitude. Georges Florovsky regards Luther’s knowledge
of the history, doctrinal teaching of the early Church and of the Greek Fathers as insufficient.4 “Luther has
said much about the ‘Fathers’ of the Church, though he knew only a limited number of works from a small
number of the Fathers”.5 Ioannis Karmiris notes that Luther couldn’t enter deeply in ‘the dogmatic system,
the ecclesial order, the mystical nature, the spirit and the character’ of the Eastern Church, even though he
never ceased to use all the theological material which was accessible to him.6 Certainly, Luther’s limited
interest for the Orthodoxy proved to have a significant impact. The attitude of the Reformer influenced and
formed the attitude of Protestantism to the Orthodox Church until today. Orthodoxy remained constantly
“an object of attention for the protestant point of view”.7 It was Phillip Melanchon who tried to establish
first contacts between the new movement and the Orthodox Church. In 1559 he sent a letter and a Greek
version of the Confessio Augustana to the Ecumenical Patriarch Joasaph ΙΙ. This first attempt of contact
didn’t lead to a success.8
Soon the Lutherans addressed the Greek Church in the Ottoman Empire to expose the insights of the
Reformation and to hear its opinion about the new doctrine of the Reformation. The famous correspondence
between the theologians of Württemberg - and the philologist Martinus Crusius - and the Ecumenical Patriarch
Jeremias II, in the years 1573-1581, was an admirable attempt for contact and theological exchange.9 The
1
Luther M. (1519) Disputatio Iohannis Eccii et Martini Lutheri Lipsiae habita. WA, 2, p. 280, 5.
2
Luther M. (1539) Von den Konziliis und Kirchen. WA, 50, p. 577, 30-578, 2.
3
Ibid., p. 578, 31-579, 3.
4
Florovsky G. The Byzantine Ascetic and Spiritual Fathers. In: Haugh R. S (ed.) The Collected Works of Georges Flor-
ovsky, volume 10, p. 92 and 95.
5
Ibid., p. 94.
6
Karmiris I. (1963) Luther und Melanchton über die Orthodoxe Kirche. Theologia 34 p. 211-212.
7
Gass G. W. (1872) Symbolik der griechischen Kirche, Berlin, p. 41.
8
See Karmiris I., Luther und Melanchton über die Orthodoxe Kirche. p. 366-389.
9
See Wendebourg D. (1986) Reformation und Orthodoxie. Der ökumenische Briefwechsel zwischen der Leitung der
Württembergischen Kirche und Patriarch Ieremias II. von Konstantinopel in den Jahren 1573-1581. Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, Göttingen.
444 Chapter (72)

Lutheran scholars sent to the Patriarch a Greek version of the Confessio Augustana and asked for a comment
on the main doctrines of the Reformation. The Patriarch answered with a detailed exposition of the Orthodox
doctrine relating to some articles of Confessio Augustana.
The Lutherans, challenged by the response of the Patriarch wrote two letters with new explanations. The
Patriarch answered to both texts using the same arguments. In his third response Patriarch Jeremias asked
the Lutherans to correspond with him in the future not about dogmatic issues, but to write only “because of
friendship”.10 At the end of his letter he complains about the fact that the westerners honour and praise the
Church Fathers only in theory, but in practice and reality, they overlook and neglect them.
In this way ended this first significant attempt for approach between Protestantism and Orthodoxy. It has
surely served to mutual acquaintance, but it couldn’t lead to an authentic dialogue. The difficult questions, if
the new Christian movement was able and ready to affirm the ancient original Christian doctrine, if the Or-
thodox could accept the theological principles of the Reformation exposed in the Confessio Augustana, were
a serious obstacle. For Anastasios Kallis this correspondence was “a sign of good will and of the incapability
to understand the partner. The aims of the Reformation remained closed for the Patriarch, while the Tübingen
used such arguments, as if they spoke with a Roman theologian”.11 Dorothea Wendebourg sees as the “main
difference” in the correspondence between Tübingen and Constantinople and the primary reason for the failure
of this attempt, the “different evaluation of the ecclesial tradition”.12
In my opinion, decisive in this correspondence was the fact that for the Patriarch, who registered the new
movement not without sympathy, because of its criticism against the impasses of the Roman Church, it became
quickly clear that Reformation wasn’t a return to the doctrine and the practice of the Ancient Church and that
its representatives were not ready or able for such a step. Patriarch Jeremias argues “the absence of calmness”
of the mind, “the displease with tradition”, the “ceaseless questioning and answering and also the desire for
the new” as the sickness of the western spirit.13
In the following period a lot of unpleasant events occurred. Influenced by Calvinism, ‘Eastern Confession
of the Christian Faith’ of the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Loukaris provoked ‘the first historical confes-
sional reaction of Orthodoxy to the Reformation’.14 The 17th century is a tragic time for the relations between
East and West. The orthodox East became the battlefield of Catholics and Protestants for more influence. A
negative consequence of the struggle against the Calvinistic infiltration to Orthodoxy is that, up to this time,
more and more Roman Catholic arguments have been used against protestant doctrines, and all this damaged
the proper articulation of the orthodox theological tradition. Another negative side of this conflict was the
psychological reserve against Protestantism, the Loukaris-complex, which influenced our attitude towards
Protestantism until today.
The encyclical of the Synod of Constantinople 1836 against the Protestant missionaries15, which indicated
the lowest point in the history of the relations between Orthodoxy and Protestantism, must be evaluated in the
same context. In the first half of the 19th century, Orthodox East had to resist strong Protestant missionarism,
which mainly attacked the piety of the Orthodox and the practical dimension of the Eastern tradition. Facing
this situation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was obliged to react in a hard language against the Protestant mis-
sionaries and the leaders of the Reformation.
The 20th century was a turning point in the relations between Orthodox and Lutherans. The courageous
initiatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchs and various contacts of both sides in the first half of this century
10
Karmiris I. (1968) The dogmatic and symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, volume 2, Graz, p. 569.
11
Kallis A. (2003) Das hätte ich gerne gewusst, 100 Fragen an einen orthodoxen Theologen. Theopano Verlag, Münster,
p. 343.
12
Wendebourg D. Reformation und Orthodoxie, p. 334.
13
Karmiris I. The dogmatic and symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, volume 2, p. 556.
14
Meyendorff J. (1983) Catholicity and the Church. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood/New York, p. 79.
15
For this text see Karmiris I. The dogmatic and symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, volume 2, p. 953-972.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Konstantinos Delikostantis 445

culminated in the foundation of the World Council of Churches, which built a basis for the official dialogue
between Orthodoxy and the Lutheran World Federation. This dialogue is considered a continuation of the first
encounter in the 16th century responding to the claims of contemporary reality.16
The First Panorthodox Conference in Rhodes (1961) put the ecumenical dialogue on the agenda of the Great
Council of Orthodoxy. The Fourth Panorthodox Conference (1968) suggested unanimously the inception of a
bilateral dialogue with the Lutherans. Finally, the First Preconciliar Panorthodox Conference of 1976 decided
“to promote the subject of the dialogue with the Lutherans and to constitute for this purpose, likely to the
other theological dialogues, a special interorthodox committee”.17 This committee had to evaluate the former
Orthodox / Lutheran contacts and to prepare the official bilateral dialogue.
The Ecumenical Patriarch sent on behalf of the whole Orthodoxy an invitation to the Lutheran World Feder-
ation to start of a dialogue on the global level. The Lutheran World Federation accepted in 1977 this invitation
and after three separate preparatory meetings (1978, 1979 and 1980) the first official meeting of the Orthodox
/ Lutheran Joint Commission took place in Espoo / Helsinki 27 August – 4 September 1981.
This dialogue, aiming at ‘full communion and full mutual recognition’, is initially evaluated as an eminent
event in the life of Orthodoxy and Lutheranism. The Report of the Orthodox / Lutheran Joint Commission
from the meeting of Espoo States courageously:

“We see it to be a momentous event in the life of our churches that for the first time in history official pan-Orthodox
and pan-Lutheran delegations met for dialogue with the ultimate goal of full communion. Contacts and relations
between our churches date from the 16th century. Regional theological dialogues between Orthodox and Lutheran
churches have been going on for many years in various areas of the world. It was with this in mind that the pan-Or-
thodox Conference of 1968 decided to include in future planning a dialogue with Lutheran churches. The official
invitation was extended in 1976 to the Lutheran churches through the Lutheran World Federation. The LWF Executive
Committee accepted this invitation with joy in February 1977. During the following years preparatory meetings
were held by the appointed representatives of the Orthodox churches who invited as guests the Lutheran observers.
After this careful preparation the Orthodox churches and the Lutheran World Federation agreed to begin the official
dialogue under the general theme ‘Participation in the Mystery of the Church’. The subject of eccleciology was
chosen because we see the reality of our churches not only in theological terms, but also in light of their full life
in the Body of Christ. We praise God that He brought us together for this first meeting, which fulfills the hopes of
many eminent teachers in our churches since the 16th century. This surpasses human expectation when one looks at
experiences of former centuries”.18

This dialogue between Orthodox and Lutherans, despite the fact that it continues the former contacts and dialogues,
is something new. It is not an occasional and particular encounter based on personal initiative, but for the first time
in the history an official dialogue between the Orthodox Church as a whole and the Lutheran World Federation. A
serious problem in this dialogue remains the fact that the Lutheran World Federation is a fellowship of Lutheran
Churches, which doesn’t include all the Lutheran Churches over the world and doesn’t constitute a Church.
A first evaluation of this dialogue from the Orthodox side was made by the Third Preconciliar Panorthodox
Conference (1986). The final text of this conference reads:
16
See Karmiris I. (1988) The Orthodox – Protestant Dialogue. Brief review of its development, Athens (gr.); Saarinen. R:
(1997) Faith and Holiness. Lutheran – Orthodox Dialogue 1959-1994, Göttingen; Nikolaou Th. (1999) Der Orthodox –
Lutherische Dialog. Geschichtlicher Überblick und gemeinsame Texte. In: Bischof Eumenios von Lefka Die Orthodoxe
Kirche. Ein Standortbestimmung an der Jahrtausendwende. Festgabe für Prof. Anastasios Kallis. Verlag Otto Lembeck,
Frankfurt a.M, p. 242-277; Martensen. D.F. (2002) Lutheran- Orthodox Dialogue, in Lossky N. and others (eds.) Dictionary
of the Ecumenical Movement. WCC Publications, Geneva, p. 716-718; Delikostantis K. (2011) “Martin Luther and the
Orthodox Church”, Lutheran Forum, 45. 3, p. 36-41.
17
Episkepsis 158, 1-12-1976, p. 4.
18
Bericht der Gemeinsamen Orthodoxen – Lutherischen Kommission Espoo / Finnland, 27 August – 4 September 1981.
In: Informationen aus der Orthodoxen Kirche. 2. 10, p. 22.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
446 Chapter (72)

“The Third Preconciliar Panorthodox Conference states with satisfaction the fact that the dialogue with the Luther-
ans started under positive omen and with the right theme and that the partners choose as first subject to be treated
and Ecclesiology, which touches basically the most important issues and the core of theological differences. The
conference expects that in the bilateral discourses as well as during the elaboration of the common texts, the same
emphasis will be shown to the academic and to the ecclesiastical element. Although we can already preview future
difficulties in the performance of the dialogue nevertheless we hope that with God’s help it will prove to be fruitful
and beneficial”.19

The Orthodox / Lutheran Joint Commission produced significant texts and common statements reflecting
convergences on the topics of divine Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, inspiration and canon, authority in
and of the Church, conciliarity, salvation, grace, justification and synergy, and the “Mystery of the Church”.
These important texts affirm the commitment of the two sides to a serious theological discourse and contain
many common issues, in spite of the newly arisen divergences.
In parallel to the panorthodox dialogue with the Lutheran World Federation, many regional dialogues take
place. We have regional dialogues of the Orthodox Church of Russia with the EKD and the Lutheran Church
of Finland, of the Orthodox church of Bulgaria with the Lutherans of the former GDR, of the Orthodox Church
of Romania with the Lutherans and the Reformed on their national level. Also in North America various dia-
logues on important theological topics have been organized between Lutherans and the Orthodox Churches.
These regional dialogues, in combination with the worldwide dialogue of Orthodox and Lutherans, are a sign
of hope, although the coordination of the two processes constitutes a major problem.
Although both sides of the dialogue received a better knowledge of each other and overcame a lot of
prejudices and misunderstandings, some basic unsolved problems stand between them, as for instance for
the Orthodox the subjection and the individualistic narrowing of ecclesial being in Lutheranism, and for the
Lutheran side the orthodox traditionalism. Another source of tension are the newly arisen anthropological
and ethical questions. Additionally to the problem of the ordination of women on all levels of clerical order,
the new moral code concerning homosexual relations and their implications for the Christian anthropology
cause new difficulties. These ecclesiogical and ethical innovations and the reactions of the Orthodox create
new obstacles for the promotion of the relation between Orthodoxy and Lutheranism and endanger not only
the final goal of the unity, but even the continuation of the dialogue.
Facing this change of paradigm in the ecumenical movement, it is necessary that the dialogues focus not
only on the classical theological subject, but also more strongly on the anthropological and moral issues.
Perhaps in the future new strategies of dialogue will need to be applied. We have to rethink the methodology
and strategy of ecumenism.
The orthodox side has difficulties about the fact that although the Lutherans sincerely support rapprochement
with the Orthodox Churches, they often act and make choices, which ignore major traditions of the undivided
Church and hinder the aim of the Christian unity. The Orthodox Church, on the way to the Great Panorthodox
Council, has to act carefully to avoid hasty decisions. It is obvious that spectacular ecumenical gestures can’t
be expected from the orthodox side.
Nevertheless our dialogue has to continue in openness and without theological minimalism. In the words of
Florovsky: “For the ecumenical dialogue to bear fruit, the very controversies that separate the churches must not
be hushed up. Rather they must be brought into the open and discussed frankly, respectfully, and thoroughly”.20
It is necessary to enforce the process of reception, to make clear to the faithful the achievements of the ecu-
menical dialogues, the amazing work and the significant theological and ecclesial output. It is very important
that Christians discover the existential content and sense of the ecumenical movement, its significance for
19
Beschlüsse der III Panorthodoxen Vorkonziliaren Konferenz, Chambésy/Genf 1986. In: Basdekis A. (2006) Orthodoxe
Kirche und Ökumenische Bewegung. Dokumente – Erklärungen- Berichte 1900-2006. Lembeck/Bonifatius, Frankfurt
a.M/Paderborn, p. 386.
20
Florovsky G., Op. cit., p. 21.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Konstantinos Delikostantis 447

culture and society, for reconciliation and peace. We have to promote a fuller implementation of the theolog-
ical achievements of the ecumenical dialogues in the life of our Churches, to create through the theological
discourse a dialogue of life.
The sincere dialogue doesn’t lead to a “pseudomorphosis” or to a loss of identity but primarily to a mutual
enrichment, to a deeper comprehension of the other and also of our own tradition. Traditions can be understood
properly only in their relation and openness to each other. Isolation produces stagnation. Only a Church open
to the dialogue enables other Churches to participate in its precious heritage. In the openness to the others,
Churches can discover and live more consciously their own tradition.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
 (73) ORTHODOX DIALOGUES WITH THE REFORMED CHURCHES

Fr. Dorin Oancea

The official theological dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Reformed Churches started in 1988
and has held ten sessions ever since. Their chronological order was: 1988 (Leuenberg, Switzerland), 1990
(Minsk, Belarus’), 1992 (Kappel-am-Albis, Switzerland), 1994 (Limassol, Cyprus), 1996 (Aberdeen, Scot-
land), 1998 (Zakynthos, Greece), 2000 (Pittsburgh, USA), 2003 (Sibiu, Romania), 2005 (Beirut, Lebanon)
and 2007 (Volos, Greece). As one can see, nothing happened after 2007 and we are already in 2012. Why is
this? Some people may think that the dialogue reached its goal and the participants eventually decided to put
an end to it. But that was not so. In the very beginning it had been agreed by the two sides to start with the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and to continue with other issues of common interest. In 2007 the last article
of the Creed, on Eschatology, was discussed and by that the first aim of the dialogue reached. Nevertheless,
analysing the Creed was not the first and only aim of those who agreed upon having this dialogue started.
They actually had in mind an even broader theological understanding and after that a rapprochement between
the two confessional families in their every day experience of Christian existence. This second step of the
dialogue is still waiting to be completed. I could enumerate certain objective causes of the delay, for example
the developments within the Reformed world, which might have prevented them from concentrating on a
theological dialogue. At the same time, I wonder whether some other reasons might not have been at work
here; some internal reasons affecting not only this particular dialogue between the Orthodox and Reformed
Churches, but also all theological/inter-confessional dialogues more generally.
It is not my intention to deal with different content aspects of the theological dialogue, mainly because I
did this some years ago as part of an evaluation initiated and completed by the Study Commission of CEC.1 At
the same time, this particular dialogue is extremely significant because of the originally quite remote positions
of the partners, demanding elaborate preliminaries, because of the results achieved and also because of its
shortcomings. These three aspects shall be considered here, keeping in mind that the results of our analysis
should be understood in the broader context of all kinds of ecumenical dialogues.2

Preliminaries

I dedicate a special part of my chapter to the preliminaries of the dialogue in order to reveal some difficulties
encountered by dialogues between religious families and the importance of following a step-by-step agenda,
in order to eliminate them.
Why did such a dialogue include special difficulties?
First of all because of the Orthodox perception of the initial Reformed Churches and their later develop-
ment. For the standard Orthodox theologian, and by this I also mean standard Orthodox priest, the Reformed
were even more remote than the Lutherans. Such items as icons and saints, worshipped by the Orthodox but
1
My evaluation of the different sessions of the dialogue entitled The Theological Bilateral Dialogue between the Orthodox
Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. An Evaluation from an Orthodox Point of View, was published in the
papers of the Member Churches Consultation on Dialogues between Orthodox and other CEC Member Churches, Reseptio
1/2009, pp.32-43. An evaluation from the Reformed point of view was published in “Reformed World”: Orthodox-Reformed
international dialogue: convergences on the doctrine of the Church (1886-2005), Reformed World, Vol.57 (1), March 2007.
2
With regard to the dialogues of the Orthodox Churches see V. Ionita, “The Vision of Unity in the Multilateral Dialogues
and in the Bilateral Dialogues of the Orthodox Churches with the Other Churches”, Studii Teologice, Bucharest, series 3,
year 4, no. 3, July-September 2008, p. 7-58.
Dorin Oancea 449

rejected by the Reformed, are always remembered as differences not only by Orthodox theologians, but also
by the average Orthodox faithful. Theologians would have added to that the problem of predestination, for
example, which has been regarded as a major difference between the two traditions, with regard to the saving
action of God. One should note that for centuries these differences were more or less academic for most of the
Orthodox, as long as they did not live in one and the same country with Reformed Christians.
The one exception to this rule was Transylvania, the western province of present Romania, where the majority
of the population had been for centuries Romanian and Orthodox, whereas the ruling class was Hungarian and
to a great extent Reformed or Roman-Catholic. In the seventeenth century some of the Reformed Hungarian
rulers of the province tried to impose upon the Orthodox Romanians Calvinistic ways of Christian experience
and this led to the resistance of the Orthodox, who perceived this as a major threat to their identity. At the same
time in the same province we can notice the positive results of this cohabiting of Hungarians and Romanians, a
good example in this respect being the first translation of the New Testament into Romanian by the Orthodox
Metropolitan Simion Ştefan in 1648, stimulated by the Reformed ruler of Transylvania.
As noted above, this unique, common experience had positive and negative sides, at least as it presents
itself to the Orthodox mind. By introducing this example into a broader inter-confessional picture, one could
say that the expectations the Orthodox and Reformed had from one another were more or less similar, up to
the second half of the 20th century. Afterwards things changed rapidly on both sides. As parts of the same
ecumenical bodies, the Orthodox and the Reformed learned to better know each other and to assume that
behind all those differences, some of them already mentioned, there are a lot of similarities, which could lead
to certain convergences.
During the Faith and Order Conferences held in Lausanne (1927), Edinburgh (1937), and Montreux (1962),
some Orthodox and Reformed theologians discovered their mutual interest in the theology of the Church
Fathers, especially of those belonging to the Alexandrian tradition.3 This led to the idea that a theological
dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and WARC might be possible and as early as 1972 an official letter
for starting such a dialogue was sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchate by Jan Lochman, at that time head of the
WARC theological department. This message led to several meetings, meant to make the necessary prepara-
tions for the dialogue. Such meetings were held in Istanbul (1979) and Geneva (1981, 1983). They dealt with
important preliminaries. Maybe the most important was the one in 1972, when the two parties decided that the
dialogue should be organized on the basis of the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed, because it was common
to both confessional families.
From a methodological point of view I would like to note firstly the mutual interest, which led to this first
consultation and then the decision to have a common element present in both traditions as a permanent base
of understanding each other. The participants in the dialogue accepted from the very beginning the existence
of this common element along with the differences between the two traditions. Starting from the existence of
these common elements and the differences, they decided to reach a mutual understanding and to clarify the
differences by deepening the common element we find in the Creed.
From the same point of view it is also important to note that besides the normal procedures of identifying
common elements in the present articulations of faith, in this dialogue the importance of the common tradi-
tion is not only revealed, but this tradition becomes an instrument of articulating common elements of the
contemporary Christian experience. As long as our languages are different, to a certain extent at least, mutual
understanding becomes difficult. Therefore, retracing the historical threads of our contemporary models of
thought and discovering the common basis from which they originate, might make us understand that the
convergences between our two traditions are more significant than ever supposed.
The next consultations go two steps further in preparing the official dialogue. This time, they deal with
the Church as related to God. It is interesting to notice here how solid ecumenical thinking develops. During
3
With regard to the preparatory steps for the following dialogue sessions, see Thomas F.Torrance, Theological dialogue
between orthodox and reformed churches, Clark Constable, Edinburgh 1985.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
450 Chapter (73)

the first consultation in Geneva (1981), the papers dealt with God Incommunicability and Communicability
(Emilianos Tymiadis), The Authority of the Church and in the Church according to the Reformed Tradition
(Hans-Helmut Esser), and Authority in the Orthodox Church (Chrysostomos Konstantinidis). It is quite obvious
that the participants in the discussions could not understand each other well enough, that further deepening of
the problem was necessary. Therefore, during the second consultation in Geneva (1983), both Orthodox and
Reformed papers addressed the Authority of the Church in connection with the Holy Trinity: The Trinitarian
Foundation and Character of Faith and Authority in the Church (Thomas Torrance), The Trinitarian Structure
of the Church and its Authority (Emilianos Timiadis).
This should be understood on the one hand as a thorough research in and of itself. On the other hand, these
two consultations expressed the conviction that the Creed should be understood in an ecclesiological context
as a whole. Later on the necessity for such an approach became more and more evident, so that several further
dialogue sessions were dedicated to the Creed article regarding the Church.
The Orthodox had usually thought that the differences between the two traditions are obvious in an eccle-
siological context. Were they so important that no understanding was possible or were they not as important
as originally supposed? It became quite clear that the second possibility was accepted, as long as the dialogue
started on the basis of these two consultations.
Last but not least, one should note that the Orthodox were able to better understand who their partner in
dialogue really was. They were confident now that both traditions had a similar understanding of authority in
the Church and of its Trinitarian foundation.

Proceedings and Results of the Dialogue

As regards the content of the different sessions, they were summarized in several statements, according to the
different articles of the Nicene Creed, the first objective of the dialogue agreed upon.
The Trinitarian articles of the Creed were carefully dealt with during the first three sessions, and this
does not point only to their significance for Christian self-understanding but also to the dedication of the
commission members, to the thoroughness of their theological work. The participants in these sessions even
managed to put forward some new theological concepts, in order to avoid difficulties between the Eastern
and Western tradition such as the whole filioque problem. According to this model, it is not possible to ap-
proach the monarchy of the Father apart from the perichoretical communion between all the three persons of
the Holy Trinity. Therefore, one should not speak about a monarchy of the Father alone, but of a monarchy
of the Father and the Spirit with regard to the Son and of the Father and the Son with regard to the Spirit. In
my opinion, this concept offers a better understanding of the problem starting from the Holy Tradition and
this should be welcomed as a theological achievement as such and as a pattern for the imperative creativity
of ecumenical dialogues. At the same time, this perichoretical monarchy should by no means abandon the
personal identity of the three persons and especially that of the Father: He is only arche in the Trinity and
the two other persons do not participate in this action as its subjects. On the other hand, the Father does not
stay alone when begetting the Son or proceeding the Spirit, but each time stays in communion with one of
the two other persons.
The discussions on Christology took place in Kappel and Limassol and produced important convergences
too, like the connection between Trinitarian and Christological theology, the history of salvation and the biblical
history of Jesus of Nazareth as complementary approaches to Christology. In the context of the Lord’s person,
the participants in the dialogue were able to articulate convergences with regard to the common elements
between the divine and the human as a necessary precondition of any communion, on the one hand, and on
the dynamic character of the relation between nature and hypostasis, on the other. This last aspect reveals
the creative dimension of ecumenical dialogues and demonstrates that convergences cannot be reached by

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Dorin Oancea 451

reduction, but by searching for new possibilities to formulate a common point of view without any loss of
confessional identity of the participants.
Having thoroughly discussed the Holy Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ, the commission was in the
position to strive for a handle on the difficult issue of the Church, in which the Lord is being made present
to the faithful through the oikonomia of the Holy Spirit, as one can read in the last chapter of the Limassol
Agreed Statement. Aberdeen, Zakynthos, Pittsburgh, Sibiu, Beirut were the stations on this long journey. The
participants in the dialogue succeeded in finding important convergences again, on issues like: the possibility
of an ecclesiology “from above” and one “from below,” reflecting the two natures of Christ; the understanding
of the Church as an absolute reality of communion with God and his creation; the possibility to speak about “a
first Church” referring to the primordial communion between God and the angels, which was extended upon
the reality of Paradise; the incorporation through baptism into the Church which is the Body of Christ of those
who receive the Gospel and freely believe in it; the reality of a communion between God and the departed; the
intensive catholicity of the Church as experienced in the Eucharistic communion and its extensive dimension
which means the all embracing communion with God of all those who experience, in the Church, the restoration
of their image and likeness of God.
So many convergences! On everything? Almost, but not quite! For example, the two sides were able to ex-
press in one voice their conviction about God’s communion with the departed, but could not make together the
next logical step leading to a common understanding of the saints and of the communio sanctorum. Similarly
it was not possible to have an agreement upon the meaning of apostolic succession or the unity of Baptism,
Chrismation and Eucharist and upon the moment of their administration.
Beyond these fully or only partly reached convergences, I want to draw attention to a particular perspective
opened at the end of the Common Statement adopted in Pittsburgh: “Both the Orthodox and the Reformed are
certain that their convergence on the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity and Christology and their common
acceptance of the Scriptures constitute a sufficient basis for building up greater convergence in the future by
the Lord’s grace and inspiration.” First of all we notice here the image of an ecumenical process with several
stages, the discussions concluded with the Common Statement being just a basis to build upon if the will of
God be so. At the same time, the structure of the process is worth noticing: one agreement is the basis of another
one and so on, within an architecture based upon different levels of mutual understanding.
The last meeting in the dialogue, Volos 2007, was dedicated to Eschatology and reached more convergen-
ces than one might have expected. This was possible because both sides share the same belief in the salvific
communion with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Church. When I say that the Volos statement went beyond
expectations I have in mind the acceptance by both sides of a communion with the Lord after earthly death.
At the same time, some differences retained a certain significance since the intercession of the living for the
departed could not be explained clearly enough to the Reformed to enable them to accept this possibility of
communion between the two realms of existence.
In connection with the Trinitarian and Christological articles of the Creed, we noticed important attempts
to find new models of understanding and of deepening the common experience. We also put forward the out-
standing significance of such an enterprise for the progress of ecumenical discussions. In Volos efforts of the
kind were missing, the participants concentrated upon the first step of any ecumenical reflection, the common
elements of faith, which can be articulated together. This is why some questions were left aside and have been
waiting for a response ever since. I mention just one, which is of major importance in our globalized world
where we meet people with various religious identities or with no religious commitment at all. Does God leave
them outside the circuit of salvation, although He has decided the place of their birth or religious socialization?
If not, how are they going to experience personal communion with Christ, according to Orthodox self-under-
standing a necessary condition of salvation? One might say that questions of the kind are collateral, at this
stage of a dialogue, but I would with no hesitation reject such an argument, keeping in mind the tensions we
have been confronted with in the Middle East for some time. Ecumenical dialogues should bring us closer by

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
452 Chapter (73)

deepening the understanding of our common faith in connection with the moment in time given to each of us.
Having mentioned some of the questions, which are still to be raised, we can turn now to some shortcomings
of the dialogue.

Shortcomings

The previous sections of this analysis outline some of the important achievements of this dialogue, both on
the level of its actual content and with regard to the method of research the participants used. Nevertheless,
the regular flow of sessions was abruptly interrupted. Why? The causes are various, most certainly, and we
cannot open an exhaustive discussion on that. But it is possible for us to enumerate some of the shortcomings
that emerged during the different stages of the dialogue.

The level of preliminaries

In the beginning of this analysis, we gave a positive appreciation of the preparations for the dialogue and we
reaffirm it here. At the same time, we can identify a methodological deficiency at this level, without which the
results of the discussions might have been even more fruitful. I mean the absence of discussions regarding the
method of reading and understanding the Scriptures, the philosophical and historical background of Orthodox
and Reformed theology and of the different understanding of contemporary society with its challenges.
The differences between the Orthodox and Western ways of new testamentary exegesis have been known
for quite a long time, they are more or less taken for granted in any dialogue. Being aware of their existence is
a good start for communication, but basing the discussions on them without an analysis of their origins, of the
way they function and their outcome is something completely different. I don’t want to say that the Orthodox
methods are better than the Western ones or vice versa, each of them might be of an equal value. This is not
the point. What is important is that they operate under different premises and have different results, all of them
valuable according to one method or another. During theological discussions one should know which method
is being used and on which level one should expect one or the other result. Let me give an example to make my
point clear: Genesis 1 is regarded by the Orthodox as the broad framework of the whole history of salvation,
whereas Western scholars regard it mainly as a document of the Hebrews and consider its significance from
this narrow point of view. Without understanding the other’s assumption and keeping in mind only one’s own,
his line of argument would seem totally wrong, although it actually deals with a completely different situation.
Having mutually understood each other’s premises, the arguments would not be contradictory anymore but
complementary.
The differences regarding the philosophical and historical background of the theological discourse are of
equal importance. It is not my intention to explore this idea now, but the problem is quite similar with the
previous one. Without knowing these backgrounds and their terminological expression one might imagine dif-
ferences, which actually are not there. What does an Orthodox theologian understand when a Reformed speaks
about signum, or the Reformed theologian when the Orthodox speaks about symbolon? Is the Orthodox able
to explain the theology of the icon in terms of the signum theology of Calvin? In my opinion, these different
outlooks are usually not contradictory, but in order to reach convergences their specific logical structure should
be made clear from the very beginning or at least when it obviously becomes necessary, so that the dialogue
can continue successfully.
Last but not least, on the same level of preliminaries, the various accents specific to Orthodox and Reformed,
to any Christian experience should be taken into account. The partners in dialogue do not come from an own
ideal world; behind each of them lies a complex history, they live in non-identical environments; whilst they
might have similar expectations, this is up to a certain point only. This dimension of identity cannot be severed

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Dorin Oancea 453

from its spiritual counterpart, the two are complementary and it is not possible to understand one without the
other. Theological dialogues do not consider this horizontal aspect of Christian life. On the contrary, keen to
reach doctrinal and spiritual convergences, which have separated the two sides for longer or shorter periods of
time, they usually ignore it as much as they can. The same happened during the dialogue between the Ortho-
dox and the Reformed. The participants made great efforts with respect to the Nicean Creed, but did not pay
attention to the changes in attitude brought about by the needs of contemporary society and by globalization.
A direct cause for the temporary or permanent interruption of the dialogue was such a shift taking place within
the Reformed family, on the level of internal organization and of theological interest. On the one hand, this
led to the transition from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches to the World Communion of Reformed
Churches, which wasn’t purely formal.4 On the other, this organizational change went hand in hand with an
increased interest in the social dimension of Christian life and a decreased interest in fundamental theological
reflection, as the one on the Creed had been. In my opinion, this last development has led to the, hopefully,
short-term interruption of the dialogue sessions and could have been avoided from the very beginning by
considering the complementarity of theological reflection and neighbourly love as inseparable dimensions
of genuine Christian existence. At the same time, the new WCRC Constitution expresses its fidelity to the
Tradition of the Church as formulated by the Ecumenical Councils5 and encourages ecumenical dialogues,6 so
that this special dialogue might have a future, after all.

The Level of Theological Reflection

There are three main aspects in multilateral dialogues that I want to refer to. The first is related to a coherent
theology of alterity, the second to the integration, by each sub-commission separately, of the, at times, different
theological perspectives of its own members on certain items. They should be discussed in beforehand, so that
each sub-commission can articulate unitary points of view during the dialogue session itself. The last problem
refers to the mutual knowledge about the other’s theological perspective.
As far as the theology of alterity is concerned, one can remark that the ecumenical movement has developed
three models - “organic unity”, “conciliar fellowship” and “reconciled diversity” – which refer directly to the
unity of the Church/Churches. They have been useful, but not sufficient as a satisfactory basis of Christian
efforts aiming for final unity mainly because the Orthodox and Roman-Catholics could not express the plenitude
of their faith by means of these models. It is quite obvious that the participants in dialogues should take a step
back and develop a general theology of alterity, acceptable for everybody, in order to have a new understanding
of the three models of relation between the unity of the Church and the alterity of confessional experiences.
Such a theology of alterity should refer to all kinds of diversities, going hand in hand with a complementary
unity. A model of the kind was already put forward by the Orthodox Metropolitan Georges Khodr in 1971, in
connection with religious pluralism.7
According to the Lebanese hierarch, the oikonomia of the Holy Spirit, related to the oikonomia of Jesus
Christ, does not only achieve a balance between religious unity and diversity, with eschatological accomplish-
ment, but should also lead to a Christian humbleness in relation to the faithful belonging to other religions.
4
Details on the transition from WARC to WCRC can be found on the web-page of the new organization: http://www.wcrc.ch/
5
We read in Article 2: ‘The World Communion of Reformed Churches is committed to embody a Reformed identity as
articulated in the historic Reformed confessions and the Ecumenical Creeds of the early church, and as continued in the
life and witness of the Reformed community’: http://www.wcrc.ch/sites/default/files [accessed September 4, 2013]
6
Article III – Identity: ‘Engaging other ecumenical organizations and churches of other traditions in the ecumenical move-
ment through dialogue and cooperation in ministry.’
7
Georges Khodr, ‘Christianity in a Pluralistic World,’ first time published in the Ecumenical Review in 1971 and four
years later in the WCC collective volume The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement. Documents and Statements
1902 - 1975, World Council of Churches, Geneva 1978.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
454 Chapter (73)

In my opinion, this model could be extrapolated for inter-Christian relations, in order to develop a similar
attitude amongst Christians in dialogue. This would make it possible to include all efforts towards unity in
everyone’s communion with God, in one’s Christian identity, where they actually belong. The reception of
ecumenical efforts in Christian self-understanding could convey a new dimension to interconfessional theo-
logical dialogues on all levels, because their main purpose would not be discussions upon certain issues only,
but equally and mainly communion with Christ within the oikonomia of the Holy Spirit. It is my belief that
under such circumstances the already important results of the dialogue between the Orthodox and Reformed
Churches would reach even higher levels of convergences and that the sessions themselves would not be
interrupted anymore. Because which Christian theologian would consciously interrupt his communion with
the Lord himself?
The theological discourse practiced within any denomination participates in this dialectics of unity and
multiplicity. There is a common doctrinary body shared by all or at least the great majority of the theolo-
gians belonging to one denomination or another and the peculiar way to understand and express it by each
theologian. Constant common reflection, or sharing publications within a specific linguistic space make
sure that personal understanding is not separated from the unitary vision on different issues. It is even more
important to have such permanent exchanges when theologians belong to different linguistic expressions
of one and the same denomination. It is a well-known fact that differences in language always go along
with differences in perception and expression of what is common. At the same time, human frailty tends
to overvalue one’s own expression and undervalue that of others. This obviously happened in the Ancient
Church between the Orthodox and Old Oriental Churches, as the results of the contemporary dialogue
between them clearly show. Differences in communication lead to divisions, they do not promote unity and
give few opportunities for overcoming them. The only way to overcome this difficulty is to consciously
share the common Christian experience of one’s specific denominational identity by prayer and theological
reflection.
These considerations refer to the unity and multiplicity of theological discourse as such and to the di-
alogue between the Orthodox and Reformed Churches. The discussions had fruitful results as long as the
participants on each side shared the same understanding and were less fruitful when this common view was
missing, to a certain extent at least. I might even say that one of the causes for the temporary interruption
of the sessions has been this diminished common understanding or expression of confessional insights on
each side. This leads me to the conclusion that preliminary thorough discussions between the commission
members participating in dialogue are a necessary condition for ecumenical rapprochement.
Closely related to the problem of preliminary discussions is that of commission members being well
informed about the positions defended by dialogue partners. As an Orthodox, for instance, it is necessary
for me to have a clear idea of the Reformed position on the topics, which are to be discussed in beforehand,
so that I can compare it with my own. This makes it possible to concentrate upon the accurateness of my
understanding during the dialogue session itself, to correct it where necessary and to seek more elements
of convergence than I might have originally expected.
I must confess that during the different dialogue sessions between the Orthodox and Reformed Churches I
participated in, including the last one, this preliminary understanding of the other’s position has almost never
been practiced, with one or two exceptions. One may argue that knowing the other’s theological arguments
might induce preconceived notions with regard to one’s dialogue partner, but I think that that the likelihood
of this happening is small as long as commission members are nominated according to criteria of a well
balanced personality, with enough communicatory experience.
An easy way of meeting this exigency might be the exchange of a minimal bibliography between the two
sides in dialogue, with the possibility of discussing what one side thinks about the theological position of
the other during those preliminary meetings I mentioned above.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Dorin Oancea 455

The Spiritual Dimension of the Dialogue

There exists a general agreement about necessity of making efforts to achieve Christian unity. Because the
Lord himself asked his disciples to experience unity as he does with the Father; and because the majority
of Christians did experience such a unity during a long part of their history. One may think that these are
good reasons for all participants in dialogues to do every possible effort to overcome apartness and achieve
unity. And they do a lot, but most of them not enough. After hundreds of years Christians belonging to
different traditions and denominations have got used to separation, they do not feel communion with the
other as an absolute imperative, necessary for their own communion with God. The necessity of unity
has become an important idea for Christians to grapple with, but not a reality to experience at all levels
of their lives.
A solid theology of alterity, based on the oikonomia of the Holy Spirit, connected with the oikonomia of
Jesus Christ, shows that I am able to experience communion with the Lord only through communion with the
other Christian, even though he might have a different denominational identity. Under these circumstances,
looking for communion with somebody belonging to a different Church means looking for communion with
the Lord. Theological dialogue becomes an askesis, one could even say, together with the late Orthodox
theologian of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Romanian background, André Scrima, that there is an askesis of
dialogue, of the encounter, and this means that we should try “to die for the other in order to resurrect together
with him, that we should become the other, that we should not be afraid of him and lack confidence in him”.8
From this point of view, during the dialogue sessions the participants in the dialogue between the Orthodox
and the Reformed should first of all look for spiritual growth by means of their communion in Christ through
the power of the Holy Spirit. I firmly believe that this is what the Lord himself expects from me, as an Orthodox
member of this ecumenical body. I have not paid enough attention to the life of my Reformed brothers, have
not been willing to understand well enough their communion with Christ the Lord in the Holy Spirit. I have
not been able to experience my own communion with Christ by means of my communion with this Reformed
partner in dialogue. With any partner in dialogue, irrespective of his/her denominational background. It is
high time for a change in this respect so that the theological dialogue itself becomes a way to experience my
communion with the Lord in the Holy Spirit.
As stated in the introduction to this analysis, when dealing with the theological dialogue between the Ortho-
dox Churches and the Reformed Churches, it has been our intention to consider some problems of theological
dialogues at a time when their effectiveness seized to be as obvious as it used to be. Having reflected upon
preliminaries, proceedings, achievements and shortcomings, we suddenly discover that these dialogues are
very much alive, that they go up and down, that they stop for a while, but not in order to give up but to prepare
a new start. We feel in this dynamics something that surpasses our human good will and gives substance and
perspective to our efforts. It is the Holy Spirit who drives us ahead and guides us towards a future when we
shall be able to experience our communion with Christ explicitly by deepening our mutual theological under-
standing and communion. Along this path, we shall experience important achievements on a theological and
human level, we shall be confronted with shortcomings originating in our sinful conditions, but in the end we
shall be able to praise the Almighty God who opens His heart for us in Christ the Lord through the Holy Spirit.

Bibliography

Ioniţă Viorel, The Vision of Unity in the Multilateral Dialogues and in the Bilateral Dialogues of the Orthodox
Churches with the Other Churches, Studii Teologice, Bucharest, series 3, year 4, no. 3, July-September
2008, p. 7-58.

8
André Scrima , Duhul Sfânt şi unitatea bisericii: “Jurnal” de conciliu, , Ed. Anastasia, Bucureşti, 2004. p.214.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
456 Chapter (73)

Khodr Georges, ‘Christianity in a Pluralistic World,’ first time published in the Ecumenical Review in 1971
and four years later in the WCC collective volume The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement.
Documents and Statements 1902 - 1975, World Council of Churches, Geneva 1978.
Oancea Dorin, ‘The Theological Bilateral Dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the World Alliance
of Reformed Churches. An Evaluation from an Orthodox Point of View,’ was published in the papers of
the Member Churches Consultation on Dialogues between Orthodox and other CEC Member Churches,
Reseptio 1/2009, pp.32-43.
‘Orthodox-Reformed international dialogue: convergences on the doctrine of the Church (1886-2005),’ Re-
formed World, Vol.57 (1), March 2007.
Scrima André, Duhul Sfânt şi unitatea bisericii: “Jurnal” de conciliu, , Ed. Anastasia, Bucureşti, 2004. p.214
Torrance Thomas F., Theological dialogue between orthodox and reformed churches, Clark Constable, Ed-
inburgh 1985.
WORLD COMMUNION OF REFORMED CHURCHES (WCRC) THE CONSTITUTION: http://www.wcrc.
ch/sites/default/files [accessed September 4, 2013].
Vachicouras Gary, Historical Survey on the International Bilateral Dialogues of the Orthodox Church, Orthodox
Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Chambésy/Geneva. Available online: http://www.deltapublicaciones.
com/derechoyreligion/gestor/archivos [accessed September 4, 2013].

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (74) ORTHODOX DIALOGUE WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Metropolitan Chrysostomos-Georges Savvatos

The official inauguration of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church
(Patmos-Rhodes, 1980) marked the transition from the “Dialogue of Charity,” (1960-1980) to the “Dialogue
on Truth” (1981). It builds on the decisions of the Third pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox conference (Geneva
1986) and the Official document of the Second Vatican Council “Unitatis Redintegratio” (1965). The official
theological dialogue in its present form differs from the past as regards both methodology and the conditions
of the unifying efforts. The unifying efforts at the earlier stage were characterized either by serving expedi-
ency of political power and ecclesiastical administration, or by the methods that were different from what the
canonical tradition of the Church.
The theological dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church at its present stage develops
on the following principle:
1. Equal terms for all its participants.
2. Altough the issues for discussions favour commonalities between the two Churches, they do not exclude
discussions on the topics, on which the two Churches have different views.
3. The discussions are confined to the first millennium before the schism 1054. They build on the common
traditions (theological, liturgical, and canonical) of the historically undivided Church.
4. The final word in reception of the common theological texts of the dialogue belongs only to the Churches,
not to their delegations to the dialogue.
The dialogue started with the discussions on the topics of ecclesiology: The identity of the Church (Munich,
1982), its relations with the Mysteries of the Church (Bari, 1987), and importance of sanctification and the
‘apostolic succession’ for the unity of the Church (New Valamo, 1988). Theological documents, which were
produced during these sessions, constituted theological basis for further discussions on issues in which the
two ecclesiastic traditions converged and diverged. For example, paragraphs 53 and 55 of the document of
New Valamo (1988) pointed out the primarily ecclesiological issue that differentiates the two Churches, the
primacy of the bishop of Rome.
Preparations for the 6th plenary session (1990), which was to discuss the issue ‘Ecclesiological and ca-
nonical conditions of the sacramental structure of the Church. Synodicity and authority in Church,’ were
impeded by the developments in the Eastern Europe, particularly reemergence of the proselytizing activity of
Unia. Those events modified agenda of the dialogue. At the beginning of the second decade of the dialogue,
the main subjects of the discussions were not ecclesiological, but political and inter-ecclesial: Unia and
proselytism. Both of them were rejected by the Orthodox as method and as ecclesiastical phenomena. They
were condemned as contrary to the principles of the Orthodox ecclesiology and the common theological
and ecclesiological tradition of the two Churches. It was agreed that Unia cannot be a model of the union
of the Churches.
The issues of Unia (Eastern Catholicism) and proselytism were discussed for the first time in New Valamo
(1988) and then exclusively during the meetings in Vienna (1990), Freising - Munich (1990), Ariccia (1991),
Balamand - Lebanon (1993), and Baltimore (USA) (2000). These meetings resulted in publication of the
document entitled: ‘The ecclesiological and normal effects of the Unia,’ which was not accepted by all the
Orthodox Churches.
Discussions on Unia and frictions between the Orthodox put the dialogue on hold from 2000 to 2005. During
this period, the two Churches had time to assess its results and to decide about its future. In the meantime, the
difficulties around Unia in the Eastern Europe and the Middle East aggravated. They caused anti-ecumenical
458 Chapter (74)

mood in some Orthodox Churches. Hyper-conservatism that grew on this grounds incured negative reception
of the dialogue. It questioned necessity of the dialogue and validity of the its common documents.
Five years of pause (2000-2005) helped the Churches to address these issues. Coordinated effort of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, and particularly its Orthodox co-chair Metropolitan John of Pergamon (Zizioulas)
reestablished consensus of all the Primates of the Orthodox Churches about continuation of the dialogue. The
Joint Theological Committee relaunched its work. It continued on the same principles that had been elaborated
in the document of Moscow (1990). Later on, they were more clarified by the Coordinating Committee in
Rome (2005) and during two plenary sessions in Belgrade (2006) and Ravenna (2007).
The document of Ravenna (2007) constituted continuity of the three previous documents (Munich 1982, Bari
1987, New Valamo 1988). It should not be considered an independent or autonomous theological document. It
expresses consensus of the Churches and at the same time reflects the ascertained or existing differences and
divergences. The subject of the document of Ravenna is ‘The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of
the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Ecclesiastical Communion, Synodality and Authority.’
The three previous texts discussed identity of the Church (Munich 1982: ‘The Mystery of the Church and
the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity’), the mystical structure of the Church (Bari
1987: ‘Faith, Sacraments and the Unity of the Church in the light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity’), and
importance of priesthood for the unity of the Church (New Valamo 1988: ‘The Sacrament of Order in the
Sacramental Structure of the Church, with particular Reference to the Importance of the Apostolic Succession
for the Sanctification and Unity of the People of God’). The document of Ravenna (2007) went further and
touched on the common tradition of the two Churches concerning the expressions of ecclesiastical unity, as
well as three-levels synodality (local, regional, and universal). Synodality was defined on the basis of the 34th
Apostolic canon. According to this canon, the first bishop of each church cannot act unless he has consent of
the other bishops. The document of Ravenna gave a solution to the issues regarding the relationship of prima-
cy and conciliarity at local and regional levels. At the same time, the role of the bishop of Rome as the ‘first’
among the Patriarchs on the universal level and in the frame of functioning of the seven Ecumenical Councils,
was left for further discussions.
This issue was considered by the plenary of the Joint Commission (Vienna 2010). The discussions con-
tinued at the meetings of the new Constitutional and coordination committee (Rethymno 2011, Rome 2011),
which worked according to the instructions from the Plenary Joint Theological Commission in Vienna. They
concentrated on the role of the bishop of Rome in the Church during the first millennium. The work of the
Joint Theological Commission for the Dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches
continues in the same vein.
It has been rightly pointed out that ‘the dialogue with the Roman Catholics will be definitively and irrevoca-
bly decided by the attitude of the Roman Catholics on the issue of Pope’s primacy’ and particularly by the way
they understand its function and its implementation on the universal level, in relation to the institutions of the
Patriarchs’ Pentarchy and the Ecumenical Council. The primacy of the bishop of Rome should be examined in
the context of the common tradition of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the canonical tradition of the Council
of Constantinople (879-880), and the decisions of the Councils of Pisa (1409), Constance (1414-1418), Basel
(1431-1442), and Trent (1545-1563). This will help determining a balanced outlook at the relations between
the bishop of Rome as Primate and the body of bishops on the universal level. Interpretations of primacy of
the bishop of Rome as political or superior to other Churches will put the theological dialogue on hold. For
the Orthodox Church, primacy is acceptable provided that it differs from any authoritarianism. It should be
understood as primacy of honour: first among equals - primus inter pares.
A second problem, which stays on the agenda of the dialogue is Uniatism. This issue interrupted the dialogue
during its second decade (1990-2000). It requires further examination in the context of the discussions on the
role of the bishop of Rome during the second millennium. At this point, the issue of the Unite Churches has
to do with their own ecclesiological self-understanding and their historical origins. The question is whether

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Chrysostomos-Georges Savvatos 459

these Churches accept their ecclesiological identity and how it can be grounded in the history of the undivided
Church. The text of Freising can provide a basis for the discussions on this issue.
Finally, the question remains about practical implementation of the texts of the dialogue, ‘whether the two
Churches want or are able to put into practice the joint decisions’ and the common texts. This problem remains
a concern not only for the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, but also for any
other bilateral theological dialogue, as well as the entire ecumenical movement. As regards the Orthodox - Ro-
man Catholic dialogue, its texts remain working papers. The process of their reception and approval by the two
Churches depends on the structural differences of these Churches. For the Orthodox, acception of the common
texts is a matter of the local Churches, which may have different positions. As for the Roman Catholic Church,
it often applies either the tactics of ‘prevention’ or ‘treatment’. Prior to the acception of common theological
texts, committees and official bodies of this Church circulate ‘interpretative guidelines’ or ‘interpretative
letters’, which ‘preventively’ suggest the content the text as it should be. The Roman Catholic Church can
also communicate its positions through papal encyclicals and decrees, which try to explain any theological
divergences on the principles of the First and Second Vatican Councils. In the theological dialogue between
the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, there will always be problems, but we should not forget that
we are involved in a dialogue ‘for the sake of truth’ and we cannot do anything ‘against truth’ (2 Cor 13:8).

Bibliography

Catholiques et Orthodoxes. Les enjeux de l’uniatisme dans le sillage de Balamand. Documents d’Eglise, Comité
mixte Catholique – Orthodoxe en France, Paris 2004.
Vl. Pheidas, Presupposes fontamentaux pour un dialogue thédogipus officiel entre l’Eglise Orthodoxe et
l’Eglise Roman, Vienna 1976.
W. Kasper (ed). Il ministero petrino. Cattolici e Orthodossi in dialogo, Citta Nuova-Roma 2004.
Gr. Liantas, Inter-Orthodox Diaconate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece and the
contribution of the two Churches in the bilateral theological dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church
and the Church of Palaiokatholikon, Thessaloniki 2005 (in Greek).
Chrysostomos Savvatos, The papal primacy in the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics,
Athens 2006 (in Greek).
Idem, The problem of the ecclesiastical acceptance of the joint texts of the Theological Dialogue between the
Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church, Athens 2008 (in Greek).

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
 (75) ORTHODOX DIALOGUE WITH THE ANGLICAN CHURCH

Bogdan Lubardić

1. History and legacy

The official and unofficial relations between the Anglican and Orthodox Church, complex as they are, may
be paradigmatically displayed by the work and results of the International Commission for Anglican-Ortho-
dox Theological Dialogue (ICAOTD, the Commission, the Dialogue). Although specific in its own right, the
Commission is a reflection of the long history of relations forged by the two Churches. The points of departure
for the establishment of the mentioned relations may be sought in various historical events, not excluding
the ecclesial and theological goals these events presuppose. These may be seen in the establishment, say, of
the “Greek College” in Oxford (1699–1705); in the 19th-century Anglican missions to traditional Orthodox
countries and vice versa; and the establishment of Anglican jurisdictions in Orthodox territories; in the mutual
engagements during the 20th-century1 – with their specific forms and contents that emerged before and after the
two Great wars (e.g. the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association established in 1919, the ground-breaking
Lambeth Conference of 19202, the arrival of Greek and Russian émigrés in England and the establishment of
the Fellowship of St Albans and St Sergius since 1928 or, say, the Anglican-Orthodox Conference in Bucharest
1935 etc); and in other multifarious Anglican-Orthodox ecumenical events leading to the immediate present.
In fact, the continuous interest of both Churches in the fundamentals of Christian life and doctrine – in liv-
ing and re-living the sources (pegai) – does show that the point of departure is the Church itself: its history,
teaching and tradition.
However, the inception of the Commission proper is a relatively recent event. It stems from the initiatives
taken by both sides during the 1960s. The setting up of the Commission – which was initially named as the
Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions (AOJDD), renamed as ICAOTD in 1990 at New Valamo –
came to fruition officially in 1966. The key figures responsible for this remarkable event are the Archbishop
of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, and the Ecumenical Patriarch, Athenagoras I of Constantinople. After
the talks between the two distinguished primates of our Churches, in 1962, the initiative to resume dialogue
was backed in 1964 by the Third Pan-Orthodox Conference at Rhodes. This was subsequently ratified by all
the Orthodox Churches. A century3 of prolonged official effort thus came to be summarized and reopened in
view of hope for reaching reunion between the two Churches. As Archbishop Basil of Brussels, an eminent
member of the AOJDD, notably remarked: “... the aim of our Dialogue is that we may eventually be visibly
united in one Church” (AOD v). This has its corollary in the Lambeth Conference 1978 Resolution 35:2 which
affirms that the aim is “... to explore the fundamental questions of doctrinal agreement and disagreement of
our Churches” (AOD 3).
The Dialogue then entered a succession of organizational and theological stages. A series of changes regard-
ing form and method followed suit. The main stages may be listed as follows: (1) the inceptive stage 1962–66
(i.e. the negotiations on resuming dialogue); (2) the preparatory stage 1966–72 (characterized by the fact that
1
Colin Davey. (1977) Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue 1920-1976. In: K. Ware and C. Davey (eds.), Anglican Orthodox
Dialogue: The Moscow Agreed Statement, SPCK, London, pp. 4-36.
2
Of special importance is Resolution 9 of this Lambeth Conference regarding Christian reunion.
3
The Eastern Churches Association was founded in 1864. The latter then merged with the Anglican and Eastern Churches
Union (founded in 1906) which in 1914 evolved into the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association.
Bogdan Lubardic 461

the Anglican and Orthodox Commissions met separately); (3) the first series of joint conversations 1973–76
(these were discussions dedicated to the articulation and understanding of set theological topics): the latter
resulted in the first agreed statement of the two Churches, namely The Moscow Agreed Statement (MAS 1976);
(4) the second series of joint conversations 1976–84, with a particular interim “crisis period” 1976–78: these
led to the second agreed statement, namely The Dublin Agreed Statement (DAS 1984); (5) the third series of
joint conversations 1984–2006, again coupled with a “tense and fractious”4 period (1984–89) followed by a
“turning” point in 1990: these gave fruition in the third agreed statement, namely The Cyprus Agreed State-
ment (CAS 2006); (6) finally, the Dialogue is currently in its most recent stage, i.e. the fourth series of joint
conversations, inaugurated as such in 2009, with the aim of reaching yet another agreed statement. Hence,
in the post-60s era the Dialogue produced three officially accepted statements on the views that the Anglican
and Orthodox Churches share regarding substantial matters of Christian and ecclesial identity, the prospects
for reunion notwithstanding.

2. The Agreed Statements

If pressed for a succinct statement recapitulating the positive side of the results achieved in the Agreed statements
mentioned, we could declare the following. Namely, a doubtlessly significant quality of mutual agreement
was reached regarding the pivotal points of our common Christian heritage and ecclesial identity. That is to
say, agreement on the:
1) knowledge of God in its trinitarian and ecclesial context (note: although the Orthodox stressed that the
energies of God are “God himself in his self-manifestation” and, moreover, that it is through these that humanity
may participate in God’s divine love, on the way of “divinization by grace” in and through the Church, the
Anglicans – while not rejecting this doctrine – cautioned that this language may be misleading and dangerous
[MAS 50]);
2) inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture;
3) Scripture and Tradition (note: it was concluded that the relation between the two is intrinsic and correl-
ative, yet the priority of the former was emphasized);
4) authority of the Ecumenical Councils (note: it was stated that the Anglican members of the Dialogue place
more emphasis on the first four Councils, and believe that “an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths” can be applied
to the decisions of the Councils [MAS 53]; this was challenged by the Orthodox on the basis of the unity of
faith as a whole; as to the Seventh Council, the Anglicans accept it as a defence of the doctrine of Incarnation,
and they agree that the veneration of icons is not problematic, however, they do not hold the view that it can
be required of all Christians);
5) Filioque clause (note: both sides agree that this clause should not be included in the Niceno-Constantino-
politan Creed [381], one of the reasons being that it was introduced without due catholic consent and without
the authority of an Ecumenical Council [MAS 54-55]; however, under certain conditions it may be regarded as
a theologoumenon of the Church, viz. St Maximus’s interpretation of the view of St Augustine on this matter,
and Bolotov’s view on the matter as such [DAS 26-27]);
6) Church as the eucharistic community; and
7) invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist (note: the Orthodox found it necessary to stress that the
“... deepest understanding of the hallowing of the elements rejects any theory of consecration by formula*...”
[MAS 57]).
All of these topics were gathered, discussed and then (mostly) agreed upon in the Moscow Agreed State-
ment. The ensuing Dublin and Cyprus agreed statements respectively may be regarded as further explications
4
William B. Green. (2006) The Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue and its Future. In: Peter M. Doll, ed., Anglicanism and Or-
thodoxy: 300 years after the “Greek College” in Oxford. Peter Lang, Oxford, p. 383 = abbr. G.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
462 Chapter (75)

and developments of the issues implicit and explicit in the Moscow statement. The Dublin Agreed Statement
(1984) focused on the following main topics: (1) The Mystery of the Church, (2) Faith in the Trinity and
(3) Worship and Tradition. As Canon Hugh Wybrew (a member of the dialogue since its inception) sum-
marized: “Remarkable agreements were registered in the first section on the mystery of the Church, whose
title was itself significant. There was much agreement on the nature of the Church, on the importance of
the local church, and on the nature of wider leadership within the Church. Anglicans and Orthodox agreed
in rejecting the Roman claim to universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility. There was agreement too on
the witness and evangelism as aspects and worship”5. The Cyprus Agreed Statement (2006) paid special
heed to the following: (1) The Trinity and the Church, (2) Christ, the Spirit and the Church, (3, 4) Christ,
Humanity and the Church, part 1 and 2, (5) Episcope, Episcopos and Primacy, (6) Priesthood, Christ and
the Church, (7) Women and Men, Ministries in the Church, (8) Heresy, Schism and the Church, and (9)
Reception in Communion.
Apart from further grounding the understanding of God as Trinity within an explicitly eucharistic context
of the living Church, with the Christological and pneumatological dimensions clearly accentuated, the Cyprus
statement is specific by its noteworthy reflection on the nature and effects of reception (CAS 98), particularly
in view of its two aspects: namely, the Church receives (the divine love of God) and the Church is received
(as the salvific event and content of our faith). That having been said, probably the most crucial aspect of the
Cyprus document, as Canon Jonathan Goodall remarked, is that “... it was conceived as a means of setting the
issue of the ordination of women in the context of all the key theological and ecclesiological considerations
that might give the Churches best perspective on what kind of question it was and whether disagreement was
(a) sufficient to require our continued sacramental separation and (b) whether the degree of agreement afforded
any opportunities to grow closer together, despite the apparent blockage at a ‘later’ stage”6. As the Archbishop
of Canterbury Rowan Williams said at the press conference for Cyprus report at Lambeth in January 2007:
“Based firmly on the scriptures and the Church’s tradition, the report has returned to the wellsprings of faith, to
take a long run up to the present problems between the Churches”. At the same press conference the Orthodox
co-chairman of the ICAOTD, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, said:
Neither side on the Commission had been convinced by the other’s reasons on women’s ordination. The
Orthodox are not convinced that the reasons for the ordination of women given from the Anglican side are really
so serious and so important as to lead to this change which is, as we all know, an innovation in the tradition.
Ordination added nothing essential to women’s status. These topics [women’s ordination and homosexuality]
must be handled with the utmost care so they don’t become irremovable obstacles to our communion.
In short, apart from the thorny issues cited, especially during the 1973–76 and 1990–2006 period, the
discussions revealed and affirmed, somewhat unexpectedly, a significant quality of agreement on some of the
essential aspects of our common Christian identity. This sentiment was strongly affirmed by Metropolitan John
of Pergamon (who served as Co-Chairman from 1989 till 2007, having succeeded Archbishop Methodios of
Thyateira and Britain). It was Canon William B. Green who conveyed the promising words of Metropolitan
John in relation to the Agreed statements (MAS, DAS). As the Metropolitan stated, the agreed statements are
“... a mine of theological reflection which shows the extent to which the two Churches share a common faith
in spite of their differences on many points” (G 386). But although agreement on some or many essential
instances of doctrine is a necessary condition for reunion it is not a sufficient condition for reunion. Bearing
all of this in mind, and not detracting from the positive results, nevertheless, we should make a note of the
fact that the Dialogue and the work of the Commission were troubled by certain considerable problems and
challenges. Shedding light on these will help us to further articulate both the positive and negative sides of
the joint effort.
5
Hugh Wybrew. (2008) Anglican-Orthodox and Anglican-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue. Theoforum 39.2, pp.
217-233 = abbr. W.
6
Shared in an email to the author, dated 15 July 2012.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Bogdan Lubardic 463

3. Problems, tensions, breakthroughs

Perhaps the most divisive event, as regarded by the Orthodox members of the Dialogue, was Lambeth Con-
ference’s Resolution 21 passed in 1978 on the ordination of women. Coupled to this, although as a somewhat
later happening, was the possibility in the North American Anglican provinces (in the US and Canada) of the
liturgical blessing or ordination of persons in same-sex unions. The immediate reaction to the former was
expressed by the Orthodox Co-Chairman Athenagoras I: “... the theological dialogue will continue, although
now simply as an academic and informative exercise, and no longer as an ecclesial endeavour aiming at the
union of the two churches” (AOD 3; G 382). The reaction was intense enough to warrant a particular meeting
of the Commission in Athens (Monastery Pendeli 1978) dedicated solely to this burning issue (pro et contra
arguments from both sides—reserved and dissenting Anglicans notwithstanding—were included in the Athens
Report 1978 [AOD Appendix 2]). These problems, which demonstrably threaten to fracture permanently the
ecclesial unity of the Anglican Communion itself, continue also to disturb Anglican-Orthodox relations to the
present day. The case of the Episcopal Church in the US, e.g. its unilateral affirmative decisions on same-sex
marriage and/or homosexuality since 2003, presents a vivid illustration of this problem.
The immediate effects of this development seemed to bear a rather negative outcome. Namely, in view of
the new circumstances, it was suggested that “professors only” should take part in the Dialogue, without the
higher clergy. However, after the initial “shock”, which combined dismay and revolt, it was soon grasped
that this need not be the case. Presently both the clergy and lay people take part in the Commission’s work,
including ordained Anglican women (e.g. Dn Christine Hall, and others). In fact, a new and deeper under-
standing of the nature, status and standing of the Dialogue itself was attained. In 1979 the Steering committee
of the AOJDD decided that the Full Commission should persist in its work. Therefore, we may summarize
the overall results of these processes as follows: (1) it was understood that the Commission is “not required to
solve outstanding problems […] as a condition of continuing the dialogue” (AOD 5); (2) it was understood,
although painfully, that the goal of full visible union of the two Churches is not to be expected as something
granted or as something that awaits us in the near future; and, nevertheless, (3) it was understood that since
the Dialogue remains extremely valuable and substantial, new methods of work and reflection need to be
conceptualized and procured. That is:
The ultimate aim remains the unity of the two Churches. But the method may need to change in order to
emphasise the pastoral and practical dimensions of the subjects of theological discussions. Our conversations
are concerned with the search for a unity in faith. They are not negotiations for immediate full communion.
When this is understood the discovery of differences on various matters, though distressing, will be seen as a
necessary step on the long road toward that unity which God wills for his Church (AOD 3).
Consequently, by virtue of the growing communal self-awareness, experience and maturity of the members of
the Dialogue, qualitatively different levels of the “stages” of the Dialogue as such emerged: (1) the first stage, or
what we might call the preparatory or propedeutical stage7 of “exploring each other’s faith and seeking co-op-
eration in mission and service” (AOD 5), and (2) the second stage, or what we might call the final or reunional
stage culminating in the hoped for consummation of full, visible and proper inter-communional unity. Needless
to say, all the stages the Dialogue has gone through so far fall under the rubric of the former – propedeutical
or preparatory stage (which is an era in its own right). Interestingly enough, and somewhat ironically, one of
the areas of considerable rapprochement between the two Churches, attained before the Second World War, in
the 1920s8, was covered by the willingness of the Orthodox to acknowledge the Anglican clerical orders and
7
See: Anglican Consultative Council 1982 Consultation: Unity by Stages, Section III (a). Note: the Orthodox still reject any
notion of this gradual growth through and by stages if this is meant to include any form of sacramental inter-communion.
However, perhaps it would be truer to say that Anglicans, in fact, do not believe in sacramental communion by stages: but
they do believe in ecclesial reconciliation and doctrinal affirmation by stages.
8
Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1920. In: Constantine G. Patelos, ed. (1978) The Orthodox Church in the
Ecumenical Movement, WCC, Geneva, pp. 40-43.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
464 Chapter (75)

ordination as expressions of authentic apostolic succession and ecclesial continuity. (А paradigmatic illustra-
tion of this is the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision, inaugurated on 28 July 1922, followed by the Church of
Cyprus and patriarchates of Jerusalem [1923], Alexandria [1930] and Romania [1936], to recognize that the rite
of ordination [hierothesia] of the Anglican clergy and the apostolic succession of Anglican bishops – have “the
same validity as those of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Churches...”. In all truth, this decision soon
met with opposition from other Orthodox churches and parties concerned, i.e. the Karlovci Synod 1935, the
Moscow Conference 1948. In other words, it was never raised to a level of pan-Orthodox official approval. It
seems that this favourable “agreement” is now even more remote, not least due to the aforementioned burning
issues [even in 1922 the decision was conditioned by the expectation that Anglicans would become “fully”
Orthodox in faith and substance, so as to make the decision valid in practice]). Still, in time, the Anglican-Or-
thodox dialogue has made other significant gains both in terms of the topical agreements listed previously and
in terms of a new understanding of the goals and method themselves of the Dialogue.

4. Current challenges and future prospects

This new understanding may be seen as the emergence of a wholly new way of existence and operation of the
ICAOTD, or Dialogue as such, prospects of which started to germinate in the post-Valamo 1990 period, leading
to the present. We have moved from “wintry” and rather pessimistic – at times tumultuous – spells (especially
after the events in 1977–78, and 1985–89) to more joyous and rather optimistic “summery” spells (especially
after the meeting in New Valamo 1990, and during the fourth series of talks, commenced in Chania, Crete
in 2009). As William Green had helped us to learn: before, in the pre-1990 period, as Bishop Max Thomas
testified, it was “... as if each side had its massive filing system and when asked questions of one another,
each goes into the relevant file and reveals its contents to the other” (G 393); yet now, in the post-1996 period
it is different, as John Riches memorably put it: “... it is a conversation of delight and illumination. Like all
true conversations, it has had its moments of surprise and strangeness. […] But then it is good to be drawn
into a conversation which engages in profound and sustained reflection on what it is that makes the Church
the Church and to affirm, against all the appearances and signs of old age, the hidden life of the Trinity at the
heart of our communities...” (G 393).
These words were stated in the paper Riches offered at the meeting in Llandaff (1996). In the meanwhile
the Dialogue passed the Cyprus statement and, since the meeting in Crete in 2009, embarked on the men-
tioned fourth series of joint conversations – addressing the hugely important topic of Christian anthropology,
or, what it is to be a human being in Christ?9 This topic was already touched upon in the previous work of
the Commission (e.g. DAS 9, 24, 26, 32; or Section 7 of CAS pp. 82-88). However, now the meaning of the
human being – as created in the “image and likeness“ of God – is at the centre of all discussions. This means
that the next Agreed statement, which has entered its early drafting stage, will be dedicated to Anglo-Orthodox
Christian anthropology, geared to address many old and new burning issues which affect our shared humanity
in Christ, not least both our fallen and redeemed effects on the political-economic, cultural-social, scientific
and cosmic environment, etc.
As in previous phases and periods, the newest series of talks have revealed how the Christian traditions of
East and West, both spiritually and theologically, both ecclesially and academically, do come together for the
betterment of both sides of one faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The Orthodox, for example, have been thankful
for being exposed to the phenomenon of the plurality of the Anglican schools of theological and ecclesio-
logical commitment and political engagement. On the other side (respect to Anglican theology granted), the
comprehensiveness of Anglicanism, the ambiguity of its doctrinal formularies, and the varied interpretations
they receive, remain a sizeable problem for the Orthodox (and, on occasions, they are reserved to what some
9
Duncan Reid. (2011) Discussion of Theological Anthropology by The International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox
Theological Dialogue. International Journal of Orthodox Theology 2.4, pp. 21-29.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Bogdan Lubardic 465

of them think might be a potentially harmful theological liberalism); the Anglicans, for their part, have been
appreciative for gaining insight into the balance between the deep spirituality or theological finesse of the
Orthodox tradition and its catholic ecclesial expression (yet, on occasions, apart from viewing the Orthodox
as tied to an apologetic and somewhat rigid conservatism, as “exclusivist”, they have voiced their objections
regarding what some of them deem to be a deficit of Orthodox engagement, say, with scriptural theology and
hermeneutics, with the role of reason, as well as with political and social affairs and the rights and freedoms
of individuals). Therefore, it is deeply significant that the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, Fr. Cyril
Hovorun, holds a view, which is intrinsically analogous to the spirit of the aforementioned words of John
Riches. As Hovorun put it:
At the preliminary stage of the dialogue, between 1966 and 1972, when Orthodox and Anglicans met sep-
arately and shaped agenda for their discussions, one can see from the protocols of the meetings, how many
stereotypes both sides had about each other. Then, when the first joint meeting took place in Oxford in 1973 and
afterwards, it was interesting to see how both sides started getting rid of those stereotypes. Both sides realized
that they need to learn much more about each other. Thus the dialogue turned into a process of learning. This
process is continuing now. We still discover treasures in the traditions of each other. It means that our traditions
are inexhaustible. When we realize this, it brings us to respecting each other even more. Learning and mutual
respect are probably the most important achievements of the dialogue.10
Still, and in contrast, the hard fact remains that the hotly debated issues, say, of the ordination of women or
same-sex marriage, and others too, in the final count tend to fade in light of the one and most essential point
of divergence between the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Church. Namely, it seems that most, if not
all Orthodox participating in the Dialogue recur to the standpoint that it is the Orthodox Church which is the
Church proper. The more collegial tone, the new understanding of the nature of the Dialogue, reached in recent
times, has not been a sufficient tool (nor should it be) to overcome this fundamental point of division. This has
been recognized by both sides. For instance, Wybrew is frank and true to the matter when he says that “These
agreements, however, were necessarily coupled with a recognition that while Anglicans and Orthodox might
broadly agree on the nature of the Church, they differ as to where* the Church is to be found. Anglicans ‘do
not believe that they alone are the one true Church, but they believe that they belong to it.11 Orthodox how-
ever believe that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church of Christ, which as his Body is not and cannot
be divided” (W op. cit; also cf. G 392-393). Not avoiding tough talk and clear words, nevertheless, there is
no doubt that we speak a common mind when we conclude that – in avoiding the confessionalist extremes of
zealotic denial, of all colour and flavour – we remain together in dialogue, mutual respect and prayerful Chris-
tian love. We thus extend our bone naked solidarity to each other as a token of belief that it is God’s will that
we do become one having all things in common (Acts 2:44). Henceforth, against shadows of despondency, if
such might arise, the Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue will proceed carefully and discerningly – guided by faith,
sustained by hope that God will work his miracle of unity in the one Christ by the Spirit.

Abbreviations

AOD = Henry Hill, Methodios of Thyateira, eds. (1985) Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed
Statement. SVSP, Crestwood, NY
AOJDD = Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions
DAS = The Dublin Agreed Statement
10
Shared in an email to the author, dated 9 July 2012.
11
Or, updating Wybrew’s statement, let us quote the most recent formulation—the Anglican Communion Covenant,
currently in process of reception across the Communion (article 1.1.1)—each autonomous province of the Communion
solemnly “affirms its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit”.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
466 Chapter (75)

CAS = The Cyprus Agreed Statement

ICAOTD = International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue
G = Green, W. B. (2006) The Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue and its Future
MAS = The Moscow Agreed Statement
W = Wybrew, H. (2008) Anglican-Orthodox and Anglican-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue

Bibliography

Ware, K., Davey, C. eds. (1977) Anglican Orthodox Dialogue: The Moscow Agreed Statement, SPCK, London
= The Moscow Agreed Statement 1976 (in AOD, pp. 50-57).
Hill, H., Methodios of Thyateira, eds. (1985) Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement.
SVSP, Crestwood, NY.
ICAOTD (2006). The Cyprus Agreed Statement. The Anglican Communion Office, London.
Wybrew, H. (2008) Anglican-Orthodox and Anglican-Roman Catholic Theological Dialogue, Theoforum 39.2.
Doll, P. M. ed. (2006) Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: 300 years after the “Greek College” in Oxford. Peter
Lang, Oxford.
Green, W. B. (2006) The Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue and its Future. In: Peter M. Doll, ed., op. cit.
Miller, E. C. (1984) Toward a Fuller Vision: Orthodoxy and the Anglican Experience, Morehouse-Barlow
Co., Wilton CT.
Fouyas, M. (1972) Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. Oxford University Press, London.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (76) ORTHODOX DIALOGUE WITH THE OLD CATHOLICS CHURCH

Ioan Vasile Leb

It is a well known fact that the Old Catholic Church was born as a reaction to the new papal dogmas introduced
by the Council of Vatican I in 1870: papal infallibility and the jurisdictional primacy of the Bishop of Rome, by
which he considered himself the leader of the entire Christian world and the last instance of appeal.1 The opponents
who refused to accept these dogmatic innovations formed a separate Church, keeping the Catholic fundaments and
eliminating the novelties, becoming a ‘Catholicism without Rome.’2 Having adopted the expression of Vincent of
Lerin: ‘Id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est’3 as their fundamental principle,
the Old Catholics considered themselves a bridge between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As early as the Congress
of Munich, of September 22–24 1871, they expressed their hope for a reunification with the Eastern Greek and
Russian Churches, ‘whose separation was operated without sound reasons and is not based on any dogmatic dif-
ference that cannot be overcome.’4 Furthermore, they also took the Anglicans and Protestants into consideration
and in short time the first meeting of these denominations’ representatives was held in Bonn in 1874.
Despite all the difficulties they were facing – as the Old Catholics had just formed a distinct Church – their
relations with the Orthodox Church in view of their reunification were a constant priority in their ecumenical
strategy. For them the Orthodoxy was the assurance and support they needed to attain their goal. In its turn, the
Orthodox Church manifested a keen interest in the Old Catholics, from the very beginning, as it saw in them
the key to the virtual reestablishment of the Old Undivided Church in the West. The Orthodox-Old Catholic
relationships had a positive influence on both sides. On the one hand, the Old Catholics found support from
the Orthodox, whereas on the other hand, the Orthodox were determined to have more intense discussions
with the Western theologians and to study their teachings of faith in detail. The result of this relationship was
a theological work produced by the Old Catholics, as well as by the Greek, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian,
Serb, Czech, Polish, Finnish and, lately, the American Orthodox.
Seen from the point of view of the commitment of the two Churches, the history of the effort put into their
dialogue can be divided into two great phases, namely an unofficial and an official one. Chronologically, there
are four periods to be discerned in the history of this dialogue that are more or less clearly outlined:

The first period (1871-1888)

This was a period for explorations that was later marked by the union conferences held in Bonn, from 1874 to
1875, summoned and presided by the great historian and theologian Ignaz von Döllinger.5 In 1872, he had held
1
J. Fr. von Schulte, Der Altkatholizismus, (Giessen, 1885, reed. Aalen, 1965); Urs Küry, Die altkatholische Kirche. Ihre
Geschichte, ihre Lehre, ihr Anliegen, in col. Die Kirchen der Welt, Bd. III, Evangelisches Verlagswerk Stuttgart, 1966;
Ioan-Vasile Leb, Ortodoxie şi vechi-catolicism sau ecumenism înainte de Mişcarea Ecumenică (Orthodoxy and Old-Ca-
tholicism or ecumenism before the Ecumenical Movement), PUC, Cluj-Napoca, 1996.
2
Victor Conzemius, Katholizismus ohne Rom. Die altkatholische Kirchengemeinschaft, Benziger Verlag, Zürich, Einsie-
deln, Köln, 1969.
3
Gerhard Rauschen, Des heiligen Vinzenz von Lerin Commonitorium, in ‘Bibliothek der Kirchenväter‘ (BKV), Bd.XX, p.
19 and p. 9, note 1; Marinus Kok, Vincenz von Lerinum und sein Commonitorium, in ‘Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift‘
(IKZ), 52, 1962, p. 75–85.
4
I.V. Leb, Ortodoxie şi vechi-catolicism, p. 19.
5
J. Finsterhölzl, Ignaz von Döllinger, Styria Verlag, Graz, Wien, Köln, 1969; Peter Neuner, Döllinger als Theologe der
Ökumene, Paderborn, München, 1979.
468 Chapter (76)

his famous speeches in Munich On the reunification of the Christian Churches, which had a great echo in all
the contemporary milieus.6 Old Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Protestants theologians participated in the
Bonn conferences without having an official commission from their churches. The topics of the discussions
were a number of innovations in the ecclesiastical teachings and practices that the Roman Catholic Church
had initiated, as well as some highly controversial issues that the Western Churches had had to deal with ever
since the Reformation. These issues had to be settled in the spirit of the Tradition of the early Church. As a
result of these deliberations held during the first Bonn conference of 1874, the Orthodox, the Anglicans and
the Old Catholics agreed upon the following points: 1) the Holy Scripture and the Tradition; 2) the rejection
of the ‘immaculate conception’; 3) the confession of sins; 4) the penances; 5) the prayer for the dead and 6)
the Holy Eucharist.7
During the same conference the Old Catholics proposed the adoption of yet another thesis, which stated
that it should be acknowledged that the English Church and the churches born from it have kept an unbroken
apostolic succession. However, the Orthodox responded that they could not accept this because they did not
possess sufficient information in this matter. Finally, the thesis on the veneration of the saints was withdrawn
because the Orthodox and the Old Catholics had different views, the latter believing that invoking the saints
was not compulsory to every Christian.8
Although no accord was reached on all the points put forward, this first conference was a promising start.
There was no agreement on the issues of Filioque and papal primacy either, a fact attesting to the inability of
the westerners of those times to abandon the old Catholic tradition in which they had been formed. Because
even though they agreed on eliminating the Filioque from the Credo, they did not forgo the Catholic under-
standing of Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the Orthodox manifested their conviction that the teaching of
their Church was that which had always been preached by the Church and that they did not wish to make any
compromises in this matter; for this reason the efforts had to be carried on by arranging new debates in view
of reaching a full accord.9
The second union conference of Bonn held between August 10th and 16th 1875, dealt chiefly with the issue of
Filioque10. Based on the teachings of Saint John of Damascus, the discussions resulted in the following theses:
1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as from a unique principle and cause of the Godhead. 2. The Holy
Spirit does not proceed from the Son because within the Holy Trinity there is only one principle, one cause,
by which all that is within the Godhead is being made manifest. 3. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
by the Son. 4. The Holy Spirit is the image of the Son, who is the image of the Father, proceeding from the
Father and abiding with the Son, as his resplendent power. 5. The Holy Spirit is personally born from the Father,
belongs to the Son, yet he is not from the Son, as he is the Spirit of God’s mouth, who expresses the Word. 6.
The Holy Spirit is the intercessor between the Father and the Son and is connected to the Father through the
Son.11 Although the proceedings should have also addressed the questions on the Anglican ordinations and
the Purgatory, these issues were not discussed.12 In spite of all this, the two conferences made extraordinary
progress, considering those times and the circumstances under which the debates had been held. Although
the results of these discussions did not have the desired impact, they did point the direction in which the Old
6
Ignaz von Döllinger, Über die Wiedervereinigung der christlichen Kirchen. Sieben Vorträge, gehalten zu München im
Jahr 1872, Nördlingen, 1888. Soon these speeches were translated into English (1872) and French (1880).
7
Friedrich Heinrich Reusch, Bericht über die am 14., 15. und 16. September zu Bonn gehaltenen Unionskonferenzen. Im
Auftrage des Vorsitzenden Dr. von Döllinger, Bonn, 1874, p. 33–50 (B.I.); I.V. Leb, Ortodoxie şi vechi-catolicism, p.35-36.
8
B.I., p.34-50.
9
I.V. Leb, Ortodoxie şi vechi-catolicism, p.36-37.
10
Ibidem, p.40 and F.H. Reusch, Bericht über die vom 10. bis 16. August zu Bonn gehaltenen Unionskonferenzen, im Auf-
trage des Vorsitzenden Dr. von Döllinger, Bonn, 1875 (B.II); Urs Küry, Die altkatholische Kirche, p.462-465; Harald Rein,
Kirchengemeinschaft. Band 2: Die orthodox-altkatholischen Beziehungen, Peter Lang, Bern, 1994, p. 69-203.
11
I.V. Leb, op.cit., p. 45-46.
12
B.II, p.94-96.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Vasile Leb 469

Catholics had to channel their ecumenical endeavours, particularly turning to the teachings of the ancient,
undivided Church.13 Nevertheless, it seems that this criterion employed by the Old Catholics both in their talks
with the Anglicans as well as with the Orthodox, provided them with varying results.14

The second phase (1889-1919)

This phase marks the beginning of the official dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old
Catholic Churches belonging to the Utrecht Union established in 1889 by a decision of the bishops of Holland,
Germany and Switzerland, who were joined shortly thereafter by the vicar bishop of Austria.15 This dialogue
was lead by two commissions: The Commission of Sankt Petersburg designated in 1893 by the Holy Synod
and The Commission of Rotterdam, established in 1894 by the International Conference of the Old Catholic
Bishops (IBK). The two commissions have never met in a joined session, but did have an exchange of reports
between 1894 and 1913, four of which had been drafted by the Orthodox, and three by the Old Catholics.16
These documents repeatedly debated the issue of Filioque, deemed a theologumenon that did not stand in the
way of achieving ecclesiastic unity, the terminology concerning the transformation of the Eucharistic Gifts
and the statute of the Utrecht hierarchy from which the other Old Catholic churches and bishops received the
apostolic succession. The last report of the Sankt Petersburg Commission considered, at that time, that the
explanations provided thus far by the Old Catholics were sufficient elements for an agreement between the
two churches. The Russian commission also expressed its belief that in its report there were not any point that
the Old Catholics might consider hard to accept or that were inconsistent with the previously made declara-
tions. The outbreak of the World War I and the subsequent establishment of the Bolshevik regime in Moscow
impeded on the discussions from being continued any further. The task of reinitiating the dialogue now rested
with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which carried it out remarkably.17 It should be noted that during this period
a special contribution was brought by the International Old Catholic Congress, from 1890 onwards, and from
1893 by Revue Internationale de Théologie, which in 1911 became Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift (IKZ),
published to this day.

The third phase (1920-1960)

The third phase bore the mark of the effort that the Ecumenical Patriarchate made to re-launch the dialogue in
view of recreating the Orthodox-Old Catholic communion. The first step in this enterprise was the publication
of the Synodal Encyclical of the Church of Constantinople to all the Churches of Christ in January 1920.18
13
I.V. Leb, op.cit., p. 29.
14
Urs von Arx, Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte des orthodox-altkatholischen Dialogs, in Koinonia auf altkirchlicher
Basis, Bern, 1989, Beiheft zur IKZ, 79 Jahrg (1989), 4 Heft, p.13. (We have borrowed this structure from Urs von Arx).
15
Nowadays the Utrecht Union reunites the bishops of the Old Catholic Churches in Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Aus-
tria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, USA, Canada, Poland, and Croatia/Yugoslavia. - Cf. Urs von Arx, Kurze Einführung,
p.14, note 6.
16
Here they are in chronological order: 1893/1894 - 1. The report of the Sankt Petersburg Commission; 1896 - 2. The re-
port of the Rotterdam Commission; 1897 - 3. The report of the Sankt Petersburg Commission; 1898 - 4. The report of the
Rotterdam Commission; 1907- 5. The report of the Sankt Petersburg Commission; 1908 - 6. The report of the Rotterdam
Commission; 1912/1913 - 7. The report of the Sankt Petersburg Commission. See ‘Revue Internationale de Theologie’
(RITh), 5 (1897), p.1-7 and (1899), p.1-11; U.Küry, Die letzte Antwort der orthodoxen Petersburger Kommission an die
altkatholische Rotterdamer Kommission, IKZ, 58 (1968), p.29-44.
17
I.V. Leb, op.cit., p. 48-65.
18
Gennadios Zervos, Il contributo del Patriarcato ecumenico per l’unità dei cristiani (The contribution of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate to the unity of the Christians), Roma, 1974, p.33-37.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
470 Chapter (76)

Focusing on accomplishing a koinonia among the churches, the letter proposed an 11 points programme. There
are three sides to its importance:
1. The Church of Constantinople was the first Church to suggest the creation of a permanent association
or Council of Churches. 2. The letter was addressed to all the Churches, which are ‘coheirs and members of
the same body and equal partakers of Christ’s promise’ (Eph 3:6). This clearly showed that the Ecumenical
Patriarchate was open towards all the Churches of the world. 3. The Church of Constantinople announced a
principle of cooperation between the Churches which may open the way for their reunification. This became
the fundamental principle of the Ecumenical Movement.19 This principle allowed the Orthodox to enjoy a
substantial participation in the ecumenical debates and also to closely follow the relations the other denomi-
nations established with one another. This is how in the autumn of 1931 – after almost four months since the
intercommunion between the Old Catholics and the Anglicans had been achieved – a new conference for the
unification of the Orthodox and the Old Catholics was convened in Bonn.20 After two days of rather imprecise
discussions on 13 topics regarding the teachings and the liturgical practices of the two sides, they reached the
conclusion that there already was a sufficient base for the intercommunion and the union of the two Church-
es, respectively.21 However, although both the Old Catholics and some of the Orthodox22 believed that this
union was going to become a reality soon, it never came to that. The causes thereof are believed to be the
announcement that a future Orthodox Preparatory synod was to take place and officially decide on this matter.
The Orthodox believed that the Old Catholic-Anglican intercommunion was achieved on the problematical
dogmatical bases. To this respect, in his report addressed to the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece
Metropolitan Polykarpos of Trikke and Stagoi wrote the following, on August 9th 1932: ‘We have been cautious
not only because the sacramental communion needs to be preceded by dogmatical unity – a unity that now
seems unattainable due to the dogmatical differences – but also because we are considering the fact that the
Old Catholics have approved of and already practiced the sacramental communion with the Anglicans in their
Church, although there are still some dogmatical differences.’23 The same reserve was shared by the Archbishop
Germanos of Thyatira.24 It is understandable how such standpoints generated disappointment among the Old
Catholics25. And even if the mutual relationships have not been completely severed, the dialogue would be
reopened much later.

The fourth phase (from 1961 onwards)

The beginning of the new phase of the bilateral discussions was marked by the First Panorthodox Conference on
Rhodes in 1961, which decided that the relationships with the Old Catholics were to be nurtured ‘in the spirit of
19
Constantine G. Patelos, The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva, 1978, p.41-43; Dokumente zur
kirchlichen Unionsbewegung. Enzyklika der Kirche von Konstantinopel an alle irchen der Welt in IKZ, 12 (1922), p.40-
43; Grigorios Larentzakis, Das ökumenische Patriarchat von Konstantinopel im Dienste der kirchlichen Einheit und der
Vereinigung Europas, in KNA-OKI, 27. Juni 1995, p.5-11.
20
A. Küry, Bericht über die Verhandlungen der altkatholischen und der orthodoxen Kommission in Bonn am 27. und 82.
Oktober 1931, in IKZ, 22 (1932), p.18-27; U. Küry, Die altkatholische Kirche, p. 479-484. In Greek in Ortodoxia, 7 (1932),
p.156-162, 210-211, in English in ‘The Christian East’, 13 (1932), p.91-98, and in Romanian in: Biserica Ortodoxă Română
(BOR), 3rd series, L (1932), nr.6, p.439 and the following.
21
Urs von Arx, Kurze Einführung, p.15.
22
For instance prof. Nicholas Arseniev and the Romanian Metropolitan Nectarie Cotlarciuc. – Cf. I.V. Leb, Ortodoxie şi
vechi-catolicism, p. 266, note 323.
23
I. Karmiris, Die dritte Panorthodoxe Konferenz von Rhodos. Der Dialog zwischen der orthodoxen und altkatholoschen
Kirchen, in IKZ, 57 (1967), p.81 note 1 and Maximos of Sardes, Palaiokatholokismos kai Orthodoxia (Old Catholicism
and Orthodoxy), in Orthodoxia, 37, (1962), p.169.
24
See Urs Küry, Die altkatholische Kirche, (Stuttgart, 1978), p.477-478.
25
Urs von Arx, Kurze Einführung, p.16.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Vasile Leb 471

the discussions we have had so far.’26 The two sides initially prepared separately for the negotiations’ reopening.27
At the Orthodox request demanding that the Old Catholics provided them with an official profession of faith, the
latter published two declarations in 1970 regarding a number of teachings that remained unclear, namely: The letter
on the Old Catholic faith which expounded on the teachings referring to the Revelation and its transmission; The
Church and its Sacraments; On the principle of unity and The declaration on the issue of Filioque.28 Furthermore,
the Orthodox also paid close attention to the Declaration of the Old Catholic Bishops regarding primacy within the
Church29 in which they declared that they acknowledged the primacy of the Roman Bishop ‘as it had been acknowl-
edged according to the Holy Scripture, by the Holy Fathers and the Councils, in the old, undivided Church’, namely
as ‘primus inter pares, without the recognition of the decrees on the Pope’s infallibility and universal Episcopate.’
Here is a brief timeline of the preliminary stages of the dialogue, from 1961 to 197330:
1961 The First Panorthodox Conference in Rhodes.
1962 The visit of the IBK delegation to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople.
1963 The Third Panorthodox Conference on Rhodes (it was decided that an Inter-Orthodox Theological
Commission was to be designated in order to launch the debates with the Old Catholics).
1966 The first meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission for the dialogue with the Old Catholics
at Belgrade (it issued a long list containing the points on which the Orthodox and the Old Catholics agreed or
were in disagreement).
1966 The assembly of the Old Catholic bishops and theologians in Bonn (they temporarily formed an Old
Catholic Theological Commission and drafted the project of a working programme for the common dialogue).
1967 The Fourth Panorthodox Conference in Chambésy/Geneva (the Orthodox reiterated their wish that
the Old Catholic provide a profession of faith).
1968 The publication, in agreement with the IBK, of a Memorandum written by Bishop Urs Küry regarding
The present state of the Orthodox-Old Catholic relations, which all the leaders of the Orthodox Churches were
presented with.31
1969 A delegation of the IBK presented the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I with the official declarations
(The letter of the Old Catholic faith and The declaration on the issue of the Filioque); the second session of the
Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission for the Dialogue with the Old Catholic Commission at Chambésy/
Geneva (the list of coral issues reduced).
1970 The International Commission of the Utrecht Union for the Orthodox-Old Catholic Dialogue was
constituted and approved by the IBK, in Bonn; the third session of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Commission
for the Dialogue with the Old Catholics took place in Bonn (it was proposed that the two commissions meet
in a common session).
1971 The first meeting of the Joined Orthodox-Old Catholic Theological Commission in Penteli/Athens
(The completion of the separate preparations and the definition of the method and contents of the theological
dialogue).
26
I. Karmiris, Die Panorthodoxe Konferenz von Rhodos, in Theologia,Oct./Dec. 1961, p.517; L.Stan, Soborul Panortodox
de la Rhodos (24 sept.-4 oct. 1961) (The Panorthodox Synod of Rhodes, September 24th – October 4th 1961), in Mitropolia
Olteniei (MO), XIII (1961), nr. 10-12, p.716-733.
27
We should mention here the efforts of the Old Catholic Archbishop Andreas Rinkel of Utrecht (1889-1979, archbishop
in 1937-1970) and those of the Bonn professor Werner Küppers (1905-1980, professor from 1939 to 1972), as well as the
Salutation of the International Conference of the Old Catholic bishops addressed to the Rhodes Conference, in 1961. – Cf.
Urs von Arx, Kurze Einführung, p.16, note 10.
28
For the texts see Urs Küry, Die altkatholische Kirche, p.485. Dokumente zum orthodox-altkatholischen Dialog, Glaubens-
brief der Internationalen Altkatholischen Bischofskonferenz, in IKZ, 61 (1971), p.65, with a Romanian translation by I.
Săbăduş and P.I.David in Ortodoxia, XXIII (1971). Nr.4, p.658.
29
Erklärung der altkatholischen Bischöfe zum Primat in der Kirche, in IKZ, 60 (1960), p.57-59.
30
Urs von Arx, Kurze Einführung, p.17-18 and I.V. Leb, op.cit., p. 172-211.
31
See IKZ 59 (1969), p.89-99 and 63 (1973), p.182-192.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
472 Chapter (76)

1974 The first assembly of the Joint Committee for Coordination in Penteli/Athens; the working session
of the Joint Orthodox-Old Catholic Theological Commission in Morschach/Switzerland (Presentation and
discussions on the text projects);
1975 The second assembly of the Joint Committee for Coordination in Zürich; The first General Assembly
of the Joint Orthodox-Old Catholic Theological Commission in Chambésy/Geneva. The adoption of the texts
on: 1. The Holy Trinity; 2. The Divine Revelation and Its Transmission; 3. Canon of the Holy Scripture; 4.
The Incarnation of the Word of God; 5. The Hypostatic Union.
1976 The Session of the Joint Sub-commission in Penteli/Athens.
1977 The Second General Assembly of the Joint Commission, in Chambésy/Geneva. The adoption of the
texts regarding: 1. The Virgin Mary; 2. The Being and Characteristics of the Church;
1978 The Session of the Joint Sub-commission in Penteli/Athens.
1978 The Third General Assembly of the Joint Commission, in Bonn. The adoption of the following texts:
1. The Unity of the Church and the Local Churches; 2. The Boundaries of the Church.
1981 The Session of the Joint Sub-commission in Bern; The Fourth General Assembly of the Joint Com-
mission in Zagorsk/Moscow. The adoption of the texts regarding: 1. The Authority of the Church and in the
Church; 2. The Infallibility of the Church; 3. The Councils of the Church; 4. The Need for Apostolic Succession.
1983 The Session of the Joint Sub-commission in Penteli/Athens. The Fifth General Assembly of the Joint
Commission in Chambésy/Geneva. The adoption of the texts regarding: 1. The Head of the Church; 2. The
Lord’s Work of Salvation; 3. The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Church and Gaining Salvation;
1984 The Session of the Joint Sub-commission on Thassos/Greece.
1985 The Sixth General Assembly of the Joint Commission in Amersfoort/Holland. The adoption of the texts
concerning: 1. The Sacraments of the Church; 2. The Baptism; 3. The Chrismation; 4. The Holy Communion.
1986 The Session of the Joint Sub-commission in Minsk. The Seventh General Assembly of the Joint Com-
mission in Kavala/Greece. The adoption of the texts on: 1. The Sacrament of Confession; 2. The Sacrament
of the Holy Unction; 3. The Sacrament of Ordination; 4. The Sacrament of Marriage; 5. The Church and the
End of the World; 6. The Afterlife; 7. The Resurrection of the Dead and the Renewal of the World; 8. Church
Communion. Premises and Consequences.
That same year a delegation of the IBK visited the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople and the Seventh
General Assembly of the Joint Commission completed the theological dialogue as planned.

Current status and perspectives

Nowadays, the leaders of the Orthodox and the Old Catholic Churches have 26 texts at their disposal docu-
menting their substantial consensus. However, although the theological work is now over, severe problems
remain pending. Metropolitan Damaskinos pointed them out in October 1986, at Chambésy: ‘Do the theological
agreements we reach actually engage the Churches we represent? How can they be incorporated in the life of
the Church without risking a schism? Are we talking about the mutual relationship between the bilateral and
multilateral dialogues and, if so, which are they? For instance, can an agreement between the Old Catholic Church
and the Orthodox Church on church authority or the head of the Church actually fasten the official dialogue
between the Orthodox and the Old Catholics? What may be the theological and ecclesiological consequences
of the 1931 statements of the Old Catholic representatives and of those of the Anglican Communion for our
dialogue, or even more so, what does the “Bonn Agreement Concerning Inter-communion” (1931) mean to us?’32
Although the Joint Commission answered these questions, ‘the problem still stands with regard to how
these answers will be incorporated in the teaching and life of our two Churches.’33 Although this task exceeds
the competence of the Joint Commission, as it is up to the officials of the Churches participating in the
32
Damaskinos Papandreou, Discours prononcé le 18 octobre 1987, in “Episkepsis”, 387, 1987, p.12.
33
Ibidem, p.13.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Vasile Leb 473

dialogue to address it, the dialogue must be ‘completed by a responsible report submitted to the Churches
and showing the methods worth considering, in order to harness the theological consensus needed for the
ecclesiastic communion.’34 According to Metropolitan Damaskinos, such a report drafted by each group
must ‘reflect the spirit prevailing during the discussions of the seven General Assemblies of the Theological
Commission and be the result of the common texts’ contents which we all signed together.’35 The successful
completion of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and Old Catholics gave the Orthodox hierarch
the hope that the Joint Commission ‘would have a positive multi-directional influence, so that the effort
for unity should be harnessed within the Church with the same spirit of love and mutual understanding that
guarded our dialogue.’36
Unfortunately, the hope expressed by Metropolitan Damaskinos remained a mere desire. We have men-
tioned only the problem of the relations between the Old Catholics and the Anglicans and Lutherans, and
the ordination of women37, all of them generating disagreements even among the Old Catholics. And while
much was written for or against this, so far there is no full consensus within the Utrecht Union.38 Therefore,
it is expected that the Old Catholics clarify their internal issues first, so as to then be able to discuss with the
Orthodox.39

Bibliography

Arx, Urs von, Koinonia auf altkirchlicher Basis, Beiheft zur IKZ, 79 Jahrg (1989), 4 Heft.
Berlis, Angela, Überlegungen zur Realisierung weiterer Schritte auf dem Weg zur sichtbaren Kirchenge-
meinschaft von Alt-Katholischer Kirche in Deutschalnd und Vereinigter Evangelisch-Lutherischer Kirche
Deutschlands, in Ökumenische Rundschau 60 (4-2011), p.500-512.
Dokumente zur kirchlichen Unionsbewegung. Enzyklika der Kirche von Konstantinopel an alle Kirchen der
Welt in IKZ, 12 (1922), p.40-43.
Döllinger, Ignaz von, Über die Wiedervereinigung der christlichen Kirchen. Sieben Vorträge, gehalten zu
München im Jahr 1872, (Nördlingen, 1888).
Erklärung der altkatholischen Bischöfe zum Primat in der Kirche, in IKZ, 60 (1960), p.57-59.
Finsterhölzl, J. Ignaz von Döllinger, (Styria Verlag, Graz, Wien, Köln, 1969).
Larentzakis, Grigorios, Das ökumenische Patriarchat von Konstantinopel im Dienste der kirchlichen Einheit
und der Vereinigung Europas, in KNA-OKI, 27. Juni 1995, p.5-11.

34
Ibidem.
35
Ibidem.
36
Ibidem, p.14.
37
For instance, ordination of Ms. Anne-Marie Kaufmann on May 21st 2005 and others. - Cf. Présence. Mensuel des paroisses
catholiques-chrétiennes de Suisse romande, Supplément nr. 3/2005, p. I–III.
38
Here are just a few articles published on the theme: 120 Session der Nationalsynode der Christkatholischen Kirche der
Schweiz 7. und 8. Juni 1991 in Liestal, p. 98–105; 121 Session der Nationalsynode der Christkatholischen Kirche der
Schweiz 12. und 13. Juni in Starrkirch/Dulliken, p. 83–103; Urs von Arx, Koinonia auf altkirchlicher Basis, Beiheft zur
IKZ, 79 Jahrg (1989), 4 Heft, 259p.; Urs von Arx und Anastasios Kallis (ed.), Bild Christi und Geschlecht, ‘Gemeinsame
Überlegungen‘ und Referate der Orthodox-Altkatholischen Konsultation zur Stellung der Frau in der Kirche und zur
Frauenordination als ökumenischem Problem, 25 Februar – 1 März 1996 in Levadia (Griechenland) und 10–15 Dezem-
ber in Konstancin (Polen), Sonderdruck IKZ 88 (1998), Heft 2, 334p.; Urs von Arx, Der orthodox-altkatholische Dialog.
Anmerkungen zu einer schwierigen Rezeption, IKZ, 87 (1997), Heft 3, p. 184–185. Idem, Eine verpasste Chance, IKZ, 87
(1997), Heft 4, p. 292–297; Idem, Neuer Aufbruch? Bericht über die Anglikanisch – Altkatholische Theologenkonferenz
von Guildford, 1993, IKZ 84 (1994), 2 Heft, p. 66–76.
39
For instance the recent debates of the Old-Catholics with the Catholics and the Lutherans of Germany: Ökumenische
Rundschau 60 (4-2011), p.500-512.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
474 Chapter (76)

Leb, Ioan-Vasile, Dialogul ortodoxo-vechi catolic – stadiul actual şi perspectivele sale (The orthodox – old
catholic Dialogue. It’s current status and it’s perspectives), (Renaşterea, Cluj-Napoca, 2000).
Leb, Ioan-Vasile, Orthodoxie und Altkatholizismus. Eine hundert Jahre ökumenishe Zusammenarbeit (1870-
1970), (PUC, Cluj-Napoca, 1995).
Leb, Ioan-Vasile, Ortodoxie şi vechi-catolicism sau ecumenism înainte de Mişcarea Ecumenicã (Orthodoxy
and Old-Catholicism or ecumenism before the Ecumenical Movement), (PUC, Cluj-Napoca, 1996).
Neuner, Peter, Döllinger als Theologe der Ökumene, (Paderborn, München, 1979).
Patelos, Constantin G., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, (Geneva, 1978).
Rein, Harald, Kirchengemeinschaft. Die anglikanisch-altkatholisch-orthodoxen Beziehungen von 1870 bis
1990 und ihre ökumenische Relevanz, B2. 1 u. 2, (Peter Lang Verlag, Bern, 1993).
Reusch, F.H., Bericht über die vom 10. bis 16. August zu Bonn gehaltenen Unionskonferenzen, im Auftrage
des Vorsitzenden Dr. von Döllinger, (Bonn, 1875).
Reusch, Friedrich Heinrich, Bericht über die am 14., 15. und 16. September zu Bonn gehaltenen Unionskon-
ferenzen. Im Auftrage des Vorsitzenden Dr. von Döllinger, (Bonn, 1874).
Schulte, J. Fr. von, Der Altkatholizismus, (Giessen, 1885, reed. Aalen, 1965).
Staffenberger, Franz Jörg, Der orthodox – altakatholische Dialog, (Diss. Theol. Graz, 1994).
Zervos, Gennadios, Il contributo del Patriarcato ecumenico per l’unità dei cristiani (The contribution of teh
Ecumenical Patriarchate to the unity of the Christians), (Roma, 1974).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (77) ORTHODOX DIALOGUE WITH PENTECOSTAL CHURCHES

Petros Vassiliadis

Orthodoxy and Pectecostalism form two quite opposite Christian traditions. This is true, when one looks at
their practice, spirituality and every day life, especially their mission praxis. And this is the reason why no
official theological dialogue between Orthodox and Pentecostals has not been launched as yet. If, however,
one looks at the theological publications of the, one gets a completely different picture; the similarities even in
theological terminology are tremendous. In the ecumenical theological discussions, the Orthodox are the main
proponents of Pneumatology, an issue that is insistently brought into the the foreground also by Pentecostals.
In addition to various unofficial meetings and theological exchanges between Orthodox and Evangelicals
of a Pentecostal type in the multilateral dialogue,1 an important encounter has taken place in the last World
Mission Conference of Athens (May 9-16 2005), as well as during the Edinburgh 2010 centinary celebration.
At a synaxis (so the conventional workshops in the world mission conferences are called) under the title “Rec-
onciliation and Mission. Orthodox and Pentecostal Perspectives” I was asked to introduce the subject from
the Orthodox perspective.
The pneumatological dimension of our Christian identity is being slowly but steadily developed in ecu-
menical theology and in contemporary theology of mission. In the ecumenical dialogue, the consolidation of
the trinitarian theology as a useful tool in almost all ecclesiological, sociological, moral etc., and above all
missiological reflections was a further evidence. The trinitarian revolution in contemporary Christian theology
is strongly felt across denominational boundaries – from post-Vatican II Catholicism to evangelicalism – and
is in fact due to the rediscovery of the theology of the Holy Spirit of the undivided Christian Church. This
rediscovery relulted in abandoning the old medieval (but also later) mission paradigm, which was founded on
a Christocentric universalism, in some cases developed into a christomonistic expansionism and an aggresive
imperialism.2
The second parameter is an increasing awareness of the liturgical dimension of our Christian self-understand-
ing. The importance of liturgy is being underlined in post-modernity3 as a significant element of the Christian
witness – maybe not as central yet as the proclamation of the word, but certainly as a constitutive element. The
exclusive emphasis of the old mission paradigm on the rational comprehension of truth, and as a result of it on
the verbal proclamation of the Christian message, gave its place to a more holistic understanding of mission
in post-modernity.4 In addition, a new holistic understanding of healing, even of a miraculous healing, widely
practiced by Pentecostals, challenges – and of course is challenged by – an overwhelming rational attidude of
modernism, to which the majority of western Christianity was forced to surrender, or at least accommodate
1
Cf. Huibert van Beek-Georges Lemopoulos (ed.), Proclaiming Christ Today. Orthodox-Evangelical Consultation Alex-
andria, 10-15 July 1995, WCC and Syndesmos, Geneva 1995; and Huibert van Beek-Georges Lemopoulos (ed.), Turn to
God. Orthodox Evangelical Consultation Hamburg, 30 March-4 April, 1998,WCC Geneva 1998.
2
More on this in my “Beyond Christian Universalism: The Church’s Witness in a Multicultural Society,” in Scholarly
Annual of the Theological School of Thessaloniki, n.s. Department of Theology. Vol. 9 (1999), pp. 309-320.
3
Cf. my recently published books Lex orandi. Liturgical Theology and Liturgical Renewal, Idiomela 5: Indiktos, Athens
2005; and Post-modernity and the Church. The Challenge of Orthodoxy, Akritas, Athens 2002 (both in Greek).
4
Both these two dimensions are closely linked with the eschatological understanding of the Holy Spirit and the eschato-
logical understanding of the Church. The eschatology constitutes the central and primary aspect of the Church. Hence
the priority of the Kingdom of God in all ecclesiological considerations. Everything belongs to the Kingdom. The Church
in her institutional expression does not administer all reality; she only prepares the way to the Kingdom, in the sense that
she is an image if it.
476 Chapter (77)

itself.5 The rapid growth of the Pentecostal movement will certainly challenge all secularized attitudes of
Christianity. The rediscovery on the part of most Pentecostals of the traditional liturgical practice of excorcism,
together with a renewed interest in demonology, will certainly be encountered with the Orthodox conception
of healing (ίασις) – beyond physical curing (θεραπεία) – and the openness of the Orthodox Churches to tran-
scendent and awe inpiring realities.
Beyond all these issues that unite Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism, it is necessary to establish a sound theo-
logical basis. We need to examine whether we insist on a universal proselytizing mission, or on a witness to
the world of the Church’s eschatological experience. This was, in fact, made possible by the theology of the
Holy Spirit. And this development was the result of the fundamental assumption of the trinitarian theology,
“that God in God’s own self is a life of communion and that God’s involvement in history aims at drawing
humanity and creation in general into this communion with God’s very life”.6
After all, one cannot overlook the fact that the Holy Spirit, in the Bible (but also in the early patristic
tradition7) is first and foremost eschatologically- (Acts 2:17ff) and communion- (2 Cor 13:13) oriented. One
cannot also ignore that from the time of the New Testament onwards two types of Pneumatology have been
developed: one “historical” and one “eschatological”. The first type, the “historical” is more familiar in the West
to the present day, and understands the Holy Spirit as fully depended on Christ, as being the agent of Christ
to fulfill the task of mission. One clear result of this type of Pneumatology from the history of the Church is
the famous filioque controversy, but also the aggressive and expansionist attitude of Christian witness in more
recent mission activities. The second type of Pneumatology has been more consistently developed in the East
and understands the Holy Spirit as the source of Christ. It also understands the Church in terms more of coming
together (i.e as the eschatological synaxis of the people of God in his Kingdom) than of going forth for mission.8
Taking this second type of Pneumatology seriously into consideration and building upon the eschatological
understanding of the Church,9 one unavoidably concludes that the mission of the Church deals with the problem
of ethics, i.e. the problem of overcoming the evil in the world, not primarily as a moral and social issue, but
mainly – and for some even exclusively – as an ecclesial one. The moral and social responsibility of Christians,
i.e. their mission in today’s pluralistic world, is the logical consequence of their ecclesial (i.e. eschatological)
self-consciousness. This meens that mission is the outcome, not the primary goal of Christian theology. That
is why for Orthodoxy what constitutes the essence of the Church is not her mission but the Eucharist, the
Divine Liturgy;10 the mission is the meta-liturgy, the Liturgy after the Liturgy, though it is obviously also the
Liturgy before the Liturgy.11
5
Peter Berger, a well-known sociologist, has described the attitude of the Church toward the modernist revolution in terms
of two opposite positions: accomodation and resistance, see P. Berger, The Sacred Canopy. Elements of a Sociological
Theory of Religion, Doubleday, New York 1967, pp. 156ff.; also pp. 106ff.
6
I. Bria (ed.), Go Forth in Peace, WCC Publications: Geneva 1986, p. 3.
7
This is evident in the Orthodox hymns of the Feast of Pentecost.
8
J. Zizioulas, “Implications ecclésiologiques de deux types de pneumatologie,” Communio Sanctorum. Mélagnes offerts
à Jean Jacques von Almen, Labor et Fides, Geneva 1982, pp. 141-154.
9
In the Orthodox Church even the episcopocentric structure of the Church is seen as an essential part of the eschatological
vision of the Church. The bishop e.g. as the presiding primus inter pares in love over the eucharistic community, has very
seldom been understood as a vicar or representative, or ambassador of Christ, but as an image of Christ. So with the rest
of the ministries of the Church: they are not parallel to, or given by, but identical with those of, Christ (J. Zizioulas, “The
Mystery of the Church in Orthodox Tradition,” One in Christ 24 (1988), pp. 294-303)
10
The imporance of Liturgy has been recently reaffirmed by cultural anthropologists as a constitutive element of all religious
systems, and certainly of Christianity. The Eucharist, heart and center of Christian Liturgy, in its authentic perception is
now widely accepted, especially in the ecumenical dialogues (multilateral and bilateral) as a proleptic manifestation of
the Kingdom of God, as symbol and image of an alternative reality, which was conceived before all creation by God the
Father in his mystical plan (the mysterion in the biblical sense), was inaugurated by our Lord, and is permanently sustained
by the Holy Spirit.
11
“Mission as ministry of reconciliation”, “You Are the Light of the World, § 30 p. 114.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Petros Vassiliadis 477

The above two types of Pneumatology, together with the two ecclesiological and missiological perspectives
which came out of them, survived to the present ecumenical era. Today’s world mission in order to be consistent
with the idea of “Common Christian Witness”, and more importantly faithful to the tradition of the undivided
Church, needs to proceed to a theological synthesis of the above two types of Pneumatology, of ecclesiology,
and above all of missiology. And this is something, which a substantial Orthodox-Pentecostal theological dia-
logue can deal with. On my part I firmly believe that Pneumatology cannot be relegated to an isolated doctrine.
Pneumatology was always, and should always be, in close connexion with Christology, to such an extend that
one can now talk about a Christology pneumatologically conditioned and vice-versa.
The necessity of an honest theological dialogue, which has to be preceeded by a loving encounter, between
Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism is clearly evidenced in the “Listeners’ reports” of the Athens 2005 World Mission
Conference.12 The Reports expressed the spirit of the conference and constitute a source to discover the general
feelings, the atmosphere and the main concerns of the participants. 8 out of 11 listeners – carefully selected
“theologians and missiologists from all over the world and from various spiritual backgrounds to participate
in the Athens conference with the intention to discern important trends”13 – have underlined the importance
of the Orthodox-Pentecostal encounter in the conference (five of them directly and another three indirectly),
which was made manifest in more than one ways. Anastasia Vassiliadou, representing the Orthodox youth,
stated her feeling as follows: “Another very important highlight of the conference was the encounter between
Orthodox and Pentecostals. Although this issue was discussed at only one synaxis – and very late in the con-
ference, and for this reason it was not visible enough to all – the preliminary theological debate between two
quite distanced traditions left very important promises for the future”.14 The “institutional” bodies – if one
can use such a term for the charismatic Pentecostals – are not ready to embark to this journey, mainly because
of lack of appropriate structures. Their theologians fortunately realize that they need unofficially to take the
theological discussion further.15
It was for this reason, and out of this awareness that five years later, immediately after the Edindurgh 2010
celebration both the American and the European pentecostal groups made unofficial steps to request the Ecu-
menical Patriarchate to consider a launch of a more substantial encounter and to take an initiative to set up a
Joint Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Pentecostals.
One should never forget what the late Fr. Georges Florovsky, almost 60 years ago at the inaugural Assem-
bly of WCC in Amsterdam, boldly stated: “It is not enough to be moved towards ecumenical reconciliation
by some sort of strategy, be it missionary, evangelistic, social or other, unless the Christian conscience has
already become aware of the greater challenge, by the Divine challenge itself. We must seek unity or reunion
not because it might make us more efficient or better equipped …, but because unity is the Divine imperative,
the Divine purpose and design, because it belongs to the very essence of Christianity”.16

12
The entire July 2005 issue of the above IRM, No 374, was devoted to these reports under the general title “Athens
2005-Listeners’ Reports”, pp. 352-439.
13
From Jacques Matthey’s “Editorial” of the IRM 94 (2005), 319-321, p. 320.
14
Anastasia Vassiliadou, “Discerning the Spirit of Athens,” IRM 94 (2005), p. 439.
15
The (unofficial) Wesleyan-Orthodox theological dialogue, which has so far organized four meetings (cf. the preceedings
of the first in S.T.Kimbrough, Jr [ed.], Orthodox and Wesleyan Spirituality, SVS Press, New York 2002), and earlier the
(unofficial again) Eastern and Oriental Orthodox theological dialogue, have set a successful example.
16
W.A.Visser’t Hooft (ed.), La Premiere Assemblee du Conseil Oecumenique des Eglises. Rapport officiel, Neuchatel -
Paris, 1948. Also in G. Florovsky, “The Doctrine of the Church and the Ecumenical Movement”, The Ecumenical Review,
2 (1950), 152-161.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
 (78) EASTERN ORTHODOX – ORIENTAL ORTHODOX DIALOGUE
– A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Ioan Ovidiu

1. Introduction

Whereas the appellation “Eastern Orthodox Churches” refers to those Churches belonging to the Byzantine
tradition and following the seven Ecumenical Synods, the phrase “Oriental Orthodox Churches” is employed
nowadays in order to indicate the smaller family of Churches formerly called with the misnomer “Monophysite”
Churches, because they disagreed with the decisions of the Synod of Chalcedon (451) and afterwards went
separate ways:
a. The Armenian Apostolic Church (Catholicate of Echmiadzin and Catholicate of Cilicia)
b. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
c. The Erithrean Orthodox Church
d. The Coptic Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Alexandria)
e. The Syrian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Antioch)
f. The Syrian Orthodox Church of Malankar
Not involved in this dialogue are the Assyrian Church of the East, i.e. the so-called Nestorian Church, and
the Oriental Churches united with the Roman Catholic Church.

2. Premises

The dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches deals with one of the old-
est divisions between the Christian Churches. Since the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, these Church families
have been dogmatically separated and they have been confronting each other for more than 15 centuries.
Theological and historical prejudices developed through this long period of time and were reflected in the
liturgical and spiritual life of these Churches. The ecumenical dialogue is meant to enable them overcome
their resentments.
The first impulse and, at the same time, the legitimacy of this Ecumenical dialogue were given by the First
Pan-orthodox Consultation (Rhodes 1961) and by its specifications concerning the relationships with the
Oriental Orthodox Churches. Thus, the representatives of all Eastern Orthodox Churches recommended that
their Churches should “cultivate friendly relations with a view to establishing a union with them (i.e. with the
Oriental Orthodox Churches)” and suggested some concrete actions in this respect: exchange of visits, exchange
of teachers and students, theological encounters, study of the history, faith, worship and administration of the
Oriental Churches, as well as cooperation in practical matters and ecumenical conferences.1 This impulse was
renewed and the dialogue was encouraged at the following Pan-orthodox Conferences.
These premises determined the whole approach. It was essential that the partners answer three important
questions:
a. Is it possible for the Eastern Orthodox Churches to seek full communion and Church unity with Churches
whose teaching was condemned at an Ecumenical Synod?
b. What are nowadays the differences and similarities between these two theological traditions as far as
their belief is concerned?
1
Gennadios Limouris, Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, Geneva 1994, p. 32.
Ioan Ovidiu 479

c. What are nowadays the differences and similarities between these two Church families as far as Church
life is concerned?
Here it follows a presentation of the manner in which the two families of Orthodox Churches tackled these
and other related issues.

3. Unofficial Consultations

The dialogue began with four unofficial theological consultations meant to prepare the actual dialogue of the
above-mentioned Churches.

1964 - Aarhus, Denmark2

Between 11th and 15th of August 1964 fifteen representatives of the two Orthodox families met in Aarhus,
Denmark, in the framework of Faith and Order Commission, in order to evaluate the relations between their
Churches and especially the Christological teaching. On 14th of August they adopted a common statement,
which gave hope for future dialogue.
The first sentence of the statement mentioned the sporadic meetings between officials of the orthodox
Churches occasioned by the Ecumenical movement since the second decade of the 20th century and especially
the Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes (1961), where “the desire to know each other and to restore our unity
in the one church of Christ” was explicitly manifested. Already here is also mentioned that some orthodox
churches “accept seven ecumenical councils and others accept three”. “Openness of charity” and “conviction
of truth”, mutual learning processes seem to have dominated the theological dialogue. “Inherited misunder-
standings” began to clear up and both sides “recognized in each other the one orthodox faith”, which has not
gone astray from the faith of the Fathers even after 15 centuries of alienation.
The debate on Christology, curiously enough, started with an analysis of the Council of Chalcedon (451),
i.e. the actual apple of discord between the two sides, while reaffirming commitment to the Christological
expression of “our common father in Christ”, St. Cyril of Alexandria (mia physis or mia hypostasis tou Theou
logou sesarkomene / the one physis or hypostasis of God’s Word Incarnate). The teaching of St. Cyril has
constituted the common theological ground for the ecumenical dialogue since 1961 and up to these days. Ac-
cording to the statement, “both sides found themselves fundamentally following the Christological teaching
of the one undivided church as expressed by St. Cyril.” (author’s emphasis).
The different development of the Cyrillian Christology in the two theological traditions and the contrast
between their expressions of faith were explained as a result of the different terminologies they employed. In
spite of these differences, the theological commission declared that they “saw the same truth expressed” and
that “on the essence of Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement”. The inference that the
theological diversity in expressing the Christological teaching is due to contrasting terminology and not to
opposed teaching was confirmed by recent research and thorough studies. This conclusion is probably the most
important result of the first unofficial dialogue and it has determined the whole dialogue so far.
The positive theological agreement was followed by the dissociation from two heretical teachings: that
of Eutyches and that of Nestorius. With this argument the commission also tried to solve the basic question
whether it is necessary that the Oriental Churches formally accept the Council of Chalcedon. They asserted that
“since we agree in rejecting without reservation the teaching of Eutyches as well as of Nestorius, the accep-
tance or non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon does not entail the acceptance of either heresy”. Thus, if
the Oriental Orthodox Churches officially reject the teaching of Eutyches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches
publicly dissociate themselves from the teaching of Nestorius, there is no need for the Oriental Churches
to formally adhere to the decisions of the forth Ecumenical Synod. This view is explained in the following
2
Original English version in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10/1964-65, p. 7-160.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
480 Chapter (78)

paragraph, which describes the ecumenical councils as “stages in an integral development”, which “should
not be studied in isolation”. Therefore, also the Council of Chalcedon “can only be understood as reaffirming
the decisions of Ephesus (431), and best understood in the light of the later Council of Constantinople (533)”.
This text answers only indirectly the first general question of the dialogue, i.e. whether it is possible for
the Eastern Orthodox Churches to seek full communion and Church unity with Churches whose teaching
was condemned at an Ecumenical Synod. It points that the formal acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon
is not necessary for the Oriental Churches, if the purpose of the Council, which is to reject the teaching of
Eutyches, is fulfilled. Thus, these Churches confess another teaching than that condemned at Chalcedon, a
fact that excludes them from the specific aim of the forth Ecumenical Synod. In the end of the statement the
participants underlined “the significant role of political, sociological and cultural factors in creating tension
between factions in the past”, factors which should be studied together in the future, and expressed their hope,
that these non-theological aspects “should not continue to divide us”.
The document reviewing the theological discussions was signed by all representatives, among whom we
recognise important theologians of both Orthodox Church families.3

1967 - Bristol, Great Britain4

After the successful meeting in Aarhus, another theological consultation took place two years later between
25th and 29th of July 1967 in Bristol, Great Britain. The participants, who describe themselves as a study group
gathered “with the blessing of the authorities of our respective Churches”, intended to bring further what
they discovered in Aarhus as a “common ground for seeking closer ties among our Churches”. The common
statement emphasizes “several new areas of agreement” while accepting that “many questions still remain to
be studied and settled”.
The theological agreement from Aarhus on the Christological teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria proves to
be rather concise. Both Orthodox Church families confess that:

“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 consub-
stantial also with us. By his infinite grace God has called us to attain to his uncreated glory. God became by nature
man (so) 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, (so) that we may be transfigured
from glory to glory. It is in this soteriological perspective that we have approached the Christological question”.

This orthodox confession of faith proves that the dialogue was not a mere debate on Christological for-
mulas and the agreement a simple compromise of Christological terminology, but a real reflection on the
soteriological consequences of the Christological teaching. This way of dealing with matters of faith is traced
back to the teaching of the common Church Fathers (St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Anthony, St. Athanasius,
3
Emilianos of Meloa, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Rev. Professor G. Florovsky, Greek Orthodox Archdi-
ocese of North & South America- The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Rev. Professor J. S. Romanides, Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese of North & South America- The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Rev. Professor Vitaly
Borovoy, Russian Orthodox Church, Rev. Professor J. Meyendorff, Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North
America, Professor J. Karmiris, Church of Greece, Professor G. Konidaris, Church of Greece, Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan,
Armenian Apostolic Church, Bishop Karekin Sarkissian, Armenian Apostolic Church. Catholicate of Cilicia, Archbishop
Mar Severius Zakka Iwas of Mosul, Syrian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Mar Thoma Dionysius of Niranam, Orthodox
Syrian Church of the East, Rev. Like Siltanat Habte Mariam Woroqineh, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Rev. Professor V.C.
Samuel, Orthodox Syrian Church of the East, Dr. Karam Nazir Khella, Coptic Orthodox Church, Dr. Getachew Haile,
Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
4
Original English version in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 13/1968, p. 123-320.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 481

St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nice and St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. Cyril of Alexandria).
In the good patristic tradition, Christology is understood on the background not only of soteriology, but also
of “the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man, ecclesiology and spirituality and the whole liturgical life of
the Church”. Thus, the participants managed to overcome the narrow Christological dispute and to consider
this issue in the larger framework of soteriology, ecclesiology and anthropology, as well as of ecclesiastical
liturgical and spiritual life. By doing this, they extended the common ground for the ecumenical dialogue and
shifted the accent from the plain Christological debate to a wide area of theological dialogue where the two
Church traditions are very close.
Still they came to express the Christological thinking of both traditions since the 5th century up to these days:
“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. 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
Godhead and the manhood, with all their natural properties and faculties, in the one Christ”.
The unity in diversity is preserved by a precise differentiation and by clarifying additions. Thus, the Eastern
Orthodox who speak in terms of “two” do not thereby divide or separate, while the Oriental Orthodox who
speak in terms of “one” do not confuse or change.
The participants were aware of the differences in expressing the common faith, but they insisted on the shared
essence of Christological teaching by underlining the four adverbs established at the Council of Chalcedon
– “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” – as belonging to the common
tradition: the terms without division and without separation must be underlined for those who speak in terms
of “two”, while the terms without confusion and without change must be underlined for those who speak in
terms of “one”, so that “we may understand each other”.
The Christological dialogue extended from the issues debated upon in Chalcedon to the aspects discussed
during the next Ecumenical Synods “especially the monoenergetic and monothelete controversies of the sev-
enth 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”.

The theologians deal here with the consequences of accepting different expressions of the same faith. If
the Eastern Orthodox theologians accept that the Miaphysite Christological formula of St. Cyril professed by
the Oriental Orthodox Churches is as Orthodox and accurate as the formula of Chalcedon, then the Eastern
Orthodox theologians must also accept the same expression when dealing with the question of the monoener-
getic and monothelete controversies. Meanwhile it has become obvious that both expressions of faith always
need some clarifying adverbs in order to exclude misunderstandings.
In the end of the document the participants inform about the elaboration of a list of questions to be dealt
with in future consultations and commit themselves to the common purpose of restoring “the full communion
between our Churches”, which is regarded as “a first priority for our Churches”. However, “the difficulties
they have encountered” are also mentioned.
Among the “preliminary actions” proposed by the participants is the “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 joint declaration is not to be considered as confession

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
482 Chapter (78)

of faith or a creed, but a formula “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”.
The second proposed preliminary action was the examination of “the canonical, liturgical and jurisdictional
problems involved”. As examples for this kind of issues the document mentions “anathemas and liturgical
deprecations by some Churches of theologians regarded by others as doctors and saints of the Church, and the
jurisdictional assurance and agreements necessary before formal restoration of communion”.
The representatives of the Churches entrusted the results of the dialogue to their Churches in order to give
an impulse to the study group for further research.5 Even though they prove aware of their status and of the
limits of their mandate from the Churches, the participants show a certain precipitance determined by the
enthusiasm generated by the dialogue results.

1970 - Geneva, Switzerland6

The third theological consultation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches was organised
in Geneva, Switzerland, between 16th and 21st of August 1970. The Summary of Conclusions agreed upon by
the participants was divided in four parts:
I. Reaffirmation of Christological agreement
The document begins with the statement that in spite of a fifteen-century separation both Churches are
still in full and deep agreement with the universal tradition of the one undivided Church. The Christolog-
ical teaching of St. Cyril is declared as common theological ground, although the two traditions employ
different terminologies in order to express it. The participants confess that the One, who is consubstantial
with the Father because of His divine nature, became also consubstantial with us due to his human nature,
which He assumed through the incarnation. He was born from the Father before time and in these last days
He was born from the blessed Virgin Mary for us and for our salvation. This short profession is followed
by the formula of Chalcedon: in Him both natures are united in the one hypostasis of the divine Logos,
without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; thus, Jesus Christ is perfect God
and perfect Man with all the properties and faculties which belong to the two natures. Concerning the two
doctrines of monoenergism and monothelitism, the study group affirm the common belief, that the human
will and energy of Christ were neither absorbed, nor suppressed by his divine will and energy, since they
are not in contradiction to each other, but in complete harmony and unified without confusion and without
division. They express the will and energy of the one hypostasis of the incarnated Logos, Emmanuel, God
and Man, our Lord and Saviour.
The signatories then refer to the mutual visits and common studies by which the theologians rediscovered
agreement in other theological matters than Christology: Triadology, Pneumatology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology;
but also correspondences in liturgy and spirituality, doctrine and canonical practice. The document presents
then the conclusion of the theological dialogue:
5
Metropolitan Emilianos of Calabria, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Rev. Professor G. Florovsky, Ecumenical Patriarchate,
Rev. Professor J. S. Romanides, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Rev. Professor Vitaly Borovoy, Russian Orthodox Church,
Rev. Professor J. Meyendorff, Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America, ArchimandriteDamaskinos
Papandreou, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Professor G. Konidaris, Church of Greece, Professor N. Nissiotis, Church
of Greece, Professor N. Chițescu, Church of Romania, Bishop Nikodim Stiven, Church of Bulgaria, Professor E.
Tsonievsky, Church of Bulgaria, Vardapet A. Berberian, Armenian Apostolic Church, Dr. N. Khella, Coptic Orthodox
Church, Vardapet Mesrob Krikorian, Armenian Apostolic Church, Ato Merke Selassie Gebre Ammanuel, Ethiopian
Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Philippos Mar Theophilos, Syrian Orthodox Church of the East, Professor V.C. Sam-
uel, Syrian Orthodox Church of the East, Bishop Samuel, Coptic Orthodox Church, Rector Paul Verghese, Syrian
Orthodox Church of the East.
6
Original English version in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16/1971, p. 3-209.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 483

“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”.

It must be said that this reaffirmation of the Christological agreement not only points out the general pos-
itive results and its recommendations to the Churches, but it also details the actual content of the agreement.
Nevertheless, it must be read in the framework of the previous theological dialogues in Aarhus and Bristol.
Very important for the dialogue itself and for the represented Churches is the fact that the theologians
gathered in Geneva assumed these results and regarded them as compelling for the further dialogue and, even
more important, for the full Eucharistic communion.
II. Some differences
This chapter proves the deep insight of the study group into the differences in teaching and practice between
the two traditions, which occurred – as expected – during the 15 centuries of separation. These “ecclesiological
issues” concern:
(a) The meaning and place of certain Councils
While the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognise seven Ecumenical Councils as a coherent and indivisible
complex expressing one teaching of the Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches only consider that it is them
that have preserved so far the authentic Christological tradition on the basis of the three ecumenical Councils,
completed by the liturgical and patristic tradition.
The study group expressed its conviction that the Ecumenical Synods should not be considered as an authority
above the Church, but as “charismatic events in the Life of the Church” and proposed a sharp differentiation
between definitions of faith and canonical law-making, as well as between the intention of the dogmatic defi-
nition and the terminology employed, since the latter has less authority than the intention.
(b) The anathematization or acclamation as Saints of certain controversial teachers
The study group neither recommends the lifting of the anathemas nor the canonization of the previously
anathematized Fathers of the other Church, but proposes “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”. This
passive action is regarded as implied by the restoration of full Communion.
(c) The jurisdictional questions related to uniting the Churches at local, regional and world levels
With respect to the restoration of the full communion, the study group also approached canonical and litur-
gical issues not only from an administrative perspective, but also from an ecclesiological one. They proposed
a view of an open unity manifested not on the administrative level, but on the liturgical, Eucharistic level:
“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”. This solution corresponds to the situation in the Eastern Or-
thodox Diaspora, where for pragmatic reasons several bishops belonging to different Eastern Orthodox Mother
Churches were accepted into one city, even though this contravene the ecclesiastical and canonical rules. On
the other hand, the group stressed the necessity to clarify further aspects regarding the process of restoring
the Church unity, even if we speak about a unity in diversity: “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
The study group reaffirmed the need for an official joint commission delegated by the Churches and mandated
to draft an explanatory statement of reconciliation, which could then be the fundament for restoring the Church
unity. This statement of reconciliation, with a special accent on the common Christological agreement, could
be centred on the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and on the Formula Concordiae with John of Antioch

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
484 Chapter (78)

(433). It should be worded in unambiguous terminology that would make it clear that the text would not be an
innovation, but the teaching of both Churches which has been held by both sides for centuries, as is attested
by the liturgical and patristic documents.
IV. Some practical steps
After mentioning the visits between the two families of Churches on the levels of bishops and theologians,
as well as the exchange of students (Oriental Orthodox students studying at Eastern Orthodox Theological
Institutions), the wish was expressed to proceed from the unofficial to the official level of dialogue.
The study group proposed that the participants should found a working group in order to continue the pre-
vious efforts and to form an Executive Committee7 with the following objectives:
(a) Publication of a report on the last consultation in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review;
(b) Presenting the Churches with a summary of the three unofficial meetings;
(c) Publication of a handbook on both Church traditions with statistical, historical and theological information;
(d) Exploration of the possibility to found an association of all the Orthodox theological institutions;
(e) Publication of a periodical, which will continue to provide information about the Churches and to follow
further discussions;
(f) Contribution to a better knowledge of the Churches by providing access to the original sources for an
informed and accurate study of theological and spiritual developments;
(g) Encouragement of theological consultations on contemporary issues;
(h) Exploration of the possibilities to establish a common research centre for Orthodox theological and
historical studies;
(i) Exploration of the possibility to create and employ common teaching material for children and youth.
The document ends with the signatories list.8

1971 - Addis Ababa, Ethiopia9

The forth and last unofficial consultation took place on 22nd and 23rd of January 1971 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
The main topic of discussion was the lifting of the anathemas and the recognition of the saints.
This “indispensable step on the way to unity” has as purpose the improvement of the communication
between the two Church families. As a precondition for the lifting of the anathemas the study group empha-
sizes the unity in faith, which should be officially proclaimed by the Churches on the basis of the elaborated
documents from Aarhus, Bristol and Geneva. The lifting of the anathemas does not lead to the canonisation
7
Members of the Executive Committee: Metropolitan Emilianos of Calabria, Archpriest Vitalij Borovoj, Vardapet Mesrob
Krikorian, Prof. Nikos Nissiotis, Rector Paul Verghese.
8
Dr. Athanasios Arvanitis, Church of Greece, Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy, Russian Orthodox Church, Prof. Nicolae Chițescu,
Romanian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Emilianos of Calabria, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Rev. Professor G. Florovsky,
Ecumenical Patriarchate, Metropolitan Georges from Mt. Lebanon, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, Metropolitan
Nikodim of Sliwen, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Prof. Nikos Nissiotis, Church of Greece, ArchimandriteDamaskinos
Papandreou, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Prof. Bojan Piperov, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, John S. Romanides, Church of
Greece, Prof. L Voronov, Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Petros of Cherson, Russian Orthodox Church, Prof. J. Karmiris,
Church of Greece, Prof. Gerassimos I. Konidaris, Church of Greece, Prof. J. Meyendorff, Orthodox Church in America,
Prof. N. Zabolotzky, Russian Orthodox Church, Dr. J.D. Zizioulas, Church of Greece, Prof. I. Zonewsky, Bulgarian Or-
thodox Church, Kahali Alemu, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Nerses Bozabalian, Armenian Orthodox Church, Rector Paul
Verghese, Syrian Orthodox Church of India, Liqe Siltanat Habte Mariam Worqneh, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Abba G.E.
Degou, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Bishop Amba Gregorius, Coptic Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Severius Zakka Iwas,
Syrian Orthodox Church, Dr. K.C. Joseph, Syrian Orthodox Church of India, Dr. Vardapet Mesrob Krikorian, Armenian
Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Mar Theophilus Philippos, Syrian Orthodox Church of India. Advisor of the consultation
on behalf of WCC was Dr. Lukas Vischer.
9
Original English version in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16/1971, p. 210-259.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 485

of those persons which were previously anathematized, but Churches have the right to keep their own list
of saints and their liturgical praxis. The study group advocated the quiet dropping of the anathemas and
proposed that a formal announcement should be made at the time of the union. The lifting of the anathema
is the responsibility of the Church, which pronounced it upon certain persons or teachings at a certain time
due to pastoral reasons.
The theological consequences of lifting the anathema were extensively discussed: it does not compromise
the infallibility of the Church, it is not the exclusive function of an Ecumenical Synod, it is a theological
process that should be preceded by a thorough study of the rejected teachings and the historical context of
the anathematisation, as well as by a research of the methods for lifting the anathemas in the Church history.
This procedure should be followed by a process of actualisation and education, especially in those Church-
es that included the anathema in their liturgical texts and services: the revised texts should be explained to
the believers. Also handbooks, textbooks and reference books should be revised according to the statement
of reconciliation. Writings of Church history should be improved through objective research of the sources.
The study group noticed that the criteria for the canonisation of a Saint fluctuate from Church to Church
and recommended a study of this differences which directly influence the lifting of the anathemas.
In the end of the common statement the representatives of the Churches expressed their hope that their
7-year work at an unofficial level will be continued at the official level by their churches.10

4. Official Dialogues

1985 - Chambésy, Switzerland11

In Chambésy, Switzerland between 10th and 15th of December 1985 the first official consultation of the Joint
Commission of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
took place. In the communiqué of the meeting the commission recalls the two decades of unofficial theological
consultations and the reconciling grace of the Holy Spirit, which led the two families of the Orthodox Tradi-
tion12 to take up the theological dialogue at an official level.
The common belief in one God, the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the concern for the unity
of the Body of Jesus Christ gave the impulse for this further step. The discussion about the proper appellation
of the two families in the dialogue was followed by an evaluation of the unofficial consultations.
10
Signatories: Metr. Parthenios of Carthage, Patriarchate of Alexandria, Metr. Nikodim of Leningrad, Russian Orthodox
Church, Metr. Nikodim of Attica, Greek Orthodox Church, Metr. Methodios of Axum, Patriarchate of Alexandria, Archpr.
L. Voronov, Russian Orthodox Church, Prof. S. Agouridis, Greek Orthodox Church, Prof. N. Nissiotis, Greek Orthodox
Church, Prof. T. Sabev, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Archpr. V. Borovoj, Russian Orthodox Church, Prof. P. Fouyas, Greek
Orthodox Church, Dr. A. Mitsides, Orthodox Church of Cyprus, Fr. S. Hackel, Russian Orthodox Church, Fr. N. Osolin,
Russian Orthodox Church, Bishop Samuel, Coptic Orthodox Church, Bishop Karekin Sarkissian, Armenian Orthodox
Church, Paul Verghese, Syrian Orthodox Church of India, Liqe Siltanat Habte Mariam Workineh, Ethiopian Orthodox
Church, Prof. Mikre Selassie Gebre Ammanue, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Vardapet Nerses Bosabalian, Armenian Or-
thodox Church, Dr. K.M. Simon, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Ato A. Yigzaw, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Ato A. Amare,
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Ato A. Bekele, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Ato W. Selassie, Ethiopian Orthodox Church,
Ato A. Gulte, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Archpr. M. Ketsela, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Melake Berhanat Tesfa of
Borana, Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Advisor of the consultation on behalf of WCC was Dr. Lukas Vischer; protocol: Fr.
Philip Cousins. Also present were D.A. Aberra, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Fr. N. Taffesse, Ethiopian Orthodox Church,
Fr. G.I. Degou, Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
11
Original English version in Christian Orient (Kottayam) 10/1989, p. 188-189 and J. Gros, H. Meyer, W.G. Rusch (eds.),
Growth in Agreement II, p. 190.
12
The formula “two families of the Orthodox Tradition” was recurrent throughout the dialogue and in the common state-
ments and shaped the understanding between the two sides, as well as the dialogue itself.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
486 Chapter (78)

The agreed methodology presupposes the establishment of a Joint Subcommittee of six theologians, three
from each side, with the mandate to prepare common texts for the discussions of the Joint Commission. The
topics of the next meeting were focused upon the common ground in Christology and Ecclesiology under the
generic title “Towards a common Christology”.13
The participants expressed special thanks to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for convening and hosting the event
and providing the necessary facilities. The document was signed by the two Co-Presidents of the Commission:
Prof. Dr. Chrysostomos (Konstandinidis), Metropolitan of Myra, Ecumenical Patriarchate and Bishop Bishoy,
Coptic Orthodox Church.

1989 – Anba Bishoy, Egypt14

With the meeting from the monastery Anba Bishoy in Wadi El Natrun, Egypt, held between 20th and 24th of June,
1989 the Joint Commission began the actual dialogue and the elaboration of the agreements between the two
Church families. Twenty three participants from 13 countries and 13 Churches attended the consultation. The
Commission approached the report of the Joint Sub-Committee of six theologians on the present problems of
terminology and interpretation of Christological dogmas, prepared during a special meeting in Corinth (1987).
Based on this report, a brief statement of faith was elaborated,15 which was later – after certain corrections –
adopted by the Commission and transmitted to the Churches for their approval.
First Agreed Statement
The agreed statement refers to the one apostolic faith and tradition as a common heritage of the two families
of Orthodox Churches from the Church Fathers in Christ. This legacy was preserved in spite of the centu-
ries-long separation and is expressed in the common Creed. As already stated in the unofficial dialogues,
the core of the common Christological teaching consists of the formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria, i.e. “mia
physis (hypostasis) tou Theou Logou sesarkomene”,16 and of his dictum according to which “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)”.
The Christological mystery of the Incarnation is linked to the mystery of the Holy Trinity, “the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, one True God, one ousia in three hypostaseis or three prosopa”, in order to express the
common belief in the eternal Logos as the dynamic principle of the Incarnation:

“The Logos, eternally consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit in His Divinity, has in these last days, be-
come incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and thus became man, consubstantial with
us in His humanity but without sin. He is true God and true Man at the same time, perfect in his Divinity, perfect
in His humanity. Because the one she bore in her womb was at the same time fully God as well as fully human we
call the Blessed Virgin Theotokos”.

13
Sub-themes: a) Problems of terminology; b) Conciliar formulations; c) Historical factors; d) Interpretation of Christological
dogmas today. In his evaluation of the dialogue with the Oriental Churches Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland states
that already at this first official meeting four main points were regarded as decisive: a. The indissoluble unity between the
“horos” of the 4th Ecumenical Council and the Christological decisions of other Ecumenical Councils; b. the recognition
of the four post-Ephesian Ecumenical Councils by the Oriental Churches; c. the lifting of the anathemas; and d. common
actions for current pastoral issues. See Episkepsis 516/1995, p. 10-11.
14
Original English version in Christian Orient (Kottayam) 10/1989, p. 191-193; J. Gros, H. Meyer, W.G. Rusch (eds.),
Growth in Agreement II, p. 191-193; Greek Orthodox Theological Review 34/1989, p. 393-397.
15
The drafting group was composed of Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of New Delhi, Professor Vlassios Pheidas,
Prof. Fr. John Romanides, Prof. Dimitroff, and Mr. Joseph Moris Faltas.
16
The term hypostasis was added by the signatories of the document as an explanation of their understanding of the Chris-
tological formula.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 487

This orthodox confession is followed by some clarifications concerning certain controversial Christological
expressions. Thus, the Eastern Orthodox theologians gave explanations concerning the Neo-Chalcedonian
concept of composite hypostasis (synthetos hypostasis): it does not express the union of two distinct hypostasis
belonging to the two natures, but the real union between the two natures in the One hypostasis of the Son:

“When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him, a
divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person
of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to
form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each
other in contemplation (theoria) only.”

Far from being a concession made to the Miaphysite side, the “distinction in contemplation (en theoria)” is
a Christological expression of St. Cyril of Alexandria meant to emphasize the difference between his teaching
and that of Nestorius.17 The theologians went on explaining that the hypostasis of the Logos was not composite
neither before nor after the Incarnation, but it was called so “on account of the natures which are united to
form one composite unity”:

“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.”

As for the terminology and its different employment in the Christology of the Church Fathers, the under-
taken studies proved that

“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”.

The mystery of the Incarnation, i.e. of the hypostatic union, is described as

“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”.

The document refers again to the term hypostasis, which actually was the key-term of the theological dia-
logue. It is confessed once more that “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 common confession of faith is presented as contrary to the teachings of Nestorius and Eutyches, the
two heresies being condemned. In positive terms, this 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”.
The famous four adverbs used at the Council of Chalcedon in order to create a framework for expressing the
unity of the natures in Christ – without commingling (or confusion, asyngchytos), without change (atreptos),
without separation (achoristos) and without division (adiairetos) – are explicitly included in the common
17
PG 77, 193-l97.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
488 Chapter (78)

theological tradition of both Orthodox Church families. The Commission states herewith that both traditions
developed within the framework built up by the four adverbs:

“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.”

Even though the Church separation was caused by the Christological controversy, the agreed statement “is
not limited to Christology”, but encompasses “the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early cen-
turies”. Special mention is made of the Pneumatology in contrast to the concept of filioque professed by the
Roman Catholic Church: “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.18 The joint Sub-Committee was supposed to meet from 5th to 9th of December 1989 in Anba
Bishoy Monastery and to prepare a report for the next meeting of the joint Commission, which was decided
to take place in September 1990 at Chambésy, Geneva. The agenda of the meeting in Chambésy included
discussions about the report of the joint Subcommittee on Pastoral Problems, the Conciliar formulations and
anathemas, the interpretation of Christological dogmas today, historical factors for the Church separation and
future steps towards reconciliation.
The document ends with the proclamation of the established name of the Joint Commission – Joint Commis-
sion of the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches – followed by the signatures of the officials.19

1990 - Chambésy, Switzerland20

As established in the previous meeting, the Joint-Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Or-
thodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches met in Chambésy, Geneva, from 23rd to 28th of September
for the third official dialogue between the two Orthodox Church families.21
The Theological Sub-Committee, gathered at the Orthodox Centre, Chambésy (September 20-22, 1990),
and the Sub-Committee on Pastoral Relations, summoned at the Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt (January
31 - February 4, 1990) submitted their reports for evaluation and approval. The Theological Sub-Committee
presented 6 papers on crucial topics like the dogmatic formulations, anathemas, terminology, historical factors
for the Church separation and contemporary interpretation of dogmas.22 The basis for the dialogue was com-
pleted with a “Summary of Conclusions” of the Fourth Unofficial Dialogue at Addis Ababa (1971). During
18
The Sub-Committee was composed of ten persons: Metropolitan Damaskinos, Bishop Bishoy, Prof. Vlassios Pheidas,
Bishop Mesrob Krikorian, Metropolitan Georges Khodr of Mt Liban, Metropolitan Petros of Axum, Prof. Gosevic (Ser-
bia), Prof. K.M. George (India), a nominee of Patriarch Ignatius Zakka lwas of Syria, Metropolitan Gregorios of Shoa.
19
Metropolitan Damaskinos Papandreou, Bishop Bishoy, Prof. Vlassios Phidas, Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios, Dr. Joseph
Moris Faltas.
20
Original English version in Greek Orthodox Theological Review 36/1991, p. 185-188; J. Gros, H. Meyer, W.G. Rusch
(eds.), Growth in Agreement II, p. 194-199.
21
The six-day meeting gathered 34 participants from 17 countries (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).
22
Dogmatic Formulations and Anathemas by Local and Ecumenical Synods within their Social Context - Revd Prof. John
S. Romanides, Church of Greece; Anathemas and Conciliar Decisions - Two issues to be settled for Restoration of Com-
munion Among Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches - Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios, Metropolitan of Delhi,
Orthodox Syrian Church of the East; Historical Factors and the Council of Chalcedon - Fr. T. Malaty, Coptic Orthodox
Church; Historical Factors and the Terminology of the Synod of Chalcedon (451) - Prof. Dr. Vlassios Pheidas, Greek Or-
thodox Patriarchate of Alexandria; Interpretation of Christological Dogmas Today - Metropolitan George Khodr - Greek

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 489

the debates two drafting committees worked on the output of this meeting, i.e. the Second Agreed Statement
and Recommendations to the Churches23 and the Recommendations on Pastoral issues24.
Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the Churches
The basis for this statement is declared to be the first Agreed Statement on Christology adopted by the Joint
Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches at Anba
Bishoy Monastery, Egypt. The Second Agreed Statement is described as a sum of “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 shall be one”.
The document begins with the common rejection of the two Christological heresies condemned at the
Councils of Chalcedon (451) and Ephesus (431): Eutychianism and Nestorianism together with “the cryp-
to-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus”.
The Eutychian heretical doctrine is rejected with the argument that “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 (νους); 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”.
The Nestorian heresy is rejected on the grounds of common confession: both Orthodox families profess
“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”.
An interesting development in the theological dialogue is the adoption of the Neo-Chalcedonian term
“composite hypostasis” by both traditions, after the thorough explanations given in the agreed statement of
the Second Official Consultation in Anba Bishoy. Thus, “both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos
became composite (συνθετος) 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, (the) created human nature, which He assumed at the
Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy”. At this stage, the Miaphysite family proved
discernment in accepting the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the synthethos hypostasis as an expression of
the union of the divine and human natures in Christ and not as an expression of a unity between two pre-existent
hypostases. The key issue was here the confession that “He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis
of the Logos incarnate”.
As in the previous agreement the four adverbial constructions of Chalcedon are employed in order to create
the framework of the hypostatic and natural union and to preserve for each nature its properties: “Both fami-
lies 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 (τη θεωρια μονη)”. Again the Cyrillian expression “in contemplation” or “in theory” is used in order to
distinguish between the common understanding of the “two natures” Christology and the Nestorian heresy.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of the post-Ephesian Councils is restricted to the limits imposed by the “Horos
of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch”.
Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch; Interpretation of Christological Dogmas Today - Bishop Mesrob Krikorian, Armenian
Apostolic Church of Etchmiadzin.
23
Metropolitan Georges Khodr, Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios, Archbishop Kashishian, Archbishop Garima, Revd.
Prof. John Romanides, Metropolitan Matta Mar Eustathius (Syria), Prof. Ivan Dimitrov (Bulgaria) with Prof. V. Pheidas
and Bishop Krikorian as co-secretaries.
24
Prof. Papavassiliou (Cyprus), Bishop Christoforos (Czechoslovakia), Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios and Liqasel-
ttanat Habtemariam (Ethiopia), with Fr. Dr. George Dragas as secretary.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
490 Chapter (78)

These common dogmas are followed by the mutual recognition of the terminology employed by the two
traditions in order to express the mystery of Incarnation:

“The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of
one nature of the incarnate Logos (μια φυσις του θεου λογου σεσαρκωμενη), 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 distinc-
tion is in thought alone (τη θεωρια μονη). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his
letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245)”.

The two Orthodox families acknowledge the first three Ecumenical Synods as common heritage. While the
Eastern Orthodox consider the following four Ecumenical Councils as professing the same belief as the first three
and acknowledge them as normative, the Oriental Orthodox accept this opinion as a legitimate interpretation for
their partners. Quite incomprehensible proves to be the last statement of this paragraph: “With this understand-
ing, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively”. It is not clear, if the Oriental Orthodox acknowledge the
last four Ecumenical Synods and their decisions or if they simply accept that these Councils rightfully belong
to the Eastern Orthodox tradition and do not come into conflict with the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox.
However, the two traditions rediscovered their common belief in the praxis of the veneration of icons, as
expressed by the 7th Ecumenical Council (787). Thus, “Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice
of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the
Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagree-
ments in this regard”. This issue is of vital importance also for the Christology, since the Incarnation is one of
the theological arguments for the reverence, which Orthodox Christians show to the icons.
The 9th paragraph of the document formulates the conclusion of both Agreed Statements: “we have now
clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christo-
logical 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”. This conclusion proves that the dialogue partners managed to look
beyond the terminological differences and to verify how the original intention and the meaning of the words
are to be understood. In this way, they elaborated – based on the theological arguments of both traditions – a
fundament for restoring the Church unity and the full communion between the two families of Churches.
The consequence of the theological reconciliation is naturally the return to full communion, the lifting of the
anathemas and condemnations of the Councils and Fathers sentenced in the past.
This conclusion is followed by three practical steps:
1. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and
fathers whom they anathematised or condemned in the past.
2. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Ortho-
dox Councils and fathers, whom they anathematised or condemned in the past.
3. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.
The signed25 document was submitted to the Churches for “for their consideration and action”.
25
Metropolitan Damaskinos, Metropolitan Bishoy, Prof. Vlassios Pheidas, Bishop Dr. Mesrob Krikorian, Pro. Athanasios
Arvanitis, Metropolitan Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Peristerion, Dr Joseph M. Faltas, Prof.
Father George Dragas, Bishop Serapion, Father Tadros Y. Malaty, Metropolitan Eustathius Matta Rouhm, Metropolitan
George Khodr, Mr Nikolai Zabolotski, Mr. Grigorij Skobej, Archbishop Aram Keshishian, Professor Stojan Gosevic, Ar-
chbishop Mesrob Ashdjian, Father George Kondortha, Dr. Ivan Zhelev Dimitrov, Archbishop Abba Gerima Elvabur, Rev
Habte Mariam Warkineh, Metropolitan David of Sukhum, Er Boris Gagua, Horepiskopos Barnabas of Salamis, Professor
Andreas Papavasiliou, Metropolitan Meletios of Nikopolis, Prof. Father John Romanides, Bishop Jeremiasz of Wroclaw,
Bishop Christoforos of Olomouc, Father Joseph Hauser, Father Heikki Huttunen.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 491

Recommendations on Pastoral Issues

The Joint Pastoral Sub-Committee elaborated this approved document during a previous meeting at the Anba
Bishoy Monastery in Egypt from 31st of January to 4th of February 1990. It tackled four areas of pastoral care:
I. Relations between the two families of Orthodox Churches and the preparation for restoring the Church unity.
The starting point of the discussion was the need of the Orthodox clergy and faithful to benefit of “a period
of intense preparation” for the restoration of full communion. The “practical procedure” proposed by the Com-
mission involves exchanges of visits by the heads of Churches together with prelates, priests and lay people to
their Orthodox brothers, exchange of theology professors and students for minimum one year, participation of
people belonging to one congregation in the Eucharistic worship of the other Orthodox congregation on Sun-
days and feast days – it is not mentioned whether the document refers to the common feast days or it includes
also the particular celebrations of each Church – in the places where the two families are both represented,
publication of the key documents of the dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox
Churches, with explanations concerning the Christological agreement, editing booklets with historical infor-
mation about all the Orthodox Churches and with new results of the research on the controversies of the fifth,
sixth and seventh centuries. The Commission recommends to the Churches of both families to agree not to
“re-baptize members of each other” and to recognize “the baptism of the Churches of our two families, if they
have not already done so”. Furthermore, the Churches are invited to initiate bilateral negotiations for sharing
church premises in special cases when one of them is deprived of such means and for solving possible conflicts
between them through bilateral agreements.26
Regarding theological education, the Churches are called to revise their theological curriculum and hand-
books in order to promote “better understanding of the other family of Churches” and to instruct “the pastors
and people in our congregations on the issues related to the union of the two families”.
II. Relations of the Orthodox Churches with other Christian Churches and the common participation in the
Ecumenical Movement.
This chapter is probably the most visible step towards unity, since it articulates the programme27 of the
preliminary discussion for a “better coordination” in order to fruitfully and effectively testify the “Faith,
which was once delivered to the saints” in the framework of the Ecumenical Movement. The Orthodox
family makes here the first attempt to speak with one voice in the Ecumenical dialogue. For the beginning
some topics were proposed, “in which our two families agree fundamentally and have disagreements with
the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches”: position and role of women in the Church life (with the aim
of providing a common Orthodox response to the question of women’s ordination); pastoral care for mixed
marriages between Orthodox and heterodox Christians on the one hand, and between Orthodox Christians
and non-Christians on the other hand; family issues (like divorce, annulment of marriage and separation of
couples) and abortion. Special joint consultations were planned with regard to proselytism and the proce-
dures for Christians to join another Christian church (special mention is made here of Catholic and Protestant
churches), as well as concerning the “theology and practice of Uniatism in the Roman Catholic Church”,
as a “prelude” to a necessary discussion with the Church of Rome. The Commission also proposed a joint
consultation meant to evaluate and coordinate the results of bilateral dialogues held by some of the Orthodox
Churches with Protestant or Catholic Churches.
III. The common Orthodox service to the world of suffering, need, injustice and conflicts.
A small chapter is dedicated to the “need to think together” for “promoting our humanitarian and philan-
thropic projects”. The Orthodox theologians merely proposed some areas of social commitment: (a) hunger and
26
The Commission gives some examples of conflicts: marriages consecrated in one Church being annulled by a bishop of
another Church; marriages between members of the two families, being celebrated in one church against the resolutions
of the other; or children from such marriages being forced to join one church against the other.
27
The commission proposed to begin the discussion at the 7th Assembly of WCC at Canberra, Australia, in February 1991
and to continue with regional and national councils of Churches and joint consultations.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
492 Chapter (78)

poverty, (b) sickness and suffering, (c) political, religious and social discrimination, (d) refugees and victims of
war, (e) youth, drugs and unemployment, (f) the mentally and physically handicapped, (g) the old and the aged.
IV. The Orthodox co-operation in the propagation of the common faith and tradition.
The last point on the agenda was the Church mission, both in the inner and outer dimensions. The Commis-
sion expressed the need of the Orthodox churches to cooperate “as far as possible” to instruct their believers
in faith and teach them how to cope with the social and cultural transformations in their societies. Concrete
mention is made of issues like secularism, materialism, AIDs, homosexuality, consumerism etc. Concerning
the outer mission the Commission emphasised the “need to find a proper way for collaborating with each other
and with other Christians in the Christian mission to the world without undermining the authority and integrity
of the local Orthodox Churches”.

1993 - Chambésy, Switzerland28

Three years later, between 1st and 6th of November 1993, the Joint Commission of the theological dialogue
between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, “following the mandate of their Churches”,
met again in Chambésy, Switzerland, with the declared purpose to “consider the procedure for the restoration of
full communion”. The participants discussed “in an atmosphere of prayer and warm, cordial, Christian brotherly
love”.29 The two chairmen of the meeting, Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland and Metropolitan Bishoy
of Damiette established the two dimensions of the dialogue: to correctly evaluate the truly historic theological
work of the Commission accomplished in the previous meetings and to facilitate the necessary ecclesiastical
procedures for the restoration of full communion.
The two delegations met separately and elaborated their position on the following issues:
1. What is the competent ecclesiastical authority from each side for the lifting of the anathemas and what
are the presuppositions for the restoration of ecclesiastical communion?
2. Which anathemas of which synods and persons could be lifted in accordance with the proposal of
paragraph 10 of the second Common Statement?
3. Which is the canonical procedure of each side for the lifting of the anathemas and the restoration of
ecclesiastical communion?
4. How could we understand and implement the restoration of ecclesiastical communion in the life of
our Church?
5. Which are the canonical and liturgical consequences of full communion?30
They summarized their conclusions in two different reports, which were presented to the plenary meeting
for clarifications and discussion. The drafting committee31 prepared appropriate Proposals to the two church
families for lifting of mutual anathemas and restoring full communion among them.
The Proposals are particularly based on the Agreed Statements on Christology issued at St. Bishoy Monastery
in 1989 and at Chambésy in 1990 and on “their common acknowledgement of the fact that the Councils and
Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are orthodox in their teachings”, but mention is also made of
the four unofficial consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and the three official meetings (1985, 1989, 1990),
which led to the conclusion 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”. The practical steps towards restoration of the full communion are thus based on an
28
Original English version in J. Gros, T.F. Best, L.F. Fuchs (eds.), Growth in Agreement III, p. 4-7.
29
The 30 participants came from Albania, Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, India,
Lebanon, Poland, Romania, Russia, Switzerland, Syria, United Kingdom and USA.
30
J. Gros, T.F. Best, L.F. Fuchs (eds.), Growth in Agreement III, p. 4-5.
31
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, Metropolitan Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim of Aleppo, Archbishop Mesrob Krikorian
from the Oriental Orthodox side and Professors Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Dragas and Vlassios Pheidas from the
Eastern Orthodox side.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 493

accurate review of Church history and especially on a theological reassessment of the Christological contro-
versies of the 5th century.
Concerning the lifting of the anathemas, the Commission recommended that:

“The lifting of the anathemas should be made unanimously and simultaneously by the Heads of all the Churches of
both sides, through the signing of an appropriate ecclesiastical Act, the content of which will include acknowledge-
ment from each side that the other one is orthodox in all respects”.

This decision actually considers the issue of the reception of the dialogue in the partner Churches, since
the signing of such an ecclesiastical act “unanimously and simultaneously” requires a positive response to the
recommendations of the Commission in all the Churches and a thorough study concerning the theological and
spiritual tradition of “the other” in order to acknowledge its Orthodoxy in all respects. That means that the
Commission does not impose its conclusion on the Churches and that the lifting of the anathemas and implic-
itly the restoration of the full communion cannot be decided by certain Churches or Church representatives,
but by all the Orthodox Churches by means of an unanimous and simultaneous ecclesiastical act. This is a
very important decision, since according to the Commission the act of lifting the anathemas implies: a. that
restoration of full communion for both sides is to be immediately implemented; b. that no past condemnation,
synodical or personal, against each other is applicable anymore; c. that a catalogue of Diptychs of the Heads
of the Churches should be agreed upon to be used liturgically.
Although it recommends such an ecclesiastical act, the Commission is aware of the necessary further
work of the Joint Sub-Committee for Pastoral issues according to the agreement from 1990, as well as of the
necessity to officially inform the Heads of the Churches about the outcome of the dialogue by direct visits
of the two Co-Chairmen of the Joint Committee and by further publications for “explaining our common
understanding of the orthodox faith which has led us to overcome the divisions of the past”. An important
result of this meeting is the appointment of a Liturgical Sub-Committee in order to “examine the liturgical
implications arising from the restoration of communion and to propose appropriate forms of con-celebration”.
Other consequences of the ecclesiastical act of lifting the anathemas, such as matters relating to ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, are “left to be arranged by the respective authorities of the local churches according to common
canonical and synodical principles”.

5. Further steps

In his report on the dialogue with the Oriental Churches from 1995,32 Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland
states that following the fourth official theological consultation in 1993 the two co-presidents of the Joint Com-
mission visited a large number of Churches in order to inform their Heads about the results of the dialogue.33
The summits proved that the Orthodox Church hierarchy regarded with enthusiasm the achievements and
were willing to continue the process of restoring the full communion. In this respect all of them adopted the
Agreement proposed by the Joint Commission. They suggested that the ecclesiastical conscience should be
thoroughly prepared for the next steps and that theological handbooks should be updated according to the new
developments. Regarding the formal proclamation of the ecumenicity of all the seven ecumenical synods by
the Oriental Churches it was decided that this was to be regarded as a natural consequence of the restoration
of the full communion or be again evaluated in the future. Special mention is made of the criticism exerted by
32
Episkepsis 516/1995, p. 13-17.
33
On the Eastern Orthodox side he names the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Cyprus, Greece, Alexandria, Albania, Rus-
sia, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia. On the Oriental Orthodox side are mentioned the Coptic, Ethiopian,
Syrian and Armenian Cilician Churches. The plan was to visit by the end of 1995 also the Eastern Orthodox Churches of
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Finland, as well as the Syrian Church of India and the Church of Armenia.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
494 Chapter (78)

some religious circles concerning certain paragraphs of the Second Agreement. The Metropolitan dismissed
their arguments as based on unilateral and arbitrary arguments. Some reservations were expressed regarding
the lifting of the anathemas for the condemnation of Dioscorus and Severus. The Russian and the Romanian
Orthodox Churches also sent written communications to the Joint Commission.34

1994
Between 20th and 23rd of December 1994 the Joint Commission met at the Coptic monastery Anba Bishoy, in
Egypt, to debate upon the concrete measures to be taken in order to ensure a proper information of the “People
of God” about the theological agreement and the perspectives of restoring the full communion, together with
their canonical, liturgical and pastoral consequences. Since the canonical and pastoral aspects were appropri-
ately settled at previous consultations, the main issue was now the liturgical aspect. The proposition of the
Romanian Church, supported also by other participants, was to keep both liturgical traditions and in the case
of con-celebration to use the local liturgical form. The liturgical Sub-Committee proposed a liturgical form
based on the similarities between the Eastern Orthodox liturgies and the Oriental Orthodox liturgies (such as
the Coptic liturgy of Saint Mark, the liturgy of the Church of Alexandria or the Armenian liturgy). The same
Sub-Committee explored the methods to remove from the liturgical texts all elements, which provoked con-
flicts in the past or could create confusions concerning theological matters, to prove the validity of some old
customs or adapt some feast days.
Three main resolutions were adopted:
a) to watch that the believers are well informed about the results of the dialogue by Church representatives
and not misinformed by other circles;
b) to watch over the activity of the liturgical Sub-Committee concerning the consequences and the common
liturgical form of con-celebration in the case of restoring the full communion;
c) to watch over the activity of the pastoral Sub-Committee.

1995
The two Sub-Committees for liturgical and pastoral issues came together at the Monastery of Pendeli, near
Athens, between 15th and 19th of March 1995. Both of them issued a set of proposals to the Churches. The
liturgical Sub-Committee proposed to admit the diversity of liturgical forms “according to the spirit of the
old undivided Church” as long as they are not expressions of a different faith than the common faith con-
fessed by all the Orthodox Churches. This requires a further thorough study of those liturgical customs whose
theological meaning is not clearly comprehensible yet. When all the Churches have signed the Document of
Unification, two solemn con-celebrations should be organised (one in Constantinople and one in an Oriental
Orthodox Church) using each time the local liturgical form. In order to avoid misunderstandings on any
side, the Sub-Committee suggested that the liturgical diptychs should be kept as before and that any kind of
mixture of liturgical customs “which could lead to something similar to the Uniate confusion of the ecclesial
cult undertaken by Rome” are not acceptable. In order to achieve these tasks, the participants committed
themselves to search for a method to eliminate the anathemas from the liturgical texts according to the view
of the Joint Theological Commission and to find new ways to explain more clearly the new developments to
the clergy and to the believers.
For its part, the pastoral Sub-Committee considered the proper information of the People of God about the
importance, the meaning and the corollary of the dogmatic Christological consensus as groundwork towards
the restoration of the full communion. In this respect, the participants proposed the publication of a “theological
study” dealing with all the unclear and misunderstood paragraphs of the Christological Agreements and of a
“Book of Edification” in which the premises, results and perspectives of the dialogue would be analytically and
34
Both texts in French translation in Episkepsis 516/1995, p. 15-17.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 495

more simply presented. Each side should elaborate its own “Book of Edification” on the basis of a common text
considering the following propositions: 1. to present the ecclesiastical identity of the other side (organisation,
teaching, spiritual life, etc.); 2. to explain the reasons of the ecclesiastical separation in the light of the new
developments in the framework of the dialogue; 3. to express the conscious pain caused by the fragmentation
of the ecclesiastical body; 4. to evaluate the results of the dialogue and to clarify the confusions and misun-
derstandings about the agreed statements; and 5. to analyse the theological and ecclesiastical importance of
restoring the full communion and the perspective of lifting the impediments for the unity of our Churches.
Both Sub-Committees expressed the necessity to meet more often and to evaluate the concrete steps to be
undertaken in order to achieve the set goals, and established a subsequent meeting in Cairo for December 1995.

1998
Concrete steps towards a common Orthodox voice in the framework of the Ecumenical Movement, determined
partially by the new developments in the Orthodox attitude towards the ecumenical dialogue, were taken in
the form of three major consultations which took place in Thessaloniki (Greece April/May 1998), Damascus
(Syria May 1998) and New Skete Monastery (near Cambridge, New York USA, May 26th– June 1st 1998). On
these occasions both families expressed their concerns about the ecclesiological and moral challenges which
the new changes and developments in the WCC prepared for the Orthodox participation and articulated an
Orthodox position on common worship, liturgical renewal and visible unity.

2001
As a direct outcome of the Recommendations on Pastoral Issues of the Official Theological Dialogue, a Meeting
between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox took place in Warburg, Germany between 27th and 29th of
July 2001 with the participation of more than 30 delegates.35 The purpose of the meeting was “to know each
other better as well as to discuss issues of mutual interest and of possible common action”. Discussion sessions
on social, liturgical, pastoral and cultural issues alternated with visiting of parishes and monasteries belonging
to the Syrian and Coptic Orthodox Churches in Germany. Presentations were made about the Church life on
the European continent of the Ethiopian and Armenian Orthodox Churches, as well as of the Finnish, Czech
and Romanian Orthodox Churches. Special attention was given to Orthodox Youth Organisations and pastoral
programmes for the Orthodox youth.

2005
After the submission of the Final report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC from
February 2005, which proved again that the two Orthodox families share the same opinion concerning their
relationship to the WCC and their participation in the ecumenical movement, the Inter-Orthodox Theological
Committee for Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches was summoned
at the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Geneva, from 10th to 13th of March 2005.
Theologians, clergy and lay people involved in this field evaluated the results and prospected for the contin-
uation of the work of the Joint Theological Commission. Several studies were presented and important issues
were discussed (e.g. the criteria for evaluating the theological work of the Joint Theological Commission; the
Christological agreement and “the refutation of those who objected to the interpretation of the recognition of the
‘Orthodoxyʼ of the non-Chalcedonians by St. John of Damascus”; the obscurities of paragraph 8 of the Second
Agreed Theological Statement and the necessity that these be clarified; the liturgical problems that have arisen in
35
Among them Bishop Damian of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Germany; Metropolitan Seraphim, Romanian Orthodox
Metropolitan of Western and Central Europe with seat in Germany, as well as Archbishop Mor Julius Cicek of the Syrian
Orthodox Church.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
496 Chapter (78)

the rapprochement of the two ecclesiastical families; the bilateral relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with
the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the reservations of the Russian Orthodox Church with respect to the text of
the Agreed Statements). Thus the Commission sought to respond to the critical reactions of certain theologians
from both families to the developments in the ecumenical dialogue between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox
Churches. By virtue of the “unanimous decision of the 3rd Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference (1986)” as the
relevant voice of all Orthodox churches and of its conclusion that the theological Dialogue between the Orthodox
Church and the pre-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox Churches is of particular importance, the Joint Theological
Commission and the Sub-Committees on the pastoral and liturgical issues established as their mission in the future
to mend the noticed obscurities and/or omissions. The target was to analyse “the reservations or criticism, either
justified or unjustified, to the ambiguous points in the two Agreed Theological Statements (1989, 1990) and to
the consequences deriving from them”. The work of the two sub-committees was regarded as highly important
as a way “to demonstrate the significance of the agreement reached on the Christological issue” and “to plan and
prepare as required for the ecclesiastical body” a common pastoral and liturgical Church life.
From the theological perspective, one important decision was that “the ecclesiological importance of recognising
and including the doctrinal definitions of the 1st, 5th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Synods must be promoted more fully
through special studies on their Cyrillian basis”. It is a possible solution to solve the strong requirement of the Eastern
Orthodox that the Oriental Orthodox recognise all the seven ecumenical councils on the one hand, and the desire
of the Oriental Orthodox to faithfully keep preserved the Cyrillian theology on the other hand. The commission
recommends once more the lifting of the anathemas as a concrete act of restoring the ecclesiastical communion.
The participants consider that both “these measures presuppose thorough and integrated research of the theological
heritage of both theological traditions and the clarification of the Christological terminology”. The publication of
“an attractive special volume of all the presentations and studies, which refer to the disputed theological issues of
the Agreed Theological Statements, or to the refutation of the criticism against them” was planed as well.

6. Evaluation and Perspectives

It is not easy to provide a thorough evaluation of this ecumenical dialogue in a few lines. For some of the
participants their activities and initiatives in the framework of the Eastern Orthodox – Oriental Orthodox
Dialogue represent their lifework. Still, in order to proceed to further discussions we need to be aware both of
the achievements of this dialogue and of the issues that are yet to deal with.
The general impression is that much accent was put on the fifteen centuries of separation and alienation and
too little on the fact that right after the Council of Chalcedon and until the fall of the Byzantine Empire there
was an active dialogue between these two Orthodox Church families and countless attempts to re-establish the
unity of the Church. At the same time, the two families have never completely ceased their relations altogether.
Recent textual studies prove that in spite of the Christological conflict between them, these Churches continued
to find inspiration in the writings and values of each other, especially in areas like mystical literature, which
were not or only little explored by the participants to the dialogue.36 Further research projects on such issues are
necessary in order to explore both traditions and deepen our knowledge concerning the mutual influence and
vivid exchange between our churches. Mainly unexplored is also the common theological ground shared by the
two Church families which dates before the activity of St. Cyril of Alexandria, on whose teaching the dialogue is
completely centred (e.g. St. Ignatius of Antioch). The impulse given in Bristol (1967) to extend the framework
of the dialogue from the plain Christological dispute to a wider approach of soteriological, ecclesiological and
anthropological, as well as ecclesiastical liturgical and spiritual matters has not been accordingly assumed.
36
A good example, even beyond the borders of the two families, would be the work of St. Isaac the Syrian, the East-Syrian
(“Nestorian”) bishop of Niniveh whose writtings were adopted into the Miaphysite West-Syrian tradition by changing some
names of the authors he was quoting, and then translated into Greek and spread all over in the Chalcedonian Byzantine
and Western European world.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ioan Ovidiu 497

Instead of dealing with such aspects and under the strong influence of the great enthusiasm determined by the
preliminary results, the responsible delegates established a rapid agenda of the steps towards the full communion,
which led to controversies, since the “People of God” was not properly prepared with thorough information from
the clerics, the actualisation of theological handbooks and up-to-date education of future theologians as well as
with a careful familiarization of the believers with the results and prospects of the dialogue. This fact negatively
influenced both the reception and the continuity of the dialogue and made room for anti-ecumenical circles to
mislead the believers regarding the intent, procedures and results of the theological discussions.
The two families developed academic, pastoral and philanthropic cooperation only sporadically and these
were limited to different areas and periods. This proves that the ecclesiastical conscience of the two Orthodox
families, the fact that they belong together and have responsibilities towards one another, is still a desideratum.
At the same time, after adopting the two Christological Agreements it became obvious that practical, ad-
ministrative, canonical and jurisdictional issues are as important as the theological concord and even more
difficult to achieve. The fact that in spite of the theological agreement and the overcoming of the dogmatic
barriers the full communion has not been restored yet is due exclusively to these aspects.
Nevertheless we have been dealing here with the most successful ecumenical dialogue since the grounding of
the World Council of Churches, with two positive theological agreements (1989 and 1990) and good prospects
for the restoration of the full communion. From the very beginning, this ecumenical dialogue was regarded
with much enthusiasm by great theologians of the different Churches, even by some who were only seldom or
not at all directly involved in this theological dialogue, such as the Romanian theologians Rev. Prof. Dumitru
Stăniloae and Rev. Prof. Ion Bria.
The two Orthodox families managed to overcome dogmatic prejudices and even to express their common
faith by using notions, concepts and terms previously employed by only one of the two theological traditions
(e.g. on the one hand the four adverbs employed in the Horos of the Council from Chalcedon or the concept
of the composite hypostasis; on the other hand the Cyrillian expression “in contemplation” extensively used
in the Miaphysite tradition but not very common in the Chalcedonian tradition).
On the ecumenical level the two Church families were able to find their common Orthodox identity and share
their views with One strong Orthodox Voice. This is one of the most important achievements of this dialogue and
should be acknowledged as such. It created an Orthodox pole in the WCC able to effectively present the specific
issues of the Orthodox theology and spirituality and to represent a community with specific values and ideals.
We can only hope that both the academic theology and the ecclesiastical authority will pay more attention to
this important and already well developed historical dialogue so that the last hurdles may be overcome and the
full communion restored. Only after a proper information of the “People of God”, both clerics and believers,
it can be assessed to what extent the restoration of the ecclesiastical communion and the reunification of the
Body of Christ is the will of the entire Church.

7. Bibliography

a. General bibliography on the Oriental Orthodox Churches

Albert, M., Beylot, R., Coquin, R.-G., Outtier, B., and Renoux, Ch., Christianismes orientaux. Intro-duction
à l’étude des langues et des littératures, Paris 1993.
Aßfalg, J., and Krüger, P., Kleines Wörterbuch zum Christlichen
2
Orient, Wiesbaden 1975.
Atiya, A., A History of Eastern Christianity, Millwood/N.Y. 1980.
Betts, R.B., Christians in the Arab East: A political study, Atlanta 1981.
Billioud, J.-M., Histoire des chrétiens d’Orient, Paris 1995.
Hage, W., Das orientalische Christentum, Stuttgart 2007.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
498 Chapter (78)

Kaufhold, H. (Hg.), Kleines Lexikon des Christlichen Orients, Wiesbaden 2007.

Lange, C. and Pingerra, K. (eds.), Die altorientalischen Kirchen: Glaube und Geschichte, Darmstadt 2010.
Müller, C. D. G., Geschichte der orientalischen Nationalkirchen (Die Kirche in ihrer Ge-schichte; Bd. 1, D2),
Göttingen 1981.
Spuler, B., Gegenwartslage der Ostkirchen in ihrer nationalen und staatlichen Umwelt, Frankfurt am Main 1968.
Parry, K., Brady, D., Melling, D.J., Griffith, S.H., and Healey, J.F., The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern
Christianity, Malden – Oxford 2004.
Verghese, P. (eds.), Koptisches Christentum. Die orthodoxen Kirchen Ägyptens, Stuttgart 1973.

b. Texts and studies on the dialogue

Basdekis, A., Orthodoxe Kirche und Ökumenische Bewegung, Dokumente - Erklärungen - Berichte 1900-2006,
Frankfurt am Main 2006.
Chaillot C., Belopopsky, A. (eds), Towards Unity: The Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church
and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, Geneva, 1998.
FitzGerald, T., Bouteneff, P., Turn to God. Rejoice in Hope. Orthodox Reflections on the Way to Harare,
Geneva 1998.
Garijo-Guembe, M.M., Bremer, T., Oeldemann, J., Stoltmann, D., Orthodoxie im Dialog: bilaterale Dialoge der
orthodoxen und der orientalisch-orthodoxen Kirchen 1945-1997: eine Dokumentensammlung, Trier 1999.
Gregorios, P., Lazareth, W.H., and Nissiotis, N.A., Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? Towards Convergence
in Orthodox Christology, Geneva 1981.
Gros, J., Meyer, H., and Rusch, W.G. (eds.), Growth in Agreement II, Geneva 2000.
Gros, J., Best, T.F., Fuchs, L.F. (eds.), Growth in Agreement III, Geneva 2007.
Kirchschläger, R. and Stirnemann, A. (eds), Chalzedon und die Folgen. Festschrift 60. Geburtstag von Bischof
Mesrob K. Krikorian, Pro Oriente XIV, Innsbruck 1992.
Limouris, G., Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism. Statements, Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical Move-
ment 1902-1992, Geneva 1994.
Lossky, N. et al., Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva 2002.
Methodius of Aksum, Papers Referring to the Theological Dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Or-
thodox Churches, Athens 1976.
Moraru, A., Biserica Ortodoxă Română între anii 1885-2000. Dialog teologic și ecumenic, vol. III, Tom II,
București 2006.
Samuel, V.C., The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined: A Historical and Theological Survey, Madras 1977.
Tsetsis, G., Orthodox Thought, Reports of Orthodox Consultations organized by the World Council of Churches,
1975-1982, Geneva 1983.
Werner, D., Esterline, D., Kang, N., Raja, J., Handbook of Theological Education in World Christianity. Theo-
logical Perspectives – Regional Surveys – Ecumenical Trends, Oxford 2010.

c. websites:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
http://www.orthodial.com/indexen.html
http://www.svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today
http://www.coptic.net/articles/orthodoxunitydialog.txt
http://www.pluralism.org/affiliates/student/allen/Oriental-Orthodox/Home.html
http://www.orientalorthodoxchurches.com/
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (79) EASTERN ORTHODOX – ORIENTAL ORTHODOX DIALOGUE
– A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL SURVEY

George Martzelos

Introduction

One of the most comforting and promising ecclesiastical developments in recent years was the success of the
theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East, i.e. the
Coptic, Ethiopian, Jacobite Syrian, Armenian, and Indian Church of Malabar, which all together have around
60 million Christian adherents. After over 1,500 years of mutual suspicion and dogmatic confrontations since
the Council of Chalcedon (451) and despite the differences in Christological terminology and the diametrically
opposing positions regarding the Chalcedonian definition, the two ecclesiastical families surprisingly came to
an agreement to sign a common dogmatic document stating their shared dogmatic faith and teaching throughout
the ages. It should be noted that although many gaps and difficulties remain to be sorted out in this theological
dialogue before full communion can be reached between the two Churches, the success even captured the attention
of Western theologians, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, who were amazed at such an accomplishment.1

a. Key Milestones in the Theological Dialogue

The official dialogue was initiated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate at an ecclesiastical level in 1985 in Chambésy
in Geneva, Switzerland and lasted until 1993.2 This undertaking was preceded by fifteen years of unofficial
contact and theological talks between the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians (1964-1979), during which both
groups became acquainted and realized the proximity between their theological traditions in relation to the
Christological dogma.
Significant stages in the official theological dialogue include the second general session of the ecclesiastical
representatives of both traditions, which took place in June of 1989 at the Holy Monastery of Anba Bishoy in
the desert of Nitria, and also the third general session, which was held in Chambésy in September of 1990. It
was during these sessions that the common dogmatic statements, which clearly demonstrate total consensus on
the essence of the Christological dogma, were signed. It is significant that the success of these above agreements
is not limited to Christology only, but extends to the whole faith of the one and undivided Church of the first
five centuries, as well as all the dogmatic teachings of the four Ecumenical Councils following the schism of
1
See A. M. Ritter, «Der gewonnene christologische Konzens zwischen orthodoxen Kirchen im Licht der Kirchenvätertra-
dition», in Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski, Berlin - New York 1993, p. 469 ff. D. W. Winkler, Koptische Kirche
und Reichskirche. Altes Schisma und neuer Dialog, Tyrolia-Verlag, Innsbruck - Wien 1997, p. 222 ff., 332 also D. Wen-
debourg, «Chalkedon in der ökumenischen Diskussion», in Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität. Studien zur Rezeption
der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, hrsg. von J. van Oort und J. Roldanus, Peeters, Leuven 1998, p. 193.
2
For more on the dialogue between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians see George Martzelos, «O Theologikos Dialogos
tis Orthodoxis Katholikis Ekkli̱ sias me tis Mi-Chalkidonies Ekklisies tis Anatolis. Chroniko – Axiologisi – Prooptikes»
(The Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Catholic Church with the Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East. Timeline
- Evaluation - Prospects), in The Minutes of the 14th Theological Conference of the Holy Metropolis of Thessaloniki with
the topic “I Mitir i̱ mon Orthodoxos Ekklisia” (Our Mother the Orthodox Church)» (10-13 November 1993), Thessaloniki
1994, p. 293 ff. ibid, Orthodoxo dogma kai theologikos provli̱ matismos (Orthodox Dogma and Theological Questions).
Essays in Dogmatic Theology 2, Thessaloniki 2000, p. 247 ff. Damaskinos Papandreou (Metropolitan of Switzerland), Logos
Dialogou (On Dialogue) (I Orthodoxia enopion tis tritis chilietias/Orthodoxy in the the Third Millennium), pub. Kastanioti,
Athens 1997, p. 211 ff (all in Greek).
500 Chapter (79)

451. In other words, the Non-Chalcedonians now accept not only the first three Ecumenical Councils, which
are common to both traditions, but the dogmatic teachings of the four Councils that followed as well; although,
without recognizing them as Ecumenical and equal with the first three.
The third general session mentioned above essentially fulfilled the purpose of the theological dialogue be-
tween the two committees as far as the Christological discussion was concerned; this being the main purpose
of the dialogues. There remained, however, basic practical issues, which would need to be resolved in order
to achieve full sacramental communion and unification between the Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians.
Such issues include the recognition on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians of the last four Ecumenical Councils
as holy and Ecumenical, the theological question of whether or not the Orthodox tradition allows the reversal
of anathemas which were issued against certain people and Synods and which ecclesiastical authority would
have the power to do so, and also the measure to which pastoral economy could be implemented in matters
of liturgical and ecclesiastical administration for the realization of sacramental communion and unification
between the two ecclesiastical families. Once more, the Ecumenical Patriarchate took the initiative to address
these issues. A plenary session of the Mixed Theological Committee of the dialogue was convened in Chambésy
in November of 1993 which, after meticulous considerations, drafted a mutually accepted text, which included
specific proposals to both groups for the lifting of the anathemas and the restoration of full communion between
them. Although this document does clearly define the way in which the anathemas could be lifted (taking into
account the resulting ecclesiastical consequences) and specifically addresses the pastoral and liturgical issues
of sacramental unification, it fails to mention the validation of the last four Ecumenical Councils as a presup-
position for the sought after sacramental communion.
Having achieved the above-mentioned dogmatic agreements, the dialogue was then completely devolved
from the Theological Committee to the level of the local Churches of both sides. Besides the signatures of ec-
clesiastical leaders who had taken part in the dialogue, the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Romania on the side of the Orthodox and by the Coptic, Jacobite Syrian, and Syro-Malabar Churches on
the side of the Non-Chalcedonians upheld the dogmatic agreements with synodal decisions. The fact that the
Non-Chalcedonians approved the agreements has especial dogmatic significance since with this action they
recognized all the teachings of the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers as completely Orthodox.

b. Problems Facing the Theological Dialogue

Despite the astonishing success of this dialogue as far as the Christological aspects were concerned, (which,
as mentioned, drew the attention of Western theologians) it must be acknowledged that many obstacles still
remain to be overcome before a full sacramental communion can be achieved between the two groups. Although
the Non-Chalcedonians had recognized the orthodoxy of the teachings of all the Ecumenical Councils and
Church Fathers, as attested to by the signed declarations, they had still not recognized the last four councils as
Ecumenical and equal to the first three. This is the most fundamental problem that needs to be resolved before
the goal of communion can be realized.
In order to overcome these obstacles, two subcommittees have been created, one for pastoral issues and one
for liturgical matters, which meet from time to time, seeking out mutually acceptable solutions to the issues that
arose from the success of the aforementioned dogmatic agreement. Specifically, these problems exist because
of a lack of awareness regarding the successful dogmatic agreement. There are also steps that still need to be
taken to guide us smoothly and certainly to full communion and unification. Regarding the issue of awareness
of the proceedings, it must be mentioned that the plenary session of the Mixed Theological Committee con-
fronted this topic during the fourth general assembly (November 1993) and decided that it was necessary for
the two vice presidents of the committee to take the following actions: on the one hand they needed to visit
the primates of both churches to fully inform them of the results of the dialogue, and on the other hand to
collaborate with the two secretaries of the assembly to see to the drawing up of suitable documents that could

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

George Martzelos 501

explain the content of the dogmatic agreement, both at a scientific level and in a context understandable to
laypeople, so that any potential misunderstandings could be avoided.
However, while the joint vice presidents were very active in organizing the visits to the primates of both
churches, very few steps were taken to create texts explaining the outcome of the dialogue. The texts and
publications that did circulate were the result of people who took a personal interest and not due to an orga-
nized joint effort on the part of the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians. Besides this, these publications did
not have the widespread impact that was needed to adequately and responsibly inform people regarding the
outcome of the dialogue. Naturally the lack of proper and systematic reporting on the results - at least in the
Greek Orthodox milieu - led to misinformation. If one excludes paragraph eight of the second joint declaration
from 1990 (which needs clarification and better wording to avoid potential misinterpretations and to stop the
doubts projected onto it by those who object), the fact remains that certain points of the dogmatic agreement
that are indisputably orthodox and patristic in character were deliberately expressed in a vague manner with
a clear dogmatic minimalism. This was allegedly done to facilitate a meretricious dogmatic agreement and
an ecclesiastical union at the expense of the Orthodox faith.3 There were, of course, documented responses
to these highly critical and largely unwarranted assessments.4 However, this created confusion in theological
and ecclesiastical circles regarding the accomplishments and goals of the Theological Dialogue. In certain
instances there were attempts to revive the past and the Fathers of the Church were being interpreted partially
and at will in order to bring a halt to the continuation and success of the dialogue. Some considered any fur-
ther continuation of the dialogue as cause for a split in Orthodoxy.5 Within the context of these objections, the
harmful instances of Orthodoxy digressing into fanaticism were, unfortunately, extremely disappointing. To
avoid the reoccurrence of similar deplorable instances, not only is an efficient process of informing needed,
3
See Th. Zisi, I “Orthodoxia” ton Antichalkidonion Monofysito̱ n (The “Orthodoxy” of Antichalcedonian Monophysites), pub.
«Vryennios», Thessaloniki 1994. Ibid, Ta oria tis Ekklisias (The Boundaries of the Church). Oikoumenismos kai Papismos
(Ecumenism and Papism), Thessaloniki 2004, pp. 104-125. Holy Monastery of Osios Gregory, Einai oi Antichalkidonioi
Orthodoxoi? (Are the Antichalcedonians Orthodox?) Keimena tis Ieras Koinotitos tou Agiou Orous kai allon agioreiton
Pateron peri tou dialogou Orthodoxon kai Antichalkidonion (Monofysiton) (Texts of the Holy Community of Mount Athos
and other hagiorite Fathers on the dialogue between Orthodox and Antichalcedonians (Monophysites), Mount Athos 1995.
Holy Community of Mount Athos, Observations on the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Antichalcedonians
(Responses in critique of his Eminence Damaskinos Metropolitan of Switzerland), Mount Athos 1996. S. N. Bozoviti, Ta
aionia synora tis Orthodoxias kai oi Antichalkidonioi (The Eternal borders of Orthodoxy and the Antichalcedonians), pub.
Brotherhood of Theologians «O Sotir», Athens 1999. A. N. Papavasileiou, O Theologikos Dialogos metaxy Orthodoxon
kai Antichalkidonion (The Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Antichalcedonians), vol. Α΄, Center of Studies
Holy Monastery of Kykkou, Lefkosia 2000. J. - C. Larchet, «To Christologiko provlima peri tis meletomenis enoseos tis
Orthodoxou Ekklisias kai ton Mi-Chalkidonion Ekklision: Ekkremounta theologika kai ekklisionlogika provlimata» (The
Christological problem on the planned union of the Orthodox Churches and non-Chalcedonian Churches: outstanding
theological and ecclesiological problems), in Theologia 74/1 (2003), pp. 199-234· 74/2 (2003), pp. 635-670· 75/1(2004),
pp. 79-104 (all in Greek).
4
See Damaskinos Papandreou (Metropolitan of Switzerland), «Apantisis eis to Gramma tou Agiou Orous peri tou Theologik-
ou Dialogou pros tas Archaias Anatolikas Ekklisias» (Response to the Letter of the Holy Mountain on the theological
dialogue to the Ancient Eastern Church), in Episkepsis 521 (31-8-1995), p. 7 ff. and in Synaxi 57 (1996), p. 69 ff. Ibid,
Logos Dialogou (On Dialogue) (I Orthodoxia enopion tis tritis chilietias/Orthodoxy in the the Third Millennium), pub.
Kastanioti, Athens 1997, p. 237 ff. See also K. Papadopoulou, «O dialogos me tous Antichalkidonious» (The Dialogue
with the Antichalcedonians), in Synaxi 57 (1996), p. 43 ff (all in Greek).
5
See Th. Zissis, I Orthodoxia ton Antichalkidonion Monofysiton (The “Orthodoxy” of the Antichalcedonian Monophysites),
pub. «Bryennios», Thessaloniki 1994, p. 9 ff. Ibid, Ta oria tis Ekklisias. Oikoumenismos kai Papismos (The boundaries
of the Church. Ecumenism and Papism), Thessaloniki 2004, p. 108 ff. S. N. Bozoviti, p. 171 ff. J.-C. Larchet, «To Chris-
tologiko provlima peri tis meletomenis enoseos tis Orthodoxou Ekklisias kai ton Mi-Chalkidonion Ekklision: Ekkremounta
theologika kai ekklisionlogika provlimata» (The Christological problem on the planned union of the Orthodox Churches
and non-Chalcedonian Churches: outstanding theological and ecclesiological problems)», in Theologia 75/1 (2004), p.
100 (all in Greek).

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
502 Chapter (79)

but also productive inter-Orthodox deliberations and dialogue within the local Churches so as to create the
greatest possible convergence and consensus between the ecclesiastical representatives in dialogue and the
rest of the Orthodox flock. Without the greatest possible consensus, the sought after sacramental unification
of the two ecclesiastical families poses a danger of creating internal splits among the local Churches, which
would be the worst possible outcome.
Concerning the steps that still need to be taken to achieve sacramental unification between the two Churches
in dialogue (besides the resolution of the liturgical matters, which the appointed liturgical subcommittees have
responsibility for), we have the opinion that the most fundamental obstacle that needs to be surpassed is the
question of the Non-Chalcedonians accepting the last four Ecumenical Councils and especially the Council
of Chalcedon (451), which was the impetus for the schism in the first place. As was previously highlighted,
the Non-Chalcedonians already fully accepted the dogmatic teaching of the last four Ecumenical Councils
with the dogmatic agreement included in the common declarations. However, the Non-Chalcedonians have
yet to recognize these Councils as Ecumenical and equal with the first three. This position of theirs, especially
concerning the Council of Chalcedon, is due just as much to their traditional stance towards the definition of
the Council and Pope Leo’s Tome, which it approved (they considered the definition and the Tome to have
Nestorian traits in the Christology due to the dyophysite wording), as it was to the condemnation by the Council
of Dioscorus of Alexandria, whom they honor as a great Father of their Church.
Concerning the definition of Chalcedon, we must highlight the fact that modern academic research has
proved very clearly that the theological nature of the definition not only is not Nestorian, but also is Cyrillian.6
Indeed, the basis of the Dyophysite formula of the definition of Chalcedon has been proven outright to be
not Leo’s Tome, but the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria7; something which is acknowledged even by
eminent Roman Catholic theologians8, who, as one can see, would have every reason to support the opposite
opinion. Consequently, it must be understood by the Non-Chalcedonians that, based on modern theological
scholarship, their reservation to accept the definition of Chalcedon is unjustifiable as long as they claim to be
faithful adherents to the Christology of St. Cyril.
Also, regarding Leo’s Tome, we must underline the fact that the Tome was accepted by the Council of Chal-
cedon, which is already apparent from the minutes of the Council, but only after they proved the orthodoxy
and full agreement of the Tome with the epistles of St. Cyril and especially with the third epistle to Nestorius,
6
See Th. Šagi-Bunić, «‘Duo perfecta’ et ‘duae naturae’ in definitione dogmatica chalcedonensi», in Laurentianum 5 (1964), p.
203 ff. Ibid, «Deus perfectus et homo perfectus» a Concilio Ephesino (a. 431) ad Chalcedonense (a. 451), Romae - Friburgi
Brisg. - Barcinone 1965, p. 205 ff. A. de Halleux, «La définition christologique à Chalcédoine», in Revue Théologique de
Louvain 7 (1976), p. 3 ff., 155 ff. G. D. Martezlos, Genesi kai piges tou Orou tis Chalkidonas (Origin and sources of the
Definition of Chalcedon). Symvoli stin istorikodogmatiki dierevnisi tou Orou tis D’ Oikoumenikis Synodou (Contribution to
the historic dogmatic investigation of the definition of the 4th Ecumenical Council), Thessaloniki 1986, p. 141 ff., 197 ff (in
Greek). See also A. M. Ritter, «Patristische Anmerkungen zur Frage “Lehrverurteilungen-kirchentrennend?” am Beispiel
des Konzils von Chalkedon», in Oecumenica et Patristica. Festschrift für Wilchelm Schneemelcher zum 75. Geburtstag,
hrsg. von D. Papandreou - W. A. Bienert - K. Schäferdiek, Chambésy-Genf 1989, p. 269 ff.
7
For this subject see G. D. Martzelos, p. 172 ff. ibid, I Christologia tou Vasileiou Selefkeias kai i oikoumeniki simasis
tis (The Christology of Basil of Seleucia and its Ecumenical Significance), Thessaloniki 1990, p. 235 ff (in Greek). G.
D. Martzelos, «Der Vater der dyophysitischen Formel von Chalkedon: Leo von Rom oder Basileios von Seleukeia?», in
Orthodoxes Forum 6 (1992), Heft 1, p. 21 ff. and in Ysabel de Andia / Peter Leander Hofrichter (Hsg.), Christus bei den
Vätern. Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens, Pro Oriente, Bd. XXVII,
Wiener patristische Tagungen 1 (PRO ORIENTE - Studientagung über „Christus bei den griechischen und lateinischen
Kirchenvätern im ersten Jahrtausend“ in Wien, 7.-9. Juni 2001), Tyrolia-Verlag, Innsbruck - Wien 2003, p. 272 ff.
8
See Th. Šagi-Bunić, «‘Duo perfecta’ et ‘duae naturae’ in definitione dogmatica chalcedonensi», in Laurentianum 5 (1964),
p. 325 ff. ibid, «Deus perfectus et homo perfectus» a Concilio Ephesino (a. 431) ad Chalcedonense (a. 451), Romae-Fr-
iburgi Brisg.-Barcinone 1965, p. 219 ff. Μ. van Parys, «L’ évolution de la doctrine christologique de Basile de Seléucie»,
in Irénikon 44 (1971), p. 405 ff. A. de Halleux, p. 160 ff. Α. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Bd. 1,
Freiburg - Basel - Wien 2 1982, p. 758.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

George Martzelos 503

after the well known intense challenges against its orthodoxy on the part of hierarchs from Eastern Illyricum
and Palestine and the explanations given by the papal legates to the Council relating to the meaning of the
dyophysite phrases in his Tome.9 As a result, in this case, the reservations of the Non-Chalcedonians concerning
the acceptance of the Leo’s Tome are not justifiable with the commonly proposed argument that its acceptance
by the Fourth Ecumenical Council allegedly entails violation of the Christology of St. Cyril.
In other words, the definition of Chalcedon, just as much as Leo’s Tome, were accepted by the Council
under the condition of their full dogmatic accordance with the Christology of St. Cyril, which means that in
that aspect the theological character of the Council was absolutely in line with St. Cyril’s theology. The Chris-
tological wording of St. Cyril comprised for the Council the highest dogmatic criteria both for the formulation
and acceptance of the Definition and for the acceptance and signing of the Tome by the overwhelming majority
of the Fathers of the Council. No reservations about the Cyrillian character of the Council of Chalcedon can
be established scientifically based on the facts of modern historical theological research.10
Finally, regarding the question of the condemnation of Dioscorus of Alexandria at the Fourth Ecumenical
Council, it is also clear from the minutes of the Council that Dioscorus was condemned not for dogmatic, but
canonical reasons which are nevertheless real and incontestable.11 As a result, the issue of his reinstatement,
on which the Non-Chalcedonians insisted, can only be resolved in the context of the pastoral dispensation
of the Church, and as such, the responsibility for this issue lies completely in the jurisdiction of the Church
itself. The only thing which we must note from a theological perspective is that the imposed ecclesiastical
punishments are first and foremost of a pastoral character with the aim of either correcting the faithful, or their
preservation from the danger of heresies and, as such, these punishments are valid in the history of the Church
through the principle of economy. Besides, in order for the Church to fulfill its ecumenical calling, it cannot
be captive to historical occurrences and people when the truths of her faith are not affected by those historical
occurrences. The examples of the great Fathers of the Church who confronted issues of a similar nature show
the way in which even this matter can be approached. So, based on these facts, the acceptance of the Council
of Chalcedon, and by extension the next three Ecumenical Councils, on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians
should not constitute a problem.

Conclusion - Prospects

Taking this brief overview of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians, we must
emphasize in conclusion that despite the problems presented by this Theological Dialogue, its prospects for
the realization of sacramental unification of the dialoguing Churches after the achievement of the dogmatic
agreement are clearly favorable; provided that dialogue for the sake of dialogue is avoided and of course also
9
See VI, 972 ff.· VII, 9 ff.· ACO II, 1, 2, 81 [277] ff.· 94 [290] ff. See also J. S. Romanides, «St. Cyril’s “One physis or
hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate” and Chalcedon», in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10,2 (1965), p. 88.
P. Galtier, «Saint Cyrille d’ Alexandrie et Saint Léon le Grand à Chalcédoine», in Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte
und Gegenwart, pub. A. Grillmeier - H. Bacht, Bd. I, Würzburg 41973, p. 354. G. D. Martzelos, Genesi kai piges tou Orou
tis Chalkidonas (Origin and sources of the Definition of Chalcedon). Symvoli stin istorikodogmatiki dierevnisi tou Orou
tis D’ Oikoumenikis Synodou (Contribution to the historic dogmatic investigation of the definition of the 4th Ecumenical
Council), Thessaloniki 1986, p. 44 ff.
10
See G. D. Martzelos, p. 197 ff. ibid, I Christologia tou Vasileiou Selefkeias kai i oikoumeniki simasis tis (The Christology
of Basil of Seleucia and its Ecumenical Significance) 1990, p. 140 ff., 146 ff (in Greek).
11
See G. D. Martzelos, «I epistimonikotita mias “epistimonikis kritikis” sti didaktoriki diatrivi tou Il. Kesmiri, “I Christo-
logia kai i ekklisiastiki politiki tou Dioskorou Alexandreias”(The scientific approach of a “scientific review” in the doctoral
thesis of IL. Kesmiri, “Christology and the ecclesiastical policy of Dioscorus of Alexandria”, Thessaloniki, 2000», in
Grigorios o Palamas 86 (798), Panteleimoni to B’, to Panagiotato Mitropoliti Thessalonikis, Tefchos afierotirion epi ti eis
Kyrion ekdimia aftou (Panteleimon the 2nd All-holy Metropolitan of Thessaloniki, issue dedicated to his passing away),
Thessaloniki 2003, p. 598 ff (in Greek).

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
504 Chapter (79)

provided that they do not simply seek out a hasty and fragile unification which would lead to internal divisions
and further problems than they are already seeking to solve. To achieve this goal, both sides need to take sensible
and methodic steps based on the luminous examples of the great Fathers of the Church who overlooked all that
was secondary and trivial as long as they saw that the unity of the faith was intact. The Fathers should not be
perceived only as “canons of faith” and sure criteria of orthodoxy, but also as “canons” of pastoral prudence
and ecclesiopolitical behavior in confronting similar problems of broken ecclesiastical unity. Only in this way
can we properly understand the introductory phrase of the Definition of Chalcedon: “We, then, following the
holy Fathers...”, and what it means for us.

Bibliography

Galtier, P., «Saint Cyrille d’ Alexandrie et Saint Léon le Grand à Chalcédoine», in Das Konzil von Chalkedon.
Geschichte und Gegenwart, pub. A. Grillmeier - H. Bacht, Bd. I, Würzburg 41973, p. 345-387.
Grillmeier, Α., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Bd. 1, Freiburg – Basel – Wien 21982.
Halleux, A. de, «La définition christologique à Chalcédoine», in Revue Théologique de Louvain 7 (1976), p.
3-23. 155-170.
Ieras Koinotitos tou Agiou Orous Atho (Holy Community of Mount Athos), Paratiriseis peri tou Theologikou
Dialogou Orthodoxon kai Antichalkidonion (Apantisis eis kritikin tou Seb. Mitropolitou Elbetias k. Damaski-
nou) (Observations on the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Antichalcedonians, Responses
in Critique of his Eminence Damaskinos Metropolitan of Switzerland), Mount Athos 1996 (in Greek).
Holy Monastery of Osios Gregory, Einai oi Antichalkidonioi Orthodoxoi? (Are the Antichalcedonians Orthodox?)
Keimena tis Ieras Koinotitos tou Agiou Orous kai allon agioreiton Pateron peri tou dialogou Orthodoxon kai
Antichalkidonion (Monofysiton) (Texts of the Holy Community of Mount Athos and other hagiorite Fathers
on the dialogue between Orthodox and Antichalcedonians (Monophysites), Mount Athos 1995 (in Greek).
Larchet, J.-C., «To Christologiko provlima peri tis meletomenis enoseos tis Orthodoxou Ekklisias kai ton
Mi-Chalkidonion Ekklision: Ekkremounta theologika kai ekklisionlogika provlimata» (The Christological
problem on the planned union of the Orthodox Churches and non-Chalcedonian Churches: outstanding
theological and ecclesiological problems), in Theologia 74/1 (2003), pp. 199-234· 74/2 (2003), pp. 635-
670· 75/1(2004), pp. 79-104 (in Greek).
Martezlos, G. D., Genesi kai piges tou Orou tis Chalkidonas (Origin and sources of the Definition of Chalce-
don). Symvoli stin istorikodogmatiki dierevnisi tou Orou tis D’ Oikoumenikis Synodou (Contribution to the
historic dogmatic investigation of the definition of the 4th Ecumenical Council), Pournara, Thessaloniki
1986 (in Greek).
— I Christologia tou Vasileiou Selefkeias kai i oikoumeniki simasis tis (The Christology of Basil of Seleucia
and its Ecumenical Significance), Pournara, Thessaloniki 1990,
— «O Theologikos Dialogos tis Orthodoxis Katholikis Ekkli̱ sias me tis Mi-Chalkidonies Ekklisies tis Anatolis.
Chroniko – Axiologisi – Prooptikes» (The Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Catholic Church with the
Non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East. Timeline - Evaluation - Prospects), in The Minutes of the 14th
Theological Conference of the Holy Metropolis of Thessaloniki with the topic “I Mitir i̱ mon Orthodoxos
Ekklisia” (Our Mother the Orthodox Church)» (10-13 Νοεμβρίου 1993), Thessaloniki 1994, p. 293-319
(in Greek).
— Orthodoxo dogma kai theologikos provli̱ matismos (Orthodox Dogma and Theological Questions). Meleti-
mata dogmatikis theologias B’ (Essays in Dogmatic Theology 2), Thessaloniki 2000 (in Greek).
— «I epistimonikotita mias “epistimonikis kritikis” sti didaktoriki diatrivi tou Il. Kesmiri, “I Christologia
kai i ekklisiastiki politiki tou Dioskorou Alexandreias”(The scientific approach of a “scientific review” in
the doctoral thesis of IL. Kesmiri, “Christology and the ecclesiastical policy of Dioscorus of Alexandria”,

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

George Martzelos 505

Thessaloniki, 2000», in Grigorios o Palamas 86 (798), Panteleimoni to B’, to Panagiotato Mitropoliti

Thessalonikis, Tefchos afierotirion epi ti eis Kyrion ekdimia aftou (Panteleimon the 2nd, All-holy Metro-
politan of Thessaloniki, issue dedicated to his passing away), Thessaloniki 2003, p. 595-618 (in Greek).
Martzelos, G. D., «Der Vater der dyophysitischen Formel von Chalkedon: Leo von Rom oder Basileios von
Seleukeia?», in Orthodoxes Forum 6 (1992), Heft 1, p. 21-39 and in Ysabel de Andia / Peter Leander
Hofrichter (Hsg.), Christus bei den Vätern. Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen
des gemeinsamen Glaubens, Pro Oriente, Bd. XXVII, Wiener patristische Tagungen 1 (PRO ORIENTE -
Studientagung über „Christus bei den griechischen und lateinischen Kirchenvätern im ersten Jahrtausend“
in Wien, 7.-9. Juni 2001), Tyrolia-Verlag, Innsbruck - Wien 2003, p. 272-295.
Bozovitis, S. N., Ta aionia synora tis Orthodoxias kai oi Antichalkidonioi (The Eternal borders of Orthodoxy
and the Antichalcedonians), pub. Brotherhood of Theologians «O Sotir», Athens 1999 (in Greek).
Papavasileiou, A. N., O Theologikos Dialogos metaxy Orthodoxon kai Antichalkidonion (The Theological Dia-
logue between Orthodox and Antichalcedonians), vol. Α΄, Center of Studies Holy Monastery of Kykkou,
Lefkosia 2000 (in Greek).
Papadopoulos, K., «O dialogos me tous Antichalkidonious» (The Dialogue with the Antichalcedonians), in Synaxi
57 (1996), pp. 43-53 (in Greek).
Papandreou, Damaskinou (Metropolitan of Switzerland), «Apantisis eis to Gramma tou Agiou Orous peri
tou Theologikou Dialogou pros tas Archaias Anatolikas Ekklisias» (Response to the Letter of the Holy
Mountain on the theological dialogue to the Ancient Eastern Church), in Episkepsis 521 (31-8-1995), pp
7-18, and and in Synaxi 57 (1996) pp. 69-79 (in Greek).
— Logos Dialogou (On Dialogue) (I Orthodoxia enopion tis tritis chilietias/Orthodoxy in the the Third Mil-
lennium), pub. Kastanioti, Athens 1997 (in Greek).
Parys, Μ. J. van, «L’ évolution de la doctrine christologique de Basile de Séleucie», in Irénikon 44 (1971),
pp. 493-514.
Ritter, A. M., «Patristische Anmerkungen zur Frage “Lehrverurteilungen – kirchentrennend?” am Beispiel des
Konzils von Chalkedon», in Oecumenica et Patristica. Festschrift für Wilchelm Schneemelcher zum 75.
Geburtstag, hrsg. von D. Papandreou - W. A. Bienert - K. Schäferdiek, Chambésy - Genf 1989, pp. 269-279.
— «Der gewonnene christologische Konzens zwischen orthodoxen Kirchen im Licht der Kirchenvätertradition»,
in Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski, Berlin - New York 1993, σ. 452-471.
Romanides, J. S., «St. Cyril’s “One physis or hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate” and Chalcedon», in The
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10,2 (1965), pp. 82-102.
Šagi-Bunić, Th., «‘Duo perfecta’ et ‘duae naturae’ in definitione dogmatica chalcedonensi», in Laurentianum
5 (1964), pp. 3-70· 203-244. 321-362.
— «Deus perfectus et homo perfectus» a Concilio Ephesino (a. 431) ad Chalcedonense (a. 451), Romae -
Friburgi Brisg. - Barcinone 1965.
Wendebourg, D., «Chalkedon in der ökumenischen Diskussion», in Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität.
Studien zur Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, hrsg. von J. van Oort und J. Roldanus,
Ἐκδ. Peeters, Leuven 1998, pp. 190-223.
Winkler, D. W., Koptische Kirche und Reichskirche. Altes Schisma und neuer Dialog, Tyrolia - Verlag, Inns-
bruck - Wien 1997.
Zisis, Th., I Orthodoxia ton Antichalkidonion Monofysiton (The “Orthodoxy” of the Antichalcedonian Mono-
physites), pub. «Bryennios», Thessaloniki 1994 (in Greek).
— Ta oria tis Ekklisias (The Boundaries of the Church). Oikoumenismos kai Papismos (Ecumenism and Pa-
pism), Thessaloniki 2004 (in Greek).

(translated by Stephanos Salzman)

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
 (80) ORTHODOX DIALOGUE WITH EVANGELICALS - A SURVEY

Bradley Nassif

In the recent years, several positive theological encounters have taken place between Evangelical and Ortho-
dox Christians at global, denominational, institutional, and personal levels. All have helped to foster greater
understanding of our different traditions and created mutual trust and a growing commitment to find a way
forward together as children of the Trinitarian God. This essay will attempt to summarize the accomplishments
of the most important dialogues that have occurred since 1990 to the present, and then map the terrain through
which future advances can be made toward unity-in-truth.

History of Orthodox-Evangelical Dialogues

From the Beginnings to 1990

As often happens, initial contacts between Orthodox and Evangelicals were characterized by a negative history
of mutual suspicion, fear, hostility, and ignorance. Both proselytism and genuine conversions to Christ occurred,
leading some Orthodox to leave their church and join one of the numerous Evangelical communities. Few,
if any, formal dialogues seem to have occurred between Orthodox and Evangelical Christians, even though
personal conversations took place at the grass roots level.
During the mid 1900’s, a number of individual Evangelicals in the UK were involved in the Fellowship of
St. Alban and St. Sergius. This Fellowship seeks to bringing together Eastern and Western Christians with the
aim of discussing points of similarity and difference between their respective theological outlooks and church
disciplines. Several Evangelicals are currently active members in the Fellowship. Also in the UK, a Russian
Orthodox delegation headed by Metropolitan Anthony Bloom met with leaders from the Evangelical Alliance
in the 1980’s to discuss areas of common ground and share testimonies. However, no reports were published.
While Orthodox and Evangelicals remained (with a few exceptions) in a general state of tension prior to
1990, there existed at the same time the presence of renewal movements within the Orthodox Churches of
Antioch (The Orthodox Youth Movement), Greece (Zoe), Romania (The Lord’s Army), and the United States
(The Brotherhood of St. Symeon the New Theologian), to name several of the more prominent ones. To the
extent that these movements emphasized evangelical principles of renewal (such as Bible study, prayer, personal
faith in Christ, evangelism, and social service), there was common ground with the Protestant Evangelicals.
Nevertheless, the ecclesial and sacramental context of these various Orthodox renewal movements set them
apart from their Protestant counterparts.
A major missiological event occurred in the United States in 1987, when the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese
of North America welcomed into its church the mass conversion of 1,700 Evangelicals led by Peter Gillquist,
a former Dallas Seminary graduate and leader of the Campus Crusade for Christ.1 Under Metropolitan Philip
Saliba and with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius IV, Gillquist became head of the Missions and
Evangelism department in the Antiochian church. Under Gillquist, the Antiochian Archdiocese has chrismated
1
“Evangelical Denomination Gains Official Acceptance into the Orthodox Church,” Christianity Today (Feb. 6, 1987): 40;
Timothy P. Weber, “Looking for Home: Evangelical Orthodoxy and the Search for the Original Church” in New Perspec-
tives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff , ed. Bradley Nassif (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1996), 95-121.
Bradley Nassif 507

a sizeable number (never officially documented) of Evangelicals who joined the Orthodox since then. Today,
many of those former Evangelicals have enlivened the faith and assisted the church in contextualizing Ortho-
doxy to the American culture.

From the 1990 to the Present

The year 1990 marks the formal beginning of the Orthodox-Evangelical dialogue with founding of the Soci-
ety for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelism in the United States (to be discussed below). A new
paradigm of ecumenical relations emerged among professional theologians. With the fall of communism in
Eastern Europe in the late 1980’s, Western missionaries began flooding the former Soviet Union, Romania, and
other Eastern European block countries. This necessitated additional theological training in Orthodox history
and theology for Evangelical missionaries working in those countries.
Since 1990 to the present, there have been four major dialogues between the Orthodox and Evangelical
communities:
1. The Society for the Study of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism (SSEOE). Founded in the USA in
1990 by the present author along with five other Orthodox and Evangelical members, the primary focus of
this group has been a deep and sustained dialogue over theological convergences and divergences. Subjects
of discussion have included the authority of Scripture and tradition, the nature of the church, hermeneutics,
proselytism vs. conversion, spirituality and others. The SSEOE met annually at the Billy Graham Center on
the campus of Wheaton College until 1996 and has gathered at various times and places since its founding.
Only a few of these papers have been published in serious theological journals while most remain archived and
unpublished. The SSEOE has not met over the past few years, but new efforts are now underway to re-gather.
2. Beginning in 1997, the World Council of Churches (WCC) hosted a series of international and regional
dialogues between the Orthodox and Evangelical communities. The dialogues initially began as relational
meetings arising from Orthodox concerns over what they perceived as proselytism by Evangelicals in Russia
and Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. The meetings eventually progressed to theological and mis-
siological subjects within the context of continuing concerns over proselytism. Four seminars took place at
the Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, Switzerland from 2000 to 2006. They covered the themes of salvation, the
role and function of the Bible, the church, and theological anthropology. Statements were produced by groups
of participants, but these were primarily for the participants’ own benefit. It had been planned to continue
these seminars, but financial and organizational constraints within the WCC have precluded it. Several of the
papers, along with a complete history of the WCC dialogues, can be found in Building Bridges: Between the
Orthodox and Evangelical Traditions, eds. Tim Grass, Jenny Rolph, Paul Rolph, Ioan Sauca (WCC Publica-
tions, Geneva, 2012).2

Evangelical Initiatives:

a. The Evangelical Alliance of the United Kingdom

In 2001, the Evangelical Alliance (UK) Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals (ACUTE) published
a 163-page book entitled, Evangelicalism and the Orthodox Church. It is the product of a working group of
Evangelical theologians in the UK and Wales that began in 1999. The book provides a broad overview of some
of the key agreements and differences between the two traditions in the areas of history, doctrine, worship and
spirituality. It is not a definitive or “official” document, since it was only produced by individual theologians
who were interested in the subject; but it does make clear some of the central theological truths which Orthodox
and Evangelicals hold in common, as well as several key differences in ecclesiology and sacramental theology.
2
I am indebted to Fr. Ioan Sauca and Dr. Tim Grass for much of the information given in this paragraph.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
508 Chapter (80)

b. World Vision Dialogue

An Orthodox-Evangelical Dialogue was hosted in 2009 by World Vision in Romania under the direction of Dr.
Danut Manastireanu, Fr. Constantine Niclaud, and the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate. A round-table discussion
of Orthodox and Evangelical leaders occurred at the University of Cluj, but very little follow-through resulted.
c. The Lausanne-Orthodox Initiative (LOI)
This significant initiative was sponsored by senior leaders within the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Church-
es and the Evangelical Churches who are part of the Lausanne Movement. Approximately 50 participants
attended. Building on, and not repeating, the work which had already taken place at the theological level, the
Lausanne-Orthodox Initiative brought together a select list of senior mission leaders from within the Orthodox
Churches and the Lausanne Movement of Evangelical Christians. The consultation met at the monastery of St.
Vlash in Albania under the host Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos from 2-6 September, 2013. Participants
came from most parts of Europe, North America, Africa, and Asia. Their stated goals included, among others,
the desire to build relationships of trust with one another; to benefit from the theological work already un-
dertaken within their church traditions; to come to a greater understanding and appreciation of their different
spiritual and theological heritages; to confront their differences honestly and in a spirit of desire that Christ’s
prayer for unity might be fulfilled; and to propose and plan any common actions which, guided by the Holy
Trinity, they believe would honor God and help to overcome their past failings in mission.3

Lectureships, Fellowships, and Scholarly Publications

A significant variety of bridge-building efforts continue in small but fruitful ways on several fronts. Notable
examples include (among others) lectures by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware at Wheaton College and North Park
University (2011) on the topic, “Orthodox and Evangelicals: What Have We To Learn From Each Other?”4
Since 2008, the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius continues to host a group of theologians, ecumenists,
and church leaders who meet twice a year for a day in Oxford. Under the leadership of Fr. Stephen Platt and
Dr. Tim Grass, speakers from each tradition cover themes such as the Bible, the church, sacramental theology,
priesthood and mission (the papers may soon be published). Other fellowships that foster Orthodox-Evangelical
dialogue include The Fellowship of St. James and Touchstone magazine (USA); and Act3 Network led by Dr.
John Armstrong, a missions professor at Wheaton College.
Last, and perhaps the most fruitful area of ecumenical exchange, comes from the published work of
individual scholars. I have documented much of this history through 2003 so will not repeat it here.5 Since
2003, however, a virtual renaissance has occurred among Evangelical theologians who are exploring major
theological themes within the Orthodox tradition. The titles are far too numerous to list in this brief précis,
but a sample representation of the topics includes introductions to Orthodox theology, deification, ecclesi-
ology, worship and Scripture, and tradition.6 Evangelicals have done more research into Orthodox themes
3
LOI invitational letter to the author from Dr. Mark Oxbrow in January, 2013.
4
Available for download on www.ancientfaith.com
5
“Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism: The Status of an Emerging Global Dialogue” in Eastern Orthodox Theology:
A Contemporary Reader, 222 ff. The essay provides a fairly comprehensive documentation of Orthodox-Evangelical
exchanges from 1990-2003.
6
Examples include Tim Grass, “Evangelical – Orthodox Dialogue: Past, Present and Future”, Transformation 27.3 (July
2010), pp.186-98; James R. Payton, Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition, InterVar-
sity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 2007; Veli-Matti Karkkainen, One with God: Salvation As Deification and Justification,
Unitas Books, Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN, 2004; Slavko Ezdenci, Deification and Union with Christ: A Reformed
Perspective on Salvation in Orthodoxy, Latimer House, Oxford: 2011; D.H. Williams, Evangelicals and Tradition, Baker
Academic: Grand Rapids, MI, 2005.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Bradley Nassif 509

than Orthodox scholars have studied Evangelical theology. Orthodox research includes topics such as the
centrality of the gospel in the life of the church, Scripture and tradition, and the evangelical character of
Orthodox theology and spirituality.7

Mapping the Future

As we move into the future, common to all the above is the observation that Orthodox and Evangelicals agree
that a sound basis for a common witness to the gospel rests on a common witness to Christian truth. This
common conviction over the primacy of theology sets the dialogue on firm grounds that each side considers
essential. However, Evangelicalism is a trans-denominational spiritual movement that is held together by a
common set of theological emphases, and not a single denomination with a single set of doctrines.8 This makes
dialogue with Evangelicals decentralized and situational by its very nature. What, then, is an “Evangelical”?
There are competing ways to define the movement, but a widely accepted definition of Evangelicalism comes
from David Bebbington who identifies four unifying emphases9:
1. Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God provided a way for the forgiveness of sins (cru-
cicentrism).
2. The Bible is the inspired Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word (biblicism).
3. People need to commit their lives to Jesus Christ and be converted (conversionism).
4. It is important to encourage non-Christians to become Christians and to engage in a life of service
(activism).
The following observations may assist Orthodox communities in their future attempts to build bridges with
groups who hold this set of Evangelical emphases:
1. Historic Evangelicalism is a moving target today. Contemporary Evangelicalism is rapidly questioning
and reshaping its past identity due to postmodernist influences10 and expanding definitions of the very meaning
of the term “gospel.”11 Negatively, Evangelical postmodernism tends to undermine the theological moorings
of the movement, which could significantly alter past areas of agreement with the Orthodox. Positively, a
widening definition of an Evangelical understanding of the “gospel” is underway that comports well with
Orthodox Christology. No longer is Evangelicalism restricted mainly to the primacy of justification by faith
and substitutionary atonement, even though an influential Reformed body of Evangelicals still insists on the
priority these emphases should have in defining Evangelical identity. A progressive wing in Evangelicalism is
7
My best effort at comparing Orthodox and Evangelical theology is the essay entitled, “The Evangelical Theology of the
Eastern Orthodox Church” in Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, ed. James Stamoolis, Zondervan:
Grand Rapids, MI, 2004. The book is translated into Romanian, Ortodoxie evanghelism: Trei perspective, Editura Adora-
mus: Iasi, 2009. For the centrality of the gospel in the Orthodox liturgy, see Bradley Nassif, “Orthodox Spirituality: The
Quest for a Transfigured Life” in Four Views of Christian Spirituality, ed. Bruce Demarest, Zondervan: Grand Rapids,
MI, 2012. For the centrality of the gospel in the whole of Orthodox life see Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos, The Way of
Christ: Gospel, Spiritual Life and Renewal in Orthodoxy, Holy Cross Orthodox Press: Brooklinne, MA, 2002. For the
biblical foundations for holy Tradition, Edith M. Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says, Baker
Academic: Grand Rapids, MI, 2013. For the centrality of the gospel in The Philokalia, see Bradley Nassif, “Concerning
Those Who Imagine That They Are Justified By Works:” The Gospel According to St. Mark – the Monk” in The Philoka-
lia: A Classic Text of Orthodox Spirituality, foreword Kallistos Ware, eds. Brock Bingaman and Bradley Nassif, Oxford
University Press: NY, 2012.
8
Why We Belong: Evangelical Unity and Denominational Diversity, eds. Anthony L. Chute, Christopher W. Morgan, and
Robert A. Peterson, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.
9
Cited by Mark Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction, Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2001, 13, 31.
10
Dr. Carl Raschke, The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace Postmodernity, Baker: Grand Rapids, MI, 2004;
Brian McClaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith, NY: HarperCollins, 2010.
11
See Scot McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2011.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
510 Chapter (80)

beginning to see the gospel as embracing the whole of the Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension and
second coming while retaining its emphasis on the cross.
2. The four distinctivenesses cited above are both embraced and transcended by the Orthodox faith through
its Christological and Trinitarian theology. Whereas Evangelicalism is minimalistic in its approach to unity,
Orthodoxy is maximalist in its vision of faith. These four distinctivenesses of Evangelical identity have had
far-reaching implications for the way historic Orthodoxy has interpreted their significance. Herein lies the crux
of our known and continuing differences with Evangelicals. Even though we agree on these four distinctive-
nesses, we vary widely on their theological implications. Herein explains our differences in the areas of biblical
interpretation, ecclesiology, sacramental theology, liturgy, iconography, and spiritual life.12
Cooperation between Orthodox and Evangelical believers should be explored in relation to common social
action and, to a limited extent, evangelism, Bible study, and worship. In recent times, the World Evangelical
Alliance has expressed concern about persecution by the Orthodox in places like Russia and other traditional
Orthodox countries.13 Likewise, the Orthodox have expressed concern that Evangelical missionaries have
little appreciation for the religious and cultural heritage of Orthodox Christians, and that “folk religion” does
not accurately represent the Orthodox faith. The Moscow Patriarchate, however, has demonstrated in the past
that Orthodox and Evangelicals can work together successfully, as was done in earlier times under the Billy
Graham evangelistic campaigns. Nominal Orthodox Christians who responded to the gospel under Billy Gra-
ham’s preaching were not “proselytized,” but directed to good Orthodox churches for discipleship. Similar
cooperative ventures should be possible today, if there is a will to do so. A united voice that bears witness to
historic Christian faith is urgently needed in areas of the gospel, human sexuality, marriage, human dignity,
creation stewardship, and related areas.
In the area of church renewal, Orthodox theologians need to show how the church’s incarnational Trinitarian
faith challenges Evangelicals to reassess the limited comprehensiveness of their own incarnational Trinitarian
beliefs. Evangelicals need to be shown how deeply “evangelical” the Orthodox Church really is (albeit in a much
wider and richer sense than popular forms of Protestant Evangelicalism). The Gospel lies at the very heart of
all the church’s dogmatic definitions, ecumenical councils, liturgies, sacramental theology, patristic teachings,
iconography, spirituality, and missions. Evangelicals should be able to affirm and support the Orthodox Church
if we can express our “evangelical” theology in a vocabulary that is meaningful to our Evangelical brethren.
We will not likely ever see full visible unity with Evangelicals, but we can manifest our spiritual unity with
them in broken but visible ways. This should be possible since, as the late Fr. George Florovsky once wrote,
“The true church [Orthodoxy] is not yet the perfect church.”14
Finally – and most importantly – at the parish level, Evangelicals have much to offer the Orthodox Church
today in terms of spiritual renewal. Theological dialogues can only do so much. There must come a time when
dialogue is converted into action. That is why the most urgent need in the Orthodox world today is the need for
an aggressive internal mission of evangelizing our own nominal Orthodox people. Nominalism is the number
one problem that Orthodoxy faces today globally. Evangelicals challenge our bishops, priests, and lay leaders
to make the gospel much clearer and more central to our parishioners’ lives than we have done in the past.
They remind us that just because the gospel is in the life of the church does not mean that our people have
understood and appropriated its message! There is a tragic gap between Orthodox principles and Orthodox
practice. All that we need for spiritual renewal is contained within our very own theology and church life. It
12
For an Orthodox assessment of these distinctivenesses and the centrality of the gospel in the church’s liturgy see my
essays “The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church” ibid., and “Orthodox Spirituality: The Quest for a
Transfigured Life” ibid.
13
Available online: http://www.worldea.org/news/4094/wea-rlc-research-and-analysis-report-why-russia-persecutes-non-or-
thodox-churches-1 (last accessed September 2013).
14
George Florovsky, “The True Church is Not Yet the Perfect Church” in Tuasend Jahre Christentum in Russland: Zum
Millenium der Taufe der Kiever Rus’, ed. K.C. Felmy et al., Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht: Gottingen, 1988, 583-90.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Bradley Nassif 511

is out of those rich resources that the gospel must be made clear, central, and compelling to every person in
each generation. Whether through preaching, the confessional, personal conversations, or separate preaching
sessions, Orthodox evangelism needs to take place much more aggressively than we have done to date, espe-
cially among the youth. It is possible for our young people to attend church, take communion, venerate the
icons and end up religious, but lost. It is not without reason that the Book of the Gospels rests on the center of
the altar in every Orthodox Church around the world. This liturgical symbolism tells us if we truly want to be
people of the Gospel, we will need to constantly recover the personal and relational aspects of God in every
life-giving action of the church. Perhaps if we humble ourselves before our Evangelical brothers and sisters
and listen to the simplicity of their message we will rediscover the true meaning of our own faith and, in the
process, bring them with us into the fullness of the Orthodox Church.

Bibliography

Tim Grass, Jenny Rolph, Paul Rolph, Ioan Sauca, editors. (2012) Building Bridges: Between the Orthodox and
Evangelical Traditions. WCC Publications, Geneva, 2012.
Tim Grass. (2010). Evangelical – Orthodox Dialogue: Past, Present and Future. Transformation 27.3, p.186-98.
Evangelicalism and the Orthodox Church. A Report by the Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and
Truth among Evangelicals (ACUTE). (2001) Whitfield House, London.
Bradley Nassif. (2004). Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism: The Status of an Emerging Global Dialogue.
Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 222-48.
Bradley Nassif. (2004). The Evangelical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Three Views on Eastern
Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, ed. James Stamoolis. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, p. 13-87. Trans-
lated into Romanian (2009). Ortodoxie evanghelism: Trei perspective. Iasi, Editura Adoramus, p. 27-92.
Theodore Stylianopoulos. (2002). The Way of Christ: Gospel, Spiritual Life and Renewal in Orthodoxy. Holy
Cross Orthodox Press: Brookline, MA.

Part V: Bilateral Dialogues between Eastern Orthodox Churches

and other Churches and Christian Traditions
 PART VI

ECUMENICAL PERSPECTIVES OF ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES

 (81) GENERAL INTRODUCTION INTO THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN ORIENTAL CHURCHES
AND OTHER CHURCHES AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS

Fr. Kondothra M. George

The Oriental Orthodox family is comprised of the Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Indian and Eritrean
Churches. Historically they have been referred to as non- or anti- or pre-Chalcedonian, Monophysite, Ancient
Oriental or Lesser Eastern. Presently the generally accepted name is Oriental Orthodox. The majority of the
members of these churches live in Ethiopia, Egypt, Eritrea, Armenia, India, Syria and Lebanon. There are also
large diaspora communities in parts of the Middle East, Europe, Asia, North and South America, and Australia.
The Oriental Orthodox churches are ancient churches which were founded in apostolic times, by apostles or by
the apostles’ earliest disciples. Their doctrinal position is based on the teachings of the first three ecumenical
councils (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381 and Ephesus 431). The Alexandrian school of thought has guided
and shaped their theological reflection. The teachings of Saint Cyril the Great constitute the foundation of their
Christology. They are firmly attached to the Cyrilian formula of “One nature of the Word Incarnate”. Their
theology is biblical, liturgical and patristic, and is embodied in mysticism and spirituality.
The Oriental Orthodox churches, along with those of the Byzantine tradition or Eastern Orthodox, belong
to the larger family of the Orthodox churches. The two groups are not in communion with each other. The
breach, which occurred in 451, marking the first ecclesial division in church history, was about the Chris-
tological teaching of the Council of Chalcedon. Through the centuries confrontation and estrangement, but
also dialogue and rapprochement have characterized the relations between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox
churches. In 1985, after two decades of unofficial meetings, the two groups engaged in an official theological
dialogue, which has resulted in Christological agreements. The main remaining question is the reception of
the agreements in the churches.
The history and life of the Oriental Orthodox churches has been marked by ceaseless persecution and massacres
under the Byzantine, Persian, Muslim and Ottoman powers. The sufferings have had a profound impact on their
life, witness, theology and spirituality. Yet this life of the cross has not led them to become entirely isolated and
introverted. In spite of their continuous suffering, these churches have sustained themselves through constant
efforts of renewal. Under the imperative of new realities and the demands of changing times, they have been
able to challenge the strong traditionalism and inward-looking estate that prevailed for some time, due to the
historical circumstances. While ancient traditions still dominate, a fresh vitality and creativity are blowing in
these churches, both in their motherlands and in the diaspora. They have significantly revived monastic life as
a rich source of spirituality, evangelism and diakonia for clergy as well as laity, men and women. They have
reorganized theological education. Sunday schools have become centres of intense activities. Youth movements
and student associations have been created. Bible study seminars, courses for the Christian formation of laity,
fasting and daily celebrations of saints are vivid expressions of deep spirituality and of evangelistic inreach
and outreach, which nurture and build these communities of faith. They are churches of the people, without
the dichotomy between institution and community. The whole people of God participate actively in the life
and witness of the church.
In early centuries the Oriental Orthodox churches have played a pivotal role in the expansion of Christianity
beyond the borders of the Byzantine empire. The Christian faith was taken from Alexandria down to Africa,
from Armenia to the North, from Antioch to the Far East. In later centuries, because of changing political and
religious conditions, the missionary activities have been carried on mainly in terms of building and sustaining
their own community. In today’s context of a globalized world, and of pluralistic societies, there is an increasing
516 Chapter (81)

awareness on the part of the Oriental Orthodox churches of the need to renew the methodologies and forms
of mission and evangelism.
Although the Oriental Orthodox churches have suffered from Western missionary efforts in the Christian
East, both Catholic and Protestant, they have taken the ecumenical challenge seriously. They firmly believe that
meeting together, praying together and entering into frank and critical dialogue with their ecumenical partners
is the will of the Lord. The World Council of Churches is for them the most comprehensive instrument of the
ecumenical movement, providing them with a global framework for close and meaningful relationships and
cooperation with other churches.
After centuries of isolation from each other, the Oriental Orthodox churches finally met in 1965 in Addis
Ababa. At this historic meeting the church heads reaffirmed their belonging to one faith. They took several
decisions which, for many reasons, have not fully materialized. The challenge remains to give more visibility
and tangible expression to the unity of faith of the Oriental Orthodox churches. Among the issues they need to
address together are the influence of secularism, the resurgence of religious fundamentalism and the increasing
migration of the faithful from the motherlands to other parts of the world. The Oriental Orthodox family does not
have an organized institution. Since 1996 the heads of the three churches in the Middle East (Coptic, Armenian
and Syrian) have put in place a framework for annual meetings at which they discuss common concerns and
issues. Several working groups have been formed to assist the patriarchs with this process. Besides the dialogue
with the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox as a family is also engaged in a theological dialogue with
the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. The Oriental
Orthodox churches have much to share with other churches. They have preserved a strong sense of history
and tradition. They can make a unique contribution through their monastic tradition, oriental spirituality, rich
liturgy and mystical theology.
The Oriental Orthodox churches, which are all members of the World Council of Churches, represent some
60 million Christians.

Bibliography

WCC website on Oriental Orthodox Churches: http://www.oikoumene.org

Geevarghese Mar Osthathios, “Oriental Orthodox Churches”, in: Nicholas Lossky et al, Dictionary of the
Ecumenical Movement, WCC 2002, page 857-859
K.M. George, “Oriental Orthodox-Orthodox Dialogue”, in: Nicholas Lossky et al, Dictionary of the Ecumenical
Movement, WCC 2002, page 859-862

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (82) ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE IN THE COPTIC CHURCH IN EGYPT

Metropolitan Bishoy

Theological dialogue is the means for reaching Church unity, in order to fulfill the commandment of our
Lord Jesus Christ in His commune with the Father “that they may be one as We are” (Jn 17:11). The Coptic
Orthodox Church never neglected or even delayed participation in any theological dialogue, eager to reach
this unity based upon unity of faith.

Participation in the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC)

The Coptic Orthodox Church contributed in establishing the MECC, and participates in all its activities. The
MECC includes now the four families of churches in the Middle East: Oriental Orthodox, Orthodox, Catholic,
and Evangelical.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middles East

On 10-11 March 1998 a common declaration was signed by the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in
the Middle East: Pope Shenouda III Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark (Coptic Ortho-
dox Church), Mar Ignatius Zakka I Patriarch of the Antioch and all the East (Syrian Orthodox Church) and
Catholicos Aram I (the Armenian Orthodox Church of Antelias, Lebanon). This historical incident took place
at St. Bishoy’s Monastery, Wadi El Natroon, Egypt, in the presence of a standing committee which consists of
the delegated representatives of each church. The Common Declaration announced the oneness of faith among
the three churches. The heads of these churches agreed on the necessity of maintaining a common position of
faith in all theological dialogues. Thus, henceforth, they will engage as a family of Oriental Orthodox Churches
in the Middle East in any theological dialogue with other churches and Christian world communions. Annual
meetings are held between the heads of the three churches.

1. Dialogue with the Byzantine Orthodox

Under the supervision and encouragement of the World Council of Churches, unofficial dialogues commenced
between the Orthodox Churches, sharing with our faith (i.e. Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian and Indian) and the
Byzantine Orthodox; being the two Orthodox families. The meetings were held as follows: 1964 in Arhus,
Denmark, 1967 in Bristol, England, 1970 in Geneva, Switzerland, 1971 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
In 1985 official dialogues commenced between both Orthodox families under the auspices of His Holiness
Pope Shenouda III and the Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios. Dialogues have continued after the enthronement
of Patriarch Bartholomaios of Constantinople.
In 1987 in Corinth, the first official theological agreement was formulated by a sub-committee which presented
its report to the general plenary Committee of the Commission of the Dialogue. The commission met at Saint
Bishoy Monastery in 1989 under the patronage of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III who urged the assembly
to formulate an agreement that would terminate the disputes standing between the two families over the last
fifteen centuries. According to the report from the sub-committee, they were indeed able to form a theological
agreement on Christology based on the teachings of Saint Cyril I, Pope of Alexandria. The signing of this
518 Chapter (82)

agreement produced a great echo throughout the entire world, as it was the first official agreement signed by
the representatives of the Churches of both families.
In September 28, 1990 in Chambesy, Switzerland, an agreement was signed on the basis of the historical
agreement of Saint Bishoy Monastery in 1989. The new agreement stated the lifting of anathemas issued
against all the fathers and councils of the two Orthodox families. The official representatives of both families
signed the agreement and forwarded it -as previously with the first agreement- to the Holy Synods of their
respective churches, to take decisions. Our Church approved these agreements in the Holy Synod’s sessions
held on the Pentecost of 1990, and November 12, 1990, on condition that, this step from our behalf awaits a
similar approval from the other churches; in order that the lifting of anathemas between the two families occur
unanimously and simultaneously.
The Holy Synod of the Indian Orthodox Church has also approved both agreements. Likewise, the Holy
Synod of the Romanian Church approved both agreements. In February 1994 Patriarch Zaka I handed the ap-
proval of the Syrian Orthodox Church to all the executed agreements, to the Co-President of the Commission
of the Dialogue. The responses of the churches follow in succession at the present time announcing that the
fulfillment of the unity between the Orthodox Churches is near at hand. The Byzantinian Orthodox Churches
of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch have also approved.
In the First week of November 1993, commission of the Dialogue assembled in Switzerland to issue re-
sponses to the inquiries of some churches. It decided that the two Co-Chairmen of the Commission, travel to
all the Orthodox Churches of both families throughout the world to offer the required explanations for all the
articles of the agreement, which they did. This decision was by general consent and fulfilling the wish that His
Holiness Pope Shenouda III expressed since the second agreement of 1990. During the same meeting it was
agreed to place a document for the unity of the Church and lifting of anathemas to be signed by all the heads
of the Orthodox Churches of both parties, including confessions from both sides that the others are Orthodox
in all their doctrines. Decisions were also taken for establishing a list of the heads of the Churches for use in
the Diptychs. Decisions were taken to ensure the editing of books offering explanations of the agreements
to the people, and for the establishment of a sub-committee for formulating the way of con-celebrating the
liturgy after the union.
Later, on April 2007, Metropolitan Bishoy (co-chairman representing the Oriental Orthodox side) met Met-
ropolitan Emmanuel of France (the new co-chairman representing the Orthodox side) in Lebanon in order to
re-activate the job of The Inter-Orthodox Theological Committee for Dialogue between the Orthodox Church
and the Oriental Orthodox Churches to help reception of the abovementioned agreed statements and the its
being accepted by the churches.

2. Consultation with the Russian Orthodox Church

On April 2000 Patriarch Alexy of Russia sent a letter inquiring the initiation of a dialogue with the Coptic
Orthodox Church, in order to facilitate the reception of the agreed statements of the official dialogue between
the two orthodox families of churches. We responded that we maintain a common position with the Oriental
Orthodox Churches of the Middle East, and the Russian Church agreed upon this condition. Consequently, a
preparatory meeting was held in Russia in March 2001, followed by an official meeting in Moscow of The Joint
Commission for the Relations Between the Russian Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches in the
Middle East in September 2001. Its aim was to deepen the ties of cooperation, exerting efforts to eradicate the
obstacles facing their acceptance of the official theological agreements signed between the two orthodox families.
In the first official meeting of Moscow, Metropolitan Bishoy, according to the request of the Russian
Church, presented a paper interpreting the first agreed statement of the official dialogue between the Or-
thodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The second official meeting was held in Cairo on

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Metropolitan Bishoy 519

September 2004, its subject was the Christology of St. Severus of Antioch. The third official meeting was
held in Lebanon on December 2005 its subject was the Council of Chalcedon. In each meeting papers were
presented from both sides.
A new point was added to the points of discussion in the agenda with the Russian Church namely the dei-
fication of man, which occurred in a paper presented by one of the Russian participants and read by another.
This paper stated that a hypostatic union between the divinity and humanity in Christ includes those who are
saved in Christ and form the body of the church. This concept is completely rejected by our family of churches,
and might be added to the agenda of The Inter-Orthodox Theological Committee for Dialogue between the
Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Presently, our dialogue with the Russian Church is stopped. However, when H. H. Patriarch Kyril of Russia
visited H. H. Pope Shenouda III in Alexandria, in April 2010, they agreed upon re-activating the work of the
Joint Commission.

3. Dialogue with the Catholic Church

In Sept. 1971, unofficial dialogues commenced between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic Churches.
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, then Bishop of Education, represented the Coptic Orthodox Church (during
the time of the vacancy of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchal throne). In this meeting, His Holiness formulated
an Agreed Statement on Christology that was accepted by both the theologians of the family of churches shar-
ing our faith (Oriental Orthodox Churches) and the Catholic Church theologians. The Formula of this Agreed
Statement is as follows:

“We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect
in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Change nor
Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.

At the same time, we anathematize the doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches”.

The above Agreement was officially received in February 1988; when it was signed by H.H. Pope Shenouda
III, some bishops and theologians of our church on one side and the representatives of the Roman Catholic
Pope, the Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church in Egypt, some bishops and theologians on the other side.
The Pope of Rome corresponded in writing to H.H. Pope Shenouda III expressing his rejoice at reaching such
an Agreement befitting the well-known Coptic terminology.

Other Issues of the Dialogue :

The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, under the primacy of H.H. Pope Shenouda III, decided in
its session dated 21/6/1986, that it is a necessity to reach solutions concerning doctrinal differences, prior to
lifting the existing anathemas between both Churches. The foremost of these doctrinal differences are: Chris-
tology, Procession of the Holy Spirit (whereby the Catholic Church annexed the phrase “and the Son” to their
Creed of Faith since 1054 AD), Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception (in the birth of the Virgin St. Mary),
forgivenesses and excessiveness in virtues of the saints indulgences, marriages to non-believers (performed
inside the Catholic Church, which the church blesses and absolves), the Catholic presence in Egypt.
The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church dispatched official messages concerning the aforementioned
subject to the Vatican dated September 16, 1986; including the proposed Statement of Agreement on Christol-
ogy. Upon this foundation, the Vatican agreed to conduct dialogues. As previously mentioned the agreement
on the first doctrinal difference was signed.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

520 Chapter (82)

During the Holy Synod session dated May 28, 1988, under the primacy of H.H. Pope Shenouda III, the
members were acquainted with the decisions of the Second Vatican council concerning the salvation of non-be-
lievers. Simultaneously, the Holy Synod decided to affix this fundamental issue to the other seven issues of
the dialogue that should be solved, prior to lifting the anathemas with the Catholic Church. The Holy Synod
dispatched an official letter dated April 26, 1990, to which the Vatican agreed and included this issue to the
primary main points for dialogue.

Agreement on other Fundamental Doctrinal Differences should be reached:

Justifying the Jews from the blood of Christ by a Vatican decision in the year 1965, the Primacy of Saint Peter
the Apostle, infallibility of the Catholic Pope, the primacy of the Pope of Rome (Primacy of Jurisdiction) over
the Christian churches of the whole world.

Secondary Doctrinal Differences:

Cancelling most of the fasts, not giving communion to children (ceremony for the first communion is at the age
of eight), postponing the anointment with myroon (the Chrism) till the age of eight, not immersing the person in
the baptismal font (only pouring a small amount of water on the child’s head), not giving communion by bread,
rather by unleavened bread, not giving blood of the communion to the congregation, the Latin Catholics do not
permit the priests to marry, giving permission to the laity both men and women to enter into the sanctuary and to
read the bible during the holy liturgy, entering the sanctuary with shoes, permitting nuns to dispense the Eucharist
to sick people in the hospitals, permitting deacons to carry holy communion and to give it to the different priestly
ranks, not permitting divorce in case of adultery, not facing the east during prayers, performing more than one
liturgy on the same altar in one day, the priest prays and takes communion in more than one liturgy during the
same day, not being cautious nine hours before communion but satisfied with two hours for food and half an
hour for drinks, accepting anyone to perform the rite of baptism, even a non-Christian, giving communion to
non-believers; this is practiced by Catholic bishops without an official clear decision from the Vatican.
No agreement was reached regarding Purgatory and the Procession of the Holy Spirit in spite of the studies
and discussions, then the dialogue stopped.
Several mailings and meetings re-occurred in 2001 between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox
Churches (the Coptic, the Syrian, and the Armenian). According to the Common Declaration between the heads of
the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East1, Cardinal Walter Casper, President of the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, addressed a letter in September 10, 2002, to all of them in order to engage an
official dialogue with the Catholic Church. A preparatory committee meeting was held in the Vatican, January
2003, to set up a work plan, agenda, membership, procedures, methodologies and timetable for the Joint Com-
mission of the Official Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
of the Middle East. The Agenda included the following topics: Christology, Procession of the Holy Spirit in a
Trinitarian context, Ecclesiology (including the Councils and its dogma), the Mission of the Church, Sacraments,
Purgatory, and Mariology. The dialogue has its aim to foster a better understanding and relationship between the
Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches addressing issues of common concern.
Annual official meetings of the Commission are held since 2004, hosted alternatively by the Catholic Church
and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. During these annual meeting studies and papers are presented from both
sides to guide the Commission in its consideration and exploration of areas of convergence and divergence. The
1
Point 5 of the common declaration signed on 11 March 1998 states: We agreed on the necessity of maintaining a com-
mon position of faith in all theological dialogues. Thus, henceforth, we will engage as a family of Oriental Orthodox
Churches in the Middle East in any theological dialogue with other churches and Christian world communions. We hope
that this basic principle will also be accepted by other beloved churches of our family, as is happening now in many
theological dialogues.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Metropolitan Bishoy 521

meetings are co-chaired by the head of the pontifical council for promoting unity in the Vatican (Cardinal Walter
Casper followed by Cardinal Kurt Koch) and Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette (Coptic Orthodox Church).
During the first official meeting of the Joint Commission in Cairo, January 2005, the Oriental Orthodox side
expressed that previous Christological official agreements with some of their churches have been challenged
by the Christological Agreement between the Catholic church and the Assyrian Church of the East signed in
Rome in November 1994, since that Church continued to defend the person and Christology of Nestorius and
attack the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria on their official website on the internet at that time (2005
A.D.). Consequently, the Joint Commission agreed to postpone discussions on Christology to a later stage
while keeping the topic on its agenda.
In 2009, a common document was produced by the Commission entitled “Nature, Constitution and Mission
of the Church” to be submitted to the authorities of the churches for consideration and action. The document
describes broad areas of consensus regarding fundamental ecclesiological principles, and outlines areas that
require further study and it is considered a major achievement. Our Holy Synod had some comments on this
document to be conveyed to the Commission in its following meeting.

4. Dialogue with the Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion was originally the Church of England, but it now encompasses a group of Churches
(i.e. The Anglican Communion). Some of these churches refer to itself as the Episcopal Church. The Anglican
Communion originated through the independence of the Church of England from the Church of Rome in the
era of King Henry VIII year 1538 A.D. This occurrence followed the reformation movement under the leader-
ship of Martin Luther in Germany in 1521 A.D. The Anglican Communion is numbered among the family of
Evangelical or Protestant Churches in many world assemblies. The Church of England apparently kept three
of the seven Church Sacraments namely: Baptism, Eucharist and Priesthood (Ministry).
The World Council of Churches issued the Lima Document entitled B,E,M (Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry)
assuming that the churches could unite and reach a mutual recognition of one another on the basis of this
Document. Our Church believes that unity is primarily estimated upon the basis of unity of thought and faith,
prior to unity on the basis of baptism. It is stated in the Bible “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5).
The “one faith” is the basis for the “one baptism”.
In addition to the belief of the Catholic Church in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the
Son, the Anglican Communion add some other variances some of which are the following:
1- Cancelling four of the Church sacraments, namely Matrimony, Chrism, Confession, Unction of the Sick.
2- Abolishing monasticism, and subsequently allowing marriages to bishops.
3- Cancelling fasts.
4- Permitting the ordination of women to full ranking deacons and serving at the altar, the full priesthood
rank accompanied by the sacramental services, the sub-episcopal rank, then the episcopal rank of a diocese
bishop, having a Throne and a Bronze Snake. All women of these ranks are allowed to marry like men and
some of them are divorced.
5- Believing in the salvation of non-believers regardless to the acceptance of faith or baptism.
6- A resolution in Lambeth Conference 1988 allowing polygamy for the Christians in Africa. If a man having
more than one wife desires to become a Christian, they permit him and his wives baptism while all his wives
remain with him, in a continued state of sexual relations with them all.
7- During Lambeth Conference 1988 defending homosexuals went on, under the pretense that God created
some individuals with a tendency towards their own sex, so it is not their fault. Subsequently, some bishops
ordained Lesbians and gay persons to the priesthood ranks. This results in disgracing priesthood among all
nations. The Lambeth Conference of 2008 readjusted its stance towards Christian marriage that it should be
between male and female partners.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

522 Chapter (82)

8- In many western culture dioceses justification of Biblical criticism, the interference of the human mind
as a source of theological teaching, has in its excessiveness reached a point that the Bishop of Salisbury in
England, John Osten Backer published a book entitled “The Foolishness of God”. Not one of the members of
his church questioned him for accusing God of foolishness, or for his criticism of the Bible, or for considering
the Bible as a book that mostly counterfeits truth, in the history of humanity.
Many conservative bishops in the Anglican Communion refused the liberal trends and resolutions to the
extent that they formed conference of Global South bishops which declared its commitment to the biblical
teachings. This conference involved the majority of the Anglican dioceses and bishops worldwide.
Our Holy Synod rejected some of the decisions of the Lambeth Conference 1988 which permitted ordination
of women into priesthood even to episcopacy in some dioceses, allowed polygamy in Africa, and defended
homosexuals. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III presented a paper on the View Point of the Coptic Orthodox
Church on the Ordination of Women.
In 2001, and as a result of the recommendations of the Lambeth Conference of 1988 and 1998 and the decisions
of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox dialogue was upgraded from a Forum (1985-
1993) to a Commission. A preparatory meeting was held in Midhurst July 2001 in which a work plan agenda for
the joint theological commission was set. It included all the important points and the serious differences that should
be discussed. Christology is one of these points especially after the Lambeth Conferences decisions accepting the
Christology of the Assyrian Church which our churches reject. The first meeting of the Commission was held in
Etchmiadzin November 2002, where a Common Agreement on Christology was reached emphasizing the doctrines
of the Assyrian Church, how they venerate Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodore of Tarsus and follow the
teachings of Nestorius. This agreed statement was submitted to the holy synods of the Oriental Orthodox Churches
and to the next Lambeth Conference for consideration and action. The next meeting was scheduled on October
2003 but was postponed because of ordaining a homosexual bishop in New Hampshire ECUSA.
The dialogue stopped because of the same reason. In a special session dated 3 September 2003, our Holy
Synod issued a Statement rejecting legalization of homosexuality, same sex marriage, the ordination of homo-
sexuals in different pastoral degrees and the process to ordain a homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church
of New Hampshire, USA. The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church decided anonymously the strong
condemnation of these acts that violate the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Scriptures.
The ordination of the homosexual bishop caused a great division in the Anglican Communion. The Anglican
Churches of the Global South strictly rejected this action and similar deviations from the biblical teachings.
They held a meeting in Tanzania, September 2007 and another in Singapore 2010 to which H.H. Pope Shenouda
III was invited and delegated H.G. Bishop Suriel of Melbourne to attend and present a lecture affirming the
opinion of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Later, our Holy Synod agreed upon starting a theological dialogue with the Global South of the Anglican
Communion (2/3 of the Anglican Communion), upon condition that our family of churches receive an invi-
tation from them. Metropolitan Monir, Bishop of Egypt and North Africa is the Horn Treasurer of the Global
South Primates Committee.
Presently, it was agreed to resume the dialogue with the Anglican Communion on condition that their dele-
gation should be uniformly conservative. The next meeting of the International Joint Commission is expected
to be in England October 2013.

5. Dialogue with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches

The first meeting was held in St. Bishoy’s Monastery, Wadi El Natroon, Egypt 2-5 may 1993. This was followed
by a second dialogue in a forum held in Holland, 13 September 1994.
The Holland dialogue was based on Christology. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III presented a lecture on
the doctrine of the family of our Orthodox Churches on Christology. The attendants agreed upon a common

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Metropolitan Bishoy 523

statement to be submitted to the authorities of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and to the Executive Committee
of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches for their consideration and action.
We agreed upon the continuation for further dialogue on other numerous and important issues of differences.
Dialogue will begin on the ‘Concept of Inspiration in the Bible’ and ‘the Position of Church Tradition’.
The Reformed Churches, on its behalf, decided to issue advises to their publishing houses, not to continue
referring to the family of our Churches as following the mono-physite doctrine, in their publications. The
term mono-physite (‘only nature’ not ‘one nature’) implicitly denies the factual Human nature of Christ
the Lord.
A third meeting was held in India 10-15 January 1997. The main subject was “The Holy Bible-Inspira-
tion-authority” another subject was “The Job of the Theologian in the Church”.
Unfortunately, concerning the dialogue on ‘Inspiration and the Bible’, they presented a strange concept
which denies that the Bible is the word of God Himself. Therefore the next dialogue will be dedicated to this
concept; that our Church, as well as all the Churches preserving the Apostolic Tradition reject.

6. The Lutheran World Federation

On 2007 the Lutheran World Federation requested to start dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and
their request was primarily welcomed by the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

7. The Assyrian Churches

The theological dialogue between the ‘Middle East Council of Churches’ and the ‘Assyrian Church’ that follows
the new calendar (its Patriarch is (Mar) Dinkha), started in 1991 and continued till 1994. The Coptic Orthodox
Church shared in this dialogue and presented some papers of theological researches.
In January 1995, and according to an invitation from His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, after nominating
His Holiness as president for the Middle East Council of Churches, a dialogue took place between the Coptic
Orthodox Church and the abovementioned Church in presence of delegates from the Syrian Orthodox Church
and a representative of the Middle East Council of Churches. The Coptic Orthodox side was presided over by
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. The Assyrian side presented a proposed statement of faith on ‘Christology
and the Incarnation of the Word’. The statement was reviewed and changed to correspond with the teachings
of the great Saint Cyril, and not contradict his twelve anathemas. Very frankly, the Coptic Church asked for
removing the names of Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius from the list of saints of this church, and in the
meantime to remove all attacks mentioned against the saints of our church. Likely, to remove from the official
sources of teaching of the Assyrian church everything that contradicts with this proposed statement, i.e. refusing
the council of Ephesus and its decisions against Nestorius and his teaching…
The Assyrian side promised to work on executing these points. The Coptic Orthodox side asked that it
should be stated in the agreed statement of the dialogue that the Assyrians should abolish from its liturgies and
sources of teaching all what contradicts with the Christological statement. The two sides agreed upon forming
a committee dialogue to follow-up executing these points and remove all church disagreements.
However, no agreement was reached and the issue was not presented to the Holy Synod because they decided
to enter the Middle East Council of Churches via the Catholic family, especially after they signed a theological
agreement with the Catholics in 1994 endorsed by the Pope of Rome from one side and the Assyrian Patriarch
Dinkha from the other. We were surprised to find out that during the meeting of the ecumenical dialogue in
February 1996 and July 1997 they presented papers (of which we have copies) in which unfortunately they
considered Saint Cyril to have oppressed Nestorius, that the decision of Council of Ephesus against Nestorius
was not just, and that anathemas against Nestorius together with Theodore and Diodore the fathers of Nesto-

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

524 Chapter (82)

rianism, should be lifted. They defended the teachings of the three heretics speaking of two persons in Christ
coming together only by external conjoining.
The General Secretary of our Holy Synod, being the correspondent of the subcommittee of church relations,
presented to the Holy Synod during its session of June 1, 1996 a report on the ecumenical dialogue with the
Assyrians that he attended. Our Holy Synod found that the Assyrians are Nestorian and need to correct their
doctrines and confess the doctrine and decisions of the third ecumenical council of Ephesus (431 AD). This
decision was issued in the book of the Decisions of the Holy Synod.
On October 10, 1998 His Holiness Pope Shenouda III presided over a session of the Executive Commit-
tee of the Middle East Council of Churches in Lebanon. All the documents about the reality of the Assyrian
Church were accessed. Subsequently, knowing that the Assyrians are Nestorian in their doctrines, attacking the
Council of Ephesus (431) and Saint Cyril, and in their liturgies referring to Nestorius as saint, it was decided
that these churches are rejected from joining the Council since they do not belong to any of the four families
of churches in the Council.

Conclusion

May our Lord aid us in our mission to reach the great goal i.e. church unity, on the basis of unity in faith,
through the prayers of all the saints and defenders of faith throughout the ages in every place on earth. Asking
for the prayers of everyone in order to fulfill our Lord’s request from the Father “that they may be one as We
are” (Jn 17:11).

Bibliography

The Truth Shall Make you Free, Lambeth Conference 1988, the Reports, Resolutions & Pastoral Letteres from
the Bishops, Published for the Anglican Consultative Council, Church House Publishing, 1988.
Chaillot, C & Belopopsky, A, Towards Unity, The Theological Dialogue between the orthodox Church and the
Oriental Orthodox Churches, Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, Geneva 1998.
Syriac Dialogue, First Non-Official Consultation of Dialogue within the Syriac Tradition, Pro Oriente, Ferdi-
nand Berger & sohne Ges.m.b.H., Horn, Austria 1994.
Five Vienna Consultations between Theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic
Church, 1971, 1973, 1976, 1978, and 1988 Selected Papers in One Volume, Published and edited by the
Ecumencial Poundation Pro Oriente - Vienna/Austria 1993.
Pro Oriente XXXVi, Documents on Unity in Faith between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman
Catholic Church, Tyrolia Verlag, Innsbruck-Wien 2013, edited by Peter Hofricher and Juhnann Marte.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (83) ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE IN THE ORTHODOX COPTIC CHURCH

Wedak Tawfik

“…that they all may be one.” (John 19:21)

It is certainly the Father’s will that we all be one in Him (Gal. 3:28). For this end the Lord Jesus Christ prayed
to the Father, “… that they may be one as We are.” For this end He died, for each and every one of us, not
for a certain nation or group. Ecumenism then is to fulfil the will of the Lord Christ that the Church His body
may not be split or divided.
Ecumenism in the Coptic Orthodox view, as expressed by her holy patriarch late Pope Shenouda III and
her great scholars and theologians, is the readiness to listen to the views of the others, to accept the others, to
reach a common understanding with the others.
Ecumenism is openness to the others, without surrendering the Church dogmas out of courtesy or to satisfy
the others. It is a space for dialogue and attempt to find points of convergence and agreement. Ecumenism
does not mean that a church be swallowed in another, or a church dominates over the other, but rather that all
churches support each other towards benefiting from the gifts of the Holy Spirit to each. With such an under-
standing each church shall maintain her own self-governance according to her own traditions and systems.
It is not an attempt to impose on the others certain views. This does not conflict with the need for mutual
relationships and cooperation with other churches through regular meetings with a spirit of trust and avoiding
any misunderstanding or hurting of the feelings of the other churches. Therefore the Coptic Church tries to
implant within the young the idea of the oneness of the church as an essential requirement for a Christian life,
without compromising the church dogmas. This is the role of the clergy and ministers in churches, besides the
role of the church leaders and theologians on the higher level.
Church unity is not to gather people in the church building, not to bring people from other churches into our
own church (proselytism), but it is rather to let the Holy Spirit work within everybody with one heart and one
mind to bring every body to witness to the Lord Christ under His leadership as the Head of the one catholic
(universal) church.
H. E. Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette1 compares between catholicity and conciliarity2: Catholicity
as expressed by His Eminence means the communion and unity of faith of the church all over the world
through Eucharistic Holy Communion, so long as we share the same heart, mind, and sacraments. Whereas
conciliarity means that no one in the church shall impose his own views, but shall consider the other as a
mirror that reveals to him the truth. The Catholicity of the church can be fulfilled by the conciliarity of the
church. His Eminence gives examples from the Holy Scripture for the conciliarity as the spirit of readiness
to listen to the others’ views, when Saint Peter the apostle went to baptize the house of Cornelius the church
did not like it, but when he told them the story and through their readiness to hear, and his convincing words
that God has accepted the nations to faith and no one then can prevent those from getting baptized (Acts 10:
47), they accepted the idea. We also see how the universal church accepted the books of the Holy Scripture
inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Actually the quarrels among the different Christian churches concerning the basic dogmas related to the Person of
the Lord Jesus Christ are not a matter of factual substance, but of words and terminology, for they all confess Christ
1
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Church, a great scholar and theologian, and
an active ecumenist who co-chaired many of the official ecumenical meetings.
2
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, Ecumenical Dialogues, and Sayings of the Fathers, Lectures for the Institute of Pastoral
Care and Seminaries, Edition 21, 2009/200.
526 Chapter (83)

to be perfect God and perfect Man, without any commingling, mixing, or confusion of the natures. In other words,
there is a common ground for faith. Satan is partly responsible for such divisions, and is still at work. He brings
about disturbances, constantly encouraging new splits desiring the division of the body of Christ which is the Church.

Commitment of the Coptic Orthodox Church to Christian Unity

The Coptic Orthodox Church has a well known history concerning her ecumenical influence in the formation
of the early church, and this has continued right up to the present day. The church has been forming and de-
veloping relationships with other churches, faiths and official organizations all over the world, as in the United
Kingdom, in United States of America, in Australia and in all places where the Coptic Church has dioceses.
His Holiness late Pope Shenouda III, 117th Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church was known for his
devotion to the unity of the church. He emphasized that Christian unity must be founded upon unity of faith
not of jurisdiction.
He maintained good relations with the various orthodox churches and with their patriarchs, and paid many
visits to them, such as to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Moscow, Romania, and Antioch. A full communion
of these churches with the Oriental Orthodox Churches seems imminent. He also had good relations with the
Angelical and Catholic Churches.
In 1971, while still a bishop, His Holiness attended the first meeting that was held with the Roman Cath-
olic theologians in Vienna. In 1972 after his enthronement he became the first Coptic Orthodox Pope to visit
the Vatican in over 1500 years. On May 7, 1973, together with Pope Paul VI of Rome, he signed a common
declaration in which they expressed their mutual concern about church unity. Following that a joint committee
was formed to follow up these efforts under his auspices. His Holiness wrote the Christological Statement
agreed upon by both these churches.
In that historic visit to the Vatican, on May 6, 1973, and around the 1600th anniversary of the Feast of St.
Athansius the Apostolic, the 20th Pope of Alexandria, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III personally received this
saint’s relics from Pope Paul VI of Rome at St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.
In the year 2000, His Holiness received His Holiness Pope Paul of the Roman Catholic Church in Egypt. And
in 2004 His Holiness met His Grace Dr. Rawan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury for the Church of England
in the UK, as well as many other Church leaders throughout the world. Other visits were exchanged between
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III and the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople, the Orthodox Patriarch of
Moscow, Romania, Bulgaria, and Antioch, and with the Catholic Patriarchs in the Middle Eastern Countries.
Moreover there have also been dialogues with various protestant churches worldwide. Steps have been taken
towards bringing about reconciliation with the Protestant Churches in Egypt. The first meeting of the churches
took place at the Patriarchate in December 1976.
With a spirit of love His Holiness paid fraternal visits to several heads of churches in Europe and Asia in
1972. All this proves that the Coptic Church has a deep concept of ecumenism and accepting of the others
and friendly attitude towards other churches in spite of the differences of views. The Coptic Orthodox Church
extends her love to everybody in the world. This is also apparent in the friendly relations with the Moslems in
Egypt represented in sharing their celebrations, in holding dialogues with them seeking common grounds of
faith. His Holiness Pope Shenouda III was very esteemed by the Moslem leaders, and he was even invited to
give a yearly lecture in a high standing Moslem meeting that was always met with great appreciation.
His Holiness was one of the presidents of World Council of Churches (WCC), and of the Middle East Council
of Churches (MECC). The Coptic Church also is a member of the All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC),
the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC), the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC), the
National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA), and Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI).
His Holiness initiated a closely monitored theological dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the
Roman Catholic Church, Anglican, Swedish, Lutheran, and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Wedak Tawfik 527

The Unity of the Oriental Orthodox Churches

It is a longstanding unity based on common history and faith. This unity and the common view concerning the
division of the Church was once expressed by H. H. Mar Igantius Zakka II was, Patriarch of Antioch, speaking
in the University of Humboldt Berlin on 16 May, 1995, stated that the split of the Christian Church is a big
mistake, a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and an ignoring of the existence of Christ who promised that the gates
of hell will not prevail against it (Mt 16: 18). He reminded that along history thousands have shed blood and
many suffered and were expelled for the sake of the one faith. Therefore there is a necessity of continuing
the Christian dialogue on various levels. Unity can only happen in and around Christ who is the Head of the
Church, and we with all our doctrines are only parts of the holy body of Christ.
There is therefore an Annual Meeting that has been founded since 1996 and continued up till now among the
heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches: His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church, His
Holiness Patriarch Zakka I of the Syrian Orthodox Church, and His Holiness Catholicos Aram I of the Armenian
Church – Holy See of Cilicia. The tenth meeting was that held 19-21 April, 2007 at St. Ephraim Syrian Orthodox
Monastery in Damascus, Syria, in which they signed a Common Declaration. In those annual meetings the heads
of the three churches addressed issues related to the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and its theological
dialogues with various churches. They discussed matters related to dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the
Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation Churches of the Reformation.

Relations with the Chalcedonian Churches (the Eastern Churches)

The First Fruits between the Two Families

Much has been accomplished in the past few decades especially in relationships with the Eastern Orthodox
Churches. In addition to theological dialogue the church also actively hosts and participates in dialogue on
topics such as inter-church marriages, setting a common date for Easter … etc.
But let us go back to the history of the division between the two families: For over 1500 years the Eastern
(Byzantine) Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches have remained separated. Official view
of both families who have been long out of communion with each other, now pray and trust in God to restore
that communion on the basis of the apostolic faith of the undivided church of the first centuries which we
confess in our Common Creed. Only about forty years ago they came together for:
The Four Unofficial Theological Consultations:
• Aarhus (Denmark) in 1964 Bristol (England) in 1967
• Geneva (Switzerland) in 1970 Addis Ababa in 1971
The results were unexpectedly positive. As Bishop Timothy Kallistos Ware of Dioklea stated afterwards in
1993 in his book “The Orthodox Church”: “It became clear that on the basic question which had led historically
to the division – the doctrine of the Person of Christ – there is no real disagreement … the divergence lies only
on the level of Phraseology. On the essence of the Christological Dogma we found ourselves in full agreement.”
This was clear in the statement of Bristol Consultation, which said:

“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 divisions, without separation. Both affirm the dynamic performance of the
Godhead and the Manhood, with all their natural properties and faculties, in the One Christ.”

These four Unofficial Conversations during the period 1964-1971, were followed up by the convening of:
The Official Joint Commission representing the two Church Families that met in:
• Geneva in 1985

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

528 Chapter (83)

• St. Bishoy Monastery in Egypt in 1989

• Geneva in 1990
• Geneva in 1993
Attempts for restoration of communion between the two Orthodox Families:
Joint Committees between both churches were formed and dealt in detail with almost every point of differ-
ence between the two families, providing suggestion for eliminating differences and reaching a common view
concerning them. Among the subjects dealt with were:
• The matter of the different Christological formulations, which had been a stumbling block in the past:
there was agreement that the underlying understanding of the Incarnation was the same.
• The reciprocal lifting up of anathemas and condemnations: the meeting of 1993 agreed that lifting up
should be unanimously and simultaneously by the heads of all the churches of both sides through signing
of an appropriate, ecclesiastical Act, the content of which will include acknowledgment from each side
that the other one is Orthodox in all respects. Once the anathemas have been lifted, this should imply
that the restoration of full communion for both sides is to be immediately implemented.
• However, difficulties still remain, for not everyone on the two sides is equally positive about the
dialogue. Some in Greece for example continue to regard the Oriental Orthodox Churches as “mono-
physite heretics”, and some Non-Chalcedonians continue to regard Chalcedon and the Tom of Leo
as “Nestorian”.
• The ritual differences such as the celebration of the Christmas-Epiphany Feast, making the sign of the
cross, the Eucharist Bread, the Holy Chrism, Fasts, etc.
Again from 2- 4 Feb, 1998 an Orthodox dialogue was held, where 30 theologians from the Eastern Orthodox
and Oriental Orthodox Churches met in the Halls of the Holy Cross Church of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch-
ate of Antioch in Damascus, Syria. In the meeting among other presentations there were two papers from the
Coptic Church: one by Metropolitan Bishoy on “Interpretation of the Christological Official Agreements” and
the other by the Rev. Father Tadros Malaty on “Pastoral Efforts towards Unity”.

Relations with the Roman Catholic Church

Dialogues were initiated under the auspices of Pro-Oriente, the Ecumenical Foundation in Vienna founded
by Cardinal König Archbishop of Vienna in 1964. Unofficial Consultations were conducted in Vienna in
1971, 1976, 1988. These consultations focused particularly on the Christological doctrines resulting in what
is known as “Vienna Christological Formulations”, and paved the way for subsequent bilateral Christological
Agreements between the heads of the churches.
A joint commission has been formed between Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic
Churches. The third meeting was that held in Etchmiadzin, Armenia, under co-chairmanship of His
Eminence Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,
and His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, General Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Coptic
Orthodox Church.
The International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the
Oriental Orthodox Churches had its eighth meeting 25-28, 2011 in Rome, hosted by the new president of
the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity His Eminence Cardinal Kurt Kuch, and His Eminence
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, General Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Church.
Sessions began with common celebration of prayers, assuring the solid basis of faith, and study in a very
friendly atmosphere of the ways in which the churches expressed their communion with one another that
continued until the middle of the 5th century, and the role played by monasticism on this.
This meeting was followed by the 9th meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in January 16-23, 2012.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Wedak Tawfik 529

Ecumenical Services by the Coptic Orthodox Church

In Stevenage, the United Kingdom3

The Coptic Church in UK for the past thirty years and more intensively since the consecration of His Grace
Bishop Angaelos as General Bishop in the UK in 1999 had fostered good working relationships with many
ecumenical, official, charitable, and non-government bodies. The Church continues to work hard at devel-
oping connections with other religious and interfaith groups in that increasingly secular society. His Grace
Bishop Angaelos is the official envoy on the official Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Theological
Commission.
• The Church is now a member of all official ecumenical instruments in the UK allowing it to develop
and extend her role in serving our Lord Jesus Christ
• The Church is a member of Fellowship of Coptic Orthodox University Students as part of service for
the youth and the community.
• The church is actively involved in a national multi-denominational conference for Christian Youth
workers.
• The Coptic Orthodox Church acts as a focal point for official and ecumenical relations between the
Coptic Church and other bodies in UK and abroad.
• The Oriental Orthodox Church Centre has hosted many visits from a variety of organizations, charities
and interfaith groups and interested groups who wish to learn more about the church, her traditions,
doctrines and the work that she does both in UK and all over the world.
• The Coptic Church plays an active part as a member of:
- The Council of Oriental Orthodox Churches
- Churches Together in England (CTE), since 1996
- Membership of specialist group within CTE includes:
- The Senior Representatives Forum
- The Enabling Group
- The Theology & Unity Group
- The Spirituality Group
- Minority and Ethnic Affairs Group
- Membership of Anglican-Oriental Orthodox Regional Forum (AOORF). Members wish to publicize
a new development in the ecumenical relationship between the Church of England and the Oriental
Orthodox Churches

Ecumenical Services by the Coptic Orthodox Church in USA4

The ecumenical efforts of His Grace Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern
California and Hawaii are very distinguished:
• Friendly relations with other Orthodox Churches in US, sharing them their celebrations and events, as
for example H.G. Bishop Serapion attending a service and reception at St. Nicholaos Cathedral hon-
ouring the Antioch Orthodox Archbishop Joseph who was promoted to the rank of Archbishop by His
Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV on 11 Dec., 2011.
• Copts and Russians discovering each other: The Coptic Church participates in the events of the Russian
Church with spirit of love, as in 26 Feb, 2009 when H.G. Bishop Serapion congratulated and attended
the enthronement of His Eminence Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk & Kaliningrad as the 16th Patriarch
of Moscow & all Russia.
3
www.stevenagechurches.org.uk ; www.churches_together.net
4
The Coptic Orthodox Diocese of North America, in Pomona and Los Angeles

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

530 Chapter (83)

• There were theological dialogues between the Russian Church and the Coptic Church, as on 06/12/2006
where they discussed matters concerning the theological dialogue between the two Orthodox families,
and the Orthodox cooperation at the ecumenical councils especially at the WCC, also the Orthodox joint
responsibilities in confronting the liberty trends of some modern Christian groups on order to preserve
the apostolic heritage and Christian ethics during today’s world.
• Joint Divine Liturgy celebrated annually by the Oriental Churches of the Western US. These days were filled
with prayer, solidarity, and fellowship among over one hundred clergy members of the three sister churches.
• H.G. Bishop Serapion attended a Global Christian Forum (GCF) program Meeting in New Delhi in
2008 that focused on the evaluation of the organization’s work throughout the past decade and a plan
for the coming years.
• H.G. Bishop Serapion delivered a public lecture on “Christian Unity from an Orthodox Perspective” in
the School of Religion and the Council for Coptic Studies at Claremont Graduate.
• Christian Churches Together CCT, formally launched in Passadena in 6-9 Feb., 2007. The CCT is com-
posed of 36 churches and national organizations from virtually all US Christian groups who have been
seeking to come together for fellowship, worship and opportunities to share in important ministries.
There was a consensus on the importance of evangelism and the need to eliminate domestic poverty
marked the official formation of CCT. Somebody quoted the words “Remember that you belong to God
and God does not belong to you.” They said that this is the wisdom that will hold CCT group together.
• There are frequent Ecumenical Meetings of Orthodox Bishop celebrating Christian Feasts and events
of each church.
• The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America expresses sincere support for the Coptic Christians of
Egypt during their most difficult transition in the life of the Egyptian Nation.
• The Statement of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia on 13 Oct., 2011 on the Egyptian massacre
of Copts, in which he defended their Egyptian brothers in faith and called upon the world community
not to be indifferent to this lawlessness.
• The annual joint orthodox meetings under the care of H.G. Bishop Serapion.
• The Diocese of Los Angeles, South California expressed with a sense of love solidarity with the Russian
people and church over the intense wildfires that afflicted the land of Russia which destroyed more than
one hundred villages, leaving 50 people dead and thousands homeless. The Diocese also responded
to the appeal by the Russian Church and made a contribution to the relief effort under the guidance of
H.G. Bishop Serapion.
• In May 2000, His Holiness established the first ecumenical office in the Archdiocese in North America.

Middle East and Ecumenism

• Middle Eastern Oriental Orthodox Common Declaration at the 4th meeting of the Heads at St. Mark
Centre for the Coptic Orthodox Church on 15-17, 2001 and the members of the Standing Committee,
H. E. Metropolitan Bishoy; H.G. Bishop Moussa; H. E. Metropoligan Theophilus George Saliba; H.
G. Bishop Sebouh Sarkissian; Archimandrite Nareg Alemezian.
• Reaffirming unity in faith and firm attachment to the first three ecumenical councils: Nicaea 325, Con-
stantinople 381, Ephesus 431 and to the teachings of the church fathers.
• Reconfirming the decisions adopted and guidelines set by them in the context of their common witness
and service to their people, particularly in the Middle East, a region where the church of Christ was
born and true faith was received and shaped by the fathers and martyrs through their teachings and
martyrdom. This is our sacred heritage which was delivered to us and to be delivered in turn to the
generations to come. They discussed among other things:

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Wedak Tawfik 531

1. Theological dialogues between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches which emphasized the
importance of the dialogue for the full unity of the orthodox churches
- A committee is appointed to discuss the situation of theological dialogues between both church-
es. The Committee is to identify specific areas of closer ecumenical collaboration between our
churches and the Russian Orthodox Church.
- The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Permanent Holy Synod of the Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa in November 2000 have approved the Pastoral
Agreement reached between them regarding the mutual recognition of the Sacrament of the Holy
Matrimony blessed in their respective Churches in case of mixed marriages.
2. Oriental Orthodox Churches – Anglican Communion met concerning upgrading of the Theological
Forum between them. The Oriental Churches decided to delegate their representatives to the next
meeting to be held 27 July- 1 August, 2001 in London. The purpose is to clarify matters pertaining
to the agenda, procedures, and methodology.
3. Oriental Orthodox Churches – Roman Catholic Churches: Reflections on the document issued by
the Roman Catholic Churches “Dominus Jesus” for the Doctrine of Faith of the Vatican.
4. Oriental Orthodox Churches – World Alliance of Reformed Churches: in January 2001, at the Ar-
menian Catholicosate of Cilicia, Antelias Lebanon made a report that included among other things
the Agreed Statement on Christology signed in 1994 and referred to the points of agreements and
disagreements existing between the two families. The report was to be studied in the respective
Holy Synods and considered further in next meetings.
5. WCC and the Special Commission for Orthodox Participation in the WCC: An interim report of the
Special Commission was presented to the Central Committee of WCC in its meeting in Germany in
February 2001. The report proposed that questions related to ecclesiology and as well as controversial
theological matters be discussed in the Faith and Order Commission. MECC reaffirmed support to their
regional ecumenical organization underlined the urgent need for making the ecumenical witness of the
MECC more efficient and responsive to the new realities and expectations of the churches in the region.
6. Sub-Committees:
- Sub-Committee for Theological Seminaries decided on 24-25, 2000 in Damascus to establish
a special department for Oriental Orthodox Studies in the Seminaries of the Oriental Orthodox
Churches.
- Sub-Committee for Youths.
- Sub-Committee for Publications, aiming at exchange of information among churches as a vital
task for the fellowship of the churches.
7. Peace in the Middle East: From the Second half of the 20th century, Oriental Orthodox Churches have
engaged in constructive dialogues among themselves and with other parties. Constructive Dialogue
has begun with the Muslims with whom they share one homeland.

The WCC efforts for ecumenism

The Orthodox Churches members of the WCC are:

Six Oriental Orthodox Churches; namely: The Coptic Church, the Syrian Church, the Armenian Church,
the Ethiopian Church, the Eriterian Church, and the Indian (Malankara) Church. These six Churches are in
communion with each other. They accept the first three ecumenical councils, and do not accept the fourth of
Chalcedon (451). The Ethiopian, Coptic and Indian Churches have been full members of the WCC since its
inauguration in Amsterdam in 1948. The Syrian joined at the New Delhi Assembly of 1961. In Paris in 1962
the Central Committee admitted the Armenian Church.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

532 Chapter (83)

Actually the efforts of the WCC in the field of ecumenism cannot be denied, for the WCC plays a very
active role in bringing together churches for the sake of reaching the unity of the body of Christ. Through its
programs and visits to the churches (the living letters) it succeeded to a great extent in improving understanding
and deepening relationships within the ecumenical movement.
The Faith and Order Commission of the WCC paved the way for bilateral consultations between theologians
of Byzantine and Oriental Churches in Aarhus (1964), Bristol (1967), Geneva (1971), and Addis Ababa (1971).
The WCC shares and supports the Christians in Egypt in the changing circumstances they experience, as for
instance the message of solidarity sent by the WCC to the Christians in Egypt on 26 February 2010 concerning
their security and encouraging the churches in Egypt to continue their involvement in the Moslem-Christian
Dialogue. Until now with the same spirit the WCC shares the Egyptians the developments occurring in their
country, ending with the message of congratulation sent to the new elect president of Egypt in June 2012.

Great Scholars and Theologians of the Coptic Orthodox Church

• The first and greatest who initiated the ecumenical work was His Holiness Late Pope Shenouda III.
• H. E. Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, Secretary General of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox
Church and Director of the Institute of Coptic Studies in Cairo. H. E. is co-chair of almost all ecu-
menical commissions, an active worker in the field of Ecumenism, member of the WCC Executive
Committee, member of the WCC Standing Commission of Faith & Order, Professor of Ecumenism and
Ecumenical Dialogues at the Institute of Coptic Studies, Institute of Pastoral Care, and the Seminary
with its various branches.
• H. G. Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern California and Hawaii.
H. G. is an active worker in the field of ecumenism, member of committees of the WCC, and initiator
of many dialogues and friendly relationships with the various churches in his diocese.
• The Reverend Father Shenouda Maher Ishak, Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies in the Coptic
Orthodox Theological College in Egypt and USA. His Rev. represents the church in many ecumenical
meetings, and is member of various ecumenical committees.
• The Reverend Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty, Pastor of St. George Coptic Orthodox Church of Sporting,
Alexandria. His Rev. is an active ecumenical worker and member of many committees. He wrote many
books on the Coptic Orthodox Church and her main features including her spirituality, monasticism,
education, ecumenism, as well as other books on the church dogmas.
• H. G. Bishop Angaelos of Stevenage, UK. H.G. is an active worker in the field of ecumenism in his
diocese. He holds good and friendly relations with other churches, and is a member of many ecumenical
bodies in UK.

Theological material and books from the Coptic Orthodox Church

• Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, (2008/2009) The Council and Ecumenical Dialogues, Lectures for
the Institute of Coptic Studies, Department of Theology, 4th edition.
• Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette, (2009/2010) Ecumenical Dialogue, Sayings of the Fathers, Lectures
for the Institute of Pastoral Care and Seminary in Cairo and its branches, Edition 21st.
• Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette and Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church,
(2003) The Eastern Assyrian Nestorian Church, A Documentary Book, 1st Edition, published by St.
Demiana Monastery.
• Deacon Dr. Emile Maher Ishak (now Fr. Shenouda Maher Ishak), (December 2000) Studies in Com-
parative Theology I, Liturgical and Ritual Issues and Proposals Concerning the Restoration of Com-

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Wedak Tawfik 533

munion, submitted to The Joint Liturgical Sub-Committee of the dialogue between the Byzantine
Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches in its Meeting at Athens, 15-19 March, 1993
1st Edition, press Al Amba Ruweis (The aim of that meeting was seeking convergence between the
two families of Orthodoxy) The book is the Paper presented by Deacon Dr. Emile Maher (now Father
Shenouda) Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies in the Coptic Orthodox Theological College in
USA. The Paper was entitled “Studies in Comparative Ritual Theology”. It was first published in 1995
by the Byzantine side in the Periodical Kleronomia of the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies in
Thessaloniki, Greece, Tome 26, June - December 1994. The book is published with a foreword by
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette.
• Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty, (1993) Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church, St. George’s Coptic
Orthodox Church, Sporting, Alexandia, Egypt.
• Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty, (1986) The Coptic Orthodox Church and Spirituality, (in Arabic), pub-
lished by St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
To conclude with it is evident that the Coptic Orthodox Church longs for the unity of the body of Christ,
trusting that God’s Holy Spirit works and will always work within the hearts to bring such unity into reality.
The Church is open and ready for constructive dialogue and for sharing views with the others and seeking
convergence with them for the glory of God’s Holy Name.

Bibliography

The World Council of Churches, (1999) Together on the Way, Official Report of the Eighth Assembly of the
World Council of Churches, Switzerland
The World Council of Churches, From Harare to Porto Alegre 1998- 2006, printed in France in 2005
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, (1991) The Nature of Christ, 1st edition
His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, (1994) The Divinity of Christ, 1st edition
Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette, (2009/2010) Ecumenical Dialogues and Sayings of the Fathers, Lectures
for the Institute of Pastoral Care and Seminary, 21st edition
Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette, (2009/2010) Councils and Ecumenical Dialogues, Part I, 4th edition, Lectures
for the Institute of Coptic Studies, Department of Theology
Metropolitan Bishop of Damiette, Secretary of the Holy Synod, and Co-Chairman of the Joint Commission of
the Official Dialogue, 1992 Ecumenical Relations, an article in Al Keraza (Preaching) English Magazine,
edited by The Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, Vol. 1, No. 1
Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty, 1993 Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church, published by St. George
Coptic Orthodox Church in Sporting, Alexandria
Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty, 1986 The Coptic Orthodox Church and Spirituality, (in Arabic), published by
St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Deacon Dr. Emile Maher Ishak (now Fr. Shenouda Maher), 2000 Studies in Comparative Theology: Liturgical
and Ritual Issues and Proposals Concerning the Restoration of Communion, Press of Al-amba Ruweis

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

 (84) ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE IN THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH

Ayalkibet Berhanu

History, as well as the Old and the New Testament attest to the fact that Ethiopia is the first African nation to
adhere to the Jewish religion (900 B.C)1 and subsequently Christian religion - from the era of the first apostles.
Monotheism and Jewish religious beliefs and practices in Ethiopia date back to the reign of the Queen of Sheba
and the reign of King Solomon of Israel. Christianity in Ethiopia at first came about in 34 A.D. through an
Ethiopian Eunach who was baptized by the Apostle Philip, and then introduced this faith to his own country
(Acts 8:26-40)2. After this, St. Matthew, the evangelist, and later St Andrew also came to Ethiopia and con-
tinued with their missionary activity of spreading the Christian faith.3 It is because of all this evidence that
the EOTC can be rightly regarded as an African indigenous church and one of the earliest apostolic churches
in the world. Ethiopia was then transformed from Judaism to Christianity. This transformation gave Ethiopia
a unique Christian identity in spite of the fact that the Christian world is a world in which people are divided
by traditions, languages and continents. Although there are many Christian denominations and other religions
within Ethiopia, such as: Roman Catholics, a number of Protestant groups, some Falashas (Bete Israel) who
practice Judaism and a large Islamic community; the EOTC has remained the biggest Christian denomination in
the country. Gerima et al attest to this fact when they state thus: “the EOTC has more than 45 million members,
40, 000 churches and monasteries, and about 500, 000 clergymen, mainly in Ethiopia. It has been the domi-
nant church in Ethiopia since the 4th century and is also the largest Oriental Orthodox Church in the world”. 4
Given this background it is important therefore to start the story of the EOTC’s ecumenical relationship
from the Pre Christian era period.

Ethiopia in the Old Testament era

This story then begins with the relationship which was established between the Queen of Sheba, (Queen Make-
da) and King Solomon. The Queen of Sheba, (Queen Makeda) visited Jerusalem to personally experience King
Solomon’s legendary wisdom and that visit brought about a remarkable outcome for Ethiopia. The following
are the main outcomes:
1. The birth of the Solomonic Dynasty in Ethiopia from Emperor Minlek I to Emperor Haile Silassie
2. The Levite clergy came to Ethiopia with Old Testament books and with the Ark of the Covenant, which
enabled Ethiopians to worship the Monotheistic God in about 900 B.C.5
1
1Historical perspective on the Christian religion in Ethiopia: http://eotc.faithweb.com/orth.html (last accessed, September 2013).
2
The Ethiopian Eunuch who was a treasurer of Candace went to Jerusalem to partake in the annual feast as it was custom-
ary to those who accepted the Old Testament faith to be part of the annual feasts. Thus, the Ethiopian Eunuch who was
a devoted religious person, a man of high rank in Ethiopia; the finance minister of Candace accepted Christianity, after
meeting with apostle Philippe, and got baptized. On his return preached the doctrine of Christ among his country people.
He was the first to bring the Good News, although he was not called an apostle.
3
Tesfaye, Ayalkibet B, “The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and its traditional theological education system.” In
Handbook of Theological Education in Africa, edited by Isabel Apawo Phiri and Dietrich Werner, 281-291 (Pietermaritz-
burg: Cluster Publications, 2013), 283.
4
Gerima, Abuna et al, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church History from the Birth of Christ up to 2000: Ethiopia
Stretches out her hands to God, (2008), xxi.
5
Hancock, Graham. The sign and the seal: the explosively controversial international best seller: a quest for the lost Ark
of the Covenant.( London: Arrow Books, 1992), 450, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX2KbeD2_PE, http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=O97yb-UzXPs (last accessed on 08.08.2013).
Ayalkibet Berhanu 535

3. The people of Ethiopia became accustomed to practise circumcision and in which they followed Israel
in terms of their relationship with God.
4. Ethiopia was transformed from being a nation whose religion was based on natural law (law of conscious)
to one based on the Covenant law.6
5. Axum (Ethiopia’s ancient capital) was founded by Axsumawi the great grandson of Ham and descendent
of Noah. 7
Moreover the name Ethiopia is mentioned several times in the Bible. Due to the journey of Queen Candace’s
Treasurer to Jerusalem, Ethiopia became the first country next to Jerusalem to accept Christianity.8

Ethiopia in the Christian era

Here it is important to note the fact that Christianity was not only limited to Ethiopia after being introduced by the
Ethiopian Eunuch. It expanded to South Yemen and Nagran. During the reign of Emperor Caleb (A.D 514-42) the
Christians of Nagran in southern Arebia got persecuted by the Jews who were led by Phinhass, these Jews were the
descendents of the settlers who fled away from Jerusalem when it was invaded and destroyed by Titus in 70 A.D.9
Nagran Christians were bitterly persecuted by anti-Christian individuals. Those Christians who were persecuted
appealed for help to their brothers in faith living in Constantinople, Alexandria and Axum (Ethiopia’s ancient
capital). Up on hearing about the tragedy of the Nagran Christians, Timothy the Patriarch of Alexandria wrote to
Emperor Caleb (the Orthodox king of Ethiopia) who became very aggrieved and asked God in prayer to guide him
how he could help the Christians of Nagarn. So the Emperor Caleb waged war against Phinhass (Dhu Nuwas).
The King (Caleb) had enough men to fight, but he needed ships to transport his soldiers to Arabia. He wrote to the
Emperor Justin I in Constantinople, and Justin sent him sixty ships, Caleb collected an army of 12,000 men. He
attacked the Himyarites with success; he marched on and took the town of Takhar, the Yemenite capital. Phinhass
was wounded and he rode his horse into the sea and drowned. Kaleb then re-established Christianity in the land.10
In the 14th century Emperor Dawit or David (1380 – 1410) of Ethiopia communicated with John the Bishop
of Jerusalem and received part of the True Cross on which Jesus was crucified, the Crown of thorns and an Icon
of St. Mary which was painted by St. Luke11. The portion of the True Cross is kept in the Geshen, Egziabher
Ab Church in Ethiopia, where people do a pilgrimage on every September 21st12 of the Ethiopian calendar.
People come from all parts of the country to this place and even the Diaspora as well as global nationalities
to get blessings and divine healing.
There is also a Meskal (Cross) celebration as a national holiday which has been taking place for more than
1600 years in Ethiopia. The word Meskal means “Cross”, so this feast commemorates the discovery of the
original cross by the Empress Helena (the mother of Constantine the Great). The original event took place
on 19 March 326 A.D, but the feast is now celebrated on the 27th of September every year in Ethiopia13. It
has become an international feast, because people are coming to see it from all over the world. Meskal also
signifies the physical presence of part of the True Cross at the church of Egziabher Ab, the remote mountain
6
when we say the law of conscious, it is believed that the one True God worship (the God of Noah) had been in existence
in the early times, but it was confined to a limited number of families, that the Sun God was widely known in Axum, one
of Ethiopia’s earliest kingdom.
7
Yesehaq, Abuna. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church: An Integrally African Church. (New York: Vantage Press, 1989), 13.
8
Yesehaq, Abuna. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church, 13.
9
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order f worship and Ecumenical Relations
(Addis Ababa:Tensae Publishing House, 1996), 130.
10
Melaku, Lule. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church history (Addis Ababa 1997), 36.
11
http://kweschn.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/meskel-festival-the-finding-of-the-true-cross/ (last accessed 28.07.2013).
12
http://kweschn.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/meskel-festival-the-finding-of-the-true-cross/ (last accessed 28.07.2013).
13
Melaku, Lule. The Ethiopian Orthodox church history (Addis Ababa 1997), 86.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

536 Chapter (84)

monastery of Gishen Mariam, located 483 km north of Addis Ababa in the Wello administrative zone. “In
this monastery there is a massive volume of the book called the Tefut, written during the reign of Zara Yaqob
(1434 – 1468). This text records the story of how the fragments of the cross were acquired”.14 From the
legacy of Empress Helena and her son Constantine the Great, Ethiopians have learned to use the cross as a
powerful weapon against evil or negative distress. The bishops and priests bless people by holding a cross
in their hands, the people themselves put the cross mark on their houses, clothes and on their bodies. During
state visits to other countries, Ethiopian Emperors were in the habit of handing out Christian crosses to people
under political oppression and racial domination. A Christian cross is perceive as a symbol of liberation.
An example here would be Emperor Haile Silassie’s visit to Jamaica in 1966.15 Immediately after this visit
the Emperor sent the EOTC Bishop Yesehaq with a cross on the basis of the belief that the blessing which
comes from a Christian cross would lead to the liberation of the oppressed.16 It may be in this sense that the
processional cross of Emperor Adrar Seged which is found in South Africa, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Pietermaritzburg main campus library contribution in some ways towards black liberation in South Africa.
In the 15th century during the reign of Emperor ZeraYacob (1434 - 1468) an Ethiopian monk from the
EOTC monastery in Jerusalem was delegated to participate in the international church council on the dialogue
between Chalcedonian and non Chalcedonian Churches held at Florence in Italy. This council was organised
by the Roman Catholic Church and it is an indication of the continues willingness on the part of the EOTC to
participate in ecumenical affairs.17
The EOTC’s relationship with the Egyptian Coptic Church was started with the ordination of Permentius in
330 A.D. (as the first bishop of Ethiopia) 18 in order to bring the sacramental set up of the church of Christ. The
relationship was continued in the 19th century when the Emperor Yohannes’ requested the Egyptian church to
bring four additional bishops to Ethiopia. Because of this, the work which was carried on by one bishop only
was expanded and the church services were increased.19 This trend of brining Egyptian bishops to Ethiopia
continued for 1600 years until the EOTC became autocephalous (autonomy) in 1959. However, the relationship
between the two churches is still inexistence up to now.20
Of great relevance was also the arrival of the Nine Saints to Ethiopia in 480 A.D. from Constantinople and
Syria. This Saints contributed greatly in the spread of Christianity, they expanded monastic life and church
schools in Ethiopia as well as outside the country.21 The EOTC canonized them as Saints and dedicated church-
es in their names. The coming of Gebremenfes kidus from Egypt also contributed to the strengthening of the
EOTC faith and the church canonized him as well and dedicated a monastery in his name.
We can see that Ethiopia has been an outgoing society willing to establish relationships with other countries
and also open to receiving individuals from outside itself. This friendly nature of both the country as well as
the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has been instrumental in advancing the course ecumenism.
14
Finding of the True cross (Meskal): http://www.wondersofethiopiatours.com/tour-to-finding-of-the-true-cross-meskal/
(last accessed 28.07.2013).
15
http://anniepaul.net/2011/04/22/emperor-haile-selassies-1966-visit-to-jamaica-coral-gardens-kerala-etc/ (last accessed
on 08.08.2013).
16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5eA67dN-o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpRDtyPVgkg, http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=tnPZ1KTr1eU, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ma3yBnD3P0, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC0w-
Jw0gouo (last accessed on 08.08.2013).
17.
Gerima, Abuna. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church History from the Birth of Christ up to 2000: Ethiopia Stretches
out her hands to God, (2008), 297.
18.
Gerima, Abuna. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church History, 295.
19
Chaillot, Christine. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church tradition: a brief introduction to its life and spirituality.
Paris: Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, (2002), 38.
20.
Even though there was already Christian presence in Ethiopia, Later the Apostle Mark came to Egypt and decided to
make his see there. Due to this, Ethiopia had to rely on the Egyptian Coptic church for about 1600 years in terms of the
ordination of priests and bishops.
21
Gerima, Abuna. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church History, 297.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ayalkibet Berhanu 537

The mutual relationship between Church and State

The EOTC had been the official religion in Ethiopia since 34 A.D. until the end of monarchical era, the rela-
tionship between the church and state were so intertwined. The church and the state were the twin institutions
which complemented each other. The abuna (bishop) was the most influential person in the Ethiopian nation.
In ancient times, the abuna had even the power to crown the emperor and he could effect excommunication
in consultation with the emperor. He could influence the army and even the people to detach their allegiance
from the ruler under certain circumstances.22 At the time of crisis the abuna acted as the mediator or the co-
general with the emperor in the times of war. For instance, during the invasion of Ethiopia by Facist Italy, the
Patriarch Basileos together with Emperor Hile Silassie went abroad to link the Ethiopian fight with the world
community.23
Conversely, Ethiopian emperors played a significant role in the history of the church. King Lalibella for
instance, like his forebears played a prominent role in the continuation of the church by building those magnif-
icent rock hewn churches known as Rock hewn Churches of Lalibella. These churches are a big world tourist
attraction that generates income for the country and the church today. They are also a magnet that pulls even
the Christendom into the EOTC. Therefore, it is not surprising that Nicholas, archbishop of the Greek commu-
nity in Ethiopia stated that “the state and the church are two faces of the same book. This book is Ethiopia”.24
Even though the EOTC is no longer the official religion of Ethiopia since 1971, one can argue that the
ethos and mores of the Ethiopian society has been deeply influenced by the EOTC. Further, one sees the state
coming together with the church on political matters. In the hearts of most Ethiopians such a relationship of
church and state is experienced even in times crises. For instance, the death of Emperor Haile Silassie which
was followed by the death of the EOTC patriarch Thiophilos at the same moment, when the communist gov-
ernment came into power; the going into exile of the communist government president and at the same time
the 4th patriarch of the EOTC also went to exile, they both still alive and lastly the coincidence of the death of
the 5th Patriarch of the EOTC and the Prime Minster of the country forced many people to interpret these as
another dimension of Church - State relationship.25

The Participation of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC)

in the first millennium Ecumenical movement:

Before the advent of the WCC and AACC, the EOTC became an active participating member of the Ecumenical
movement in existence during the first millennium. It was this Ecumenical stance which defined the identity
of the EOTC in the history of its existence. The EOTC, by its involvement in the early Ecumenical councils
had effectively associated itself with a fellowship of Christian churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ
as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures. The following are the Ecumenical councils which the EOTC
participated in. However, of the four Ecumenical councils mentioned here under the EOTC accepted only the
decisions of the first three councils: Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381 and Ephesus 431, and rejected the decision
of the council of Chalcedon (451).

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

This council organized by Constantine the Great had to deal with the heretical teaching of Arius of Alexandria
– that ‘the Son of God is a created being, and did not co-exist with the Father’. The three hundred and eighteen
22
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Orthodox Mission, 1970), 113.
23
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 113.
24
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1970), 113.
25
The EOTC Patriarch H.H. Abuna Paulos and PM Meless Zenawi have passed away in August, 2012.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

538 Chapter (84)

bishops who attended this council condemned the teaching of Arius and his followers. The Nicene Creed was
adopted by this council and it became an important statement of the Orthodox Faith. 26

The Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople (381 AD)

The Issue facing this council was the heresy of Macedonius who taught that ‘the Holy Spirit has no form and
no Divine nature’.
The one hundred and fifty church fathers who met at this council denounced this heresy and declared the
Holy Spirit as the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and this dogma of faith, was added to
the Nicene Creed.27

The first Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431 AD)

During this council two hundred church fathers had to deal with the heresy of Nestorious – who taught that
‘Jesus had two persons and two natures, and that the Virgin Mary gave birth only to the human person of Jesus,
and that therefore St. Mary should not be called the mother of God (Theotokos).’28
This council decreed Jesus Christ as one person and that the Virgin Mary should be called Theotokos –
mother of God.29

The second Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (449 AD)

During the sitting of this council, the Issue at hand was the continuous teachings of Eutyches – that ‘the hu-
manity of Jesus Christ is absorbed by His Divinity’. After a denial and counter accusation the council finally
upheld the decision of the first council of Ephesus (431).

The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)

The teachings of Eutyches continued to disturb and to cast doubt on the declaration of Ephesus. Eutyches’
teaching together with the teaching of the Roman Catholic ‘Pope Leo’ through his letters that ‘Christ has two
distinct natures in one person’ provoked a schism within the then universal church. The EOTC and all those
who rejected this notion of ‘Christ having two distinct natures in one person – the Coptic, the Armenian, the
Syrian, the Indian and the Eritrean Orthodox churches became separated from the Byzantine and Latin body of
churches.30 The former were then called Non-Chalcedonian Churches (the Oriental Orthodox churches) 31and
the later were referred to as the Chalcedonian Churches.32
26
Desta, Alemayehu. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Faith (USA: Author House 2012), 67.
27
Desta, Alemayehu. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Faith, 68.
28
Desta, Alemayehu. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Faith, 68.
29
Desta, Alemayehu. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Faith, 68.
30
Desta, Alemayehu. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Faith, 70.
31
They do not accept the appellation ‘Monophysite’ Desta, A. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Faith. USA: Author
House , (2012), 70.
32
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 121 Desta, Alemayehu. Introduction to the Ethiopian
Orthodox Faith, 69, Following the council of Chalcedon in 451A.D which condemned the so-called Monophysites (one
nature) there arose a division which caused the separation of Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians and Armenians from the
Byzantine and Latin body of churches on the other. In 1054 came another Schism between the Latin Christians (Roman
Catholic) and the Byzantines when the Byzantine Patriarchates in the East became known as the Eastern Orthodox
Churches. This was over the issue of papal primacy over the other patriarchs and the filioque clause – a clause added
to the Nicene Creed by Rome without the consent of an Ecumenical council, that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father & the Son.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ayalkibet Berhanu 539

The significance for the EOTC of participating in those early ecumenical councils helped the EOTC: to be
able to define its faith in a clear and unambiguous manner. Further participating in the early ecumenical councils
also helped to prepare the EOTC for a meaningful contribution in the future of the ecumenical movement – the
EOTC had then gained some experience on how things ought to be done at the ecumenical level.

The EOTC in the World Council of Churches (WCC)

and in the All Africa Council of Churches (AACC)

With the advent of the WCC in 1948 in Amsterdam, the EOTC never hesitated to join the WCC as a founding
member. The EOTC sought to fulfil together with the other WCC members what they believed was “their
common calling to the glory of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God”. 33 When the AACC was
formed in Nairobi in 1963, the EOTC accepted the challenge of being a founding member of the fellowship
of churches within the African continent.34
The significance for the EOTC of joining the WCC:
• Notable successes have been achieved in the implementation of inter-church aid programmes.35
• From the department of the Inter-church Aid branch of the WCC in Ethiopia, the EOTC established the
Development and Inter-church Aid Commission (EOTC - DICAC) in 1972, as a development wing of
the church. It is the oldest organization in the country with a mission of “assisting the disadvantaged
communities in Ethiopia to attain self reliance by tackling the root causes of poverty, drought, conflict,
gender inequality and fighting the HIV/AIDS pandemic and by promoting sustainable development
programs and community empowerment”.36
• The EOTC’s relationship with the WCC is further witnessed by the sharing of responsibilities. For instance,
the late 5th Patriarch of the EOTC His Holiness Abuna Paulos, was one of the presidents of the World
Council of Churches (WCC) and an Honorary President for the World Religions for peace at a global level.37
• The EOTC hosted the WCC meeting in Addis Ababa in 1963 E.C.38
The significance for the EOTC of joining the AACC facilitated:
• The provision of the common program of study and research.
• Encourage close relations and mutual sharing of experience among the churches in Africa through visits,
consultations, conferences and circulation of information.
• In assisting the churches in finding, sharing and placing personnel and utilizing other resources for the
most effective way of undertaking their common tasks.
• In assisting the churches in their work of leadership training lay and clerical – personnel for the tasks
of the churches today.
• Without prejudice to its own autonomy to collaborate with the WCC and appropriate agencies in such
ways as may mutually be agreed.39

33
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order of worship and Ecumenical Relations.
Addis Ababa:Tensae Publishing House, (1996), 141.
34
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Faith, Order of worship and Ecumenical Relations,
141.
35
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order f worship and Ecumenical Relations,
140.
36
Act Alliance: http://www.actalliance.org/about/actmembers/ethiopian-orthodox-church-dicac (last accessed 29.07.2013).
37
Tesfaye, Ayalkibet B, “The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and its traditional theological education system.” In
Handbook of Theological Education in Africa, 290.
38
Gerima, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church History, 299-300.
39
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order f worship and Ecumenical Relations,
142.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

540 Chapter (84)

Most recently, one of the EOTC’s bishops, (Archbishop Yacob), the Archbishop of All Africa Diocese, based
in Johannesburg, South Africa has been nominated as a vice president of the AACC40. This is an attempt to
have church leadership becoming engaged in ecumenical dialogues at different levels.
Even though, the EOTC is a patriarchal church, its involvement with the WCC and AACC has created an
awareness of gender justice and which in turn has allowed women to join in theological education as part time
students.
The EOTC advanced its theological education systems besides its traditional educational system to a modern
system by upgrading some of the theological clerical training centres to college level and University College
level. This suggests a future possibility of allowing for a theological training of students from other church
denominations within the continent and beyond.

Dialogue between Oriental and Roman Catholic Church

Despite a long standing separation between the EOTC and the Roman Catholic Church as a result inter alia; of
the differences in doctrinal understanding and exposition, there exist today examples of effective ecumenism
between both the Roman Catholic and the Ethiopian Orthodox part of the universal church.
In Ethiopia for example, there is a joint evangelization programme conducted by a Roman Catholic Order
– the Spiritan Congregation, based in Gamo Goffa and South Omo provinces; together with the EOTC diocese
in the area.
The Spiritan Congregation has also taken it upon itself to support the EOTC in clergy training programmes,
in building new churches and renovating the old churches, and in supporting the formation of preachers
for the purposes of spreading the Good News and attend to the spiritual needs of the EOTC’s faithful in
the remote areas of the abovementioned provinces. This kind of ecumenism is stated by St. Paul in these
words “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid” (1 Corinthians 3:11). The
EOTC laid the foundation and the Roman Catholic through the Spiritan Congregation is providing support
to that foundation.
The Roman Catholic priests (members of the Spiritan Congregation) who undertook this ecumenical ven-
ture with the EOTC diocese in the Gamo Goffa and South Omo, were inspired by the EOTC Fiath in the area
coupled with their reflections based on that faith and the insights of the Vatican II council on ecumenism and
the council’s inclusive ecclesiology.41
The ecumenical dialogues between Oriental Orthodox churches including the EOTC and the Roman Catholic
Church are favoured by the commonalities shared by the two churches:

they confess the Apostolic faith as lived in the Tradition and as expressed in the Holy Scriptures, the first three
Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea 325 – Constantinople 381 – Ephesus 431) and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed;
they believe in Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word of God, the same being true God and true man at the same time;
they venerate the Holy Virgin Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos); they celebrate the seven sacraments (baptism,
confirmation/chrismation, Eucharist, penance/reconciliation, ordination, matrimony, and anointing of the sick); they
consider baptism as essential for salvation; with regard to the Eucharist, they believe that bread and wine become
the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; they believe that the ordained ministry is transmitted through the bishops
in apostolic succession; regarding the true nature of the Church, they confess together their belief in the “one, holy,
catholic and apostolic Church”, according to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.42
40
Please see the letter attached on digital appendix.
41
Fr. Owen Lambert CSSP: http://www.cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=793&pagetypeID=4&sitecode=US&pageno=2 (last
accessed on 30.07.2013).
42
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch- (accessed on 30.07.2013) docs/rc_pc_chris-
tuni_doc_20090129_mission-church_en.html (last accessed September 2013).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ayalkibet Berhanu 541

Based on the above mentioned commonalties the following are some of the dialogues between the Oriental
Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church that have taken place: 43
• Cairo, Egypt: 27-30 January, 2004
• Rome, Italy: 26-29 January, 2005
• Etchmiadzin, Armenia: 27-30 January, 2006
• Rome, Italy: 28 Jan – 3 Feb, 2007
• Maarrat Saydnaya, Syria: 27 Jan – 2 Feb, 2008
• Rome, Italy: 26 -30 January, 2009
• Antelias, Lebanon: 27 -31 January, 2010
• Rome, Italy: 25 -28 January, 2011
• Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 17 -21 January 2012
• Rome, Italy: 23 – 27 January, 2013
Gebremariam an EOTC writer says in his book Merha Hiwot that “the Orthodox church as it condemned
Nestorius, it also condemns the heresy of Eutyches, and the Catholic Church as it condemns Eutyches,
it also condemns the teaching of Nestorious, therefore, this is a common ground on which the original
unity of Christ’s church could be restored as long as both sides strive for unity out of good heart”.44 It
is interesting to note that archbishop Yohannes of the Tigray diocese in Ethiopia said that the Orthodox
Church and the Catholic Church are the two eyes of the world, but they are prevented by the Nose Bridge
to see each other. The usage EOTC’s liturgical rite by the Roman Catholic churches in Ethiopia is one of
the favourable stances which can be used as driving force improving the ecumenical dialogue between
the two churches.

Dialogue between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches

The ecumenical relationship including the EOTC between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches
has been on the level of official and unofficial dialogues. The following are some of the meetings which have
taken place in this regard.45
1. Aarhus, Denmark: 11-15 August 1964
2. Bristol, England: 25-29 July, 1967
3. Geneva, Switzerland, 16-21 August, 1970
4. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 22-23 January, 1971
5. Abba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt: 1989
6. Chambesy, Switzerland: 1990
7. Chambesy, Switzerland: 1-6 September, 1993. 46
Even though, the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches are not yet in communion, but the EOTC do
have an ongoing relationship with the Eastern Orthodox Churches of Greece, Russia, Romania and with
others whereby there are scholarships and other educational supports47 that has been received by Ethiopian
students from the above mentioned Eastern Orthodox churches. “In her relations with Chalcedonian Ortho-
dox churches, the EOTC will continue to proceed from the desire to ‘keep unity of the Spirit in the bond of
43
Dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/
index_ancient-oriental-ch.htm (last accessed September 2013).
44
Gebeemariam, Asrat. Merha Hiwot 2nd book:( Addis Ababa, 1992), 192.
45
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order f worship and Ecumenical Relations, 144.
46
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order f worship and Ecumenical Relations, 146.
47
Tesfaye, Ayalkibet B, “The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and its traditional theological education system.” In
Handbook of Theological Education in Africa, edited by Isabel Apawo Phiri and Dietrich Werner, 281-291 ( Pietermaritz-
burg: Cluster Publications, 2013), 290.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

542 Chapter (84)

Peace” (Eph 4: 3).48 Generally, speaking Chalcedonian Churches (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox)
and non-Chalcedonian Churches (Oriental Orthodox Churches) need to engage in ecumenical dialogue
in dogmatic matters. Timothy Ware, the Eastern Orthodox Church bishop stated in his book ‘Orthodox
Church’ that “the [Chalcedonian Churches] decrees of Chalcedon from an Alexandrian point of view, and
sought to explain in more constructive terms than Chalcedon (451) had used, how the two natures of Christ
unite to form a single person.”49According to him in discussions with Chalcedonian and non Chalcedonian
Orthodox Churches, it is more a question of semantic or the misunderstanding of words, but basically, they
hold the same believe. Therefore, dialogue is of the greatest importance in order to understand each other’s
expression of the truth.50

Dialogue between the EOTC and other Oriental Orthodox Sister Churches

The EOTC has got a close relationship with other Oriental Orthodox sister churches who explains the Incar-
nation of Jesus Christ that the two natures of God head and Manhood are perfectly united and Christ is thus
one Person and one Nature from the two Natures51 and accept the three ecumenical councils of Nicaea 325,
Constantinople 381 and Ephesus 431.52
The Oriental Orthodox churches met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1965, after a long time since the council
of Ephesus 431. The meeting was organized by Emperor Haile Selassie and His Holiness Abuna Basil the
patriarch of the EOTC. They discussed the following issues:53
• Secular civilization and the church
• Cooperation on providing theological education
• To fulfil the apostolic duty jointly
• About relationship with other Christian churches
• The establishment of an umbrella institution for permanent relationship with other churches
• About global peace and justice
They agreed on continually maintaining the dialogue with regard to the issues listed above. They vow to
remain together for all future endeavours by keeping the unity they have had since the ecumenical meetings
of Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381 and Ephesus 431. They wished to fulfil the will of God - intended to ac-
complish through His Son Jesus Christ. Lastly, they declared Emperor Haile Silassie “the defender of faith”.54
Hence EOTC also brings scholars from other Oriental Orthodox sister Churches to lecture in the EOTC Sem-
inaries. All these points indicate that there is indeed an accommodative ecumenical spirit within the EOTC
-“the practice of churches and other Christian groups in which they seek and work for the unity that binds
them together as Christians”.55
48
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 120.
49
Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. (London: penguin Books, 1964), 37.
50
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order of worship and Ecumenical Relations,
144. The Oriental and Chalcedonian Orthodox churches meetings, the mystery of Incarnation of Christ became the common
ground for both parties as it is based on the Christological teachings of the Oriental Orthodox Churches where it is postu-
lated the union of the two natures in Christ without confusion, without change, without division and without separation.
So it was equally accepted by the Chalcedonian sides because there they have realised that there is no doctrinal difference
instead their differences in analytical interpretation.
51
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 95.
52
These churches are the Ethiopian, the Coptic, the Syrian, the Indian (Malankara), the Armenian and the Eritrean Orthodox
Churches. The Eritrean Orthodox church become autocephalous after the independence of the country from Ethiopia in 1993.
53
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 119.
54
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 119.
55
Karkkainen.V.M (eds). Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for worldwide church. USA: Inter varsity Christian
fellowship, (2008), 263.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ayalkibet Berhanu 543

Ecumenical dialogue is imperative because the division of the church is a stumbling block to Christ’s World
Mission – which is Unity and Peace. Thus, it is expressed “that they may all be one” (John 17:21). The schol-
ars also agree with this idea of oneness when they argue for the unity of the church of Christ in this way “the
whole Christian world is fully aware of the fact that there had been universal church until Chalcedon (451)
and believes that it is still invisibly one since Christ is one and the church is one “. 56 All this gives us a sense
of the importance of ecumenism and ecumenical dialogue for the Christendom world.

Opportunities and Threats for Ecumenism in Ethiopia

The following are some of the pointers necessary to be considered by all those concerned with the future of
ecumenism in Ethiopian.

1. Opportunities:
There are a number of internal and external factors or elements which could be seen as opportunities for pro-
moting ecumenism among all Churches in Ethiopia. The following are the internal and external factors with
huge potential for ecumenism.
1.1. One of the most notable elements that would indicate a very positive future for Ecumenism in the
Christian Churches in Ethiopian is an increasingly growing openness among the youth or the new generation
towards the other. In other words, young and educated believers from both Ethiopian Orthodox and Roman
Catholic, as well as the protestant churches are willing to accept each other as friends and brothers. This may
enable them to discuss openly and positively common issues and to engage in dialogue on those matters they
disagree on. In this a civilized way of discussion based on rationality and reason by recognizing the existence
and legitimacy of the other may be established. In fact this should be nurtured by the more informed elites of
both groups to maximize positive results.
1.2. The other point closely related to the first one is an increasing awareness of the core values of the
denomination they belong to or strong self-awareness. This means, when one has a firm stand on their own
standpoint, there would be more openness to present oneself to the others without any threat of losing one’s
identity. In other words, as there is a growing tendency of self awareness, which would enable them to defend
themselves firmly, they would be willing to come together for a bigger and better engagement with others
for greater results. As threats become minimized, cooperation and fellowship on the same ground would give
more chance for mutual cooperation.
1.3. From on educational point of view, all Christian denominations have been increasingly promoting and
developing new higher theological education. Such theological institutions are coming together to discuss some
academic and theological matters which concern all parties. These preliminary relationships and fellowships
would potentially grow to the much firmly established ecumenical institutional networks in a manner that
would in turn promote and facilitate ecumenism in an adequate and equal level.
1.4. A change in religio-political landscape in recent decades in Ethiopia has created a new opportunity to
focus on mutual benefit rather than promoting animosity. For instance, the aggressive attack of fundamentalist
Islamic movements a couple of years ago in the South western part of the country against all Christian churches
indiscriminately that resulted to a number of casualties from both Orthodox and Protestants and turned a number
of churches into ashes, brought churches together for a common cause. After such incidents, there has been a
growing tendency of brotherhood and fellowship among all groups of Christians in the country.
1.5. In addition to religious factor, there are so many other social, political, and cultural issues which all
churches in Ethiopia would want to address and work together since they have been engaged in them inde-
pendently up to this moment. Poverty, justice, reconciliation, harmful cultural practices, HIV/AIDS, etc,
56
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order f worship and Ecumenical Relations,143.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

544 Chapter (84)

are areas where ecumenical unity is necessary among Christian Churches in Ethiopia. As they all would be
working for the betterment of both the social and the spiritual well-being of the whole of society, cooperation
would be indispensable.
1.6. Besides problems and openness within the country, there has been a growing tendency of ecumenism
around the world, to come together and work for the same Goal and Mission. As part and parcel of the global
Christendom, the Christian churches in Ethiopia are also becoming more and more influenced by such global
movements. The EOTC and some of the Protestant Churches in Ethiopia are already (founding) members of
some of the regional, continental and global Ecumenical Councils. So, such ecumenical movements at global
and regional levels would contribute to doing the same among themselves within the country.

2. Threats:
There are as many threats as there are opportunities which would have the potential to distract or slow down
any kind of meaningful ecumenism in the country. Bellow I mention only Just a few:
2.1. Traditional animosity which has been developed throughout the last few centuries has still have the
potential to keep the churches apart from each other. There are still “ministers/leaders/clergy/teachers” in all
sides who are actively promoting such historical problems in an exaggerated manner. So, one cannot overem-
phasize the potential of the destructive elements in such a movement.
2.2. Similar to this threat would be the wrong image about oneself and the other. This is to say, on the one
hand, the EOTC denies the legitimacy of the Protestant churches, and on the other hand, many Protestants
deny that EOTC members are Christians as well as they target the EOTC members for conversion to protes-
tantism and they ignore the historical role that the EOTC has played in defending Christianity and its heritage
in Ethiopia for three millennia and the apostolic originality of the EOTC. In other words, both groups give a
wrong image of each other and this tendency still exists within some corners of each party. This would have
a very strong power to destroy any kind of ecumenical unity.
2.3. The fragmentation of the Protestant Churches would have a huge drawback for any possible engage-
ments of ecumenism as each Protestant denomination have their own independent stance, which may not be
understood by EOTC. In other words, the EOTC generally considers all Protestants as one group, which in
reality is not true. So, such fragmentation would make it difficult for any attempt at brining one voice from
the Protestant side.

Bibliography

Chaillot, Christine. 2002. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church tradition: a brief introduction to its life
and spirituality. Paris: Inter-Orthodox Dialogue.
Desta, Alemayehu. 2012. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Faith. USA: Author House
Gebeemariam, Asrat. 1992. Merha Hiwot 2nd book: Addis Ababa.
Gerima, Abuna. 2008. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church History from the Birth of Christ up to 2000:
Ethiopia Stretches out her hands to God.
Hancock, G. 1992. The sign and the seal: the explosively controversial international best seller: a quest for
the lost Ark of the Covenant. London: Arrow Books.
Karkkainen.V.M (eds). 2008. Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for worldwide church. USA: Inter
varsity Christian fellowship.
Mekarios, Abuna. et al. 1996. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo church Faith, Order f worship and Ecumen-
ical Relations. Addis Ababa: Tensae Publishing House.
Melaku, L. 1997. The Ethiopian Orthodox church history. Addis Ababa.
- 2008. History of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Part I. Addis Ababa.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ayalkibet Berhanu 545

- 1977. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church History. Addis Ababa.

The EOTC. 1997. The Church of Ethiopia: A Panorama of History and Spiritual life. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian
Orthodox Church.
Tesfaye, Ayalkibet B, 2013. “The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and its traditional theological educa-
tion system.” In Handbook of Theological Education in Africa, edited by Isabel Apawo Phiri and Dietrich
Werner, 281-291. Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publications.
Wondmagegnehu, Aymro. et al. 1970. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Orthodox
Mission.
Ware, Timothy. 1964. The Orthodox Church. London: penguin Books.
Yesehaq, Abuna. 1989. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church: An Integrally African Church. New York: Vantage Press.
Act Alliance: http://www.actalliance.org/about/actmembers/ethiopian-orthodox-church-dicac (last accessed
29.07.2013).
Dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/
sub-index/index_ancient-oriental-ch.htm (last accessed on 30.07.2013).
http://kweschn.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/meskel-festival-the-finding-of-the-true-cross/ (last accessed on
20.07.2013).
Fr. Owen Lambert CSSP: http://www.cnewa.us/default.aspx?ID=793&pagetypeID=4&sitecode=US&pageno=2
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_
doc_20090129_mission-church_en.html (last accessed on 30.07.2013).
http://kweschn.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/meskel-festival-the-finding-of-the-true-cross/ (last accessed on
20.07.2013).
http://anniepaul.net/2011/04/22/emperor-haile-selassies-1966-visit-to-jamaica-coral-gardens-kerala-etc/ (last
accessed on 08.08.2013).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX2KbeD2_PE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O97yb-UzXPs (last accessed on 08.08.2013)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5eA67dN-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpRDtyPVgkg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnPZ1KTr1eU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ma3yBnD3P0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC0wJw0gouo (last accessed on 08.08.2013).

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

 (85) ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE IN THE SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Archbishop Philoxenos Mattias Nayis

“The split of the Christian church is a big mistake, a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and an ignoring of the existence of
Christ who promised: ‘... the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’ (Mt 16:18). I invite you to stand before history for a
moment to see the reason for our divisions. You will see that thousands of innocents have shed blood, righteous men have
suffered and been expelled from their countries. We thank God that Christian churches in this generation have begun to
feel the necessity of continuing the Christian dialogue and as a result they have drawn closer to each other and planned
for continuous meetings at various levels to study different subjects. The unity of Christianity can only happen in and
around Christ, who is the head of the Church and we with all our doctrines are only parts of the holy body of Christ.
Satan is still at work. He brings about disturbances, constantly encourages new splits and wants from that the
division of the body of Christ which is the Church. We have to be careful. Politics usually uses religion to reach its
worldly goals. We should limit our talks to spiritual themes because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. We
do not want the unity of Christianity to fight against other religions. Instead we want unity to reach our goal more
quickly; that is the constructive dialogue with others who believe in God and here especially with the Muslims with
whom we share one homeland. Let us learn from history. Let us avoid what splits us. Let us walk the way that leads
to a better understanding, to a life in which love and peace rule.”1

The quotation above from His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas is a short summary of the vision
and prophetic calling of His Holiness towards us all regarding our work for Christian unity.
The Syrian Orthodox Church, belonging to the Oriental Orthodox family, and the Byzantine and Roman
Churches were separated from each other during the split at the fourth ecumenical council of Chalcedon 451.
This short article will deal with 3 major themes: (1) the current state of the Ecumenical movement in the
Syrian Orthodox Church (SOC) with a short historical background; (2) major challenges and/or possibilities for
the SOC in the Ecumenical movement together with (3) some reflections and thoughts from my humble-self,
regarding the SOC and the Ecumenical movement.

The current state of the Ecumenical movement in the SOC

with a short historical background

After the synod of Chalcedon 451, the first great split occurred in the Church over the terminology of the Incarna-
tion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This split remains one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the Church. From a
Syrian Orthodox perspective the talks about 2 natures (physis in Greek and kyono in Syriac) in one hypostasis was
ambiguous and our Church fathers rejected it. Since the Syriac word of kyono, that was translated from physis,
has a greater meaning than its Greek equivalent the talks about two natures after the incarnation was rejected2.
For that reason the Syrian Orthodox Church was wrongly accused of the heresy of Monophysitism that
originated from Eutyches. But the fact is that our Church has always rejected Eutyches and Monophysitism
as well as we always have rejected Nestorius and Nestorianism. We believe that Jesus Christ is true God and
true man without mixture or co-mingle.
The years after Chalcedon no real talks ever took place between the Oriental Orthodox theologians with
their Byzantine or Roman counterparts and the different sides held on to misconceptions, backbiting and even
1
His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Lecture at the University of Humboldt, Berlin on May 16, 1995
2
On the Syriac meaning of kyono see Sebastian Brock and David Taylor, The Hidden Pearl - Volume III, page 27
Philoxenos Mattias Nayis 547

persecution of the other side. Some attempts to heal the division were made by emperors Justinian (532) and
Heraclius (630) but they were unsuccessful.
Not until the publishing of the book of the Dove by saint Gregorius Yuhannon Bar ‘Ebroyo († 1286), which
he wrote during his last years and after writing numerous treaties and books on theology and spiritual life, it
became clear that perhaps the split at Chalcedon was not a theological split but a terminological split:

“When I had given much thought and pondered on the matter, I became convinced that these quarrels among the different
Christian Churches are not a matter of factual substance, but of words and terminology; for they all confess Christ our
Lord to be perfect God and perfect human, without any commingling, mixing, or confusion of the natures... Thus I saw
all the Christian communities, with their different Christological positions, as possessing a single common ground that is
without any difference between them and I uprooted from my own heart the seed of hatred (Book of the Dove, Chapter IV).

With the insight of this saintly Church father a new phase was entered by the SOC. Unfortunately during
many of the years after Bar ‘Ebroyo the SOC endured many persecutions and hardships which in its turn also
affected the Churches theological and ecumenical undertakings.
During the spring of the Ecumenical movement the Syrian Orthodox Church became a member of the WCC
1960 under the leadership of the thrice blessed Patriarch Ignatius Jakob III.

The SOC and the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox Churches

The SOC participated in the unofficial and official dialogues with the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox Church-
es from 1964 and onwards with the publishing of different documents clarifying that “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” (Communiqué of Aarhus 1964).
During the official meetings of 1985, 1989, 1990 and 1993 the former stumble block of the Christological
dogma was overcome, by acknowledging that the understanding of the incarnation was the same, although
different formulas was used by the different Church traditions speaking about one or two natures.
The official meeting of 1993 that proposed for a mutual lifting of the anathemas and a suggested practical
way to do this has not yet been formally accepted by all the Oriental and Eastern Churches involved.
The 22nd of July 1991 the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka II was, together with the thrice blessed
Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim, of the Greek Orthodox patriarchate of Antioch, wrote a common declaration with
14 important issues3. Amongst them:
• 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.
• 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.
Regarding the ecumenical relationship with the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox we are in need of a new
emphasis or input in order to restore the full ecclesiastical unity between our sister Churches – a point I will
discuss shortly further down.

The SOC and the Roman Catholic Church

The dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church started off on a non-official level. The initiative was taken by
the Pro Oriente Foundation in Vienna, which had been founded by Cardinal König in 1964, during the Second
Vatican Council. A series of meetings between SOC (and other Oriental Orthodox theologians) and Catholic
3
Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches -
November 12, 1991

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

548 Chapter (85)

theologians took place first 1971 and has been on-going since then. The biggest achievement with the Roman
Catholic Church was the “Common declaration of Faith” that was signed by Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas
and Pope John Paul II and included 10 different articles4. Amongst them:
• First of all, Their Holinesses confess the faith of their two Churches, formulated by Nicene Council of 325
A.D. and generally known as “the Nicene Creeds”. The confusions and schisms that occurred between
their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their
faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae
adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real
basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of
Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding
the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.
• “Since it is the chief expression of Christian unity between the faithful and between Bishops and priests,
the Holy Eucharist cannot yet be concelebrated by us. Such celebration supposes a complete identity of
faith such as does not yet exist between us. Certain questions, in fact, still need to be resolved touching
the Lord’s will for His Church, as also the doctrinal implications and canonical details of the traditions
proper to our communities which have been too long separated.”
The declaration also concluded with a solemn obligation to work for full unity between the Syrian Orthodox
Church and the Roman Catholic Church. It should also be mentioned here that fruitful talks and dialogue have
been taking place between the Syrian Catholic Church and the SOC.

The SOC and Protestant Churches5

Amongst the different dialogues that have taken place between the SOC and different Protestant Churches,
the dialogue with the Anglican Communion stands out. In 2002 a consensus was reached between the Oriental
Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion regarding Christology and the report6 stated:

“In recent decades ecumenical conversations have gone a long way to resolving this ancient difference of under-
standing, and we rejoiced that in our own meeting Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox were able to agree a common
statement on our understanding of Christ, and reach out to heal what is one of the most ancient Christian divisions”.

However, in the aftermath of the consecration of homosexual bishop for the Anglican Church in the US,
the Oriental Orthodox Churches delayed the forthcoming meeting between the two Church families and
until this day the dialogue has not been undertaken on a theological level but close friendly ties remains
between many theologians of both Church families and representatives have met on different occasions
and on different levels.

Major challenges and/or possibilities for the SOC in the Ecumenical movement together with some
reflections and thoughts

After a short resume of the Ecumenical movement within the SOC, I will now try to list some challenges
and/or possibilities for the SOC in the Ecumenical movement together with some of my reflections and
thoughts on the matter. I will do this first with each Church-family separately and then say something
about the WCC.
4
The Common declaration of faith by Pope John Paul 2 and His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984.
5
Although the term “Churches” regarding the Protestant denominations is a source of discussion between the Orthodox
theologians, I use the term “Churches” without taking any stance regarding the legitimacy or not in this paper.
6
Report of The Right Rev Geoffrey Rowell Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Philoxenos Mattias Nayis 549

The Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox

The close spiritual relationship with the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox Churches is the closest that SOC and
the Oriental Orthodox family has to any other Churches, that is so because we all belong to the one and same
Orthodox Tradition. Despite our cultural and linguistical differences, we believe that Our Churches has minor
issues to solve before a full communion can be restored between us.
The biggest issue is of course the split that occurred at the Council of Chalcedon 451, but as we have seen
in the theological dialogues that have taken place, the split is not a theological split, but a terminological. It
seems as though we have the theoretical foundation for unity, but have not yet found its practical form.
The relationship between the SOC and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch is excellent and could work
as a role model for unity between the Oriental and Byzantine Orthodox Churches.
A continued dialogue and close friendship in order to break the barriers that still divide us is necessary and
also a willingness to read about the other Church family in a spirit of humility and love. A good step in this
direction has taken place in Södertälje, Sweden, with the foundation of the Saint Ignatius Orthodox Theological
Academy under the leadership of the Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Orthodox bishops in Sweden. At Saint
Ignatius they are working to provide an environment of brotherly understanding and love, and at the same
time value and taking care of each specific Orthodox tradition (the Syriac, the Coptic, the Byzantine etc.). By
providing for a natural environment where Oriental and Byzantine Orthodox faithful can meet each-other and
pray and study together, the practical foundation for the healing of the split between the Churches is provided.

The Roman Catholic Church

A very close bond between the SOC and the Roman Catholic Church was made by their Holinesses, our present
SOC Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas and the late Pope John Paul II. In a spirit of friendship and mutual respect
their Holinesses wrote the Common Declaration of Faith 1984. The Common Declaration of Faith declared
that in necessary cases the sacraments of the Holy Eucharist, Confession and Anointing of the Sick can be
administered by a lawful priest of the other Church in the case when a priest of the faithful’s own Church is
not material or morally possible (9). It was also agreed upon that “It would be a logical corollary of collabo-
ration in pastoral care to cooperate in priestly formation and theological education. Bishops are encouraged
to promote sharing of facilities for theological education where they judge it to be advisable” (9).
The vision of the supremacy of the Roman Bishop is a subject of theological discussion and in order to
find a solution I think that we need to go back to the first 400-years of Christianity and see on the roles of the
different Patriarchal Sees and the role of the bishop of Rome.
I think that before we can go into a deep theological discussion with the Roman Catholic Church and trying
to look for ways to restore full communion, the Oriental and Byzantine Orthodox Churches must themselves
unite first. Since today we do not have a common Orthodox voice as would be the case with a united Oriental
and Byzantine Orthodox Church.
I believe that in a spirit of humbleness and love, with faithfulness to the Fathers of the Church, we can find
practical ways towards a full communion.

The Protestant Churches

Many of the Protestant Churches has been of a great help to the SOC until this day, especially in Sweden and
Germany. In these countries our faithful have received help in days of hardship and many of our parishes have
lent a local Protestant Church for the liturgy before they could build their own Church. And for this we extend
our whole heartedly thankfulness.
To make things a bit more complicated the Protestant Churches are between themselves divided into many
different fractions with different viewpoints and teachings on theology.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

550 Chapter (85)

Despite the close friendship with the Protestant Churches, the SOC sees major theological difficulties. To
mention a few of them7: There is a difference in ethics and Christian values such as family and marriage; there
is a liberalistic spirit that hovers over many of the Protestant Churches that has changed these Churches during
the past 30 years in a way that we thought where unthinkable when our members first came to the western
world; there is also a difference regarding the conception of the Divine Revelation and the Apostolic Tradition
which in turn results in major theological differences.
Perhaps we have to realize that in some regards and with some Protestant Churches, we can be friends but
not have a theological dialogue in the same sense that we have with the Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodox Church-
es and the Roman Catholic Church. I do think that Orthodox theologians have tried to express their views to
the WCC on this matter and perhaps we Orthodox need to discuss and suggest practical ways forward in the
Ecumenical movement with the Protestant Churches.
With all this said I cannot forget the many faithful Protestant Christians that have lived out the Gospel in
many ways and shown a great love towards God and humanity, and of course the many martyrs of the Christian
faith that deserves our deepest respect.

The WCC
The World Council of Churches (WCC) has served as a tool for uniting Christian leaders and faithful for over
60 years, and for this we must thank God. The SOC has found many friends within the WCC and we are very
grateful for what we have been able to see, do and learn during our membership within the WCC.
Despite this, I believe that the WCC has major challenges that need to be tackled. Since many documents
have been written and many statements have been made, I will not try to make a summary of them all here – but
I would like to point to them and to refer to them for further reading. During the Inter-Orthodox pre-assembly
consultation on the island of Kos, Greece 11-17 October 20128 many important points where made and I would
like to quote here number 22 and 23.

22. Orthodox churches – both Eastern and Oriental – call for a stronger focus in the WCC on the search for Christian
Unity. We often hear comments about the crisis in the ecumenical movement and about the lack of interest in unity
or the lack of a clear vision about the nature of this unity. To a great extent, this is a consequence of the fact that the
idea of visible unity is seen as unrealistic by many ecumenical partners, the Orthodox among them. We see this as a
consequence of the developments taking place in some member churches over the last forty years (e.g., the ordination
of women, different approaches to moral and ethical issues, etc.). The gap between member churches is thus growing
wider. On the other hand, the growing participation in the ecumenical movement of churches which are not members
of the WCC and which bring to the dialogue new ecclesiological considerations and new understandings of unity as
mission, adds new challenges to the search for unity, particularly when such churches apply for WCC membership.
23. The most appropriate way to resolve this situation would be to go back to the theological and moral teachings
and practices of the early Church, moving to a patristic understanding of the Holy Scriptures and ethical values.
A re-reading together of the patristic heritage would enable us all to find common ground, and this will give the
churches in the WCC the ability to move forward and to revitalize the whole ecumenical movement. It is our hope
that the Faith and Order Commission will continue with such an approach.

Conclusion

As a conclusion to this short summery of a Syrian Orthodox perspective on Ecumenism, I would like to focus
on the quotation from His Holiness Ignatius Zakka I Iwas in the opening lines: “The unity of Christianity can
only happen in and around Christ, who is the head of the Church”. In order to achieve the goal of a united
7
The different points mentioned here is not applicable on all Protestant Churches, since there are Protestant Churches that
have a strong belief in the traditional Christian ethics and family teaching.
8
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/executive-committee/2013-03/orthodox-pre-assembly-report

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Philoxenos Mattias Nayis 551

Christianity we must focus on Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and ask Him to lead us and help us. We must
be humble and full of love, just like Our Lord, and at the same time remain faithful to the doctrines and life of
the holy Orthodox Church, since there is no separation between Christ and the Church.
As a Syrian Orthodox metropolitan, I believe that the example of Bar ‘Ebroyo is a very good one. After all
his theological studies and treaties, he found that the Christological split between the Oriental and Byzantine
Orthodox where a split of terminologies and not theology. And he saw that he had to start with the root of
division that grew in his heart. When we have rooted out the root of hatred and division in our own hearts, we
can meet each-other in the freedom of Christ and by the help and grace of the Holy Spirit find new ways of
communication and a return to the undivided Church of the first 400-years.

Bibliography

Brock, Sebastian/Taylor, David G.K. (ed.s), The Hidden Pearl: The Syrian Orthodox Church and Its Aramaic
Heritage. (Rome: Trans World Film Italia, 2001).
Chaillot, Christine/ Belopopsky, Alexander (eds.), Toward Unity, The Theological Dialogue between the Or-
thodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, (Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, Geneva 1998).
Chediath, Geevarghese, Syriac Churches in Dialogue, The Harp, vol. XI-XII, (Kottayam 1998-99).
Fitzgerald, Thomas/ Bouteneff, Peter (ed.s), Turn to God, Rejoice in hope – Orthodox reflections on the way
to Harare, (Geneva: Orthodox Task Force WCC 1998).
Madey, John, The Ecclesiological and Canonical Background of the So-Called Kerala Agreement, The Harp,
vol. XI-XII, (Kottayam 1998-99).
Paul, Daniel Babu, The Quest for Unity. (Damascus: Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, 1985).
Samuel, V.C., The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined. (British Orthodox Press 2001)
Ware, Timothy (Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia), The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin Books, 1993).
Wensinck, A.J. Bar Hebraeus’s Book of the Dove. (Leyden: Brill, 1919).

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

 (86) ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE IN THE MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH1

Fr. Kondothra M. George

Any historical reflection on the Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement in Asia will have to
critically deal with various elements including the following:
• Asia and Christianity
• Emergence of the Asian Ecumenical Movement
• Orthodox presence in Asia and its ecumenical significance

1. Asia and Christianity

The very word Asia originated in the Graeco-Roman imperial geography which spoke of Asia Minor and Asia
Major. However, many regions of present day Asia were simply terra incognita for the Romans. It was given a
concrete geo-political form during the Western colonial movement beginning with the arrival of the Portuguese
navigator Vasco da Gama who landed in an ancient port near Calicut on the Malabar cost in present-day Kerala,
south western state of India. The Portuguese colonial invasion of Asia was followed up by other Western powers.
The idea of Asia as one entity was created by the European mind during this colonial period. The Western
explorers and colonial authorities recognized the immense cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity existing
among the countries in Asia. However the people of Pakistan and India and those of China and Japan were all
‘Asian’ with a broad spectrum of other nations and cultures in between. There is a certain common ground of
Asian-ness linking all these diverse cultures and nations. The overall approach to Reality in Asia, despite rich
internal diversity and sometimes substantial divergence, is very different from the general western approach
developed especially during the second millennium of the Christian era. One may be puzzled by the apparent-
ly very different world views represented, for example, between the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta in India
and the Confucian ethics in China. Yet one may discern a certain common Asian ethos running through all
ancient Asian systems of philosophy, spirituality and ethics. Religious roots and routes like that of Buddhism,
for instance, are a connecting link that forged a certain cultural commonality in many of the Asian countries.

2. Eastern Christianity and Asia

In the first millennium of the Common Era there were two streams of the tradition of Christianity in Asia, one
followed by the other chronologically, and the two merging subsequently until about the 16th century, that is,
the time of the arrival of the Portuguese Roman Catholic and colonial power in Asia. The important point here
is that both these streams were “oriental” in origin and character and reached Asia long before that continent
came into contact with European Christianity. They are the following:

(i) The St Thomas Tradition

Thomas, one of the 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ, is traditionally believed to have arrived in India, precisely at
the ancient port of Kodungalloor in present-day Kerala on the south west cost of India in AD 52. (Recent ex-
1
Reprinted with kind permission from: K.M. George, “Orthodox Presence in the Asian Ecumenical Movement”, in: Hope
Antone, Wati Longchar, Hyunju Bae, Huang Po Ho, Dietrich Werner (eds), Asian Handbook for Theological Education
and Ecumenism, Regnum Publishers, Oxford 2013, p. 60-65.
Kondothra M. George 553

cavations have unearthed an ancient town called Pattanam not very far from Kodungalloor. It shows evidence
of ancient trade and commerce between the Kerala cost and Romans, Greeks, Arabs and Jews before Christ,
and in the early Christian period). The strong and living tradition of Indian Christians living in Kerala and in
Diaspora has always been faithfully attesting to the arrival of Thomas as the foundational event of Christianity
in Asia. Circumstantial evidences for this event are prolific. The Christian tradition that survived in India from
then on had a distinctly Eastern flavor.
In the 4th century there were several waves of immigration of Christians from the Persian empire due to
persecution and for trade to the Malabar cost (Kerala) where there were already Christians. These immigrants
of old still retain to some extent their ethnic identity and generally practice endogamy though they live together
with the other Kerala Christians in the same faith and practices.
Now divided between Oriental Orthodox, East Syrian, Roman Catholic and Protestant streams the St. Thomas
Christians are a flourishing and influential community in Kerala. The efforts to overcome their division that
occurred since the 16th century due to the aggressive missionary practices of the Portuguese Roman Catholic
missionaries and then the rather soft mission of the British missionaries are as old as the division. Although
the attribute ‘ecumenical’ for Church union efforts is of 20th century origin, some of the discerning and wise
persons in the divided Indian Christian community always longed and worked for unity.

(ii) East Syrian Spiritual Connections

The other stream consisted in the arrival of East Syrian Christian traders and missionaries from the Meso-
potamian region to India, China and greater Asia. China still retains the 7th century stele and the inscription
commemorating the arrival of East Syrian “Alopen” and the “Nestorian” missionaries. In several countries in
Asia from India to China, we have ancient stone crosses associated with East Syrian missionaries and traders.
In India it is generally called “Persian Cross” or more recently as “St. Thomas Cross”. However, while Indian
Christian community in Kerala retained the continuity and live memory of this heritage, there was no trace
of any living Christian community in China claiming this heritage when the western colonial and missionary
bodies arrived there.

3. Asian Ecumenical Movement and Orthodox Presence.

The modern Ecumenical Movement has its origin in the early 20th century arising mainly from the missionary
interests of Western Protestant Churches. In Asia, this was reflected naturally in the then young Churches
founded by western missionary efforts. So it was, of course, confined to churches of the Reformation tradition.
The Orthodox presence in Asia, or rather Eastern Christianity was mainly confined to the historic Malankara
Orthodox Syrian Church (sometime wrongly called Jacobite) which traces its origin to the preaching of the
Gospel of Christ by Thomas the Apostle. In fact, there is a group of churches based in Kerala, India, belonging
to Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions, but jointly affirming the St Thomas Tradition. These
Christians in general are locally called Nazranis (probably meaning ‘the followers of the Nazarene’). Since
the Portuguese colonial times a section of the Thomas Christians has been affiliated to the western tradition of
then Roman Catholic Church. Heavily Latinized by the work of the Jesuit and Carmelite missionaries under
Roman juridical and canonical authority and almost losing the eastern ecclesiological heritage, this section
of the Nazranis, generally called Syro-Malabar Catholics, are now making serious efforts to regain their lost
Eastern heritage. In the 16th century the Indian church of St Thomas, bitterly persecuted by the Portuguese au-
thorities, sought help from Oriental patriarchates including the Syrian and Coptic Churches, in order to counter
the efforts of proselytisation and inquisitorial oppression from the Western Roman Catholic authorities in the
16th and 17th centuries. In AD 1665 arrival of a bishop called Mor Gregorios Abdul Jalil from Jerusalem in
response to the request from India started a new chapter in the history of the St Thomas Christians. Instead of

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

554 Chapter (86)

the gradually introduced East Syriac liturgy prevalent in the Indian church until then, the west Syrian or An-
tiochian liturgical tradition and practices were introduced. The present Orthodox Church in India now follows
this liturgical heritage. It was welcomed by the people because it did not violate their original Eastern sense
of the St Thomas Tradition nor did it challenge the sense of autonomy of the Indian Church. The ascetical
spirituality of the Oriental Christian monks and bishops who occasionally visited India went very well with
the Indian Hindu ethos of asceticism. However, towards the end of the 19th century Syrian patriarchal authority
making jurisdictional claims over the Indian Church began to be imposed on the church in the spirit and style
of the then prevailing colonial regimes. This provoked the Indian Orthodox Church, and led to a series of
legal wrangling and conflicts that still haunt the Church. Since all this is not about any doctrine of faith, but
essentially a question of jurisdictional claims on the side of the patriarchate of Antioch over the Indian church
versus the deep sense of autonomy of the church of St Thomas which had enjoyed freedom and self rule since
ancient times, there is hope among the faithful that division would be healed and unity would be restored. In
the 19th century with the arrival of the British missionaries and their missionary efforts, another section, though
smaller, of the ancient community was attracted to the teachings of Reformation tradition. This eventually
split the ancient church, and the separation between the Orthodox Church and newly the reformed Marthoma
church on doctrinal grounds was the sad result of this division.
In modern times there are small Russian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Syrian and other Eastern traditions in
different parts of Asia due to immigration and trade. There are small Asian Orthodox Churches like the Korean
Orthodox Church of the Greek tradition. The Malankara Orthodox Church has strong Diaspora in Malaysia,
Singapore and Australia. These Diaspora communities including those newly converted from local commu-
nities largely follow the liturgical and spiritual traditions of their mother churches. There is hardly anything
called an “Asianization” happening in these Diaspora communities except perhaps in such areas as liturgical
language and iconography.
These Diaspora Orthodox communities are generally open to ecumenical initiatives, mainly because their
parent bodies are all members of the WCC and are committed to ecumenical collaboration. The Malankara
(Indian) Orthodox Church became a founding member of the WCC in Amsterdam 1948.
If we take CCA as a major structural expression of Asian ecumenism, the Malankara Orthodox Church has
been involved in it since the early 1970s. Metropolitan Mathews Mar Coorilos (later Catholicos Marthoma
Mathews I), Fr. Paul Verghese (later Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios), Fr. Philipose Thomas (later Metro-
politan Mar Eusebios), to mention just a few, had been prominently involved in the ecumenical work of CCA
and promoted its connections with the Malankara Orthodox Church of India.

4. Theological Significance of the Orthodox Presence in Asia

Unlike the Western Churches the Orthodox Eastern Churches have never been involved in any systematic
proselytizing mission in Asia. Therefore, one does not find any significant Orthodox presence in Asia except in
India where the historic Malankara Church existed since apostolic times. Therefore, as everywhere, it is not the
quantitative but qualitative theological and spiritual presence of Orthodox Churches that is of any significance.
Let me mention three broad areas:

(a) Inter-faith Experience and Cooperation

While Christian churches in the West almost always lived in a rather mono-cultural European setting until
about the second half of the 20th century Asian Christians have always been living in the pluralistic context
with a broad spectrum of religions, cultures, ethnicities and worldviews. Asia, being the home of some of the
major religions, has been hospitable to Christianity as well, just as it has always been open to a vast array of
greatly divergent spiritual and philosophical systems.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Kondothra M. George 555

The Malankara Orthodox Church has developed a certain modus vivendi with the majority population of
Hindus and others over the centuries. The implications of this long dialogue of life are important for the wider
ecumenical concerns of global Christianity, especially since some prophets of doom foresee a clash of civili-
zations rooted in major religions of the world.
It is now generally perceivedthat the emergence of religious and cultural pluralism constitutes a major
challenge for global Christianity, particularly for the classical mainline western churches which, with notable
exceptions, continue to take their mono-cultural settings for granted. In this context the Asian experience of
the Orthodox Church and its presence and mission on this continent acquire a paradigmatic character.
The first thing that strikes an outside observer is probably the minority status of the Christian Church in
Asia. In India, for example, it is still less than 3% of the total population of more than 1.1 billion. In spite of
the existence in India of a Christian community from the first century AD and the massive efforts of the Por-
tuguese and the British missionaries since the 16th century to Christianize India, the Christian population has
not registered any significant quantitative growth. It should also be noted that ancient Oriental Christianity in
India has had no bitter memory of any persecution from local rulers or any aggressive opposition from other
religions. (It may be a paradox that local Christians in Kerala suffered persecution not from non-Christian
authorities or neighbors but from Christian brothers from the west during the Portuguese period). In fact, the
centuries old experience of St Thomas tradition of Christianity in the Southern state of Kerala has, more or
less, been that of acceptance and respect in a heavily caste-ridden society.
It is noteworthy that the Orthodox church in Asia or anywhere else does not give priority to any mission of
conversion of non-Christians or proselytisation of other Christians. The mission emphasis is rather on bearing
witness (martyria) to Christ in other ways rather than quantitative and numerical growth of the church. There
are certainly occasional voluntary conversions to the Orthodox Church due to several factors like marriage,
personal conviction of those who seek the apostolic faith, predilection for spiritual practices like fasting and
emphasis on liturgical experience, attraction to monastic and acetic life and so on. However, the eastern Church
attaches much importance to respecting other faiths and maintaining genuine friendliness to neighbors as forms
of radiating Christ’s love for the world. There is an obvious divergence in this respect between the Orthodox
churches and the traditional western churches. The latter in general believe strongly in conversion as an integral
part of preaching the Gospel of Christ and the mission of the Church.
Asia has the experience of two ancient missions far earlier to the western Christian mission. The Buddhist
mission that started in India, some 2000 years before the west European colonial Christian missions began
coming to Asia. That mission of the Buddha, the Enlightened One, changed the face of Asia in a considerable
way, and it has generally been perceived to be peaceful and nonviolent respecting local cultures and other
faiths. Then Asia had the Christian mission of St Thomas and later the East Syrian (“Nestorian”) mission in
the first Christian millennium. This again was very peaceful though it lacked imperial might and the massive
colonial outfit.
So the ecumenical question regarding Christian Mission and interfaith relations in Asia can be raised anew
from this historical perspective. Christian Mission can be nothing but the dissemination of God’s love for the
world. The Gospel of Christ is the Gospel of Love. Whatever we think or do against this ultimate principle of
love is against the Gospel. Any preaching of the gospel that undermines the Gospel message itself is not part
of the Christian mission.
The Christian Church in Asia in its Eastern ethos has a lot of potential to enter deep into the spiritual genius
of other Asian religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism. Any common ground that appears
to the genuine seekers in these religions need to be affirmed as our common human heritage endowed by the
Creator to all humanity. Affirmation of commonality rather than the assertion of difference must be the rule in
a genuine dialogue between different faiths.
The biblical question who is your neighbor? is still being raised in response to the ancient commandment
Love your neighbor as yourself. The answer always points to a Samaritan, the one who is doctrinally heretical,

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

556 Chapter (86)

culturally outcaste and spiritually out of communion with you. It is this despised, unredeemed and cast out
stranger who becomes the true neighbor in a critical moment of your life. He has already shown supreme love
to you in your pain and suffering, and is willing to do more for you. What would be your response?
When we consider the ultimate divine commandment to love one’s neighbor in relation to interfaith di-
alogue and cooperation the parable of Jesus enlightens us with a new revolutionary insight. It is the Other
who apparently does not share your doctrine of faith or worships your God who becomes your neighbor. As
Asian Christians in general can acknowledge, they sometimes get more solid human support, true friendship
and love from their neighbors of other faiths than from their own fold. An important ecumenical aspect of the
mission of the Church in pluralistic Asia is to create, cherish and foster this genuine neighborliness. This is
one significant manner in which we bear witness to Christ, the good Samaritan, who bore our sins and healed
our wounds out of pure love and compassion.

(b) Ecclesiology
Orthodox Churches maintain an ecclesiology which they attribute to the spirit and structure of “the one un-
divided Church”. “The local Church ecclesiology” of the Orthodox Churches rather than a “universal church
ecclesiology” may go along more smoothly with the Asian spirit of plurality, harmony, hospitality and respect
to the other. A qualitative catholicity is the Orthodox alternative to the claims of any quantitative universality
of number or geographical extension. The Buddhist tradition, for instance, has created a new spirit in Asia
of combining tolerance and compassion as well as diversity and unity across the Asian religious landscape.
The metaphor of the Body of Christ used by Apostle Paul is taken very seriously in the Orthodox tradition.
There is a tendency in academic circles to minimize the importance of this Pauline image as merely a meta-
phor. However in the Patristic tradition of the Church it is a constitutive element of ecclesiology. The Church
as the Body of Christ is One. The unity of the Church is affirmed by the Orthodox churches on the basis of
the integral and holistic character of the Body of Christ. In the Ecumenical Movement, and its doctrinal arm
of Faith and Order, the Orthodox Churches tirelessly stand for the undivided witness of the Church as one
Body. It does not deny any true cultural, linguistic and liturgical diversity. In fact the Local Church Ecclesi-
ology of the Orthodox tradition has always promoted all genuine diversity and distinct identities in the unity
and wholeness of the Body of Christ. The ineffable perception of the Triune nature of Godhead in which
the distinct identity or Hypostasis of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit sharing the one Ousia or
Essence underlines the unity and catholicity of the Church, Body of Christ. This is to be newly interpreted
and understood in Asia where the immense diversities can threaten its unity with fatal political and economic
consequences. An ecclesiology for Asia requires the emphasis on the oneness of the body of humanity, the
sacred character of that body, the inter dependence of the limbs of the body, justice and peace in the mutual
sharing and assistance within the body and the sense of oneness with all creation as the larger Body of Christ.
The emphasis is not on legalistic authority structures or a pyramidical hierarchy or a simple linear perception
of history and progress, but on the organic and holistic life of the Body continually renewed and perfected by
the dynamic indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
An Asian ecclesiology rooted in the Body of Christ and drawing lessons from the harmony of religions in
Asia and from the Eastern Christian tradition will be of great value to the wider world. It will be a radically
new way of bearing witness to Christ.

(c) Spirituality and Ethics

Spirituality is an area of rich potential for the Orthodox presence in Asia. The Eastern Christian spiritual and
ethical understanding of reality has a large common ground with Asian religious philosophies and spiritual
mindset in general. The Orthodox understanding of theosis or divinization and the transfiguration of the cre-
ated world rooted in a holistic, incarnational theology has openings to the Asian vision of unity, and diversity,

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Kondothra M. George 557

transcendence, renunciation and compassion. The ascetic-monastic values in both Orthodox and Asian spiritual
understanding have striking parallels.
The Asian ethical stand based on the integrity of the family and social bonds and values promoting justice,
non-violence (ahimsa) and respect for creation can be further explored ecumenically by the Orthodox tradition
and Asian religions together. There is great potential for a mutually enriching give and take here. Issues of
poverty and injustice, marginalization and exploitation are to be addressed jointly by Eastern Christianity and
Asian religions since there is a heavy emphasis in both on transcendence, ritual and meditative tranquility,
sometimes at the expense of a prophetic commitment for the transformation of the economic, social and political
structures aimed at common good and just socio-economic order. This broadens the ecumenical vocation of
the Church in Asia as well as creates a domain of wider Asian Ecumenism that takes into account the profound
Asian religious-spiritual heritage.

Bibliography

Koshy Ninan, A History of the Ecumenical Movement in Asia, Vol 1, WSCF, YMCA,CCA, Hong Kong,2004
Daniel David, The Orthodox Church of India, New Delhi, 1986
Cherian C.V., A History of Christianity in India: A History of the Orthodox Church AD 52-2002, Kottayam,
Academic Publishers (2003)
George Kondothra, “Theological Education in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition,” in Dietrich Werner et al,
Handbook of Theological Education in World Christianity: Theological Perspectives, Regional Surveys,
Ecumenical trends, Regnum Studies in Global Christianity (2010), p.623-628
George K.M., Interfacing theology with culture, Delhi (2010)
Thomas, Meladath Kurian, The Indian Way of Christianity, Saarbruecken, Germany, Lambert Academic
Publications, 2012

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

 (87) ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE IN THE ARMENIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

Bishop Hovakim Manukyan

This article provides a brief description and information about the ecumenical activities carried out by the
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Armenian Apostolic Church.
His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenia from the very beginning of
His enthronement gave a great importance to Inter-Church Relations and started to visit the leaders of sister
Churches, signed agreements with them, made joint statements. All these served as a good basis for a new
and beneficial cooperation for the sake of mutual support, understanding and respect in the Christian World.
The Armenian Apostolic Church is well aware that only such an attitude of the Church creates more favorable
ways and possibilities for solving various issues concerning human progress, on which that human progress
depends, this time full of challenges.
Due to these approaches and active contacts, not only leaders of traditional churches, but also leaders of
other religions visited Armenia. These visits, in fact, form a great part of the Inter-Church Relations. Definite-
ly, mutual visits, in their turn, strengthen not only the existing relations, but also create new ways to face the
challenges rising day by day.

Relations with Oriental Orthodox Churches

During recent years, the relations with the Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian and Malankara Orthodox Churches are
marked with more activities.
In October 2000, His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians made an
official visit to Egypt and Ethiopia to meet the leaders of these Churches and to reinforce the relations among
the Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Churches. Due to such kind of visits between the heads of our Churches,
the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin tried to show initiative and strengthen the historical friendship among
the members of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and this was confirmed by the agreements and messages
between His Holiness and the heads of the Sister Churches.
Such kinds of relations were designed for the Syrian and Malankara Orthodox Churches. The proof of this
is the visit of the leader of the Malankara Orthodox Church Patriarch Basilios Mar Thoma Matthews of bless-
ed memory to the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in 2001 and the visit of the head of the Syrian Orthodox
Church to the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in 2003. In 2008, representatives of almost all sister Churches
participated in the ceremony of blessing the Holy Myron-chrism in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin.

Relations with Eastern Orthodox Churches

Upon the invitation of the Ecumenical Patriarch His All Holiness Bartholomew I, in 2006 Catholicos of All
Armenians left for Turkey, to meet him in the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Fanar and to reestablish the existing
cooperation between the two Churches. This meeting also aimed to discuss the issue how to protect the rights
of the religion and ethnic minorities in the territory of Turkey.
The created friendship resulted in various visits of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to Armenia. His first
visit to Armenia was in 1997 during the enthronement of KAREKIN I of blessed memory. The second one was in
2001 for participating in the events held on the 1700th anniversary of adopting Christianity as the state religion, and
the last one was in 2008 for participating in the Myron blessing ceremony in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin.
Bishop Hovakim 559

Close relations have been created between the Armenian Apostolic and the Russian Orthodox Churches. One
of the most important visits during the first years of the pontificate of His Holiness Karekin II, was his visit to
Alexy II of blessed memory, which was later followed by the participation of Alexy II in the events dedicated
to the 1700th anniversary of adopting Christianity as the state religion in Armenia. The Armenian Diocese of
New Nakhijevan and Russia and the Armenian Diocese of Southern Russia contributed greatly to the creation
of these relations. In 2010, His Holiness Cyril visited Armenia and the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and
joint communiqué was signed.
Since 2001, active theological dialogue has been initiated between the Armenian Apostolic and Russian
Orthodox Churches. The meeting of religious leaders of the Transcaucasia was held by the mediation of the
Russian Orthodox Church, the result of which is the creation of the Inter-Religious Council, and His Holiness
Karekin II is one of the co-chairmen.
Fruitful cooperation has also been created with the Romanian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches. His Holi-
ness Karekin II had personal meetings with the leaders of the aboved mentioned churches during his Pontifical
visit to Bulgaria and Romania. It is important to mention that His Holiness was decorated with medal of the
state by Mr. Emil Constantinescu, President of Romania.
Important steps based on mutual understanding are undertaken to strengthen relations with our neighbor
Georgian Orthodox Church. During his visit to Georgia in 2000, His Holiness Karekin II signed an agreement
with His Holiness Ilia II, Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church. We hope that current problems will find
solutions in near future.
In fact, the Armenian Apostolic Church has good and continuous relations with all Orthodox Churches.

Relations with the Catholic Church

Relations with the Catholic Church are marked with great progress. The visit of His Holiness Karekin II to
Rome and the visit of Pope John Paul II of blessed memory to Armenia were a promotion for further serious
cooperation. In 2001, the Head of the Catholic Church visited Armenia for the first time in the history.
The fact that the Pope visited a country of the former Soviet Union not upon the invitation of the president,
but upon the invitation of the Church leader was a unique phenomenon. The Head of the largest Christian
Church visited the Genocide Memorial, too.
It is noteworthy that the Pope was accommodated not in the apartment of the Apostolic Nuncio, ac-
cording to the accepted tradition, but in the residence of His Holiness Karekin II. He celebrated Divine
Liturgy not in an open-air stadium, but at the Open Altar, which is near the entrance to the Mother See of
Holy Etchmiadzin and is a symbol of the 1700th anniversary of the adoption of Christianity as the state
religion in Armenia
In 2005, His Holiness Karekin II participated in the funeral of Pope John Paul II, and in 2008, His Holiness
had a four-day visit to the Vatican upon the fraternal invitation of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. During
his visit, His Holiness Karekin II visited the tomb of John Paul II of blessed memory, prayed for the peace
of his soul, visited also the square named after St. Gregory the Illuminator, together with His Holiness Pope
Benedict XVI presided over the traditional audience held every Wednesday at St. Peter’s Square. More than
35000 faithful were present at the audience.
Salesian Pontifical University granted His Holiness Karekin II with the degree of honorable Doctor as an
appreciation of His Holiness’ activities addressed towards Christian education for the youth.
This cooperation was also important from another point of view: the leaders of the Armenian Catholic Com-
munity in Armenia, Georgia and Europe began to be elected not among the representatives of the Armenian
Catholic Patriarchate of Bzommar, but among the representatives of the Mekhitarist Congregation living and
acting in St. Lazar Island in Venice.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

560 Chapter (87)

According to the agreement signed between His Holiness Karekin II and Pope John Paul II in 2001, each
year two or three members of the Brotherhood of Holy Etchmiadzin study in European Universities with the
support of the Catholic Church.
One of the important achievements of this cooperation is the fact that St. Vlas Church was given to the Ar-
menian Apostolic Church for meeting the spiritual needs of the Armenian Community in Rome. The Armenian
Apostolic Church began an official dialogue with the Catholic Church as a member of the Oriental Orthodox
Church Family. Some meetings of the official dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Ortho-
dox Churches were held in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. It is also worth mentioning that in Armenian
communities, where there is no Armenian Church, the Catholic Church provides churches to the Armenian
Apostolic Church for offering Church services.

Relations with the Anglican and Protestant Churches

The relations with the Anglican Church are also friendly, which is best demonstrated by mutual visits of the
leaders of both Churches. Many members of the Brotherhood of Holy Etchmiadzin have studied in spiritual
institutions of the Anglican Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury has its representative in the Mother See
of Holy Etchmiadzin.
The relations with the Lutheran Church of Finland began with mutual visits of the Church Heads.
There are more than 200 protestant churches in the world, and the Armenian Apostolic Church keeps friendly
relations with them. The relations with protestant churches also develop in the framework of the ecumenical
movement.

Relations with the WCC and CEC

During the years of the pontificate of His Holiness Karekin II, the Armenian Apostolic Church established
constant relations with the WCC. The clergy of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin began to participate in
the events, meetings and charitable, educational projects realized by the WCC.
The WCC raised its voice concerning many issues that trouble our nation and Church, including the con-
demnation of the Armenian Genocide, and as a result, on April 24 commemoration ceremonies were held in
all 347 member-churches of the WCC. This cooperation resulted in inviting clergymen of the Brotherhood
of Holy Etchmiadzin to study at the Bossey Ecumenical Institute. The representatives of the Mother See of
Holy Etchmiadzin are included in the Central Committee of the WCC, as well as in other WCC Committees.
As a continuation of this cooperation, Dr. Samuel Cobia, General Secretary of the WCC visited the Mother
See of Holy Etchmiadzin in 2007, and later on members of the WCC Executive Committee visited Etchmiadzin
to have a plenary meeting.
During the meeting with the Executive Committee members, His Holiness mentioned, “It is really a great
joy for us that the Executive Committee holds its meeting in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. We take
such kind of relations as a blessing. Your presence is not only a good occasion to get acquainted with the Ar-
menians and the Armenian Apostolic Church, but also it is a good occasion for our nation to get acquainted
with the mission and activity of the WCC.” The representatives of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin also
participate in the works of the ecumenical network of protecting the disables sponsored by the WCC. In 2011
the new General Secretary Olav Fykse Tveit also visited Armenia and the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin.

Since 2002, our Church has participated in the Global Ecumenical Forum initiated by the WCC.
Since 1977, the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin has been a member of the CEC. During the years of His
Holiness’ pontificate, relations with the CEC have been strengthened more.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Bishop Hovakim 561

The representatives of the Mother See Holy Etchmiadzin not only actively participate in the works of the
CEC, but also host its representatives in Holy Etchmiadzin, organize meetings and discussions.
During these years, the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin presented its official viewpoint concerning the
membership of Turkey in the EU and the document entitled Carta Ecumenica.
The CEC was one of the first organizations to condemn the Armenian Genocide and the former general
Secretary of the CEC particated in the events dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
The 13th Assembly of the CEC came out with calls to protect the right of religious minorities in Georgia. The
Armenian Apostolic Church always delegates her representatives to participate in the works of the European
Christian Ecological Network presenting ecological projects, which are realized in the Vaskenian Spiritual
Seminary and in the Dioceses.

Inter-Religious Relations

The Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin also promotes inter-religious dialogues and cooperation. In 2006, the
Armenian Apostolic Church participated in the 8th conference of the “Religions in the World for Peace” Inter-
national Organization in Kyoto, Japan. His Holiness Karekin II was elected as the co-president of this council.
Leaders and representatives of different churches come to Armenia with the mission to establish dialogue
and cooperation among different religions.
By the way, all the religious figures visiting Armenia, no matter Christian or not, visit the Genocide Memorial.
His Holiness Karekin II also participated in many inter-religious conferances. He is one of the co-chairmen of
the CIS Inter-Religious Council. During Pontifical visits to different countries, His Holiness Karekin II usually
had meetings with representatives of different religions.

Bibliography

Bishop Hovakim Manukyan, Ecumenism in the 20th century and the Armenian Church, (Doctoral thesis, un-
published), (Etchmiadzin, Armenia, 2006).
Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia, The Challenge to be a Church in a Changing World, (New York, USA, 1997).
Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia, In search of Ecumenical vision, (Antelias, Lebanon, 2001).
Karekin I, (Karekin Sarkissian), The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenia Church, (London, UK, 1965).
Christine Chaillot, Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (a compi-
lation of the texts of the Theological Dialogue since 1964, with accompanying articles), (Geneva, 1998).

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

 (88) ECUMENICAL DIALOGUE IN THE ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC CHURCH
(GREAT HOUSE OF CILICIA)

Archbishop Nareg Alemezian

1. Armenia: The First Christian Nation

On the seashore of Antelias, a suburb of Beirut-Lebanon, are located the headquarters of the Armenian Apos-
tolic Orthodox Church – Holy See Catholicosate of Cilicia.
The origin of the Armenian Church dates back to the Apostolic Age. Christianity was preached in Arme-
nia as early as the second half of the first century by the two apostles of Jesus Christ, St. Thaddeus and St.
Bartholomew.
During the first three centuries Christianity in Armenia was a hidden religion under heavy persecution. In
301 Armenians officially accepted Christianity as their state religion, through the efforts of St. Gregory the
Illuminator. Armenians became the first nation who formally adhered to Christianity.
The official line of the Heads of the Armenian Church, called “Catholicos,” started with St. Gregory the
Illuminator. St. Gregory chose as the site of the Catholicosate the capital of Armenia, Vagharshapat.

2. A Migrating Catholicosal See

The continuous upheavals in Armenia forced the kingdom to move to safer places. The Armenian Church center
moved as well to different locations together with the political authority. Thus, in 485 the Catholicosate was
transferred to Dvin, then to Dzoravank and Aghtamar (927), Arkina (947) and Ani (992). In 1045, after the fall
of the Armenian Kingdom of Bagradits, masses of Armenians migrated to Cilicia and the Catholicosate settled
there. It was first established in Tavblour (1062), then Dzamendav (1072), Dzovk (1116), Hromkla (1149) and
Sis (1293), where it remained for seven centuries.

3. Two Catholicosates in the Armenian Church

The existence of two Catholicosates in the Armenian Church (the Catholicosate of All Armenians in Holy
Etchmiadzin-Armenia and the Holy See Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias-Lebanon) is due to historical
circumstances.
In the 10th century Armenia was devastated by Seljuks and many Armenians left their homeland and were
settled in Cilicia. The Catholicosate also took refuge in Cilicia. For almost four centuries (10th-14th cent.) the
center of the Armenian political, ecclesiastical and cultural life was in Cilicia.
In 1375 the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia was destroyed and Cilicia became a battleground between invad-
ing foreign powers. In the meantime Armenia was having a relatively peaceful time, which led the bishops of
Armenia to elect a Catholicos in Holy Etchmiadzin. Thus, in 1441 Giragos Virapetsi was elected Catholicos
in Holy Etchmiadzin, meanwhile Krikor Moussabekiants continued to be the Catholicos in Cilicia. Since
1441 there have been two Catholicosates in the Armenian Church with equal rights and privileges, and with
their respective jurisdictions. The Catholicosate of Cilicia has always recognized the primacy of honor of the
Catholicosate of Holy Etchmiadzin.
Nareg Alemezian 563

4. The Catholicosate in Antelias-Lebanon

During the First World War Turks perpetrated the first Genocide of the 20th century and massacred one million
five hundred thousand Armenians. In 1921, when the French forces evacuated Cilicia, a second wave of mas-
sacres ordered by Kemalist Turkey took the lives of another 300.000 Armenians. The rest of the Armenians
were forced to leave their homeland and found refuge mostly in Syria and Lebanon. The Catholicosate in Sis
was also confiscated and ruined by the Turks. Catholicos Sahag II followed the exile of his flock and in 1930
he established the Catholicosate of Cilicia in Antelias.
The Catholicosate of Cilicia became the leading force in the worldwide Armenian Diaspora through its
network of dioceses. Catholicoi Sahag II (1902-1939), Papken I (1930-1936), Bedros I (1940), Karekin I
(1943-1952), Zareh I (1956-1963), Khoren I (1963-1983) and Karekin II (1977-1995) occupied the throne of
the Catholicosate in Antelias.
The current Catholicos is His Holiness Aram I, who was elected and consecrated in 1995. During his many
years of ecclesiastical service, he has assumed important responsibilities in the Armenian Church as well as
in the ecumenical movement.
In 1972 he was appointed as the representative of the Catholicosate of Cilicia for ecumenical relations.
In 1974 he became a founding member of the Middle East Council of Churches and has served on its Ex-
ecutive Committee.
As delegate of his Church he participated in the World Council of Churches Nairobi (1975), Vancouver
(1983), Canberra (1991), Harare (1998) and Porto Alegre (2006) Assemblies. In 1975 he was elected a member
of the WCC Faith and Order Commission. At the Vancouver Assembly he was elected member of the WCC
Central Committee. At the Canberra Assembly he was elected Moderator of the WCC Central and Executive
Committees. He was the first Orthodox and the youngest person to be elected to the position of Moderator.
After serving as Moderator for seven years, he was unanimously re-elected at the WCC Harare Assembly.
He is a founding member of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox
and Oriental Orthodox Churches and the International Theological Dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox
Family of Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. He has played an important role in the
initiation of the International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and
the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
In 1996 he was instrumental in creating the fellowship of the Three Heads (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian) of
the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East.
He has played a significant role in promoting common values, mutual understanding and peaceful co-exis-
tence among religions, and especially among Christians and Muslims.
He is an honorary member of the Pro Oriente, the World Religions Museum Foundation and the Religions
for Peace international organizations.

5. Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Initiatives and Activities

Ecumenism and inter-religious relations remain one of the main areas of mission and ministry of the Cathol-
icosate of Cilicia. Since the fifties its clergy and lay representatives have taken an active part in global and
regional ecumenical and inter-religious meetings and conferences.
The ecumenical engagement of the Catholicosate was more organized after 1962, when it became a member
of the World Council of Churches. In 1975, at the Nairobi Assembly, Bishop Karekin Sarkissian (later Cathol-
icos Karekin II) was elected a Vice-Moderator of the WCC Central and Executive Committees. In 1991, at
the Canberra Assembly, Archbishop Aram Keshishian (currently Catholicos Aram I) was elected Moderator
of the WCC Central and Executive Committees. In 1998, at the Harare Assembly, His Holiness Aram I was
re-elected Moderator of the WCC Central and Executive Committees.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

564 Chapter (88)

The Catholicosate sent observers to the Second Vatican Council. The visits of the Catholicoi to Popes, as well
as joint declarations, meetings and consultations with representatives of the Roman Catholic Church greatly
contributed to the development of warm relations between the Armenian Church and the Roman Catholic
Church on international, regional and local levels.
The relations of the Catholicosate with the Churches of the Middle East have always been fraternal. As
one of the initiators of the ecumenical movement in the region, it took an active part in the foundation of the
Middle East Council of Churches in 1974.
The Catholicosate has played a key role in promoting the theological dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental
Orthodox Families. It had a significant part in the development of a more organized collaboration among the Oriental
Orthodox Churches. Since 1997 the Heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East and the Standing
Committee appointed by them regularly meet and discuss ecumenical, inter-religious and inter-church issues.
The Catholicosate continues with growing impetus its ecumenical relations with the Anglican Communion
and the other Churches of the Reformation, as well as with various ecumenical organizations.
In 1997 His Holiness Aram I established the Department for Ecumenical and Inter-religious Relations at
the Catholicosate to further strengthen mutual collaboration with our ecumenical and inter-religious partners.
Also, the Department organizes ecumenical formation seminars and coordinates the activities of the dioceses.
Archbishop Nareg Alemezian is the Ecumenical Officer of the Department.
In 2002 the Ecumenical Relations Committee of the Catholicosate was formed with 7 ordained and lay
men and women members.
In 2010 the Catholicosate became a member of the Christian Conference of Asia.
The Catholicosate participated in the meetings of the Co-ordinating Committee of the United Bible Societies
and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches Relations.
Armenian Church University Students Association of the Catholicosate is a member of Christian university
and youth organizations.
On the local level, the Catholicosate has representatives in many committees; such as, Religious Textbooks
Editorial Committee, Humanitarian Assistance Committee and Christian-Muslim Committee.
The Catholicosate is seriously engaged in generating tolerance and building mutual confidence between
Christian and Muslim communities in the Middle East and worldwide. It initiates a number of inter-religious
dialogues and takes active part in important inter-religious conferences on regional and international levels
and organizes meetings of the representatives of world religions.
The Catholicosate actively participates in the ecumenical movement and inter-religious dialogue through its
clergy and laity representated in the commissions and committees of ecumenical councils and inter-religious
organizations.

6. Theological Dialogues

The Catholicosate of Cilicia is involved in the following Theological Dialogues together with the other
members of the Family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches1:

I. Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches
For two decades (1964-85) unofficial theological consultations took place between the representatives of these
two families and paved the way for the formation of the Joint Commission.
1
The Family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches comprises of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church - – Catholicosate
of All Armenians (Armenia), the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church – Catholicosate of Cilicia (Lebanon), the Coptic
Orthodox Church (Egypt), the Syrian Orthodox Church (Syria), the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Ethiopia), the Indian
Orthodox Church (India) and the Eritrean Orthodox Church (Eritrea).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Nareg Alemezian 565

The first meeting of the Joint Commission took place in Chambésy-Geneva, in December 1985. It identified
four areas of discussion on Christology: 1) Problems of terminology, 2) Conciliar formulations, 3) Historical
factors, 4) Interpretation of Christological dogmas today.
The second meeting of the Joint Commission took place in the Monastery of Anba Bishoy-Egypt, in
June 1989 and made a common statement, known as First Agreed Statement (See Digital Appendix with
the texts).
The third meeting of the Joint Commission took place in Chambésy-Geneva, in September 1990 and
produced Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the Churches, and made recommendations to
their Churches on the lifting of all anathemas and condemnations, pastoral issues, relations between the two
Orthodox Families of Churches, relations of the two Orthodox Families of Churches with other Churches,
their common service to the world of suffering, need, injustice and conflicts, and their cooperation in the
propagation of the Christian faith.
On behalf of the Catholicosate of Cilicia Archbishop Aram Keshishian (currently Catholicos Aram I) and
Archbishop Mesrob Ashjian participated in the dialogue.
The Co-presidents of the Joint Commission, Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland and Metroplitan Bishoy
of Damiette, embarked on a series of visitation to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches headquarters
to ensure the facilitation of the outcome of the dialogue by the Holy Synods.
In 2007 Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, the Eastern Orthodox new Co-president, and Metropolitan
Bishoy visited His Holiness Aram I in Antelias and discussed the practical steps to resume the official talks.
Soon a core group will meet to secure the resuming of the full meeting of the Joint Commission.

II. International Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church
and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
Catholic and Oriental Orthodox representatives, delegated by their Churches, met in January 2003, in Rome-Italy,
as members of the Preparatory Committee for the Catholic Church-Oriental Orthodox Churches International
Joint Commission for Dialogue. The Preparatory Committee established the rules of membership of the Joint
Commission and set up the work plan, agenda, membership, procedures, methodologies and timetable of the
Joint Commission.
2004-2013 the Joint Commission had 10 meetings, each year alternating between Rome and an Oriental
Orthodox Church headquarters. It held its 7th meeting in the Catholicosate of Cilicia, Antelias-Lebanon.
The Joint Commission has the following topics on its agenda: 1) Christology, 2) Procession of the Holy
Spirit in a Trinitarian context, 3) Ecclesiology, 4) The Mission of the Church, 5) Sacraments, 6) Purgatory, 7)
Mariology.
On behalf of the Catholicosate of Cilicia Archbishop Oshagan Choloyan and Archbishop Nareg Alemezian
are members of the Commission.

III. Anglican-Oriental Orthodox International Commission

Anglican and Oriental Orthodox representatives, delegated by their Churches, held a preparatory meeting in
Midhurst-England, in July 2001. They considered the recommendations of the Lambeth Conferences of 1988
and 1998 and decisions of Oriental Orthodox Churches that the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox dialogue be up-
graded from a Forum (1985-1993) to a Commission. They also established the agenda and clarified matters
related to the membership, procedures, methodologies and timetable of the Commission. The agenda includes
the following topics: 1) Christology, 2) Pneumatology, 3) Authority in the Church, 4) Holy Scripture and Holy
Tradition, 5) Ecclesiology, 6) Sacraments, 7) Moral issues, 8) The place of women in the Church, 9) Matters
of concern to the Churches in their mission and pastoral care.

Part VI: Ecumenical Perspectives of Oriental Orthodox Churches

566 Chapter (88)

The Commission had its first meeting in Holy Ejmiadzin-Armenia, in November 2002, signed an Agreed
Statement on Christology (See Digital Appendix with the texts) and submitted it to the authorities of the Ori-
ental Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion for their consideration.
On behalf of the Catholicosate of Cilicia Archbishop Kegham Khatcherian and Archbishop Nareg Alemezian
participated in the meetings.
The work of the Commission has been interrupted since 2003, because of the ordination of homosexual
clergy and the blessing of marriages of the homosexuals in the Anglican Communion.
Through the efforts of His Holiness Aram I a joint small group will meet in England, in 2013, to discuss
the possibilities of restarting the full meeting of the Commission.

IV. International Theological Dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox Family of Churches
and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches
A group of representatives of Oriental Orthodox and Reformed Churches held a preparatory meeting in Ge-
neva-Switzerland, in August 1992, and considered the possibility of embarking on a theological discussion
on matters of common concern. Archbishop Aram Keshishian, then the Moderator of the World Council of
Churches, played an important role in this initiative.
1993-2001 the group had 7 meetings, alternatively hosted by a Reformed and an Oriental Orthodox Church.
One of the highlights of these meetings was the adoption of the Agreed Statement on Christology in Drie-
bergen-The Netherlands, in September 1994 (See Digital Appendix with the texts).
During the meetings 30 papers were presented and discussed on the following topics: 1) Tradition and Holy
Scripture, 2) The Role of the Theologian in the Christian Community, 3) The Nature of the Church and Her
Mission, 4) Priesthood/Ministry, 5) Sacraments.
In January 2001, at its last meeting in Antelias-Lebanon, the members prepared the report of the first phase
of their discussion and submitted it to the authorities of their respective Churches for consideration.
On behalf of the Catholicosate of Cilicia Archbishop Dirayr Panossian and Archbishop Nareg Alemezian
participated in the meetings.
The second phase of the dialogue is under consideration by both sides.

V. Conversation between The Lutheran World Federation and Churches of the Oriental Orthodox Family
Representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and Churches of the Oriental Orthodox family met in Gene-
va-Switzerland, in February 2008, to explore the possibility of establishing regular bilateral contact between
their Churches.
On behalf of the Catholicosate of Cilicia Archbishop Nareg Alemezian participated in the meeting.
Rev. Dr. Ishmael Noko, the LWF General Secretary, decided to make a visit to each of the Oriental Ortho-
dox Churches in 2008 to discuss the matter with the heads of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but because of
leadership change in the LWF he could not do it.
Rev. Dr. Martin Junge, the LWF new General Secretary, will visit the Oriental Orthodox Churches in 2013.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 PART VII

PARTICULAR THEMES AND ISSUES

FOR ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT IN ECUMENISM
 (89) COMMON PRAYER AS AN ISSUE FOR ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT IN ECUMENISM,
ACCORDING TO THE CANON LAW1

Vlassios Pheidas

I. The Issue of Common Prayer in the Dialogue for the Unity of Christians

The issue of the participation of Orthodox clergy and laity in prayers with the heterodox is an inevitable
consequence of the official decision of the Orthodox Church to take part, through the representatives of local
Orthodox Churches, in the institutional organs and activities of the modern Ecumenical movement for the unity
of Christians. This participation was approved on the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, after lengthy
discussions and on specific terms, in order to serve clear ecclesiastical needs which became increasingly
pressing because of the systematic or even violent questioning of the institutional role or spiritual mission of
the Church, not only by secular ideology but also by the dynastic authority wielded by the state in the mainly
Christian world.
So the participation of the Orthodox Church in the foundation, in 1948, of the World Council of Churches
(WCC), as an organization for the coordination of cooperation of Christian Churches and Confessions in the face
of a common attack on the whole of the Christian world, was not only beneficial but also a visionary initiative
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for the support of those Orthodox Churches which were then in dire straits.
Of course, the Ecumenical Patriarchate set specific ecclesiological conditions for the participation of the
Orthodox Church in the WCC, which were included in its constitution, but the understanding of these condi-
tions was dependent on the different ecclesiastical assumptions of the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant
Confessions, which is why, in 1952, Patriarch Athenagoras, in a strictly-worded Patriarchal encyclical, clarified
the Orthodox criteria for its participation, as these were set out in the famous Toronto Statement (1950). How-
ever, after the General Assembly of the WCC in New Delhi (1961), there was a change in the procedure for
the preparation and acceptance of joint texts, while the cancellation of separate Statements from the Orthodox
caused turmoil: on the one hand because of the indirect adoption of the principle of the majority in theological
issues was unacceptable to the Orthodox; and, on the other, because the Orthodox proposals were mixed in
with those of the Protestants as regards the summaries or ambiguous theological terminology of the joint texts.
The Third Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference (1986), through a unanimous Pan-Orthodox resolution,
made any further participation by the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical movement contingent upon a radi-
cal reappraisal of the constitution of the WCC to reflect the Orthodox proposals. In the end, the question was
brought before a Special Committee, consisting of equal numbers of representatives of the Orthodox Church
and the WCC. The unanimous decisions of the Committee regarding the implementation of the principle of
unanimity for the agreement of joint texts and for the establishment of stricter theological and ecclesiological
criteria for the acceptance of new members were embodied in the Constitution by a unanimous decision of
the General Assembly at Porto Alegre (2006) and allowed for positive prospects for the independent witness
of Orthodoxy in the ecumenical dialogue on Christian unity.
The issue of the Orthodox representatives praying together with the heterodox at their ecumenical meetings
was no more than a marginal problem in the participation of the Orthodox Church in the WCC, because it
was felt to be a reasonable consequence of the dialogue. But it gained special significance after the collapse
of the totalitarian regimes of existential socialism among the Orthodox peoples of Eastern Europe in the last
decade of the previous century and the provocative development there of undesirable proselytizing activities,
1
A full version of the present text was initially published in Episkepsis, no. 699 (30.04.2009) 11-33. Here it is re-published
with the necessary adjustments (ed.).
570 Chapter (89)

on the part of both the Papal Uniates and of Protestant missionaries, which chafed the wounds of the past and
struck a severe blow at the credibility of the Ecumenical movement. The challenge to the traditional spiritual
relationship between the Orthodox Church and the suffering Orthodox peoples, as well as the characterization
of Eastern Europe as “terrae missionis”, for the re-evangelizing of the peoples there, presented conservative
circles within Orthodoxy with the opportunity to voice sharp criticism against the Church hierarchy, both for
its participation in the WCC and also for its collaboration with the Communist regimes.
It therefore escaped no-one’s attention that, in the last decade of the 20th century, the reason why the issue
of common prayer with the heterodox at the multi- and bilateral theological dialogues of the Ecumenical
movement was systematically raised was because of the unfraternal and assertive proselytizing activity of the
heterodox to the detriment of the suffering Orthodox peoples. The opposition, however, is evidently incon-
sistent: on the one hand as regards the decades-long, unreserved acceptance or tolerance of the established
practice of common prayer, despite the supposedly serious canonical reasons for avoiding it; and, on the other,
as regards the long-observed ecclesiastical practice of evaluating canonical issues with pastoral criteria, even
if it is becoming increasingly clear that opposition to common prayer is directed mainly at the WCC and not to
bilateral theological dialogues. Nevertheless, regardless of any assessment of this or that approach to the issue
of praying in common with the heterodox, the question of the true meaning of the sacred canons quoted has
always been, and remains, the sole authentic criterion, for the avoidance or deterrence of dangerous agitation
on this issue which is crucial to the relations of the Orthodox Church with the heterodox.

II. The True Meaning of the Sacred Canons.

The fundamental principle in the investigation of the true meaning of one or more similar sacred canons is, on
the one hand, the precise grammatical interpretation of the text transmitted, and on the other, the consistent
referral of its spirit to the specific ecclesiastical problems of the particular time, because it is only in this way
that the will of the sacred canons expresses the indissoluble pastoral connection between the solution proposed
and the particular problem it addresses. Thus, the canons dealing with the problem of Orthodox praying with
heretics cannot be understood, much less interpreted in their true dimensions, without a clear reference to the
dangers which existed in the 4th century as regards the unity of the Church. These were:
First, the non-acceptance of the Nicene creed by the Arian-orientated bishops and clergy, who succeeded,
through the support of like-minded emperors, both in exerting a decisive influence on Church affairs until the
convocation of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) and in oppressing the Orthodox bishops.
Second, the fragmentation of the Arians after 341 into opposing groups which each developed its own hierarchy,
at least in the major cities, and competed with one another, with the willing assistance of the authority of the state,
both for the removal of the Orthodox bishops from these cities as well as for the control of the main churches.
Third, the co-existence in the same city, of Arian bishops and of the main churches under their control for
the celebration of the divine liturgy for one and all (Orthodox and Arians), concerning which the Arians, on
the one hand, restricted the protestations of the Orthodox parish clergy to a minimum, and, on the other, im-
posed common attendance of Orthodox and Arian clergy, to the obvious confusion of the ordinary Orthodox
believers, who made up the overwhelming majority of the ecclesiastical body.
Fourth, the complaisant or even compromising attitude towards the Arian bishops on the part of certain
Orthodox bishops, either because they were afraid of the well-known, harsh measures that the state might take
against them (deposition, exile), or because they were unable to understand the theological profundity of the
heretical aberration of the Arians, or because of both of these. They therefore tolerated common attendance or
even concelebration between the Orthodox and Arians at the Orthodox liturgy and vice versa.
Fifth, the exploitation by Arian bishops of the participation of Orthodox clergy and laity in divine worship
as celebrated by these bishops, especially at times of long absence of the Orthodox bishops due to exile, so
that it could be claimed that the Orthodox flock was converting to the Arian heresy or, at least abandoning the

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Vlassios Pheidas 571

Nicene creed. This would have been to the obvious satisfaction of the declared opponents of this creed, the
Arian emperors (Constantius and Valens).
Sixth, the urgent requirement for an official ecclesiastical condemnation of the transfer of the theological
clashes between supporters and opponents of the Nicene creed to the sacred sphere of the celebration of the
sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, because this transfer caused turmoil among ordinary Orthodox believers,
with obvious and dangerous damage to the unity of the ecclesiastical body in the communion of the faith and
in the association of love.
So the critical question “concerning the meaning of the prohibition by the sacred canons on common prayer
with the heterodox and schismatics in relation to today’s ecclesiastical reality obviously has to do with our
contemporary appropriation and misappropriation of certain canons which are used indiscriminately, or even
injudiciously by some ecclesiastical circles in order to aim criticism at the Church hierarchy, under the pretext,
indeed, of protecting endangered Orthodoxy from its participation in the Ecumenical movement or from the
initiatives for the promotion of a constructive spirit in the way inter-Church relations are handled. The canons
which refer directly or indirectly to this issue are numerous and cover a wide spectrum of pastoral matters, in
order to prevent or counteract any enticement of the Orthodox faithful by the heterodox. In particular, however,
regarding the specific question of common prayer with heterodox and schismatics, the 45th Apostolic canon
and canon 33 of the Synod in Laodicea (4th c.) are quoted, because, on the basis of these, similar sacred canons
referring indirectly to the issue are evaluated.
The 45th Apostolic canon declares that: “Any bishop or priest or deacon who merely prays with heretics
is to be excluded from communion, but if he permits them to act as clergy, he is to be deposed”. Canon 33 of
Laodicea states that: “It is not permitted to pray with heretics or schismatics”. In this sense, the correct inter-
pretation of the holy canons requires a correct interpretation of the verb “to pray with”, because the Apostolic
canon makes the distinction between praying with heretics and affording them the opportunity to celebrate
and it accompanies this distinction with a differentiation in the punishment in each of these cases: exclusion
from communion, in the first and defrocking in the second. Therefore the verb to pray with refers to two dif-
ferent instances, either to mere common prayer or to concelebration, because in the second case, the proposed
punishment is clearly more severe. Thus the eminent canonist Theodoros Valsamon, in his comment on this
canon, although he expresses an unjustified, personal supposition regarding the purpose of the canon, correctly
remarks on the multiple use of the verb to pray with, which is apparent from the different ecclesiastical pun-
ishments which are envisaged: To the question why those bishops, priests and deacons who pray with heretics
are not deposed, but merely excluded from communion, as is someone praying with such a person, according
the 10th Apostolic canon. Answer: Here it does not mean that the bishop and the others pray (i.e. concelebrate)
with heretics, because such are deposed, according to canon 66, as allowing them to act as clergy. But let it
be taken to mean simply participating in and reciting at the prayer of the heretic (participation in prayer) …”
G.Rallis-M. Potlis, Constitution II, 60).
The eminent canonist’s reference to the 10th and 46th Apostolic canons was the foundation for the proposed
distinction between the uses of the verb to pray with. The 10th Apostolic canon states that “if anyone prays with
someone excluded from communion, even in a house (= not in a church), let him be excluded also; while the
related canon 11 declares: “If any cleric joins in prayer with a deposed clergyman, as if he were a clergyman,
let him also be deposed”. The prominent canonist Ioannis Zonaras, in his comment on canon 10, notes that one
should not communicate with these (= who are excluded from communion), for this would be contempt for the
person who imposed the exclusion or even an implication that he had wrongly imposed it”, while Theodoros
Valsamon adds that “we do not prevent conversation with those excluded from communion (op. cit. II, 14).
The comment on canon 11 broadens the circle of distinctions in the use of the verb pray with, because of the
differences which arose in the understanding of the purpose of the canon. Thus, Ioannis Zonaras observes that:
“some of those who are deposed are prevented only from celebrating, not from taking communion or attend-
ing church, while others are deposed, not given communion and excluded from communion. Therefore if this

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
572 Chapter (89)

canon refers to those deposed and excluded, let anyone praying with such also be under deposition, if praying
together is understood rather than concelebrating. If not, and the person deposed is not also excluded, anyone
concelebrating with him shall be deposed. Strangely, Valsamon does not take praying together as concelebrat-
ing and stresses that “Some take praying together here as concelebrating, but it does not seem so to me… My
understanding is that the aim in this canon is to chastise any cleric who prays with any cleric who has been
deposed and, after deposition, continues to celebrate, which is why deposition is entailed for the former…”
So the disagreement between the two eminent Byzantine canonists concerning the true meaning of the litur-
gical use of the verb pray with in the prohibition of common prayer with a deposed Orthodox cleric makes the
true canonical meaning of the prohibition clearer. Zonaras’ dilemma is rhetorical, because it is clear from the
whole structure of the 11th Apostolic canon that the more correct choice is “if praying together is understood
rather than concelebrating and the person deposed is not also excluded, anyone concelebrating with him shall
be deposed”. Valsamon’s stance on the above interpretation is less than scrupulous, because he introduces into
the text of the canon a non-existent element concerning the deposed clergy (after deposition, continues to cel-
ebrate) and draws the baseless, subjective conclusion that “the aim in this canon is to chastise any cleric who
prays with any cleric who has been deposed”, even though he knew that “praying with” a deposed clergyman
was punishable in general only in the event that that the latter actually celebrated, because concelebrating was
the reason for the punishment, not that the cleric who had been deposed had previously celebrated. So the real
meaning of the canon associates “praying with” with “concelebrating” and is rendered fully by the succinct
comment by Alexios Aristinos, that “let anyone who prays with, that is concelebrates, with someone one has
been deposed be deposed himself” (Constitution, II, 15).
Focus on the reference to the prohibition of “praying together” in the Divine Liturgy is understandable, because
all the services were linked to it, and, in the fourth century it was the same for the Orthodox and the heretics. The
heretics were constantly pressing the Orthodox clergy for common attendance or even concelebration, in order
to lead astray the ordinary believers. So the recourse to the comment by Valsamon on the 45th Apostolic canon is
also important. This canon states that: “we decree that any bishop or priest who accepts the baptism or sacrifice
of heretics shall be deposed”. This canon has been invoked to support the position that anyone “praying with
heretics in church” is concelebrating with them, which is why the punishment of deposition is ordained. So if any
bishop or priest arbitrarily consents to or participates in baptism or the Divine Eucharist (= sacrifice) by heretics
for Orthodox faithful, in clear contempt of the established canonical order, the punishment is that he should be
deposed for concelebrating with heretics. In his comment on this canon, Zonaras observes that “should a bishop
or priest receive someone baptized by them (heretics) or accept anyone brought by them to the sacrifice offered, he
shall be deposed, either for giving the impression that he considers himself the same as them or for not hastening
to correct their mistaken belief…” (op. cit. II, 61). It is therefore obvious that the 45th and other relevant Apostolic
canons always link “praying with” with the concelebration of Orthodox clerics and those of the heretics, because
they condemn any such arbitrary action on the part of an Orthodox cleric as “either for giving the impression that
he considers himself the same as them or for not hastening to correct their mistaken belief…”.
Indeed, through their prohibition of concelebration with the heretics or the acceptance of baptism performed
by them, the apostolic canons, on the one hand condemn any arbitrary action on the part of Orthodox clerics
and on the other refer to heretics specifically recognized by the Church and who unrepentantly persist in their
heresy. It is in this sense that canon 6 of Laodicea forbids “the heretics to enter into the house of God, persisting
in heresy”. This prohibition, of course, refers to entry by the heretics into an Orthodox church, because Valsamon
emphasizes that: “the canon clearly does not permit heretics who persist in their heresy to attend church with
the Orthodox” (op. cit., III, 176). It follows that the canon forbids the attendance of those who persist in their
heresy at the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Canon 9 of Laodicea forbids the Orthodox to go to the martyria
of heretics “either to pray or for healing”, that is to take part in the liturgy celebrated by them, though not, ac-
cording to Valsamon, if they go “to an assembly of heretics in order to spit upon it” (ibid. III, 177-8). Canon 13
of Laodicea (“That it is not permitted to pray with heretics or schismatics”) forbids concelebration or common

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Vlassios Pheidas 573

attendance, in accordance with the spirit of the 45th Apostolic canon and is to be interpreted in conjunction
with canons 31 and 32 of the same synod. Canon 31 forbids the Orthodox “to marry any heretic or to give their
sons or daughters, but only to accept them if they promise to become Christians”, whereas canon 32 forbids
the Orthodox “to receive the benedictions of heretics, which are mere mouthings rather than blessings”, within
the context, naturally, of heretical liturgical assemblies. It is therefore clear that the above canons used the verb
“pray together” in the sense of “concelebrate” or “attend church with” in connection with officially recognized
heretics, who persist stubbornly and rigidly in their heresy, and that these canons condemn any arbitrary activity
on the part of Orthodox clerics or any ill-considered actions by the Orthodox faithful.
Therefore the true meaning of the above canon refers only to the obvious and self-evident prohibition on
concelebration for Orthodox clergy with the heterodox, and not, of course, to participation in any other prayer.
In this sense, all the eminent Byzantine commentators on the sacred canons mentioned above, as well as Saint
Nikodimos in the Rudder (Pedalion), in his own commentary on the 45th Apostolic canon, specifically state
their agreement with the 9th canon of Archbishop Timotheos of Alexandria, who expresses with the greatest
possible clarity the authentic meaning of the prohibition in the relevant canons on praying together with heretics
and even more so with schismatics: “Question nine: Should a cleric pray in the presence of Arians or other
heretics, or does it do no harm when he makes the prayer, that is the offering? Answer: At the divine anaphora,
the deacon proclaims, before the embrace, that those outside communion should leave. So they should not re-
main, unless they declare their repentance and rejection of the heresy”. It follows that Arians and other heretics
were allowed to be present at a liturgy celebrated by an Orthodox cleric, at least until the embrace, while if
they declare their repentance and rejection of the heresy, they could stay through the divine anaphora,, this is
for the whole of the divine liturgy, though not of course be admitted as concelebrants or to holy communion.
Because he was of the opinion that “we should hate heretics and turn away” and not “pray with” them,
Saint Nikodimos the Athonite does not give the correct sense to the commentary on canon 9 by Timotheos.
He extends the condition of repentance on the part of the heretics to their participation even in the first part
of the liturgy because he also claimed, without substantiation, a general prohibition, that is; “that the ninth
canon of Timotheos does not permit heretics to be present at the time of the divine liturgy unless they promise
to repent and abandon the heresy. It is clear that, with this view, Saint Nikodimos misinterprets or does not
render the real meaning of the Archbishop of Alexandria’s answer, through which the presence of Arians and
other heretics at the Divine Liturgy is equated with that of catechumens or penitents that is those who have
not yet the right to take communion. The full answer addressed the double question of whether: a) heretics
could be present at the celebration of an Orthodox divine liturgy; and b) the specific issue of their presence at
the sacramental part of the service (“Should a cleric pray in the presence of Arians or other heretics, or does
it do no harm when he makes the prayer, that is the offering?”).
The response of the Archbishop of Alexandria to the general question of the presence of heretics is given
through the established ecclesiastical practice regarding all those outside communion (catechumens and
penitents), which was that they could remain until the embrace of love. The specific issue of their continued
presence at the celebration of the Divine Eucharist imposes the condition that the heretics could remain even
after the embrace of love that is until the end of the liturgy, if they declared their repentance and rejected their
heresy, in which case this “did no harm”. But the condition imposed (if they declared) clearly intimates a prior
discussion with the heretics and an agreement during this dialogue for their return to the Church community,
because otherwise the distinction would be impossible. Thus, according to the true interpretation of canon 9
by Timotheos of Alexandria, heretics were allowed to attend church with the Orthodox at the celebration of
the divine liturgy for the first part, until the embrace, without any particular restrictions, and could remain for
the second part, after the embrace, only on condition that they promised to show remorse for their heretical
aberration. So if it does no harm for Orthodox and heretics to attend church together for part of the divine
liturgy, how much less harm does it do for them to pray together at the theological dialogue for the unification
of Christians which is being conducted today?

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
574 Chapter (89)

III. The Church’s interpretation of the sacred canons

On the basis of what has been said above, it has always been the practice of the Church that the 45th apostolic
canon and canon 33 of Laodicea were always applied only to prohibit Orthodox clerics from concelebrating with
the heterodox, because this is opposed to Orthodox ecclesiology. But they were not applied to the presence of
Orthodox at heterodox services or to heterodox at those of the Orthodox, nor to common prayer for the unity of
Christians in inter-Church encounters concerning the unity of the ecclesiastical body. Besides, at the period of
the persecutions, the very participation of catechumens, or those who had lapsed, in the first part of the divine
liturgy, at the various stages of their catechesis or repentance (canons 11, 12, 13, 14 of the 1st Ecumenical Council
etc.) is sufficient confirmation of what was said above, because even those who invoke the 45th Apostolic canon
are forced to arbitrarily characterize as “concelebration” even the mere presence of Orthodox clerics at het-
erodox services. Hence, according to the 9th canon of Timothy of Alexandria, the sacred canons of the Synod in
Carthage (419) concerning the dialogue with the Donatists are to be applied completely and at all times. These
canons express the enduring spirit of the Orthodox canonical tradition regarding all dialogue with the heterodox.
Thus, canon 66 states: “when all things had been considered and contemplated which seem conducive to
the advantage of the church, with the Spirit of God guiding and admonishing us, we decided to act leniently
and pacifically towards the people mentioned above [=Donatists], although they are cut off from the unity of
the Lord’s body by an unruly dissent, so that (as far as we can) it may become known to all those who have
been caught in the net of their communion and society, throughout all the provinces of Africa, that they have
been overcome by miserable error. Perhaps, as the Apostle says [II Tim. 2, 25], when we have corrected with
gentleness those who hold different views, God will grant them repentance, so that they come to know the
truth…” The response to this invitation on the part of the Donatists presupposed, on the one hand, a constructive
theological dialogue on the documented theological differences, and, on the other, in the event of agreement
being reached, the revocation of the old decision of the Synod of Carthage (251), which called the baptism,
ordination and other sacraments of the Donatists invalid. This is why, instead of canonical exactitude, the
Synod preferred the principle of ecclesiastical flexibility in order to encourage the return of those people to
the bosom of the Church.
In this spirit, canon 57 of the synod states that: “those who as children were baptized by the Donatists, and
not yet being able to know the disastrous nature of their error, and who afterwards, when they had come to the
use of reason, had realized the truth, abhorred their former error, and were received, (in accordance with the
ancient order) by the laying on of the hand, into the universal Church of God, which is spread throughout the
world, for such men, recalling their error ought to be no impediment to the clerical office since they thought
their own was the true Church to be their own... And it is not right to repeat that which should be given only
once. If they have renounced the name of their former error, let them be received through the laying on of hands
into the one Church… in which all these sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; while the
same sacraments obtain the heavy penalty of damnation for those who persist in heresy. So that which to those
who are in the truth lightens to the obtaining of eternal life, the same to them who are in error brings darkness
and damnation. With regard then to those who, having fled from error, acknowledge the correct teachings of
their mother the universal Church, who believe and receive all these holy mysteries through the filter of the truth,
and who have the testimony of a good life, they may certainly be raised to the clerical office, especially in
such necessity as the present. There is no-one who would not grant this…” Thus the synod, through canon 68,
empowered individual bishops to accept clerics coming into the Church from the Donatists “in their own honours,
if this appears to contribute to the peace of Christians…, so that there may be no rupture of unity over them…”.
It is clear that, through these Synodal decisions, a proposal was being engineered for a constructive theological
dialogue between the Church of North Africa and the Donatists, with a view to the removal of the reasons which
had caused their secession. Canon 92 of the synod defines the form, the manner and the aim of the dialogue:
“Sent by the authority of our universal synod, we have called you together, desiring to rejoice in your correction.
For we bear in mind the love of the Lord who said: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Vlassios Pheidas 575

children of God; and moreover he admonished through the prophet that we ought to say even to those who say
they are not our brothers: You are our brethren. Therefore you ought not to despise this peaceful recollection
which comes out of love, so that if you realize we have any part of the truth, you will not hesitate to say so:
that is, when your synod is gathered together, you delegate certain of your number to whom you entrust the
statement of your case, as we also will be able to do, so that those appointed by our synod, together with those
delegated by you, may examine peacefully, at a determined place and time, whatever question there is which
separates your communion from us; and that in the end, by the assistance of the Lord God, the old error may
be brought to an end, lest through the stubbornness of people, weak souls, and inexperienced people should
perish by sacrilegious division. If you accept this in a fraternal spirit, the truth will easily shine forth, but if
you are not willing to do this, your distrust will be known”. The Donatists, however, rejected the proposal for
peaceful dialogue and engaged in violence against the Orthodox, and so the Synod in Carthage requested the
intervention of the Emperor of the West, Honorius, in order to have the Edict of Theodosius the Great (380)
enforced and for pressure to be brought to bear to make them enter into dialogue for the restoration of the unity
of the Church in North Africa (canon 63).
Of course, the canons of the Synod in Carthage did not restrict the ecclesiastical flexibility merely to the
recognition of the baptism and ordination of those Donatists returning to the bosom of the Church, because
the Synodal proposal for a constructive dialogue on the reasons which caused the “division” involved an
authorization for a discussion of other theological differences, which would lead to the achievement of the
desired agreement. Thus, although Basil the Great did not accept the indiscriminate application of ecclesiastical
flexibility for the recognition of the baptism of heretic penitents (canons 1 and 47) nevertheless, to the proposal
for a constructive dialogue with moderate Arians, the Pneumatomachians, he extended, as the least theological
basis for their acceptance into the community of the Church that they should not reject the Nicene Creed and
should avoid calling the Holy Spirit a creation, in the sure hope that their other theological weaknesses would be
cured within the community of the Church: “Let us then seek no more than this, but propose the Nicene Creed
to all the brethren who are willing to join us. If they agree to that, let us further require that the Holy Spirit
ought not to be called a creation, nor any of those who say so be received into communion. I do not think that
we ought to insist upon anything beyond this. For it is my conviction that that by longer communication and
mutual experience without strife, if anything more requires to be added by way of explanation, the Lord, Who
works all things together for the good of those who love Him, will grant it” (Letter 113). The total consistency
between the proposals of Basil the Great for the Pneumatomachians and those of the Synod of Carthage (419)
concerning the Donatists is particularly significant, because it confirms that, in the case of constructive dialogue
about the unity of the Church, the strict criteria of the canonical tradition can be relaxed, so that the maternal
affection of the Church can function.
Thus, Basil calls the Pneumatomachians “brethren”, while the synod in Carthage insists on according the
appellation of “brethren” to the Donatists “even those who do not wish to be called our brethren” (canon 92),
because the Church, as the mother of all Christians never abandons its errant children, which is why it prays
“for the union of all”. Saint Basil, in particular, was slandered by zealot monks in Cappadocia as being a cryp-
to-Pneumatomachian, not only because of his previous spiritual relationship with the later head of the Pneuma-
tomachians, Efstathios of Sevastia, but also because of the vague terminology of his teaching regarding the Holy
Spirit. The zealot monks persisted in the slander against Saint Basil, despite the robust defence offered for him
by Saint Gregory the Theologian, as regards both his unblemished Orthodox faith and his beneficial pastoral
concern for the errant members of the body of the Church (Letter 58). These slurs even reached Athanasios the
Great, who, in his letters to those clerics and monks who condemned Basil in writing, does not merely reject
the slanders but praises the person of Basil and his efforts to find solutions necessary for the restoration of the
unity of the Church, even if these efforts also involved censorious epistolatory exhortations to the powerful
Archbishop of Alexandria regarding his passive or even injudicious attitude towards the Antiochean schism
(362-398), which split the whole Church.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
576 Chapter (89)

According to Athanasios, the ecclesiastical flexibility (“economy”) applied by Basil towards the Pneu-
matomachians was praiseworthy, not blameworthy, because it expressed the sublime sense of his pastoral
responsibility towards the separated members of the body of the Church, an attitude which was not understood
or correctly interpreted by his critics, the clerics and monks who wanted an excuse to upset the pure (PG
26, 1165). Thus, in writing to the priest Palladius, he stresses, with proper emphasis: “Since you have also
told me of the monks at Cæsarea, and I have learned from our beloved Dianios that they are vexed, and are
opposing our beloved Basil, the bishop. I welcome what you have told me, and I have pointed out to them
their duty: that as children they should obey their father and not oppose what he approves. Now if he were to
be suspected as regards the truth, they would be right to combat him. But if they are confident, as we all are,
that he is the boast of the Church, contending rather on behalf of the truth and teaching those who require it
[the Pneumatomachians], then it is not right to combat such a one, but rather to accept his good conscience.
For from what our beloved Dianios tells us, they appear to be vexed in vain. For I am confident, that to the
weak he has become weak to win over the weak. Let our beloved friends look at the aim and far-sightedness
of his truth and glorify the Lord Who has given such a bishop to Cappadocia as any district must pray to
have…” (PG 26, 1168-1169). Athanasios’ words towards those zealot monks of Cappadocia who are fighting
against are harsher: “I have been astonished at the audacity of those who dare to speak against our beloved
bishop Basil, the true servant of God [or “the servant of the true God”, the Greek, unusually, can be read both
ways]. For this recklessness, they can be chastised as never having loved the confession of the Fathers...”
(PG 26, 1168).
So the injudicious, condemnatory haste of the zealot monks, who “appear to be vexed in vain” as regards
flexibility, as exercised by the Church authority responsible, towards those who had broken away from the
unity of the Church body, risks being characterized as irresponsible reckless speech and also as contempt for
the example of the recognized Fathers of the Church. On the basis of the above, it may clearly be concluded
that the true meaning of the prohibition of the Orthodox praying with the heterodox, according to the 45th
Apostolic canon, canon 33 of the Synod in Laodicea and other relevant sacred canons, on the one hand ex-
presses the beneficial pastoral concern of the Church as regards counteracting the undesirable methods of the
heretics, applied to the detriment of the Orthodox faithful in the 4th century; and on the other it does not have
the meaning- wrongly attributed to them- of a general prohibition on all prayer in common with the heterodox,
because both the letter and the spirit state [that this applied]:
First, only to the divine liturgy, which in the 4th century was one and the same for Orthodox and heretics
and was the main service of the latter in their separate assemblies which had broken away from the body of
the Church,
Second, only to concelebration of Orthodox clergy with those of the heretics at the Divine Liturgy, which
was forbidden for serious ecclesiological reasons.
Third, the participation and even more so the communion of the Orthodox faithful in the divine liturgy
celebrated by heretic clerics, and vice versa, which was forbidden for the same ecclesiological reasons.
Fourth, only to the attendance of heretics in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy after the embrace of love, that
is during the celebration of the sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, unless their wish was accompanied by an
express desire to return to the communion of the Church.
Fifth, the free attendance of both heretics and Orthodox together in the first part of the liturgy, that is until
the embrace of love, according to the model of the participation of catechumens or penitents, in the hope that
they (the heretics) would be encouraged to return to the bosom of the Church.
Sixth, the unbiased application of these canonical criteria in ecclesiastical practice over time, regarding any
initiative for a dialogue aimed at the restoration of the unity of the Church, which, obviously, always involves
common prayer on the part of the representatives of the Churches engaged in the talks.
Seven, the consistent application of these criteria to today’s ecumenical dialogue concerning the unity of
Christians, both as regards the strict prohibition on concelebration with the heterodox, as well as the unrestricted

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Vlassios Pheidas 577

participation in common prayer for unity or in the services of the Churches conducting the official dialogue,
in order to support or supplement these prospects, and
Eighth, the clear opposition to the scrupulous or unscrupulous interpretations regarding a supposed general
prohibition on all common prayer with the heterodox, in order to demonstrate the true meaning of the sacred
canons quoted, the letter of which is vague, but the spirit of which is clear: they do not merely tolerate but
actively encourage common prayer to support the express inclination towards a constructive theological dia-
logue on the unity of the body of the Church.
It is therefore clear that the canonical treatment of the question was demanded by the responsibility for
consistent attention to the unity of the Church: on the one hand because the participation of those outside
the ecclesiastical community (catechumens, penitents, schismatics and heretics) in the first part of the divine
liturgy, that is until the embrace of love, was always encouraged by the Church in order to reinforce their
express or potential inclination to be received into it; and on the other, because the participation of heretics in
the second part of the divine liturgy, that is the sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, was allowed in the event
that they declared that they wished to return to communion with the Orthodox Church. This perspective is
highly relevant today as regards the bilateral and multilateral theological dialogues with the heterodox of the
contemporary Ecumenical movement, because the real meaning of the sacred canons clearly covers the life
of worship of the Churches involved in the dialogue, especially during the official meetings of the theological
committees, not only because “it does no harm”, but because attendance at the Orthodox divine liturgy greatly
reinforces the desire of those people to participate also in the common Cup. So the feigned circumspection
regarding this prospect is at odds not only with the real aim of the wording of the sacred canons, but also with
the contemporary mission of the Orthodox Church, which is bound to offer freely a genuine account of the
Orthodox tradition to anyone who asks. The idea and criterion behind this attitude is that the unity of the body
of the Church, with all the positive consequences that this entails, is more likely to be achieved through the
shining light of the Christian message in the modern world.

IV. The Temporality and Contemporality of the Sacred Canons

As the source of the sacred canons, then, the Church cannot be either the subject nor object of them, since all
the sacred canons have as their object the members of the Church- clergy, laity and monastics- and as their
purpose the functional cohesion of the body of the Church through the strict or lenient implementation of
the spirit of the canons, as required. Indeed, despite the strictness of the Apostolic canons and of those of the
Synod in Laodicea, the Church, in its relations with the heterodox, always applied the principle of ecclesias-
tical flexibility as appropriate to each case where heretics or schismatics were returning to its bosom, when it
always recognized baptism as valid, even of those recognized by Ecumenical Council as heretics (canons 7 of
the Second and 95 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council), despite the fact that the 46th, 47th and 49th Apostolic
canons reject all baptism by heretics as non-existent.
The relations of the Church towards those ecclesiastical bodies which had taken shape outside its confines
were always assessed by reference to baptism and functioned always in relation to the sacrament of the divine
Eucharist, that is the sacraments par excellence of the unity and community of the members of the body of
the Church towards each other and towards the divine Head of the Church. As a rule, the graduation of the
status of the baptism performed by those outside the Church (non-existent, valid, and active) defined not only
the way the nomenclature applied with reference to the Church (heresy, schism, rival assembly), but also the
manner in which they were to return to the ecclesiastical community (rebaptism, re-chrismation, certificate of
faith). In this way, the status of the baptism performed by them was dealt with by the Church, on the one hand,
at the time of their rupture from the whole body of the Church, through the strict application of the principle
of canonical exactitude, in order to prevent the members of the Church from being lead astray (invalid or
even non-existent); but, on the other hand, at the time of their return to the bosom of the Church, through the

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
578 Chapter (89)

lenient application of the principle of ecclesiastical flexibility, which facilitated the restoration of the unity of
the body of the Church (existent and valid).
Indeed, in the 4th century, the divine liturgy was always one and the same, though the celebrants often
changed, depending on the preference of the Arianizing emperors who imposed on the local Churches bishops
who were of the same mind as themselves, and other clergy, deposed or not, for example, bishops who were
supporters of Arius and Arius himself. As a result, the strict prohibition on the concelebration of Orthodox
with heretics was ignored, not only by the ordinary faithful but also by Orthodox clerics who, as we have
seen, submitted to the pressures of the pro-Arian policies of the emperor and the administrative machine of the
empire. So the prohibition of the 45th Apostolic canon on Orthodox clergy “praying together” with heretics or
allowing heretical clergy to carry out priestly actions in a clearly Orthodox church also included the prohibition
on the performance of these actions by Orthodox clergy in the churches of the heretics, because the multiple
fracturing of the body of the Church into many heretical groups with parallel hierarchies was accompanied by
the violent takeover of churches, which is why the Orthodox of Constantinople did not have their own church
to worship in at the time when Saint Gregory the Theologian moved into the city (379).
The all-powerful heretics, then, supported by the machinery of state authority, concentrated their proselytizing
propaganda on the [Orthodox] churches and services, which made it necessary [for the Orthodox] to focus their
pastoral concern on making more evident their disparagement of the churches and services of the heretics. It is
worth noting, however, that the removal of churches from the control of those who persisted in their heretical
views, in accordance with the implementation of the edict of Theodosios the Great (380)- which imposed the
Nicene Creed- and the subsequent transfer of these churches to the Orthodox, completely undermined the
support of the heretics. Thus, once the churches had been returned to the Orthodox, the strict pastoral criteria
of the canonical exactitude of the Apostolic canons and those of the Synod in Laodicea concerning the validity
of baptism and relations with heretics were replaced by the more lenient canonical criteria of ecclesiastical
flexibility, in order to facilitate the return to the bosom of the Church of the now weakened heretics. This can
readily be understood from the lenient criteria expressed in canon 7 of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod (381).
In this sense, the 45th Apostolic canon and canon 33 of Laodicea have no more than a comparative significance
for the contemporary question of the relations between the Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical movement for
the unity of Christians, and then only in the matter of concelebration, which is why these canons are applied
today in accordance with their clear spirit and not of course, with their unclear letter.
In the first place, they refer to heretics officially recognized by the Church, whereas the Roman Catholics,
the Old Catholics, the Anglicans and the Protestants have not been condemned as heretics by the Orthodox
Church through an official act, in an obvious example of the principle of ecclesiastical flexibility and in the
hope of their restoration to the Church community. It is therefore baseless to call them heretics, as some people
do, because only the Church, through an official act, can declare Christian bodies outside its bounds to be
heretical or schismatic.
Second, they condemned arbitrary, unilateral actions on the part of certain bishops and priests as a departure
from canonical order and without prior Synodal approval, whereas the participation of the Orthodox Church in
the Ecumenical movement was under preparation for decades and was approved by the ecclesiastical hierarchy
of all the Orthodox Churches, as serving their interests, in the best sense, in times of hardship. This is why it
was unanimously supported not only by the Pan-Orthodox Conferences (1961, 1964, 1968), but also by the
Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences (1972, 1982, 1986).
Third, they were concerned principally with heretics who adamantly refused to alter their beliefs, who dis-
played absolutely no willingness to engage in dialogue with the Church with the aim of removing the causes of
their separation from the Church community. The Ecumenical movement, on the other hand, has as a principle
in its charter that suitable conditions should be created for the promotion both of multi-lateral and bi-lateral
theological dialogues, aimed at the restoration of Church unity, against which the above canons have been
invoked, either by guile or uncritically.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Vlassios Pheidas 579

Fourth, the heretics mentioned in the above canons were active within the boundaries of the local Churches,
and, being officially recognized, were known to one and all, whereas the thousand-year estrangement between
the Churches of the East and West has been soured by the unfraternal proselytizing propaganda of the Papist
Unia and of the Protestant Missionaries among the suffering members of the Orthodox Church. This is why
support for a constructive theological dialogue among equals requires discreet or official contacts between
Church leaders, much as these may trouble the self-styled defenders of the Orthodox faithful.
Fifth, by its participation in the WCC and through the official bi-lateral theological dialogues with other
Christian Churches and Confessions, the Orthodox Church has not only been unscathed, but, on the contrary
has always been able, with all due consistency and responsibility, to promote the enduring criteria of the Or-
thodox tradition to the Christian world in the West, which has recognized the theological depth of the Patristic
tradition, the liturgical experience and ascetic spirituality of the Orthodox Church. This can be concluded
from the Edicts Lumen Gentium and Unitatis redintergratio from the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).
Sixth, the common theological texts from the Dialogues between the Orthodox Church and the Old Catholics
and Anti-Chalcedonian Ancient Eastern Churches, the Roman Catholics, the Anglicans, the Lutherans and the
Reformed Churches highlight the established positions of the Orthodox tradition on critical issues, as well as
the points of disagreement between it and the heterodox. This reinforces their interest in the Patristic tradition
and in Orthodox theology.
Seventh, the participation of the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical movement has been greatly beneficial
in a variety of ways for the Orthodox Diaspora all over the world, which has been supported by the hetero-
dox, not only in the matter of the immediate need to deal with the problem of finding places of worship, and
the various requirements of newly-established Orthodox communities, but also through the promotion of the
Orthodox tradition in heterodox surroundings, especially the unbreakable link between the confession of the
faith and the liturgical experience of the body of the Church. So for the Orthodox Diaspora, the Orthodox
presence in the Christian world of the West has been highlighted more sharply and the contribution of Orthodox
theology to multi- or bi-lateral discussions on Christian unity has been more significant, because the attendance
of the heterodox at the Orthodox liturgies in dioceses in their area has presented a more tangible image of the
mystagogical relationship of the liturgical experience and the whole spiritual life of the Orthodox faithful.
Therefore, the Church, in the maternal concern it is bound to show for those members who have seceded
from its body, prays without ceasing for their return to the unity of the whole of the Church’s body and exer-
cises all consistent ecclesiastical flexibility towards this mission of salvation, in order to keep open the path
of constructive dialogue for the facilitation of their attendance at the common Eucharistic Altar, at which
the whole mystery of divine dispensation is celebrated for the salvation of the whole of the human race. The
maternal filter of the love of the Church for all its members, especially those who have broken away from its
body, links the exercise of ecclesiastical flexibility to its soteriological mission, through the action of the Holy
Spirit, through which the sick are cured and those who are lacking are fulfilled. Because there is no room in
this flexibility for injudicious or arrogant judgments against the heterodox in order to satisfy special interests
or other expediencies which are foreign to the mission of the Church. The Church does not “hate” or “despise”
the heterodox, but, on the contrary, constantly, in its own flesh, endures the wounding experience of their se-
cession, and this is also why, praying without ceasing for the union of all, it always responds willingly to any
proposal for constructive dialogue concerning unity. In this sense, the Orthodox Church, though it condemns
in no uncertain terms the use of the Divine Liturgy by the heterodox in order to deceive the Orthodox faithful,
nevertheless, through the proper interpretation of the canons mentioned above (10th, 11th, 45th, 46th and 64th
Apostolic; 6 9, 31, 32 and 33 of Laodicea; 9th by Timothy of Alexandria and so on) accepts the presence of
heterodox at the Orthodox Divine Liturgy and also considers it self-evident that there will be common prayer
at the discussions for the restoration of the ecclesiastical community.

(translated by James Lillie)

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
 (90) COMMON PRAYER AS AN ISSUE FOR ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT IN ECUMENISM.
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH

Peter Bouteneff

As a matter of history, the organized pursuit of unity among divided Christian churches has included prayer
since its early twentieth-century roots. The First World Conference on Faith and Order (Lausanne, 1927)
makes frequent references to prayer, taking note that the assembled delegates found themselves “…united
in common prayer, in God our heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ, our Saviour, in the fellowship of
the Holy Spirit.”1 As a matter of faith, it would only make sense that Christians — who are called to pray
unceasingly (1 Thess. 5:17), to pray corporately (Matt. 18:20), and to pray for unity (John 17:11; 21) —
should pray together as they engage the holy task of the pursuit of reconciliation.

Imperatives and Challenges

Indeed, it would seem natural that the delicate and sacred work of the quest for unity of divided Chris-
tians – work that involves thoughtful research, honest communication, and personal and corporate
introspection and repentance – can only be pursued under the guidance of God the Father, in His Son,
and by His Holy Spirit, whose name we invoke in prayer. And yet for many reasons the common prayer
of divided Christians is fraught with complexities and difficulties. We are challenged theologically and
canonically, as well as at the deepest level of our feelings about prayer. Common prayer is therefore an
Orthodox Christian imperative, even as it can provoke tensions with Orthodox teaching and Orthodox
sensibilities.
At the heart of common prayer lies the question as to whether it is indeed possible or appropriate. There
is no universal answer to this question, especially since scriptural and patristic precedent does not easily
translate to the present day. How do the divisions that we hear about in the New Testament, or even in the
fourth century, apply to the present-day situation of a Christendom that has been divided for a millennium?
The prayer of Our Lord “that they may be one” – used (perhaps even a little too often) in the ecumenical
setting – has been interpreted in a variety of ways that have different implications for the present
situation. In one interpretation, Jesus prayed simply for the unity of his disciples, which relieves us of
the responsibility to pray for any more complicated unity today. Yet John 17:20 forbids that limitation,
for Jesus says specifically “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through
their word, that they may all be one…” Such a prayer would not have been necessary if there were no
division or at least a threat of division that needed addressing, that elicited from Jesus an invitation into
the most exalted inter-personal unity that could possibly exist: that between the divine Father and His
co-eternal and consubstantial Son.
Still, some would interpret this prayer today as a prayer to maintain the unity among Orthodox
Christians: only those who believe in exactly the right way. Likewise for the second petition of the Great
Litany, where we prayer “for the welfare of the holy Churches of God, and for the union of all,” some
will say that this is for the union of the local Orthodox churches. It is true that we Orthodox, though
united canonically by the grace of God, are also in constant threat of institutional disharmony and
division, and must constantly pray that we [Orthodox] may be one. But is it not appropriate to pray in
this very way for the union of divided churches? We do pray, in the anaphora of St. Basil’s Liturgy, that
1
H. N. Bate (ed.), Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference (London: SCM, 1927), pp. 459-75.
Peter Bouteneff 581

God “reunite the separated.” St. Basil himself, as is well known, was an ardent worker for the reunion
of separated Christians.2
Yet the fact remains that some Orthodox Christians believe that any person or group outside the canonical
Orthodox Church is cut off from the body of Christ, and cannot even be properly called “Christian.” Many
of the same people call all non-Orthodox “heretics,” using that word quite indiscriminately. (This view is
expressed with such passion and emotion by those who hold it that it is difficult to see how rare it actually
is.) More common, and arguably more patristic, is the view expressed by Fr. Georges Florovsky that the
charismatic borders of the Church do not correspond with the canonical borders.3 This is at least in part because
the historical, doctrinal, spiritual divisions between Christian bodies have not all been of the same character,
and do not all sever the bodies from each other completely. Otherwise St. Basil would not have recognized
different kinds and different extents of division;4 otherwise we would not receive converts to the Orthodox
Church by a manifest variety of rites.5
All of this means that most Orthodox Christians recognize a certain bond that unites divided Christians –
those who in faith call upon Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior – a bond that distinguishes them, for example,
from non-Christians. This fellowship enjoyed by Christians (which the ecumenical movement calls “koinonia”)
does not nullify the historical, doctrinal, and spiritual divisions, neither does it free us from our responsibility
to name and address those divisions. But it would be spiritual and theological madness to suggest that Roman
Catholics, Lutherans, or Methodists, all reside on the dark side of a dividing wall, all together as a non-Orthodox
block with pagans and atheists. No, they are Christians.

Canons and Ecclesiology

Opponents of “ecumenical common prayer” raise the issue of the Church’s canonical tradition, which on
more than one occasion has forbidden “prayer with heretics.”6 As the late professor Constantine Scouteris has
helpfully pointed out on this issue, if we are to take the canons seriously and reverently, we must study their
context so that we may apply them in the sense they were intended; likewise we must be attentive to what the
term “heretic” actually means, for fear of falling into the “drastic simplification” of the applying that category
to today’s Roman Catholics and Protestants.7 Heretics are those who willfully divide the Church from within
it, or those who – like the “heretics” of St. Basil’s canonical letter – hold to radically different understandings
of God as did the Montanists, Valentinians of his day.
“Common prayer” in ecumenical settings rightly excludes concelebration or sacramental sharing. This
results neither from others’ “heretic” status, nor from elitism on our part. It is not a judgment on the activity or
non-activity of the Holy Spirit in others’ sacraments. It is simply Orthodox ecclesiology. We may not share in
sacraments outside the Orthodox Church, for to do so would be to disregard the Church’s canonical structure
and its recognized ministry. And however close we may or may not feel to other Christians, sacraments are
2
“I think then that the one great goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the
churches who have “at sundry times and in divers manners” divided from one another” (Epistle 114).
3
Specifically, Florovsky shows how St. Cyprian’s equation of the charismatic and canonical borders of the Church was
never received in the communal consciousness of the Church. See “The Limits of the Church” Church Quarterly Review
in 1933. Anti-ecumenists, who nonetheless admire Fr. Georges, are at pains to ignore or argue away his fundamental sen-
sibilities about Christian reality outside the Orthodox Church.
4
See St Basil’s First Canonical Epistle, also his Epistle 188.
5
See John H. Erickson, “The Reception of Non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church: Contemporary Practice,” St Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly, 41 (1997), 1-17.
6
See esp. Apostolic Canon 45: “Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be excommunicated:
but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed.”
7
Constantine Scouteris, “Common Prayer,” in The Ecumenical Review 54:1 (2002), 33–37.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
582 Chapter (90)

not a matter of feeling, nor can they be administered based on what you and I may think about theological
proximity with others. They are administered with respect to established ecclesiastical order.
That same order is based upon the historic succession, and accounts for historic divisions. The Orthodox
Church understands itself as the body from which others have, to different extents, divided. It is in this and only
this sense that the Orthodox Church identifies itself as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – because
it takes these divisions seriously and sees them as yet unhealed. In many cases, these divisions are manifest in
significant disagreements in both faith and ministry. Doctrines of prevenient grace and double predestination,
total depravity in Reformed churches, the nature of papal jurisdiction as defined in the First Vatican Council,
are examples of serious and so far unresolved differences – differences that justly divide our churches. Church
divisions forbid sacramental concelebration and communion, but not common prayer.

The Character of Prayer

The canonical and ecclesiastical challenges to common prayer are important to clarify. But whatever arguments
are offered that would justify common prayer in the face of church divisions, a greater challenge often presents
itself in the sometimes deeply unfamiliar character of prayer across confessional lines. That discomfort can be
universal. Most people, of any confession, are troubled by prayer traditions that are deeply unfamiliar, and this
is because prayer is an intimate context, one where we are vulnerable, and where we therefore naturally recoil
from the unfamiliar. It helps, in fact, to recall how unfamiliar and sometimes troubling Orthodox worship is
to many people outside our tradition.
But we Orthodox are liable to feel alienated in a particular way by “common prayer”. All Orthodox prayer,
especially our corporate prayer, is normally done according to established rules and written prayers shared to
a great extent across the entire Orthodox Church. We do not pray extemporaneously. We deliberately maintain
a very sober character to our prayers, hymnography, and music. When confronted with prayer in more Evan-
gelical (not to mention Pentecostal) traditions, we are liable to feel alienated. Emotional singing, music that
generates rhythm and dance-like body movement, feels entirely foreign to us.
Apart from this gut-level reaction, there is the fact that Orthodox prayer life, based as it is on ancient and
time-tested texts, is completely dependable. One knows that the prayer will be theologically and spiritually
sound. We do not know the prayers from outside our tradition that are either chosen or written ad hoc for prayer
services – and we appropriately fear singing or reciting texts that have not been theologically vetted. Corporate
prayer that is said in unison, that is confirmed by the “Amen” of the people, must be genuinely agreed by the
people gathered. This presents a serious challenge to common prayer in ecumenical settings, one that goes
beyond the feeling of unfamiliarity.
This being said, there are times when allowing ourselves to participate in unfamiliar forms of prayer can,
by God’s grace, bring genuine spiritual joy and refreshment.

“Ecumenical Worship” and “Common Prayer”

We have reviewed canonical, theological, and visceral challenges to common prayer. From 1999-2002, the
World Council of Churches convened a “Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC,” part
of whose work was to address the chronic tensions of ecumenical prayer. The Special Commission produced
a set of recommendations that were “received” by the Central Committee.8 They were not adopted as formal
8
“A Framework For Common Prayer at WCC Gatherings,” Appendix A of the Final Report of the Special Commission
on Orthodox Participation in the WCC. See at http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/2006-por-
to-alegre/3-preparatory-and-background-documents/final-report-of-the-special-commission-on-orthodox-participa-
tion-in-the-wcc (last accessed June 19, 2013).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Peter Bouteneff 583

rules, partly because they represented too sharp a departure from norms that were cherished by a great many
Protestants, and possibly because they were too rational to address what was manifestly an emotional issue.
But their logic is of interest in that they identify and attempt to address several issues at the heart of the debate
on common prayer.
At the heart of the Special Commission’s recommendations lay the articulation of a clear distinction that
already existed in ecumenical practice. On the one hand, there have been “ecumenical prayer services” that
often draw from the prayers and musical styles of multiple confessional traditions. (These have been likened
to “fruit salad” – something seen either as refreshingly varied, or artificial and arbitrary.) On the other hand,
there have been occasions where prayer has been according to one tradition, such as the celebration of an
Anglican Evensong, a Lutheran Vespers service, or an Orthodox Matins service. (This has been likened to
enjoying one fruit at a time – seen either as respectful of traditional integrity and richness, or staid.) Whatever
the assets and liabilities of these two forms, the recommendations suggested that they should be kept as clearly
distinct categories:

“Ecumenical” or “interconfessional” prayer services do not “belong” to any church tradition, nor to a church hierarchy
or structure. They are ad hoc services, and they should be conducted in the absence of anything that would indicate
ecclesiastical identity (such as vestments, clergy who would offer blessings, etc.) They are not even properly called
“worship” services, since the word “worship,” in many of the native languages spoken by Orthodox Christians
(notably Greek and Russian) bears the connotation of ecclesiastical, or even sacramental identity.
“Confessional worship services,” on the contrary, do by nature belong to a particular church tradition and are
properly celebrated in accordance with that tradition, whether that tradition has an episcopate or any ordained min-
istry, male or female.

The logic of the recommendations is therefore especially sensitive to issues of ecclesiastical identity. Common
prayer is just that: prayer said in common, not hosted or administered by any ecclesiastical body. Confessional
worship is performed in the integrity of a particular confession.
A vital corollary of this logic is that, contrary to former practice, assemblies of the WCC no longer feature
an “Ecumenical Eucharist.” We Orthodox were at pains to explain that the very concept of “Ecumenical Eu-
charist” was for us a theological impossibility for the following reasons: (1) there are sharp limits to who can
participate in such a Eucharist, (2) there is no such thing as an “ecumenical church” that can administer such
a Eucharist, (3) even when one church does administer an “Ecumenical Eucharist” (such as Anglicans did at
the Canberra Assembly in 1991), it inevitably conveys the misleading signal that the WCC is a “super-church”
that administers the Eucharist.
As a result of Orthodox efforts, and to the relief of many like-minded non-Orthodox, subsequent assem-
blies did not have ecumenical Eucharist services; rather the participants went to local churches according to
their respective confessional traditions. This practice is also enshrined in the recommendations of the Special
Commission.
These recommendations address several of the theological and canonical problems at the heart of the
endeavor of “common prayer.” They attempt to respect the integrity of two modalities of common prayer,
and as such are most effective in addressing issues of ecclesiastical identity, which in turn alleviate some
significant canonical tensions. While the recommendations urge the organizers of prayer services to respect
the sensitivities of the traditions represented at gatherings, they can not possibly prevent all personal and/or
theological offense.
To conclude: common prayer in ecumenical settings remains – inevitably – a significant challenge for every-
one. The theological and liturgical sensibilities of the Orthodox pose their own specific kinds of problems for
common prayer that are worth identifying clearly. Yet, approached properly, common prayer is an imperative.
Whether or not one abstains from attending, owing to matters of conscience, obedience, or preference, it is a
vital and sustaining part of the inter-Christian encounter and the serious, hopeful, and repentant path towards

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
584 Chapter (90)

unity. If we are serious about our encounters with divided Christians, if we see such encounters as anything
more than a formal business meeting, if we see other Christians as human beings who call in faith upon God,
His Christ, and His Spirit, then how can we possibly refrain from praying together?

Bibliography

Peter Bouteneff, Rolf Koppe, K.M. George, “How Should We Pray Together in the Future?” http://www.
oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/how-should-we-pray-together-in-future-the-special-commission-
on-orthodox-participation-in-the-wcc-is-preparing-its-final-report-part-3 (last accessed June 20, 2013).
Paul Meyendorff, “Ecumenical Prayer: An Orthodox Perspective,” in The Ecumenical Review 54 (2002), 28-32.
Constantine Scouteris, “Common Prayer,” in The Ecumenical Review 54:1 (2002), 33–37.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (91) ECUMENICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING
OF WORSHIP AND LITURGY1

Godfrey O’ Donell

Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-72) was a Polish born American rabbi and one of the leading Jewish theolo-
gians and Jewish philosophers of the 20th century. In a small book of his, he writes, we live in a world where
‘God may be of no concern to man, but man is of much concern to God. The only way to discover this is the
ultimate way, the way of worship. For worship is a way of living, a way of seeing the world in the light of God.
To worship is to rise to a higher level of existence, to see the world from the point of view of God.... But to
remember that the love of God is for all men, for all creatures; to remember His love and His claim to love in
making a decision - this is the way He wants us to live. To worship God is to forget the self. It is in such instants
of worship that man acts as a symbol of Him [God]... Of all things we do prayer is the least, the least worldly,
the least practical. This why prayer is an act of self-purification. This is why prayer is an ontological necessity.’
Heschel feels that we are living through one of the greatest hours of history. The false gods are crumbling,
and hearts are hungry for the voice of God. But the voice has been stifled. To recapture the echo, he insists that
we must be honest in our willingness to listen; we must be unprejudiced in our readiness to listen. Acceptance
of the spirit of God is prayer - prayer as a way of insight, not as a way of speaking. For him, prayer comes first
of all the sacred acts. Religion is not ‘what man does with his solitariness.’ Religion is what man does with
the presence of God. And the spirit of God is present whenever we are willing to accept it.2
An Orthodox preparatory group meeting in New York in 1998 on the way to the WCC Assembly in Harare
Zimbabwe put it this way in their preamble: Every person is created with the capacity to praise God. It lies at
the heart of our human existence; thus worship is universal. Yet worship is also surprisingly particular. It finds
different expression in each human situation. Through worship we communicate with God. Just as language
with its peculiarities of syntax, grammar and vocabulary can change through time, similarly worship with its
gestures, symbols and style of a given time and place may not be readily grasped in another historical setting,
and so the need for to critically assess this from time to time. 3
Christianity right from the beginning was open to a variety of languages of worship as local churches devel-
oped their own forms of expressing and celebrating their faith. Through the centuries, in an effort to carry out
its mission of bringing the Gospel to all nations, the Church continued to adapt its ways of worshipping in the
new contexts. There was an openness and sensitivity among the Orthodox communities about inculturation.
This is particularly evident in their use of the vernacular. The history of Orthodox mission copiously illustrates
this. Yet in modern times we seem to be in danger of violating such a principle with the growing plethora of
inward-looking ethnic churches with their unquestioning nationalism.
1
In this article the term ecumenical is perceived in the original meaning of the word ‘Oikoumene’ and refers to the impli-
cations for the ‘whole inhabited earth’ and human experience (ed.).
2
A. J Heschel, Man’s Quest for God: Studies in Prayer and Symbolism, (Santa Fe: Aurora Press, 1998), xii-xiv. Having
written a doctoral thesis on The Prophets (later expanded into modern classic) at the University of Berlin, he arrived in
New York city in 1940. He was Professor of Ethics and Mysticism at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America at the
time of his death. Extremely interested in spirituality, Heschel saw the teachings of the Hebrew prophets as a clarion call
to social action in the States. He worked for black civil rights and against the Vietnam war. He also specifically criticised
what he called an exclusive focus on religious moral behaviour to the neglect of the non-legalistic dimension of rabbinic
tradition. Influential as a representative of American Jews at Vatican II in persuading the RC Church to eliminate or modify
passages in their liturgy that demeaned Jews or expected their conversion to Christianity.
3
T Fitzgerald & P. Bouteneff, (eds.), Turn to God, Rejoice in Hope: Orthodox Reflections on the Way to Harare. (Geneva:
WCC, 1998) 139.
586 Chapter (91)

Liturgy is the source par excellence of theology. In 1966 Fr. Schmemann’s Introduction to Liturgical Theology
mooted the need for liturgical theology. For him, the essence of the Liturgy or lex orandi was simply nothing
else but the Church’s faith or, to put it more succinctly, the manifestation, communication and realisation of
that faith. It is precisely faith as experience, the total and living experience of the Church that constitutes the
source and the context of theology in the East, of that theology at least that characterised the patristic age. It
is in this context that we are to understand the famous saying lex orandi est lex credendi. It certainly does not
mean a reduction of the faith to Liturgy or cult, nor does it imply a confusion between faith and Liturgy, as
for example with liturgical piety where ‘liturgical experience’, the experience of the ‘sacred’ simply replaces
faith and has people indifferent to its doctrinal content. All this involves an organic and essential interdepen-
dence where faith, the source and cause of Liturgy, essentially needs the other for its self-understanding and
self-fulfilment. Clearly, it is faith that gives birth to and ‘shapes’ Liturgy, but it is Liturgy, ‘that by fulfilling
and expressing faith, “bears testimony” to faith and thus becomes its true and adequate expression and norm:
lex orandi est lex credendi’. Put another way, ‘the Church’s life has always been rooted in the lex credendi,
the rule of faith, theology in the deepest sense of the word; and on the lex orandi, her rule of worship, the
leitourgia which “always makes her what she is”: the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Holy Spirit‘. 4
So then for Schmemann, liturgical theology is not just another aspect of theology, a ‘discipline’, which deals
with liturgy in itself, and has liturgy as its specific object. Rather it is about the effort to apprehend theology
as revealed in and through Liturgy.5
Geoffrey Wainwright, an English Methodist theologian, would remark in summary: in Eastern Orthodoxy
there is undoubtedly a close relationship between worship and doctrine. Certainly Orthodox Liturgy bears
a high dogmatic density, and Orthodox theologians are expected to operate within and for the worshipping
community. It is certainly true that Orthodoxy is enormously influenced by Evagrius of Pontus’ adage in his
Chapters On Prayer, ‘If you are a theologian, you will pray truly, and if you pray truly, you are a theologian’
(Chapters on Prayer 61).6 Thus, ‘there can be no theorising, no theologising without the practical impetus
of prayer and faith.’ But, unlike Hannah Hunt who surely overstates Evagrius’ position that theology in this
instance becomes an almost apophatic experience (perhaps influenced by Vladimir Lossky’s stark interpre-
tation of Orthodox theology), Evagrius, of all people, is saying that that there is a second movement here
that necessitates the articulation and communication of the insights that come from the encounter with the
Holy Spirit: there is still the need to theologise - to say something about the Incarnation of Our Saviour, the
community of the Trinity and of the Church, etc. Of course humanity is not capable of comprehending the
entirety of God. So the witness and why of Evagrius’ own writings, the ‘theologising’ teachings of Symeon
the New Theologian (949-1022) and Gregory Palamas (c.1296-1359) who she mentions.’7 The heavy reliance
on the part of Orthodox on inherited texts raises hermeneutical problems for Wainwright, but there is evidence
from writers such as Alexander Schmemann that it is possible to elaborate the Tradition from within its own
ongoing journey in ways that challenge rather than simply confirm the surrounding culture.8 For his part,
Schmemann would contend ‘that for Orthodox theology, essentially different in this from western theology,
the sui generis hermeneutical foundation is to be found in the lex orandi: the epiphany and experience by the
Church of herself and her faith. This is what we mean when we state in accordance with our Tradition that the
scripture is interpreted “by the Church”, and that the Fathers are witnesses of the Catholic faith of the Church.
4
A. Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann, ed. T Fisch. (Crestwood, NY:
St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003) 52.
5
A. Schmemann, Ibid., pp.38-39. See also his Introduction to Liturgical Theology. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Press, 2003).
6
The Philokalia: The Complete Text compiled by St Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain & St Makarios of Corinth, trans. G
E H Palmer, P Sherrard & K Ware, Vol I., (New York: Faber & Faber, 1983) 62.
7
H Hunt, ‘Byzantine Christianity’, The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, ed. K. Parry, (Oxford: Wiley-Black-
well, 2010) 82.
8
G Wainwright, ‘Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi’, Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed. N. Lossky et al, (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 2002) 679-683, especially here at 680.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Godfrey O’ Donell 587

And as long, therefore, as this Orthodox “hermeneutics” is not acknowledged, rediscovered and practiced, the
scrutiny of the most traditional “texts” will, alas, remain as irrelevant for our liturgical situation as in the past.’9
For Schmemann, questions asked by liturgical theologians about Liturgy and the whole liturgical tradition
are in reality about theology (the faith of the Church as expressed, communicated and preserved in the Litur-
gy). ‘Liturgy is viewed as the locus theologicus par excellence because it is its very function, its leitourgia in
the original meaning of that word, to manifest and fulfill the Church’s faith and to manifest it, not partially,
not discursively, but as a living totality and catholic experience... For if theology, as the Orthodox Church
maintains, is not a mere sequence of more or less individual interpretations of this or that “doctrine” in the
light and thought forms of this or that “culture’ and “situation”, but the attempt to express Truth itself, to find
words adequate to the mind and experience of the Church, then it must of necessity have its source where
the faith, the mind, and the experience of the Church have their living focus and expression, where faith in
both essential meanings of that word, as Truth revealed and given, and as Truth accepted and “lived”, has its
epiphany, and that is precisely the function of the leitourgia’.10
To sum up, Schmemann would contend that ‘the purpose of worship is to constitute the Church, precisely
to bring what is “private” into the new life, to transform it into what belongs to the Church, i.e. shared with
all in Christ. In addition its purpose is always to express the Church, as the unity of that Body whose Head is
Christ. And, finally, its purpose is that we should always “with one mouth and one heart” serve God, since it
was only such worship which God commanded the Church to offer. In the same way it is impossible to justify
the division of the Sacraments into separate liturgical departments, with the Eucharist regarded simply as “one
among several.” The Eucharist is the Sacrament of the Church, i.e. her eternal actualization as the Body of
Christ, united in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Eucharist is not only the “most important” of all the
offices, it is also source and goal of the entire liturgical life of the Church. Any liturgical theology not having
the Eucharist as the foundation of its whole structure is basically defective.’11
Another aspect of this is the great appreciation in Orthodoxy of language when it comes to Christology and
the Trinity. It is the language of the Ecumenical Councils, and as such constitutes an enduring and definitive
reference point. The same is equally true of Liturgy. It is constantly sung in our Liturgy giving it an ongoing
deep acceptance in the life of the Church. This is the language of the Church - not just in technical mode, but
when it is joyfully singing its doxology to God. The inference being, the two cannot be divorced: nor can they
be divorced from piety which can be a problem. Secondly, this language was the vehicle by which a process
took place that had life or death consequences for the Church. It was a language that adapted and developed
in the service of a needed clear teaching, articulated with all the precision that can be mustered, about our
relationship in and with God and our fellow humans, and the constant threat of error and misunderstanding.
Obviously here we must keep in mind that in contemplating the person of Christ, neither the Apostles, Fathers
nor the Liturgy begin with technical language; ‘Instead they begin with the vision of Christ, the King of Glory,
crucified for our sake and risen from the dead. The technical language of Christology exists in the service of that
confession.’12 Thus, there is a clear appreciation of Lex orandi lex credendi, so too there is a strong reverence for
the handed-down language of the services and reluctance among Orthodox to engage in syncretistic formulas.
According to Metropolitan John Zizioulas, ‘Liturgical practice formed, and continues to form, the lan-
guage in which the Church expresses this thesis. And we should pay attention to it.’ This involves the biblical
connection of the Eucharist and the Kingdom of God which is to come: it draws from it its being and truth.13
9
A Schmemann, Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann, ed. T Fisch. (Crestwood, NY:
St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003) 44.
10
A Schmemann, Ibid, p.40.
11
A Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003) 24; see also
n 23 for references to works by Archmandrite Kiprian Kern & Nicolas Afanasiev.
12
P Bouteneff, ‘Christ and Salvation’, in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, (ed. M.B. Cunning-
ham & E. Theokritoff), (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 102-3.
13
J D Zizioulas, The Eucharistic Communion and The World (ed. L Tallon). (London: T & T Clark, 2011) 45.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
588 Chapter (91)

Leitourgia originally derived from the Greek meaning ‘public service’, though its use in ancient Greek had
wider connotations of which ‘religious service’ was not one of its most immediate. Employed in the Septuagint
bible to translate Hebrew terms such as ‘charat’ and ‘avodah’ (religious service and its ministers in the temple:
Ex 38,27; 39,12; Joel 1,9; 2,17) saw it win acceptance in the Greek NT as ’worship’ or ‘service’, ‘rite’, ‘public
ministry’ or ‘function’. From the 4th century it especially designated the Eucharistic Liturgy, its religious aspect
being underlined by the added ‘Divine’ Liturgy.14 Liturgy in the New Testament implies a life of service modelled
on Jesus’ self-giving. In Byzantium the term specifically refers to the ritual of the Eucharist, often called the
Divine Liturgy (theia leitourgia) of which there were two parallel Constantinopolitan formularies, attributed
to St John Chrysostom, who seemingly elaborated an existing anaphora of the Apostles, and to St Basil the
Great, who is believed to have authored at least one of the redactions named after him. Each formulary consists
of 19 prayers, the main one a borrowed Antiochene-type anaphora (Chrysostom’s from Antioch, Basil’s from
Cappadocia), elaborated and embedded in a common ritual setting and structure of diaconal forms, Scripture
readings, psalmody, and chants. Ten of these prayers are later additions to both Liturgies. The first attestation
of the epiclesis is found in the Apostolic Tradition of St Hippolytus from the 3rd century. Within this text is a
call for the Holy Spirit to descend and strengthen the Church through the sacrifice. There are also 4th century
versions of the epiclesis in the Liturgy of St James, the Euchologion of Serapion of Deir Balyzeh, and the writ-
ings of St Cyril of Jerusalem. The theology that serves as a foundation for this prayer demonstrates the patristic
teaching that God the Father’s revelation and work comes through the Son and is completed by the Holy Spirit.
The Church’s call to the Spirit to sanctify and strengthen the community of believers (as well as consecrating
the gifts) relates the Church and Holy Eucharist to the day of Pentecost and shows the eschatological nature of
the Church’s Trinitarian prayer. The epiclesis in the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom marks a shift from the Holy
Spirit ‘showing’ the gifts to be the body of Christ to ‘making’ the gifts into the body of Christ.15 The Liturgy
of Basil predominated in Constantinople until circa 1000, when that of Chrysostom took over. Thereafter the
Liturgy of Basil was celebrated only ten times a year, mainly during the Sundays of Great Lent.
In its full form, largely complete by the 12th century, the liturgy had four major parts (1) the prothesis rite,
or preliminary preparation of the bread and wine; (2) the enarxis, or introductory services of three antiphons,
litanies and prayers16; (3) the Liturgy of the Word which opened with the Little Entrance and Trisagion, com-
prising Scripture readings interspersed with psalmody and concluding with litanies and prayers17; (4) the Liturgy
of the Eucharist which opened with the Great Entrance, included the pre-anaphoral rites, anaphoral dialogue,
anaphora, pre-communion (including the fraction and zeon), communion, thanksgiving and the dismissal.
The early liturgy, described in the homilies of St John Chrysostom at Constantinople in 397-404 was a
classical late antique Eucharist whose texts had been marked by the Arian controversy and the definitions of
the First Council of Nicaea. In the 5th-6th century, especially with the construction of Hagia Sophia, the liturgy
became ‘imperial’, acquiring greater ritual splendour. This period witnessed the addition of the Creed and three
important chants: the Trisagion (c.438-9), Monogenes (535-6) and the Cherubikon (573-4).
In the 5th-7th centuries the liturgy was especially marked by the developing Constantinopolitan system
of stational services.18 In such a system the entire city was a ‘liturgical space’, and the principal liturgy of a
feast, held a predetermined ‘station’, was preceded by a procession up to 10 km long. Though frequent in the
6th-7th centuries, such processions later took place in Constantinople only on certain important occasions.
14
See I-H Dallas, ‘Liturgy, I Christian Liturgy’, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum,
ed. A Di Bernardino, ET. A Walford, Vol I. (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1992) 494.
15
T E French, ‘Epiclesis’, The Encyclopaedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ed. J A McGuckin, Vol I A-M. (Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2011) 221.
16
J Mateos S.J., La célébration de la parole dans la liturgie byzantine: étude historique, OCA 191. (Rome: 1971) 27-90.
17
J Mateos, Ibid., pp.91-173.
18
J Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship, OCA 227. (Rome: 1987) 167-226. See also R F Taft, The Byzan-
tine Liturgy: A Short History, American Essays in Liturgy Series. (Collegeville, Minn: The Liturgical Press, 1992) 28-41,
to whom I am much indebted for this next section of the article.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Godfrey O’ Donell 589

Several elements of the first half of the liturgy, however - the opening of the synapte litany, three antiphons, the
Trisagion and its accompanying prayer, and the ektene litany after the Gospel - derive from these processions.
Other developments include the addition of litanies to cover the priests’ silent recitation of the prayers,
and in the 9th-12th centuries, the evolution of the prothesis rite and the addition of certain formulas to the
pre-anaphoral rites.
Within a century of St Maximus Confessor’s death (660), on the eve of the iconoclastic crisis, the traditional
system of Maximus’ ‘cosmic’ liturgical interpretation had begun to give way to a more literal and represen-
tational narrative vision based on the early story of Jesus‘ life. While not abandoning the cosmic, heavenly
Liturgy typology inherited from Maximus’ Mystagogy, Patriarch Germanus I (c.730) integrated another level
of interpretation, also found, if less prominently, in earlier Byzantine writings: that of the Eucharist not only as
a remembering of, but as representing actual moments of salvation history in Jesus. With Germanus, these two
leitmotifs become an integral part of the Byzantine synthesis. This encroachment of a more literal historical
tradition upon the earlier, mystical level of interpretation, coincided with the beginnings of the struggle against
Iconoclasm, when Orthodoxy found itself locked in mortal combat to defend its icon worship, the expression
of a radical incarnational realism against the conservative reaction promoting a more symbolic, iconoclastic
spiritualism. The effect of the new mentality can be seen at once in the representational mystagogy integrated
into the earlier Maximian tradition by Germanus.19
Especially characteristic of the liturgy are the entrances, which open and symbolise the two major parts of
the service. The Little Entrance symbolises Christ’s coming as Word (Logos); the Great Entrance prefigures
his coming in the sacrament of his body and blood. Both these foreshadowings are fulfilled in two later appear-
ances - when the deacon proceeds to the ambo for the proclamation of the Gospel, and when the priest comes
out to distribute the consecrated gifts in communion - thus completing the symbolic structure of the Liturgy.
As the Liturgy underwent increased monastic influence, especially after iconoclasm and after the Latin occu-
pation of Constantinople, these ritual processions were gradually compressed. Once functional entrances, they
were increasingly confined to the interior space of the church and reduced to purely symbolic ritual that ended
where they began. The churches themselves became smaller and smaller, and the ritual more private, retreating
into the enclosed sanctuary with the templon (originally a low parapet or chancel barrier, a screen separating
the nave from the sanctuary) that slowly evolved from the mid-5th to the 11th century into our iconostasis. The
synthronon (one or more benches reserved for the bishop and priests and arranged in a semi-circular tier in the
apse of a church, once elevated so that the clergy could see and be seen), disappeared from the apse. Readings
and homilies became a ritualised formality, and communion, the point of the whole Liturgy, became a dead
letter as fewer and fewer communicants approached to receive the sacrament.20 Schmemann, too, concurs in
this judgement, ‘The Church orders the celebration of the Eucharist, and it will be a great step forward when
we realise that the “Eucharistic individualism” which has transformed ninety percent of our Liturgies into
Eucharist without communicants is the result of distorted piety and false humility.’
The Studite Typika (list of liturgical functions for those involved) introduced into the Liturgy some usages
from the monastic hours, e.g. the Typika (liturgical calendar with added instructions for each day’s services) and
the dismissal formula. The mid-14th century diataxis (the rubric book) of Patriarch Philotheus and the Typika of
the Lavra of St Sabas in the Judean desert, the intellectual and spiritual centre of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem
and of Palestinian monasticism, ultimately determined the ceremonial and usage of the Liturgy in Byzantium.
The Liturgy of St James, the brother of the Lord, was once the standard Eucharistic prayer of the church
of Jerusalem. The earliest extant manuscript of this Liturgy, a 9th century roll (Vat. gr. 2282) already shows
19
R F Taft, ‘Liturgy’, The Oxford University Handbook of Byzantine Studies. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ed. E
Jeffreys et al., 2008), pp. 601-2. See also Taft, ‘The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and
Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34/35, (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Col-
lection. Washington, DC: 1980-81) 58-66.
20
R F Taft, ‘Liturgy’, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A P Kazhdan et al., Vol 2. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991) 1240-1.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
590 Chapter (91)

unmistakable traces of byzantine influence. In the first centuries of the second millennium the gradual liturgical
byzantinism of the Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, which had been weakened
successively by Monophysitism, the Islamic conquests, and the crusades, proceeded apace, fostered especially
by the canonist Theodore Balsamon (c.1130/40-died after 1195). By the end of the 13th century the process was
more or less complete in Alexandria and Antioch, though the native hagiopolite Liturgy of St James remained
in use for some further time in the patriarchate of Jerusalem.21
Pope St Gregory the Great (known in Orthodoxy as Gregory the Dialogist: c.540-604) is mainly known for
the Liturgy attributed to him of the Pre-sanctified Gifts. This ritual is basically a communion service attached
to a penitential form of Vespers, and served to allow the communion of the faithful on Wednesdays and Fridays
during the Great Fast, and the first three days of Great Week leading to Pascha when the Divine Liturgy is not
celebrated. The holy gifts are consecrated (pre-sanctified) at the Liturgy of the preceding Sunday.
The Liturgy of St Mark, also known as the Liturgy of St Cyril of Alexandria, is the only surviving Alex-
andrian Liturgy. Differences between the Coptic and Greek texts are due to translation from Greek to Coptic
and to increasing variations which seem to have taken place in the period after the Chalcedonian schism.
This Liturgy has several distinct features. Unlike other ancient anaphora, it has an offering immediately
after the preface, followed by intercessions. After the Sanctus, instead of a Christological section, there is a
primitive kind of epiclesis. This leads to the customary unit of institution narrative, anamnesis, offering and
epiclesis, the latter completed by the doxology. Such is its medieval form. But thanks to the detective work
of Geoffrey J Cuming, it is possible to demonstrate from surviving papyrus and other fragments, that it had
assumed this form in a less wordy fashion by the time of the Council of Chalcedon (451).22 From Cuming’s
analysis of the text of the oldest papyrus it appears likely that it had taken shape up to the Sanctus by the 3rd
century, thus making it a contemporary of the anaphoras of Hippolytus, Addai and Mari, and the Egyptian
Basil. The remainder of the medieval Liturgy has a structure differing in some ways from that of St James
or St John Chrysostom, including one very ancient feature, the Three Prayers. As regards the Anaphora, it
would seem that there was an early close relationship with St James, distinct from major borrowings of a
later period. The epiclesis reflects Cyril of Alexandria’s highly developed theology of the Holy Spirit. It is
rarely used except during Lent, and in some modern editions of the Coptic Euchologion has been rearranged
to follow the order of Basil and Gregory. The present order of the whole Coptic Liturgy has existed since
1411 when Patriarch Gabriel V edited and arranged it. The Greek Egyptian Liturgy of St Basil corresponds
to the Coptic Liturgy of St Basil.23
The development of the Byzantine iconographic tradition, especially after the 8th century iconoclastic cri-
sis, also stimulated reflection of church buildings as an earthly mirror of the heavenly cosmos. The pattern of
depicting prophets and saints, with Christ in judgement typically occupying the central dome, and the Virgin
with liturgical saints in the sanctuary area, attempted to mark a linear progressive movement (from the Narthex
frescoes of the OT saints one entered deeper into the church with NT scenes until one arrived at Christ in glory),
and also a vertical progressive movement (from the lower walls where ascetics and other saints gave way in
an upward sweep to great martyrs, angels, and the Mother of God).24 Interestingly Patriarch Germanus, in his
Historia Ecclesiastica, reveals that particular parts of the church were seen in terms of evocative moments in
the life of Christ, and so the apse was regarded as the cave of the nativity and the altar table as the place where
Christ was laid in the tomb. Declining economic conditions after the 8th century made the typical village church
in Orthodox lands usually a small and intimate affair (in marked contrast to Hagia Sophia which still served as
21
R F Taft, ‘Liturgy’, The Oxford University Handbook of Byzantine Studies. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ed. E
Jeffreys et al., 2008) 608.
22
G J Cuming, The Liturgy of St Mark: edited from the Manuscripts with a Commentary, OCA 234. (Rome: 1990), xiii.
23
G Bebawi, ‘The Liturgy of St Mark’, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, ed. K Parry et al. (Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers, 2001)138.
24
J A McGuckin, ‘Orthodox Church Architecture’, The Encyclopaedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ed. John A Mc-
Guckin, Vol I A-M. (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011) 47.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Godfrey O’ Donell 591

model). In Orthodoxy the place of worship is called church (Gr: Naos; Slavonic: Kram: Temple in English).
This double use of the word ‘church’ which means both the Christian community assembled and the house
where it worships God, is in itself an indication of the function and nature of the Orthodox Temple: the place
of the leitourgia, the place where the community of the faithful fulfils itself as the Church of God, the spiritual
Temple. As we have seen Orthodox architecture has a liturgical meaning, a symbolism that completes that of
the Liturgy. It has a long historical development and exists in a great variety of national expressions. But the
common central idea is that of the temple as ‘heaven on earth’ the place where through our participation in the
Liturgy of the Church, we enter into communion with the age to come, the Kingdom of God.25
Icons were being hung on the sanctuary barrier or a low parapet which eventually evolved into a taller par-
tition by the 6th century, and on the templon by the 9th. It was only in the 12th to 14th centuries that rows of
fixed icons began to obscure the sanctuary area, again reflecting changes in the byzantine liturgy and church
architecture. In Byzantium two or three rows of icons were the norm, but a five-tiered iconostasis appears in
Russia by the 15th century. In the Vladimir Dormition cathedral of 1408 Andrei Rublev and Daniil Cherny
added a tier of prophets. In the 17th century another two rows were added.26 The icon is to be considered as
a doxological expression of the Divine Liturgy. It is a theology in images. The icons of the Orthodox Church
graphically help believers to have a deeper understanding of the liturgical texts, and serve as aids for their reading
so that it might become contemplative. This notion emphasises the theological and didactic role of icons in the
spiritual understanding of the Divine Liturgy. In terms of what they represent, icons are an open bible or even
a theological treatise. Throughout history they have spoken with power and beauty. Above all, through their
transparency they manifest, they serve to open the spirit towards a profound longing for God.27 The Liturgy,
too, is a sacred action, a sequence of movement or rites, not just readings and prayers. The community just as
the individual pray God not just in words, but through bodily movements. Kneeling, raising of hands, bowing
of heads, prostrations, kisses, incensing are religious rites as old as humanity itself. The have been accepted
into Christian worship, for they are direct and natural expressions of various religious states of humankind.28
And so by the middle of the 14th century the rubrical manuals of the Athonite hesychast monks dominated,
giving a form to the Liturgy that has remained to our day. Yet there are implications for us in this historical
sweep of ‘Liturgy’ and ‘worship’. Liturgy has to be suited to the mentality of our times and still be in continuity
with patristic times. There was an understanding in Orthodoxy that liturgy continues to develop. Our common
heritage of the New Testament message and the liturgical tradition has us again pondering the meaning and
direction of our liturgical worship. That Orthodox group that met in New York in 1998 on the way to the WCC
Assembly in Harare have offered a balanced critique of Orthodoxy that still reads as fresh today - fourteen
years later! Two of their recommendations are to be noted:
There is need to revaluate various practices related to confession, fasting & other forms of preparation for
communion. This is particularly necessary when these practices not only obscure the ecclesial significance of the
Eucharist but also discourage frequent communion, thus inhibiting the spiritual growth & nourishment of the faithful.
The study of worship is to be fostered. It will help free us of ritual formalism and help us discover and artic-
ulate the riches of our liturgical heritage. This will help to determine if our worship today inspires the faithful,
young & old, to carry the message of the gospel into all areas of life and society and to bear witness to the
compassion, justice, mercy and wisdom of God.
25
A Schmemann, Liturgy and Life: Christian Development through Liturgical Experience. (New York: Department of
Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America, 1993) 34-5.
26
K Parry, ‘Iconostasis’, The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, ed. K Parry et al. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers,
2001) 242-3.
27
T Damian, ‘Icons’ ,The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ed. J A McGuckin, Vol. I A-M. (Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 335-6.; also L Ph B, ‘Templon’, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A P Kazhdan et al., Vol
3. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 2023-4.
28
A Schmemann, Liturgy and Life: Christian Development through Liturgical Experience. (New York: Department of
Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America, 1993) 30-1.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
592 Chapter (91)

And their gentle reminders for Orthodox Ecumenical Worship:

(a) As the Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference in 1986 said: ‘The Orthodox participation in the
ecumenical movement does not run counter to the nature & history of the Orthodox Church: it constitutes the
consistent expression of the Apostolic faith within new historical conditions, in order to respond to new existential
demands.’
(b) From the beginnings of the Ecumenical Movement the Orthodox have participated in services of common
prayer with Christians of other traditions.
We communicate with God through worship and language, as already stated. Again the 1998 New York
preparatory team would have us jog our memories: language with its peculiarities of syntax, grammar and
vocabulary can change through time, similarly worship with its gestures, symbols and style of a given time
and place may not be readily grasped in another historical setting, and so the need for to critically assess this
from time to time.29 Recall Anton Baumstark’s adages, quoted by Taft, that ‘the forms of Liturgy are subject
by their very nature to a process of continuous evolution’, and it seems to be of the nature of Liturgy to relate
itself to the concrete situations of times and places.’30
In the final analysis, the very variety of these liturgical types is a witness to the openness of liturgy in its
attempt to embrace so many different cultural contexts and peoples as possible.
The Liturgy acclaims God thrice holy; it proclaims Christ as alone holy; it celebrates the feast of saints. We
also speak of the holy gospels, of holy week; and we are called to be holy. Holiness then appears to be a complex
reality which touches on the mystery of God, but also on worship and morality. It includes the notions of sacred
and pure, but transcends them. It seems to be inaccessibly reserved to God, but constantly attributed to creatures.
Paul Evdokimov in an article entitled ‘Nature’ elaborates on creation, the fall, the sacred and the sacra-
ments: ‘God alone is holy. The sacred, the holiness of the creature is never such by its own nature, but always
by participation in the holiness of God (Heb 12,10). The term Qadosh, hagios, sanctus, implies a relation of
complete belonging to God.’31 The Semitic word is derived from a root which means ‘to cut off, separate’ and
points towards the idea of separation from the profane; holy things are those which are not to be touched or
approached except under certain conditions of ritual purity. Something of Rudolf Otto’s ‘numinous’: a mystery
that is both terrifying (tremendum), presenting itself as an overwhelming power and purity, and fascinating
(fascinans) at the same time by His love and grace. The transcendent God is experienced as ‘wholly other’, a
condition entirely different from anything that we experience in ordinary life. ‘The act of sanctifying makes
us participants in the ‘wholly other’: to be the pure receptacle of a presence; the radiant power of God rests in
it.’32 This is what elicits worship from human beings at its manifestation, adds Wainwright.
It was God’s choice ‘set Israel apart’ that had it become a ‘holy nation’; and His choice of plan for the New
Israel, that every baptised person, integrated into Christ, and becoming a bearer of the Holy Spirit, would be a
‘partaker of the divine nature’ (2 Peter 1,4), ‘of the holiness of God’ (Heb 12,10). And, above all, according to
Nicholaos Cabasilas, ‘the faithful are holy by reason of the holy thing in which they participate, the Eucharist.’
Evdokimov continues:

‘From the single divine source: “You shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy’33, flows a whole succession
of consecrations by participation. They effect a ‘de-secularisation’, a ‘de-popularisation’ in the very being of this
29
T FitzGerald & P. Bouteneff, (eds), Turn to God, Rejoice in Hope: Orthodox Reflections on the Way to Harare, (Geneva:
WCC, 1998)141-46.
30
R F Taft, ‘Liturgy’, The Oxford University Handbook of Byzantine Studies. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ed. E
Jeffreys et al., 2008) 608.
31
‘Nature’, Scottish Journal of Theology 18:1, (March 1965)1-22.
32
See G Wainwright, ‘Christian Worship: Scriptural Basis and Theological Frame’, The Oxford History of Christian Wor-
ship, ed G Waintwright & K B Westerfield Tucker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 2.
33
Following the Jewish translation and commentary on Lev 19, 2. ‘Later interpreters often took it as a general command
to emulate divine attributes such as compassion and forgiveness (“Imitatio Dei”). But ‘holy’ in the Bible does not refer to

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Godfrey O’ Donell 593

world. This action of ‘puncturing’ the closed world by the in breaking of powers from the beyond belongs properly
to the sacraments and the sacramentals, which teach us that everything is destined for its liturgical fulfilment. The
blessing of the fruits of the earth at the feast of the Transfiguration or at Easter extends over all ‘food’ the sanctify-
ing action contained in the word pronounced by the priest when he gives the Eucharist: ‘for the healing of soul and
body’. The destiny of the element of water is to participate in the mystery of the Epiphany; the destiny of the earth
is to receive the body of the Lord for the repose of Great Saturday… (‘What shall we offer you, O Christ…’ every
creature brings its token of gratitude:… ‘the earth, its cave; the wilderness, the manger…’ 34 Olive oil and water find
their fulfilment as conductors of grace to regenerated man; the wheat and the vine culminate in the Eucharistic cup.
Everything refers to the Incarnation, and everything (my emphasis) leads to the Lord… The Liturgy integrates the
most elementary actions of life: drinking, eating, washing, speaking, acting, communicating, living – and restores
to them their meaning and their true destiny; to be parts of the cosmic Temple of God’s Glory… There is nothing in
this world which has remained a stranger to His humanity and has not received the imprint of the Holy Spirit. It is
for the Holy Spirit to bring that alive in all of us...’
If already the Old Testament inaugurates the sacredness of springs, mountains, stones, and holy nation, it is the
Christian Liturgy which undertakes the consecration of the world. With Constantine, the place of worship forms part
of the social structure of the city 35, and the Lord’s Day coincides with the day on which men rest, and the temple
offers an image of the organised cosmos.’

In all this we see how the Eucharist and worship encompass the whole world and the whole of creation. The
universal impact of liturgical life, and its ecumenical relevance (in the sense of embracing everybody regardless
of background – referring to the whole inhabited earth, but also the natural creation (creation symbolised and
present in the elements of bread and wine).
Ultimately, Liturgy and sacraments are there to remind us of what we already have – the gift of life itself
from God our Creator and the transforming presence of the Holy Spirit, healing our sinfulness and bringing us to
full creative maturity; to reach out to others and to have them also touched by God’s holiness (Ephes 4, 11-13).
Perhaps as an adjustment to all this, the emphasis should rather be that Liturgy-Eucharist is not just a top
down movement, but a movement towards each other, i.e. an organic whole where we accept God’s ‘gift’,
work the gift and make it happen. This in turn brings about Christ’s living in us and being in His world; and
where we contribute to the ongoing work of consecrating all mankind.
‘This is right and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires everyone to be saved and to come
to the knowledge of the truth.’ (1 Tim 2,4)
...And then there was The Liturgy after the Liturgy (Father Ion Bria)!

Bibliography

J F Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship, OCA 228. (Rome: 1987).
I Bria, The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective. (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1996).
G J Cuming, The Liturgy of St Mark: edited from the Manuscripts with a Commentary, OCA 234. (Rome: 1990).
Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, ed N. Lossky et al. (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2002).

superior moral qualities. God’s holiness is His essential ‘otherness,’ His being separate from all that is not divine; humans
are not called upon to be holy in this sense (the text does not say ‘as I am holy’). Holiness in humans, as in time, space,
objects, and speech, is the state of belonging to the deity, being designated God’s ‘personal’ property...In Priestly thought,
holiness is the desired result of an effusion of God’s immanent presence.’ The Jewish Study Bible, eds A Berlin & M Z
Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 253.
34
Troparion of the Vespers of Christmas, The Festal Menaion (London, Faber & Faber, 1996), 254.
35
M Low, Celtic Christianity and Nature: Early Irish and Hebridean Traditions (Belfast: The Blackstaff Press, 1996),1-4,
who reminds us of an initial stage of outdoor worship before the advent of (church) buildings with its implied social construct.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
594 Chapter (91)

Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, ed. A Di Bernardino, ET. A Walford,
Vol I. (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1992).
P Evdokimov, ‘Nature’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 18:1, (March 1965)1-22.
T FitzGerald & P. Bouteneff, (eds), Turn to God, Rejoice in Hope: Orthodox Reflections on the Way to Harare,
(Geneva: WCC, 1998).
A J Heschel, Man’s Quest for God: Studies in Prayer and Symbolism. (Santa Fe: Aurora Press,1998).
J Mateos S J, La célébration de la parole dans la liturgie byzantine: étude historique, OCA 191. (Rome: 1971).
A Schmemann, Liturgy and Life: Christian Development through Liturgical Experience. (New York: Depart-
ment of Religious Education, Orthodox Church in America, 1993).
-, Liturgy and Tradition: Theological Reflections of Alexander Schmemann, ed. T Fisch. (Crestwood, NY: St
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003).
-, Introduction to Liturgical Theology. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003).
R F Taft, ‘Liturgy’ in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A P Kazhdan et al., Vol 2. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991, pp.1240-1).
-, ‘Liturgy’ in E Jeffreys et al. (ed.), The Oxford University Handbook of Byzantine Studies. (Oxford University
Press 2008) 599-610.
-, The Byzantine Liturgy: A Short History, American Essays in Liturgy Series. (Collegeville, Minn: The Li-
turgical Press, 1992) 28-41.
-, The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St
John Chrysostom, OCA 200. (Rome: 1975).
-, ‘The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Icono-
clasm’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34/35, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. (Washington,
DC: 1980-81) 45-75.
The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity, ed. K Parry et al. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001).
The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, ed. M.B. Cunningham & E. Theokritoff. (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).
The Encyclopaedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, ed. J A McGuckin, Vol. I A-M. (Chichester: Wiley-Black-
well, 2011).
J D Zizioulas, The Eucharistic Communion and The World (ed. L Tallon). (London: T & T Clark, 2011).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (92) BASIC ELEMENTS OF CHURCH UNITY/
INTERCOMMUNION ACCORDING TO ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING1

Tamara Grdzelidze

The search for church unity has been the Orthodox everyday prayer - ‘for the union of all’. Therefore it is not
surprising that from the very beginning of the Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement the prevailing
theme has been a desire for unity in spite of challenges due to different ecclesiologies.2
One of the important messages throughout the history of the Orthodox participation in the ecumenical move-
ment is the Orthodox memorandum at the First World Conference of Faith and Order3 in Lausanne 1927.4 The
Orthodox claimed that “reunion can take place only on the basis of the common faith and confession” of the
undivided church, which they acknowledged as the reality of the first eight centuries of the Christian era. Real
union is seen only as communio in sacris and the latter may happen only on the basis of the full agreement in
faith. The Orthodox delegates expressed their readiness to continue the search for unity by means of the shared
position which acknowledged “a partial reunion” of other Churches in anticipation of the “general union”. Although
fully conscious of the challenge of being divided by dogmatic differences, the Orthodox declared readiness to
continue devotion to the rapprochement of the churches, with those who share the same faith in our Lord Jesus
Christ. As Fr. George Florovsky expressed it in 1949, the Orthodox understood their mandate to participate in
ecumenical movement “as a direct obligation which stems from the very essence of Orthodox consciousness.”5
The main source of division between the churches, ecclesiology, has been treated at different points of
Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement but has not been solved to a great extent, at least as much
as to help all Orthodox to pray with others, not to mention sharing communion. Following the foundation of
the World Council of Churches (1948) – and international ecumenical institution to serve and represent a fel-
lowship of churches – the first ‘concession’ to the Orthodox ecclesiology was the so-called Toronto Statement
(1950) on “The Church, the Churches, and the World Council of Churches.”6 The Orthodox concern was to
avoid identifying the WCC as a church or super-church and its membership as implying a specific doctrine
concerning the nature of church unity. The series of negations in the statement some called “provisional neu-
trality” which should be a starting-point dissolved with years.7 The Toronto Statement ‘allowed’ the Orthodox
1
The first following article on this subject is from Tamara Grdzelidze, while the second one from Petros Vassiliadis (ed.).
2
See two patriarchal encyclicals, Patriarchal and Synodical Encyclical of 1902 (His Holiness Joachim III, Patriarch of
Constantinople), The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, Documents and Statements, edited by Constantin G.
Patelos (Geneva, WCC Publications: 1978) 27-33. Even more explicitly ecumenical is the Encyclical of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate of 1920, sent out by Archbishop Germanos, which is addressed “Unto the Churches of Christ everywhere” and
sets the tune at the beginning by using a quote from the First letter of Peter as an epigraph: “Love one another earnestly
from the heart”. Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, Statements, Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical Movement, 1902-
1992, Compiled by Gennadios Limouris (Geneva, WCC Publications: 1994) 40-43.
3
Faith and Order started as a movement of churches to combat church division and seek unity according to the will of
Christ: “so that all may be one,” John 17:21. At present it is a commission of nominees from different churches, 120
persons, coming together to reflect on divisive and non-divisive issues which keep the churches away from full communion.
4
Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, 12-14.
5
Fr. Georges Florovsky, “The Orthodox Contribution to the Ecumenical Movement”, in Ecumenism I, A Doctrinal Approach
Collected works, Vol. 13 (Vaduz: 1989) 160.
6
The Church, the Churches, and the World Council of Churches, WCC Central Committee, Toronto 1950 The Ecumenical
Movement, An Anthology of key texts and Voices, 463-468.
7
The Church, the Churches, and the World Council of Churches, WCC Central Committee, Toronto 1950 The Ecumenical
Movement, An Anthology of key texts and Voices, 463-468.
596 Chapter (92)

to participate in ecumenical movement. The very fact of the Orthodox participation in ecumenical movement,
in spite of the huge ecclesiological challenges, can be considered as a contribution in itself.
At the outset of the ecumenical endeavour the Orthodox have been referring to the necessity for all to return
to the bosom of the mother church of the first centuries. ‘Return’ to the ancient church will not be easy for
any churches that are living bodies and have been exposed to historical changes. Nor contemporary biblical
scholarship accepts the idea that there was ‘an ideal, homogenous church’ in the ancient times. An acceptable
formulation of such a demand must be a joint rediscovery of the common roots. This means that all churches
are on the journey of rediscovering their common heritage which may bring the churches closer than it has
been possible at present. The standpoint for the Orthodox in ecclesiological discussions is the Eucharistic
ecclesiology: Koinonia does not know division; the unity exists only in Christ and is actualised in the Eucha-
rist. But how far can the Orthodox Eucharistic ecclesiology embrace other ecclesiologies? Can the Orthodox
pneumatology allow the full sharing of gifts with other churches?
At the third WCC Assembly in New Delhi (1963) the Orthodox voice became stronger in articulating the
Orthodox ecclesiological self-understanding, and rejecting the notion of “parity of denominations”. The idea of
broken unity that is to be recovered was also a forceful declaration followed by the statement that the Orthodox
Church is the church and not one among many, which claims the un-brokenness in tradition and sacramental life
and faith. The Orthodox Church put apostolic succession of episcopacy and sacramental priesthood as essential
and constitutive to the church which, on its own part, bears witness to the tradition of the undivided church.
Then, modifying the above-mentioned idea concerning the provisional “reunion” between the non-Orthodox
churches”, it recommended the Protestant churches to find a common ground in their common history. As for
the future, the Orthodox modified again their statement by suggesting to move neither towards uniformity nor
restoration of old forms, but rather towards a recovery of apostolic tradition. (In this context it is recommended
to read on the Tradition in the Orthodox Church).
The ecclesiological challenge begets one of the major obstacles for some Orthodox to participate in the
ecumenical movement that is common prayer. All partners in the ecumenical movement are aware of the dif-
ficulties related to common worship. There are theological, canonical, traditional, historical, ethical reasons
behind, but in general from an Orthodox perspective, two sets of problems can be identified around the issue.
Firstly, it is a canonical problem; “Do not pray with heretics” (Apostolic Constitutions 45, and Laodecean 33/34)
interpreted as not to pray or worship with the other Christians. Secondly, it is an ethical problem related to the
nature of ecumenical prayer. There is not a single Orthodox approach to the matter of praying ecumenically
with the exception of the “intercommunion” or “Eucharistic hospitality”, which in the ecumenical context is
excluded at once.
In spite of Orthodox concerns related to church unity stemming from their unique ecclesiology, there is an
unceasing process of the Orthodox efforts into this direction – search for visible unity.8 This is very much in
the spirit of teaching of the giants of the ecumenical movement such as Fr. Georges Florovsky or Prof. Nikos
Nissiotis whose qualified eagerness to stay in the movement and witness to the world together with other fellow
Christians can be understood as an imperative to the Orthodox worldwide.9
Orthodox ecclesiology has become an important question in the multilateral ecumenical conversations.
The consciousness that the Orthodox Church is the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” has defined
the participation of the Orthodox in the ecumenical movement. According to Metropolitan John Zizioulas, in
the context of ecumenical dialogue four difficult aspects of Orthodox ecclesiology stand out: the church as
8
The best and most vivid expression of this would be the Orthodox participation in and preference for the ecumenical
work carried out by Faith and Order.
9
See G. Florovsky, “The Limits of the Church”, http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/crete-01-e.html (last accessed,
September 2013).
N.
Nissiotis, “Called to Unity The Significance of the Invocation of the Spirit for Church Unity”, Lausanne 77, Fifty Years
of Faith and Order, Faith and Order Paper no.82 (Geneva, WCC Publications: 1978) 48-64.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Tamara Grdzelidze/Petros Vassiliadis 597

historical, as eschatological, as relational, and as a sacramental entity. Since the Orthodox find it impossible
to separate the visible and the invisible aspects of the church, they “expect that the other Christians will
take the visible unity of the Church seriously and it is indeed gratifying to see that since Nairobi at least
the call to visible unity has become central in the ecumenical agenda and language.”10 The Church is called
to be a sign of the Kingdom; it is an expression of the living tradition which is received in the Church by
every generation.
The sacramental nature of the Church has been maintained through the central role of the sacraments,
among which the primary significance of the Baptism and the Eucharist is taken for granted. The Orthodox
for their part have been graciously carrying these ecclesiological principles within the ecumenical movement.
Another difficulty faced by Orthodox theology, as it seeks to enter into an honest and constructive dialogue
with fellow Christians, is the indivisible nature of this theology, seeking as it does to keep all aspects of the
Christian faith and life together. Thus “ethics cannot be separated from faith anymore than Orthodoxia can be
divorced from Orthopraxia.”11
In the Orthodox view, the Church is a divine-human reality; the body of Christ does not know a separation
between its invisible and visible aspects; it is both visible and invisible at once, and hence the Church does
not sin. Its oneness and holiness is matched by its catholicity and apostolicity. The only way to full unity lies
through sacramental communion, backed up by full sharing of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, incarnate and
resurrected, the founder of the Church. In this world, the Church is a sign of the Kingdom. Orthodox eccle-
siology, therefore, sets limits as to the ways in which it can search towards unity: the Orthodox aim to arrive
at a commonly shared ecclesiastical vision, rather than any other form of unity. This “common ecclesiastical
vision” implies recovering the common faith and Tradition; the Church needs Tradition in order to exist as
koinonia/communion. This ecclesiological understanding is deeply rooted in both the biblical and the patristic
reality of the undivided church.
In the 90s the Orthodox started expressing their dissatisfaction with the process and ethos of the ecumenical
movement. One of the positive outcomes of their ‘protest’ has been the Special Commission on Orthodox
Participation in the World Council of Churches.12 Apart from other benefits, the Special Commission provid-
ed another opportunity to reflect more deeply on issues which the Orthodox have been raising for decades,
most of all the nature and style of ecumenical prayer, the overall agenda of the WCC, questions of morality13
and one of the central Orthodox concerns in ecumenical movement, the ecclesiological challenge expressed
by the Special Commission Report in the following manner: “Is there space for other churches in Orthodox
ecclesiology? How would this space and its limits be described?”14
The latest Orthodox contribution to the search for visible unity – through responding to the Faith and
Order draft text, The Nature and Mission of the Church (2005) – highlights that “the Orthodox identify the
Church with the Orthodox Church” (Inter-Orthodox Consultation, 2011, par.9) and points out (once more) the
10
Metropolitan John of Pergamon, “The Self-understanding of the Orthodox and their Participation in the Ecumenical
Movement”, The Ecumenical Movement, the Churches and the World Council of Churches, An Orthodox contribution to
the reflection process on “The Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC”; The proceedings of the Inter-Orthodox
consultation on “The Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC”, (Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
Chambésy, Geneva, 19 to 24 June 1995), Edited by George Lemopoulos, co-produced by the WCC and Syndesmos, 40.
11
Ibid, 43.
12
This was a committee of 60 persons, with equal Orthodox and non-Orthodox representation, consisting of high officials
from churches and theologians. Although it started as a committee to meet particular Orthodox concerns, finally the Special
Commission played a remarkable role in renewing various policies of the WCC. Thus it met the concerns of a wider
constituency, and embraced a wider realm of issues, than had been initially considered (ecclesiology, common prayer,
social-ethical issues, decision-making and membership).
13
Anna Marie Aagard and Peter Bouteneff, Beyond The East-West Divide, The World Council of Church and “the Orthodox
Problem” (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2001), 9.
14
The Ecumenical Review, vol. 55, no. 1, 2003, 7.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
598 Chapter (92)

inconsistency between a denominationalist ecclesiology and the Orthodox ecclesiology (par.12). The Church
is the continuation of the mystery of Christ (par.14), reflecting the Trinitarian archetype (par.21); the holiness
of the Church is one of its essential characteristics realized in the sacraments (par.16), and the fallen reality
refers only to its members. The response also highlights a traditional position of the Orthodox towards the
ministry in the Church which stresses a distinction between the ordained ministry and the ministry of all the
faithful (par.28):
“Celebrating the Eucharist as one body, the Church rejects all fragmentation and discrimination on the basis
of class and caste, race and gender, age and wealth. In upholding and constantly promoting the oneness of the
Body, while respecting the identity and role of every particular organ, the Church sets the model for the unity
of humanity and of all creation. Since all forms of injustice and discrimination, and all violence and war go
against this God-given gift of unity, the Church is constantly called upon to struggle against every form of
injustice and oppression, mistrust and conflict created by human beings” (par.39).15

Bibliography

The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Christian Unity, Third Revised and Enlarged Edition by Thomas FitzGerald,
(Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2009).
Florovsky, George, “The Orthodox Contribution to the Ecumenical Movement”, Ecumenism, A Doctrinal
Approach. Collected Works, Vol. 13 (Vaduz: 1989).
The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, Documents and Statements, edited by Constantin G.
Patelos (Geneva, WCC Publications: 1978).
Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, Statements, Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical Movement, 1902-1992,
Compiled by Gennadios Limouris (Geneva, WCC Publications: 1994).

Petros Vassiliadis

The main difference between the traditional Churches (Orthodox and Roman Catholic) and the rest of the
Christian communities is the issue of the “exclusive” character of the Eucharist. It is on this issue exactly that
all Eucharistic exchanges among them and between Orthodox-Catholics are unquestionably excluded, with
no possibility to consider any way of extending among them some kind of “Eucharistic hospitality”. In gen-
eral the very idea of intercommunion is completely ruled out; the main argument being that the Eucharist the
Sacrament par excellence of the Church is the culmination of unity, not a means towards unity. Yet, here and
there, some isolated cases do exist in modern Orthodoxy, who expected that at least some sort of Eucharistic
hospitality, at least between the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (I. Bria) or between the Orthodox
and the Roman Catholic Church (O. Clement).
Others insist that on theological grounds Orthodoxy can move beyond the old dilemma “full communion
vs. intercommunion”. The key issue is how one can establish the “inclusive” or “exclusive” character of the
Eucharist. If one ignores the biblical data, more precisely the undisputed Pauline Epistles, then exclusivity may
come out as a possibility of erecting uncrossed barriers to anyone outside the canonical lines of the Church.
If the Pauline Eucharistic theology is a sine qua non of all Orthodox consideration, then a new perspective
enters into the discussion. The implications for ecclesiology, missiology and our ecumenical relations of such
a Pauline theology are quite important.
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/an-orthodox-response-to-the-nature-and-mission-of-the-
15

church (last accessed, September 2013).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Tamara Grdzelidze/Petros Vassiliadis 599

According to almost all contemporary Orthodox theologians “there is an almost unanimous conviction…
that the church must be defined in the framework of a Eucharistic ecclesiology”.16 It was, nevertheless, on this
very theological articulation – rather the narrow interpretation of the Eucharist – that so many problems have
emerged. A correct interpretation of the Pauline Epistles points to the conviction that from a strictly historical
view “what distinguished Jesus among many of his rabbinic contemporaries was his practice of fellowship at
meals”.17 This “open table fellowship” is clearly evidenced in the Epistle to Galatians, where St. Paul defended
St. Peter’s dining (before the arrival of St. James’ people) with the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:12 “ότι μετά των εθνών
συνήσθιεν”).18 The “open table fellowship” and the absence of boundaries at meals are “characteristic and
distinctive of the social-self-understanding that Jesus encouraged in his disciples”.19 No serious biblical scholar
can deny today that the only reliable starting point in determining the very nature of the Eucharist is the “open
table fellowship” and the “inclusiveness” underlined in Jesus’ teaching of the coming Kingdom of God and
the common meals, which he used to bless, and participate in, during his earthly ministry.
In few words the original, and by all means authentic, understanding of the Eucharist stems from the aware-
ness of the early Christian community that they were God’s eschatological people, who represented in their
Eucharistic gatherings the expected Kingdom of God. As with the understanding of their mission, according
to which the apostles were commissioned to proclaim not a set of given religious convictions, doctrines, moral
commands etc., but the coming Kingdom and their resurrected Lord center and sovereign of it, so also with
the Eucharist they actually expressed in deeds, i.e. around a common table, the Good News of a new eschato-
logical reality.20 That is why they were all called “holy”, “royal priesthood”, because in the eschatological era
all of them (not just some special cast, such as the priests or Levites) believed to have priestly and spiritual
authority to practice in the diaspora the work of the priestly class, reminded at the same time to be worthy of
their election though their exemplary life and works.
In numerous cases the Historical Jesus was actually challenging the social and religious validity of some
Torah regulations on clean and unclean. Most of his healings were directed toward people who were considered
unclean: lepers (Μk. 1:40-45; Μt. 8:1-4; cf. Lk. 17:11-19), the woman in bloodshed (Μk. 5:25-34; Μt. 9:20-
22; Lk. 8:43-48), people possessed by daemons, blind, cripple etc. Whereas for the Jews the most important
issue was “how and on what conditions can people approach God in order to be saved”, the early Christians
put more emphasis on “how God approaches people and offers salvation”. To the former approaching God
was accomplished only through the Law (“εν τω νόμω”), whereas to the latter through Christ (“εν Χριστώ”).
The issue of inclusion within the community of faith of all people (clean and unclean – one can expand it in
today’s terms mutatis mutandis also to faithful and…heretics?) and therefore accepting them at the common
(Eucharistic/ eschatological/messianic or otherwise) meals, received quite dangerous consequences for the
emerging new Christian religion once it expanded beyond the boundaries of Judaism. Receiving new converts,
of course, has never been an actual problem throughout the early Church. Even Judeo-Christians could accept
and endorse it. The problem arose on the practical consequences of such a move: at the common (Eucharistic/
eschatological/messianic or otherwise) meals between circumcised Jews and former Gentiles. The expression
16
Ion Bria, “Widening the Ecclesiological Basis of the Ecumenical Fellowship,” The Ecumenical Review 56 (2004), 199ff,
here at p. 119.
17
B. Chilton, “Inclusion and Non-inclusion: The Practice of the Kingdom in Formative Christianity,” in J. Neusner (ed.),
Religion and the Political Order, (Scholars Press: Atlanta) 133-172, p. 137; also in his Pure Kingdom: Jesus’ Vision
of God, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids 1996).
18
More in D. Passakos, “Μετά των εθνων συνήσθιεν..,” Theology and Society in Dialogue, (Thessaloniki 2001), pp. 96ff
(in Greek).
19
J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 599.
20
Ion Bria extended this belief to the Trinity, defining the mission on the basis of Jn. 21 in terms of a mission dei, namely
that “God in God’s own self is a life of communion and that God’s involvement in history aims at drawing humanity
and creation in general into this communion with God’s very life”, which implies that this must also be the goal of
mission (Ion Bria, Go Forth in Peace, Geneva 1987, 3).

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
600 Chapter (92)

that before the arrival of representatives of the Jerusalem group Peter “ate with the Gentiles” (Gal 2:12) is quite
characteristic. Obviously in the early Church there were leaders insisting on separate Eucharistic celebrations,
so that the basic rules of cleanness are kept. This tendency followed the line of a “Eucharistic exclusiveness”.
Paul’s line, on the contrary, understood the fundamental issue of salvation “in Christ” in a quite inclusive way.
He considered the “separate” Eucharistic tables as an inconceivable practice, and he insisted on a “common”
Eucharistic table for both Jews and Gentiles. In other words his view was that of a “Eucharistic inclusiveness”.
For Paul there was no other way; any compromise would destroy the basis of his faith and the legacy of Jesus
of Nazareth.
St. Paul’s “inclusive Eucharistic theology” does not by any means question the theological foundation of
today’s difficulty on the part of the Orthodox in accepting the idea of intercommunion, at least in the form it
is generally presented by almost all Protestant theologians and their communities. The Eucharist is, and will
remain, an expression of, not a means towards, Church unity. Nevertheless, Jesus of Nazareth’s inclusive
kerygma, and St. Paul’s foundational teaching and praxis of a “Eucharistic inclusiveness”, remind us is that
the original “open”, “inclusive” and above all “unifying” character of the Eucharist somewhat challenge our
contemporary views and demands a radical reconsideration of our Eucharistic ecclesiology.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (93) ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY IN DIALOGUE WITH OTHER UNDERSTANDINGS
OF THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH

Athanasios Vletsis

Introductory Remarks

“There are ecclesiological presuppositions lying behind both the Basis and Constitution of the WCC. How do churches
belonging to the fellowship of the WCC currently understand the commitment they make to the Trinitarian faith in
the Basis? How do they understand the intention expressed in the Constitution ‘to call one another to the goal of
visible unity in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and common life in Christ, through
witness and service to the world and to advance towards this unity so that the world may believe’? The response
to these questions is influenced by the existence of two basic ecclesiological self-understandings, namely of those
churches (such as the Orthodox) which identify themselves with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,
and those which see themselves as parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. These two ecclesiolog-
ical positions affect whether or not churches recognize each other’s baptism as well as their ability or inability to
recognize one another as churches.”1

Orthodox ecclesiology identifies the Church of Christ with one visible Church and concretely with the
Orthodox Church. Thus it does not seem willing to accept the concept of an ideal, invisible Church, whose
partial, visible appearances are the historical, institutionally organized Churches all around the world. But is
this distinction of two types of ecclesiological self-understanding (according to the Final Report of the Special
Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC) able to define correctly the problem of the relation between
the one and the many Churches? If the models described in the text cited above represent the tradition of the
Orthodox Church on the one side and the traditions of the Churches that emerged from the Reformation on the
other, in what way is this distinction applicable to the Roman–Catholic Church? Does this distinction imply that
the Orthodox model of unity proposes the return of the other Churches to the One (Orthodox) Church, which
is believed to be identical with the Church of the Nicene–Constantinopolitan creed? Is really the Orthodox
Church such a monolithic organism, or does it consist of a communion of Churches, which could expand –
under presuppositions – its boundaries, so that it may include other (local) Churches, too?
In this article I will deal with the questions raised above, which mirror some central aspects of the general
ecclesiological discussion. The question about the Church, the ecclesiological question, seems to monopolize
the ecumenical inquiry since the very beginning of the 20th century: After about 100 years of rather general
fruitful ecumenical pursuits, after at least 60 years of concrete and intense steps towards ecumenical recon-
cilement on a multilateral level on the basis of the WCC platform and after more than 30 years of intensive
official bilateral dialogues with Orthodox participation, serious concerns are raising because of the difficulty
to define concretely the next targets in our common way. The inability to harmonize the various suggested
models of unity which represent the views of specific Churches and their theologies, reflects the puzzlement
concerning the path the ecumenical movement should take in the future.
The first chapter of this article will provide a brief presentation of elementary principles of Orthodox eccle-
siology and the problems surrounding it; in the second one I will give a short overview of the models adopted

1
Final Report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC (1998–2002), §14-15. See the text in:
Theodoros Meimaris, The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement, (Thessaloniki
2013), 282–346; at 286–287.
602 Chapter (93)

by the other (Roman–Catholic and Protestant) Churches. In the third I will try to describe the Orthodox model
of unity, as it is being reflected in Orthodox contributions in inter–Orthodox and inter–confessional forums of
dialogue. In the last chapter I will sketch some proposals for the future.

1. Eucharistic ecclesiology: precedence of the local Church?

“The Eucharist makes the Church”2: this principle summarizes the ecclesiological self–understanding of
the Orthodox Church, or at least this is how the Orthodox – and not only – describe it in the 20th century.
The celebration of the Eucharist is both the mystery and the image of communion and unity not only with
the Triune God, but also with the brothers and sisters in Christ; it is both foretaste and manifestation of the
Kingdom of God already in this world. The principle of Eucharistic ecclesiology gives evident precedence to
the local Church, either we define this local Church as the parochial community or as the local diocese: From
an Orthodox point of view the attribute of catholicity has not a quantitative, but primarily a qualitative mean-
ing; it is rather an expression of the fullness of the truth of the Church.3 This truth is being realized in every
Eucharistic gathering; such a gathering does not merely constitute a part of the universal Church; moreover, it
rather incarnates the fullness of ecclesial life. According to Ν. Afanassieff, who introduced eucharistic eccle-
siology and provided its theoretical background, universalist ecclesiology (that is the view which understands
the Church as primarily realized in its universal wholeness; according to this thinking, the local parochial or
episcopal liturgical gathering is not but a part of this wholeness) was nothing else than a necessary adjustment
to the new developments which took place within the Byzantine Empire (which was, at least according to its
self–understanding, a Christian state) and which had certain consequences for the life of the Church.4
This equation of the Church and the Eucharist mirrors an idealization; it does not take sufficiently into ac-
count the presuppositions which are necessary, so that the local Eucharistic gathering may actually express the
catholicity of the Church. It also overlooks the further consequences of the Eucharistic ecclesiology. Nowadays
the impasses of an one–dimensional identification of the Church with the eucharist are visible in the Orthodox
Churches: The eucharist is image of the eschaton and type of the Trinitarian unity only inasmuch as the unity
of the faithful and the Eucharistic gathering “functions”. This presupposes community not only in faith and
life, but also in the order and structure of the ecclesial life. Orthodox Eucharistic ecclesiology is based upon the
community of local Churches which built up their identity and their modes of communication during the first
Christian millennium; this process owes a lot to the cultural communication and to the political framework of
the eastern Hellenistic world and, later, of the Byzantine Empire. The rise of new kingdoms in the western re-
gions and boundaries of the Western Roman Empire (and more concretely the rise of the kingdom of the Francs)
shacked the structures of the Church and contributed in many ways to the mutual ecclesial alienation of East and
West. As far as the Churches of the East are concerned, new conditions defined their context: the conquests of
Muslim empires and afterwards the rise of new national states as successors of the Ottoman Empire led to the
establishment of many autocephalous Churches. One may claim that, in the Orthodox tradition, the establish-
ment of autocephalous Churches is generally compatible with the principle of the local–eucharistic gathering
and that it should be regarded as a legitimate continuation of the Pentarchy. Nevertheless, when the structures
which secure the harmonious communion of the local Churches (in this context I characterize the autocepha-
2
See e.g. Paul McPartlan, The Eucharist makes the Church. Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue, (Edinburgh
1993). For a spherical consideration of the problems of Eucharistic ecclesiology see the articles published in International
Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 11:2/3 (2011).
3
More in: Athanasios Vletsis, “Katholizität oder Ökumenizität der Kirche? Das Ringen um die dritte Eigenschaft der
Kirche in der orthodoxen Theologie”, in Silvia Hell (ed.), Katholizität. Konfessionalismus oder Weltweite?, (Innsbruck /
Wien 2007), 49-91.
4
Nicolas Afanassieff, “Das Hirtenamt der Kirche: In der Liebe der Gemeinde vorstehen”, in Boris Bobrinskoy – Olivier
Clément – B. Fize – Jean Meyendorff (eds.), Der Primat des Petrus in der orthodoxen Kirche, (Zürich 1961), 7-65.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Athanasios Vletsis 603

lous Churches as local)5 do not operate right, the unity of Orthodoxy is continually threatened; thus it becomes
problematic or rather impossible for these Churches to articulate a common witness towards the (always new)
challenges of the world. Theses problems concerning the inter–Orthodox unity become apparent in the difficulty
to call a pan–Orthodox council, which a) would bear witness in a creative way considering a great amount of
challenges for the faith (social ethics, bioethics, etc.), b) would organize the Orthodox missionary work and c)
moreover would face the problems created in the ecclesial communities of the so–called Orthodox diaspora.6
The difficulty I am talking about shows the limits of the eucharistic ecclesiology; because of such turbulences,
Orthodoxy does not appear as a convincing interlocutor in the ecumenical dialogues for many of its partners.

2. The differing ecclesiological models of the western Churches

2.1. The ecclesiological model of the Roman–Catholic Church: inclusivistic ecclesiology?

In 2012 the Roman–Catholic Church celebrated the 50th anniversary from the beginning of the Second Vati-
can Council. According to many Roman–Catholic theologians this council signified a Copernican turn for the
ecclesiology of their Church. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), and more specif-
ically its 8th paragraph, was the spearhead of the new articulation of the ecclesiological self–understanding of
the Roman–Catholic Church. A dualism seems to be introduced here between the Church of Christ and the
Roman–Catholic Church: the first is being realised (subsistit) in the Roman–Catholic Church, but there is no
absolute identification and equation of the one with the other. Therefore the Roman–Catholic Church appeared
willing to recognize elements of ecclesiality in the other Churches; it went further to regard these elements as
possible contributions for the salvation of the faithful.7 Thus the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council
(1962-1965) renewed the hope that the Roman–Catholic Church will recognize the other Confessions as
Churches. Nevertheless, this Church did not cease to repeat in various tones that the foundation of the catho-
licity of the Church is being realized only in communion with the bishop of Rome, who is the determining
factor and guarantee of the unity of the Christian faithful; however, it does not specify what this communion
with the bishop of Rome exactly means (or may mean) for the other Churches.
During the last years, and mainly after 2000, the hope raised by the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican
Council is not really fulfilled. Nowadays the Roman–Catholic Church seems to interpret its great council from
a much more narrow perspective: thus the famous subsistit reveals its systemic gaps; in its more recent docu-
ments the Vatican distances itself clearly from an interpretation of ecclesiology in the light of the principle of
sister Churches; it rather prefers the principle of a mother Church and its daughters. Therefore the ecumenical
approach is understood as a return of the daughters to the maternal bosom of the Roman–Catholic Church,
which is claimed to be the only one able to guarantee the unity and the catholicity of the Church of Christ.

2.2. The ecclesial model of the Protestant world: reconciled diversity?

Although it is surely a simplification, it is not erroneous to summarize the protestant model of ecclesial unity
with the expression “reconciled diversity” (versöhnte Verschiedenheit).8 Having overcome several subdivisions
of their own, which took place during their historical past, such as the ones between the Reformed (Calvinist)
5
Also according to the text of the Inter-Orthodox Consultation for a Response to the Faith and Order Study: The Nature
and Mission of the Church (NMC), (Agia Napa / Paralimni Cyprus, 2.-9.03.2011).
6
For the pan-Orthodox Council see Αnastasios Kallis, Auf dem Weg zum Konzil. Ein Quellen – und Arbeitsbuch zur or-
thodoxen Ekklesiologie, (Münster 2013).
7
For the Second Vatican Council see Otto Hermann Pesch, Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vorgeschichte – Verlauf –
Ergebnisse – Nachgeschichte, (Würzburg 1993).
8
A Protestant Understanding of Ecclesial Communion. A statement on the Ordered Relations between Churches of Different
Confessions from the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany: http://www.ekd.de/english/1724-protestant_under-

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
604 Chapter (93)

and the Lutheran Churches, the Protestant Churches found (together with various Free Protestant Churches)
a platform of unity that enables a reciprocal recognition of their sacraments and sacerdotal ministries. Within
the European context this unity is expressed through the Council of CPCE (Community of Protestant Churches
in Europe). 9
The Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD) has expressed the opinion that the structure of Orthodoxy as
a communion of autocephalous Churches may give impulses for establishment of communion among them
and the Protestant Churches on the basis of the common acceptance of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.10
The crucial question concerning the model of reconciled diversity is the following: where does the rec-
onciliation end and where does the diversity which does not allow the sacramental communion begin? The
Orthodox would undoubtedly ask in what extend the ordination of women or the recognition of the unions of
same-sex couples (in various local Protestant Churches through a specific service) are expressions of legitimate
diversity, or if they may lead to a break.11 The two examples mentioned above cause serious concerns, which
have already led to breaks between communities that are CEKE members (in the communities of Anglican
Churches these concerns are exceptionally intense). A clear list of the unsolved problems which do not allow
the coexistence of reconciled diversities, remains as a task for the ecumenical movement.

3. The Orthodox ecclesiological model: Return to Orthodoxy?

Orthodox ecclesiology, as it is articulated in the official documents of the Orthodox Churches in ecumenical or
pan–Orthodox dialogues, seems to allow no dualism between an ideal image of the catholicity of the Church
of Christ and its concrete, visible, institutional expression: according to the third pre-conciliar pan–Orthodox
conference (Geneva 1986, § 2) “the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which
we confess in the creed of faith”; the Orthodox delegates at the third Assembly of the WCC in New Delhi use
a more powerful expression: “For the Orthodox the Orthodox Church is just the Church”.12
The certainty of truth carried by the Orthodox Church as the Church of Jesus Christ is based on the certification
of its continuity – and thus identification – with the undivided Church of the first millennium: “Indeed, for the
Orthodox the apostolic succession of episcopacy and sacramental priesthood is an essential and constitutive,
and therefore obligatory element of the Church’s very existence” (1961). Therefore what the other Confessions

standing_1.html (last accessed, September 2013). Concerning the meaning of reconciled diversity see the works of Ηarding
Meyer, (Versöhnte Verschiedenheit, 3 vol., Frankfurt a.M. 1998–2009).
9
A Protestant Understanding (see footnote 8): “Otherwise, the majority of the Protestant churches in Europe are in full
communion (altar and pulpit fellowship) as a consequence of the Leuenberg Agreement. This includes the inter-change-
ability of ministries.” For the Leuenberg Agreement see: www.leuenberg.net.
10
A Protestant Understanding (see footnote 8): “On the other hand, as Orthodoxy is certainly familiar with ecclesial
communion between autocephalous churches, one can ask whether this might not provide a basis for developing ecclesial
communion with the Protestant churches” (III. 2.4)
11
According to the text of the Inter-Orthodox Consultation for a Response to the Faith and Order Study: The Nature and
Mission of the Church (NMC), Agia Napa / Paralimni Cyprus, 2.-9.03.2011: “Like nearly all ecumenical documents, the
NMC text completely avoids the word ‘heresy’, and therefore fails to account for the possibility that some differences
are indeed church-dividing, resulting from genuine disagreements. Diversity in faith, in worship and in moral and ethical
practice has limits that the NMC text fails to help the churches identify for themselves or for each other” (§25–see the
text in: http://archived.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2011pdfs/NapaReport.pdf [last accessed on 24.8.2013]).
12
For the texts of the pan–Orthodox decisions see Αthanasios Basdekis, Orthodoxe Kirche und Ökumenische Bewegung.
Dokumente – Erklärungen – Berichte 1900-2006, (Frankfurt – Paderborn 2006). The second part of the third pan–Ortho-
dox pre-conciliar conference is published in English translation in Gennadios Limouris, Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism.
Statements, Messages and Reports on the Ecumenical Movement 1902–1992, (Geneva 1994), 112–115. The text of 1961
is also published in Limouris, Orthodox Visions, 30–31.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Athanasios Vletsis 605

have to do is to find the way back “to their common past” (1961); an older document (Ohio/USA 1957) 13 uses a
stronger expression calling the other Confessions to find the way back “to the bosom of the Orthodox Church,
which preserved its essential identity with early Christianity.” However, neither these documents nor more
recent ones clarify which are indeed these “important unalterable elements” of the ecclesial life, that the others
are called to regain; the forms of ecclesial life which, as creatures of historical development (may) subject
themselves to change are not specified, too. It is also known that the Orthodox Church avoids expressing itself
on the ecclesial status of the non-Orthodox Churches.14 If anybody wanted to acquire a concrete compulsory
catalogue of points which the Orthodox regard as presuppositions for unity, then the confusion would be big:
the range of the points that the heterodox Christians are called to accept in order to built up unity with Ortho-
doxy – according to the suggestions made by various Orthodox groups – is really broad: it extends from the
abolition of Filioque and the papal dogmas (primacy and infallibility) to the acceptance of the teaching on the
uncreated energies and the renounce of the purgatorium. It is needles to observe that, concerning points such
as the ones mentioned above, there is no common understanding and compulsory interpretation shared by all
Orthodox Churches.
During the development of the ecumenical dialogue the terms expressing the ecclesiological self–under-
standing of Orthodoxy have experienced differentiations. According to my opinion, the claim of the Orthodox
that they are the “bearer of and witness to the faith and the tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic
Church” (text of Geneva 1986, Β 1) may not be understood in a spirit of exclusivity, as an exclusion of the
others, but in an atmosphere of openness which invites all for a new, joint, creative rediscovery of the common
roots which may fruitfully graft the coordinates of the road to a new communion of the Christian Churches
in their third millennium. It should also not be forgotten that the Orthodox are a communion of Churches
with common coordinates concerning basic elements of doctrine, worship and Church order. Nevertheless,
various differentiations are not missing: on the one side, in comparison to the early Church, the Church before
Constantine the Great – differentiations which, nevertheless, did not serve as reasons of breaking the organic
continuity of church life; on the other side, as far as various aspects of their own internal life are concerned.
As we already noticed above, the question of their synodal pan–Orthodox communion and decision-making is
still open. Therefore they still remain hostages of their past and are not regarded as convincing interlocutors,
when they invite the other Churches to return to the undivided tradition and to Orthodoxy itself. Above these
issues, the Orthodox are called to give convincing answers to the following crucial question: is the faithfulness
to the common tradition of the first millennium enough for a fruitful confrontation with the new and more or
less different problems of the third Christian millennium?

4. Vision for a common march of the Christian Churches in the third millennium

A creative march in the third millennium should surely not ignore the two thousand years of Church history.
Those aspects of doctrine and daily – especially liturgical – praxis and life, shaped by the great Ecumenical
Councils during the common march of the first millennium (above all on the basis of the creed of the Second
Ecumenical Council) undoubtedly acquire great importance. In the fever of the bi– and multilateral ecumen-
ical dialogues the official commissions usually devote themselves to a thorough investigation of the whole
doctrine of their Churches, as if they were trying to write an extensive and very analytic “handbook of dog-
matics”. However, it is very doubtful if every one of these Churches already provides such a handbook for its
13
Oberlin, Ohio, USA, 3.-10. September 1957, Nordamerikanische Regionalkonferenz über Fragen von Glauben und
Kirchenverfassung zum Thema “Das Wesen der Einheit, die wir suchen”, veranstaltet von der “US-Konferenz für den
Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen”, in A. Basdekis, Orthodoxe Kirche, 74.
14
See the text from the Meeting on “How Do the Orthodox Look at the Problem of Concepts of Unity and Models of Union”,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2-3 August 1973, in: Orthodox Contributions to Nairobi, Papers Compiled and Presented by the
Orthodox Task Force of the World Council of Churches, WCC, Geneva, 1975. Cited by Basdekis, Orthodoxe Kirche, 126.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
606 Chapter (93)

own members regarded as compulsory. We usually overlook the fact that the common Christian faith of the
first millennium has been articulated in very concrete and brief texts, which in the history of the Ecumenical
Councils are called “Horoi” or creeds of faith. It would be surely useful for the future to write in common a
brief catechetical handbook for the faithful;15 it is also important for the credibility of the Christian churches
to express themselves and work in common for a series of problems of the multifarious and so complicated
modern human life, from the problems of bioethics to the issues concerning the environment. However, these
are exactly future targets to be accomplished: namely the inquiry and reconfirmation in every age anew of
the expression of the common Christian vision. What could serve as model of unity for the Churches in the
direct future?
It does not seem that the current problem of the Churches is how much they are to identify themselves
with the catholicity of the Church of Christ; all Churches claim that they express this catholicity, when this
is understood as the truth of faith and as faithfulness to the early tradition of Christianity. Moreover, the most
crucial question is how the Churches are related to each other on a global level.16 At the end it appears that
their problem is localized in the relations of the local Churches in terms of power and authority with those
institutions that can (or are called) to guarantee the unity of the Church of Christ. Both the Orthodox and the
Protestant Churches refuse to convey the certification and representation of their unity to a global institution,
such as the bishop of Rome in the current Roman–Catholic understanding. Since the Orthodox experience
their unity in actu (as it is built up in their long history and especially in their common liturgical rites, but also
in various dogmatic documents), they probably feel no need for another institution as guarantee of their unity.
However, as I briefly showed in the chapters 1 and 3 of this essay, this unity has been repeatedly challenged
by the completely different conditions the Orthodox Churches had to face in their modern history. Thus one
may observe that in the Orthodox Churches, too, the need is growing for the existence of an institution not
only on a local and a regional, but also on a universal level, which will enable the harmonious collaboration
of the Churches.17 According to my opinion, this is the great challenge and responsibility of the Churches in
their third millennium. It is self–evident that the institutions which may rise for the common expression of
the Christian unity can not guarantee this unity automatically, because this unity is a fruit of an intense effort
so that we experience the truth of Lord ’s word “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). Till when are the
Christian Churches allowed to prolong their divisions? In what other way could they express the visibly the
unity of the Christian faith?
The common participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist, as concrete visible expression of the unity of
the Church, is surely a very high expression of the communion of the faithful in the Body of Christ; on the
other side, it is surely not the only witness of faith, because faith is called to be incarnated in many other forms

15
Going further in this direction, we should regard the already many common texts of bi – and multilateral dialogues as a
precious help and secure basis. Concretely, concerning the ecclesiological question, I believe that the last version of the
text for the Church (in: The Church. Towards a Common Vision, Faith and Order Paper No. 214, 2013) could become a
starting point for the common march of the Churches.
16
Concerning this point, revealing is the text of Agia Napa (2011): after having identified the autocephalous Orthodox
Churches with the local Churches it is asking about the expression of unity on a global level: “The section on ‘The Church
as Communion of Local Churches’ is a case in point. On the one hand, it speaks of local churches as expressions of the
communion of the Church, leaving open the question of how each confession might read itself into the concept of ‘local’
and ‘universal’. The Orthodox would understand ‘local churches’ first and foremost in the intra-Orthodox sense (the
churches, e.g., of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch etc., and/or their local dioceses). Some non-Orthodox ecclesiologies
understand ‘local churches’ in a denominational sense, incorporating Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc., churches.” (§11).
17
This wish and need has been expressed by the official commision for the dialogue between Orthodox and Roman–Cath-
olics in the document of Ravenna (2007), which has not yet been officially accepted by the Churches which participate
in this dialogue (concerning the Orthodox side, the Russian Orthodox Church did not participate. See more in Athanasios
Vletsis, “Asymmetrien und Hoffnungen in einer geschwisterlichen Beziehung. Der Orthodox-Katholische Dialog blickt
zurück auf 30 bzw. 50 Jahre intensiver Beziehungen”, in Orthodoxes Forum 25 (2011), 187-200.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Athanasios Vletsis 607

of the common life of the Christian faithful in the world. I fear that, through the method we are following in
the ecumenical dialogue, by letting the eucharistic communion as the ultimately last ring of an endless chain
of inquiry for the unity under various and, more or less, recent dogmatic and other conditions of faith and
praxis, we instrumentalize the divine eucharist in order to achieve that highest possible common expression
of the ecclesial life, which is undoubtedly an eschatological good.18 Would it not be probably useful to think
that the acceptance of the absolutely basic terms of faith (such as the acceptance of the doctrinal decisions of
the Ecumenical Councils) and ecclesial order (such as the acceptance of the liturgical ministry and the value of
the apostolic succession)19, as they have been expressed in the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church,
may suffice for the restoration of the sacramental communion? A necessary condition is, of course, according
to the principle of consensus (which regulates the behaviour of the Churches in the context of the WCC), that
no Church will raise a “matter of faith” (status confessionis) on behalf of more recent developments, which
could by no way be accepted by other Churches. Nevertheless, such a demand (status confessionis) should be
raised only for absolutely necessary and compulsory issues, which cause problems for the articulation of the
common witness. The inquiry for a common statement on various new problems, from matters of social wel-
fare and responsibility to the issues of the structures of the synodal life of the Church, could every time define
new partial targets; thus the circles that the Church, centred in its eucharistic gatherings, draws will become
more and broader, till they experience their fulfilment in the great circle of the Kingdom of God, which will
embrace everybody and everything, so “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).20 However, during these two
thousand years, Christians should have learnt not to confuse the limits of the Kingdom of God with the ones
of their Church. Under this prism every season may become the beginning of a new fruition: the fruits of the
Spirit should surely not deteriorate due to the “weather conditions” of the human weakness and opportunism.
In every “ice age” (during the last years, the ecumenical movement talks a lot about it...) the faith to which the
Holy Spirit leads the Church in its march may open new roads of communication and blossoming.

Bibliography

Aagaard, Anna Marie –Bouteneff, Peter, Beyond the East – West Divide. The World Council of Churches and
‘the Orthodox Problem’, (Geneva: WCC, 2001).
Papandreou, Damaskinos, “Briefwechsel zwischen Metropolit Damaskinos und Kardinal Ratzinger”, in: In-
ternationale Katholische Zeitschrift – Communio 30 (2001), 282–96.
18
While in the line of the Orthodox tradition, which does not want the nature of the Church to be defined in an obligatory
and scholastic way, the common text of Orthodox and (ancient) Oriental Orthodox Churches in Agia Napa in 2011 (see
footnote 10) regards the way the Churches relate themselves to the Kingdom of God as a point of (total?) differentiation
among them: “The Church is a mystery in God’s providence, and is not systematically defined in Holy Scripture and in
the patristic teaching. The text provides various definitions from different Church traditions, but the text does not define
how the Church is related to God’s kingdom” (§42). If what is meant here is the symbolism of the Kingdom, as it is artic-
ulated especially in the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church, this can surely not be obligatory for all the Churches,
because the relation of the Church to the Kingdom of God is every time what we are asking for during the march of the
Church towards its fulfillment.
19
Concerning the apostolic succession, revealing is the text of the dialogue of the Roman–Catholic and the Lutheran Church
in 2006, published in: Johannes Oeldemann / Friederike Nüssel / Uwe Swarat / Athanasios Vletsis (eds.), Dokumente
wachsender Übereinstimmung. Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene, vol.
4: 2001–2010, (Paderborn-Leipzig 2012), 527-678.
20
The overcoming of the division between the local (autocephalous for the Orthodox) and the confessional Churches could
be the long–term result of their common Eucharistic life: the Churches of every geographical location would finally be
discerned according to their liturgical rites; by the passing of time the Eucharistic communion would allow them to artic-
ulate many other common expressions of ecclesial life. One may imagine that, speaking in long terms, the communion of
this shared life would let the circles of communion grow even in the liturgical tradition.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
608 Chapter (93)

Clapsis, Emmanuel, Conversation – Orthodox Ecumenical Engagements, (Geneva/ Brookline: WCC, 2000).
Kalaitzidis, Pantelis, “Challenges of Renewal and Reformation Facing the Orthodox Church”, The Ecumenical
Review, vol. 61 (2009), 136-164.
Larentzakis, Grigorios. “‘The One Church and its Unity’. Consultations between the Conference of European
Churches (CEC) and the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE)”, in: M. Beintker, M.
Friedrich, and V. Ionita (ed.), Leuenberg Documents 11 [in German and English]. (Frankfurt-am-Main:
Otto Lembeck, 2007), 75-105.
Tsompanidis. Stylianos, “The Church and the churches in the ecumenical movement”, in International journal
for the Study of the Christian Church 12:2 (2012), 1-16.

(translated by Georgios Vlantis)

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (94) ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AND DIALOGUE WITH MODERN SCIENCE

Adrian Lemeni

The dialogue between theology and science

from the Orthodox perspective in the actual epistemological context

There are certain assumed aspects of knowledge in the spirit of patristic and ecclesial Tradition that correspond in
epistemological implications of the scientific research from contemporaneity. This fact is stimulating especially
in the latest changes regarding contemporary science towards modernity, the actual epistemological mutations
having the same spectacular and consistent openings regarding profound and unified world understanding.
We are witnessing today by what means the unlimited trust in the power of knowledge to explain reality, the
science legitimation as the unique form of plausible knowledge, the complacency and triumphalism of positive
thought are overpassed on a epistemological level by the contemporary science. This perspective is sketching
the renewing and favorable pattern of forming and cultivating a conscience of dialogue between theological
and scientific knowledge.
To the degree that the efforts and searches of scientists that intuit the fact that the profound nature of reality
cannot be worn-out in conceptual representations and formulations, there is a responsibility of theology to answer
to such honest openings as far as scientific research concerns. The dialogue between theology and science doesn’t
mean the theology has to abdicate from the support of Revelation, but confessing the lived and revelatory Truth
in the life of the Church, assuming requirements of culture and dialogue in which the specific competences of
theology and science are respected. Distinct competences don’t assume a separation, but a unitary vision in the
plan of knowledge in which specific vocations of theological and scientific perspective are activated.
Between the paradigms of contemporary science there are significant epistemological mutations. Assuming
limits as epistemological openings among scientific research, represents a chance for shaping a dialogue between
theology and science. In this context, theology has a special responsibility, thus being called to generate and
encourage a conscience of dialogue so necessary for the present society.
For an approach of dialogue between theology and science in an Orthodox perspective, assuming authentic
theology is imperative. The mystery of theology is unraveling in the Holy Fathers’ Tradition lived inside the
Church. Theology is not to be understood only in its academic and rigorous concept explanation. Theology
requires the experience in the light of personal prayer and liturgical life, lived in the plenitude of the Church.
The living event that fundaments the identity of Christian theology is Jesus Christ, the Truth of the whole world
and of each one of us. Jesus Christ, the Logos of whole creation, through His Incarnation in history, He opens
a possibility of incarnating a theology as an act of life based on the immediate experience of the Church. This
is possible because in the Church, the mystic body of Christ, theology is being lived like a gift of God which
anticipates the presence of kingdom of God in history. The dynamics of theology is special, giving the fact
that there is a permanent ecclesial Tradition in the eschatological coordinate.
Theology is not only a capitalization of autonomous reason, capable of analysis, synthesis, demonstration
through a discursive capacity. The Holy Fathers of the Church made the distinction between dianoia and nous.
Modern thinking lost the significance of this distinction, whereat modernity made us get used to an exclusiv-
ist mentality, with a sensibility disunited by the false and artificial conflict created between reason and faith.
When the profound support of reason was weakened, the identity of reason was understood only as a natural
and discursive faculty of the mind. For the ecclesial Tradition of the Church, the distinction between dianoia
and nous in a united relation could help us understand today in an organic way, the link between reason and
faith, between science and theology.
610 Chapter (94)

Dianoia explains the discursive capacity of the mind, the power of analysis and construction of coherent
reasoning. The dimension of the mind explained by dianoia was harnessed especially in the occidental tradition,
through deductive analysis of realities from creation, through serious and detailed investigations on the world.
Exploration of God is not depleting through the capacity expressed by the dianoia. The nous is the faculty
of the mind that expresses intuition, knowledge understood as a united way of seeing that the connoisseur is
directly implicated in the known object. The nous meets more with faith, having a specific knowledge based
on an inductive and implicative reason.
The adequate relation between dianoia and nous, specific to the Orthodox Tradition, is an extension in an
epistemological plan of the indissoluble bond between natural and supernatural among the patristic ontology.
A part of the approaches met in the occidental context regarding the dialogue between theology and science,
understand that there is science that studies the world and theology that is occupied with the study of God’s
existence. In this way theology is understood only in its academic and conceptual side, detached by the life
of the Church. Whereas being precisely anchored in the life of the Church, gives the true identity of theology.
Likewise science is often reduced only at conceptions based on an instrumental reason which operates exclu-
sively with discursive capacity.
This perspective has to be exceeded in the approach of dialogue between theology and science from the
interior of the Orthodox Tradition. It demands that the confessor and dialogic conscience of the Holy Fathers
of the Church is retrieved. Assuming from a theological perspective of the existent openings from the science
and realizing an honest dialogue between theology and science, in fidelity to the Evangelic Truth represents a
significant coordinate of Church mission in the contemporary context. In the dialogue between theology and
science the specific potential of ecclesial Tradition has to be materialized.
This step being completed, once assuming the demanding of creating dynamic and steadfast fidelity of
Church Tradition, it can overpass the schematic understanding of dialogue between theology and science. A
schematic understanding entrusted exclusively in the power of discursive reason cannot express the adequate
relation between theology and science. “The step that places on the same level theology and science is possible
thanks to discursive reason, detached through its ambition by its spiritual basis, thinking that it’s capable of
exceeding both theology and science through a comparative analysis between them. This step can be chosen
by a variety of philosophies. In this understanding it is presuming that theology and science are uniform legally
epistemologically and ontologically. The naivety of this premise can be overpassed if theology is understood
as an expression of the life of the Church and through her, being asymmetric with science. On the contrary,
there is a risk that ambitious reason, forgiving about its spiritual basis, may have the pretention of trying to
judge with authority these aspects of human existence that overpass the capacity of reason”.1

The distinction between nous and dianoia - significant premise for contouring an adequate relation
between theology and science from an Orthodox perspective

The recovery of Orthodox anthropology based on the patristic and ecclesial tradition, following on the one
hand the actual epistemological context and contouring an adequate relation between theology and science in
an Orthodox perspective on the other, requires assuming the distinction between nous and dianoia. The Holy
Fathers identify nous with the spiritual intellect, with the faith that overpasses demonstration and requires
cleric-ecclesial experience. The faith is associated with the one true knowledge that overpasses the finished
demonstration. Dianoia represents the discursive capacity of understanding.
The nous indicates the reality of theology as a live and concrete experience of The One living God that is
above all concepts. Through nous, the idolatry of concepts and unlimited trust in the axiomatic power of thinking
are avoided. The nous is not reduced to faith, but expresses a center of the human existence, it indicates the
1
Alexei Nesteruk, Light from the East. Theology, Science and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis,
2003) 61-62.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Adrian Lemeni 611

core and fullness of the person, whereas it relates it to the supreme Logos. Between nous and dianoia there is a
relation, but confirming a distinction in a relationship based on reciprocity requires confirmation and recovery
of specific competences for theological and scientific knowledge.
From an Orthodox perspective, the relation between theology and science is asymmetrical because it assumes
the distinction between nous and dianoia, thus, an epistemological monism is overpassed in which theology
and science are placed on the same level of knowledge, through a homogeneity and equivalency of knowledge.
From the patristic and ecclesial Tradition perspective, theology is not consuming in the borders of theological
science, therefore, the relation between theology and science, from this perspective, could bring a renewed
wealth of senses and significations in consolidating the conscience of dialogue in this domain.
In the patristic gnoseology, the reason is not cancelled, but transfigured through faith. Knowledge is not
reduced to its instrumental dimension, to its contingent and contextual facticity, but in the reciprocity between
nous and dianoia, there is a priority of nous inasmuch as it is observed a prevalence of faith in relation to reason.
Faith is aprioristic towards knowledge based on analytic reason, it precedes it and it structures it including in
the dianoia practice.
For example, the rational evidences of God’s existence are either preceded by faith or they have no theolog-
ical significance, whereas faith cannot be founded and structured on arguments. Even if from a methodological
point of view, faith is not known as a reasonable option, it effectively structures and operates in a consequent
mode inside a knowledge that the exclusive intentionality of legitimation exists through dianoia.
The nous highlights and accentuates the authority of knowledge structured through faith. The faith expects
participation in the invoked and investigated reality; it also implies an impartation with someone or something
in the act of thinking. Faith doesn’t grow a knowledge based on the terms of an exterior relation. The God
invoked by the believer is not a metaphysical construction, but it is The living God with whom he/she relates
and kneels in front of Him and prays or brings doxology. Thinking about God and not having faith in Him
means an abstract and artificial knowledge. Faith is irreducible in concept and it generates a thinking of God
trough participation in His reality.
As much as faith is based on an implicative knowledge with an inside dimension, knowing through faith
means to interiorize, to assume existentially the investigated reality. Faith sends towards an experience that
cannot be exhausted through explanations. Faith is expressed through a dialogic type of knowledge such as
invitation-answer, exploring the mystery of the person. It is not a result of logical deductions.
The distinction between nous and dianoia shows the difference of intentionality inside the human sub-
jectivity, in the plan of knowledge. There is a type of intentionality based on the discursive rationality and a
spiritual type of intentionality structured through faith. In the relation between theology and science, starting
from the distinction between nous and dianoia, from an Orthodox perspective, the spiritual intentionality is
confirmed. This requires the ecclesial dimension. That is why the Orthodox perspective concening the relation
between theology and science notes as a mandatory and definite element, the ecclesial aspect of attitude and
reporting to this problem.
The ecclesial assuming of dialogue between theology and science requires the effort of tracing the spiri-
tual intentionality in the scientific and philosophical knowledge. Theology as an expression of clerical and
ecclesial living implicates the experience of the holy grace, but this experience of the holy grace through the
Holy Spirit from the mystic body of Christ generates a knowledge that exceeds the logical intentionality and
facticity. Although, knowledge based on dianoia is not despised, revaluation of the ecclesial dimension in the
relation between theology and science it is insisted on the existential effort of guessing profound realities that
are beyond the strict conceptual approach.
So “searching for the presence of the Spirit through science and philosophy, firstly means rediscovering
humanity behind science, in a serious way: not through a simple statement that all the scientific theories are
mental creations, but through disentangling the intentionalities implicated in different articulations of the world
from science and theology. Practically, this implies the fact that science - and general scientific activity - must

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
612 Chapter (94)

be appropriated not through analyzing the content of its theories and reality claims, but more likely through
some sort of “deconstruction” of its theoretic notions for discovering the structures of intentional human con-
science (of which correspondent is interpreted by science as objective world) and the integrating capacity of
sustaining the presence of the divine image in her and to confer this image to the world”.2
The ecclesial perspective of the relation between theology and science points to the life of the Church, to the
Holy Liturgy in which the descent of the Holy Spirit is experienced through epiclesis. Thus the entire creation
is renewed through the Holy Spirit in Christ, and the presence of the Spirit is invoked through liturgical events.
All these give sense to history and open it eschatologically towards the reality of the kingdom of God. The
fact that the experience of the holy grace through the Holy Spirit is possible only inside the life of the Church
shows the incompleteness of exclusively scientific approaches and institutions.

Assuming the comprehensive Patristic Tradition in the dialogue between theology and science

Assuming the Holy Fathers and Tradition imposes the requirements of an authentic ecclesial life in which the
Nicene Creed cannot be seen as simple exterior speech, but it is an act of life practiced in the daily existence.
The patristic perspective implies the dialogue between theology and culture, theology being called to answer
human needs in a contextual way. The dialogue must not let itself be stopped by extreme attitudes such as
intimidation or fear, or conversely by contempt and superiority. The dialogue between science and theology
does not mean concordism or syncretism through which numerous confusions are made. A meeting between
patristic gnosiology and scientific epistemology requires the existence and development of spiritual discernment.
Beyond mutual enrichment in the epistemological plan given by a complementary vision regarding scientific
and theological knowledge, the dialogue between theology and science completed in an honest way, could
be a mode of developing personal relationships according to the respect of alterity. An open conscience to
creatively assume the limits of human possibilities of research, reached by the profound mystery of creation,
is a conscience ready for science. Theology could strengthen this conscience hired in the effort of assuming
the world’s truth.
Orthodoxy affirms the actualization of patristic thought as essential in contemporaneity. This actualization
does not mean a simple textual appeal to our patristic writings, but more likely a mode that determines a true
inner resurrection and sharing the Truth with the world. The Church understood as a lab of resurrection in
which, through the Holy Liturgy, is foretasted here and now the kingdom of God, produces a radical metanoia
through which the human mind is renewed and thus the knowledge does not remain the exclusive result of a
critical and scholarly rationality which develops scholarly theories, hermetic towards the concrete needs of
the human being. A theology based on Orthodox Tradition generates a creative thinking, that is open towards
life and the needs of the contemporary world, and which gives answers by assuming the same way of life with
the Holy Fathers.
Contemporary science recognizes the rationality and the mystery of the world. Theology, starting from
epistemological mutations from the paradigm of contemporary science, can open an honest dialogue with
science, but insisting towards the fundamental particularities existent in the Orthodox Tradition. A profound
rationality of the world is not meeting its final purpose in the absence of a Person that generates and recapit-
ulates all the deep reasons of creation. Knowing these final reasons above any scientific objectivity claims,
means communion with the deified Logos, imitation of the accomplished communion between the Persons
of the Holy Trinity.
The unifying perspective of the Orthodox Tradition requires an opening towards the other. But this opening
is not only a formal relationship, animated and supported by mutual interests (and sometimes petty), but it
is strengthened by the power of holiness. The effort to obtaining a holy life requires suddenly both delicacy
manifested for the friend, but also the power of confessing the Truth of the Gospel. In the dialogue between
2
Alexei Nesteruk, Universul în comuniune, (Ed. Curtea Veche, Bucureşti, 2009) 243-244.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Adrian Lemeni 613

theology and science, theology must not be a victim of the concordist temptation or closed in a frustrating or
aggressive way towards science. Orthodox theology does not have any ideological position to defend, but only
to confess the redeeming Truth of the world. This way the risk of ideology can be overpassed, the one present
both in theology and science, and through which the distances are invented and amplified.
Consequent to the patristic Tradition, Orthodox theology always hopes in the chance of God working through
anyone, and does not give up the hope for fullness of conscience of the Truth which she is sharing. In this way
one can talk about the catholicity of Orthodoxy given by a fullness of the Truth that guides to holiness. But at
the same time this catholicity is open because the one who is hired in a real way on the Path of Truth and Life
that guides to holiness, is a creature open to its friend and to the whole world. The Saint is praying for all his
brethren and for the whole creation.

Ecclesial experience of the Truth – essential requirement of dialogue

between Orthodox theology and science

As far as Orthodox Tradition is concerned, the Truth can be lived in the most authentic way in the spiritual
and ecclesial experience. The Truth of the Orthodox Tradition is not accommodated to the requirements of a
theory that belongs to some specific era. That is why Orthodoxy does not have any resentment towards science
development and it does not feel the need to adjust its creed according to the rigors of a theory or another,
which is perfectible in time. From the ecclesial perspective, apologetics or fundamental theology should be
the path of an assuming dialogue in which Orthodoxy should be actualized. In this agreement, Orthodoxy is
not a confession among others neither is Christianity a simple religion among other religions. Orthodoxy is
the path of ecclesial experience of the Truth through which the eternal Life is shared, the believer living the
condition of son in relation with God, thanks to the Incarnation of Christ, the event that determines history to
be assumed in the perspective of the Resurrection.
The specific identity of dialogue between Orthodox theology and science can be discerned only by assuming
the integrating and unifying perspective of the Holy Fathers, for which the Truth is a central priority in their
ecclesial knowledge, thus the Truth that is experimented in a cleric and ecclesial life becomes the fundamental
criterion of apologetics. The autonomous intellect can only perceive forms of truth, pieces of conceptual truths,
without having access to the unified contemplation of Truth. A partial knowledge free from the integrality of a
cleric and ecclesial vision risks to distort the knowledge of the part. Only a knowledge understood as power of
the Holy Spirit can move the hearts and minds of people to receive Jesus Christ as Truth of the world, possible
to experiment in the living experience of the Church.
The Truth cannot be owned, but shared. Knowledge is not only an effort of finding the truth through an
intellect detached from the reality of the studied object, but it is the union of the knowing subject with the to-be-
known object. That is why sharing the deified truth is possible only through deep love of the living community
in the Church of Christ. In love, the true knowledge of Truth is possible and this knowledge is manifested as
love, but outside the accomplished communion of the Holy Trinity extended in the life of the Church, there is
no fullness of love. Thus, the Truth can be shared in the experience of cleric power of the ecclesial community.
The Truth is revealed in the light of the Pentecost paradigm. Sharing the Truth requires passing from death to
life, from a life encysted in the limits of decay to a life open to incorruption, of holy resurrection.
Christ is not a principal truth, quantifiable at the level of a concept and generator of doctrine systems or
moral codes. Christ is the personal Truth, of each and one of us and of the entire world, which calls us from
death to life and at the same time it gives us the power to resurrect through his victory upon death. Jesus does
not represent abstract doctrine truths, but He’s discovering Himself as The Path that takes to the Father. “I am
the light of the world” (John 8:72). Confessing the Truth is possible only by walking in the light of Christ.
Any separation from Christ takes us away from the absolute reality of the discovered Truth in the Son of God.
When Pilate asks Christ: “What is the truth?” the Savior does not give any definition, but he confesses: “To

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
614 Chapter (94)

this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every
one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:37). The essence of the Gospel is confessing the Incarnated
Truth that permits sharing the kingdom of God.
When Christ says that He is the Truth, He does it because He is the Life who saves the world. He frees it
from the conditions of sin. This way the truth is not an ontological content, assuming that the true life consists
in knowing God as a living communion with God. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3). Christ is the Truth because He does not only
offer a solution for the temporary existence mode subject to biologic conditions, but He offers the path that
takes to eternal life, possible to foretaste even in this existence, here and now.
Where the relation between theology and science tends to be associated only to the natural effort of proving
religious truths through an exclusive rationalist path, for assuming the ecclesial perspective of knowledge, the
confession of divine-humanity as a fundamental criterion is imperative. The experience in Christ, God-Human,
as Truth of the world makes passing all delusions possible. Father Stăniloae says:

“In this way I knew the Truth. We no longer consider the world as ultimate truth, but Christ, the Son of God, Creator
of the world and people, their Redeemer from the power of death and dark perspective of hell […] I knew that Christ
is the Truth from which and towards which all are carried. I knew that those who consider world as an ultimate truth
are in a lie, taking the darkness of an atheist culture as light. I knew that those who don’t know Christ as Son of God,
incarnated and light of the world, but they judge it as a unique reality, they’re living a big lie. I knew that all the words
that sustain this false idea are lies. I knew that, only by having them, we will be in an eternal poverty and death”.3

Bibliography

1. Alexei Nesteruk, Light from the East. Theology, Science and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, (Fortress
Press, Minneapolis, 2003).
2. Alexei Nesteruk, Universul în comuniune (The Universe as Communion), (Curtea Veche, București, 2009).
3. Adrian Lemeni, Adevăr şi comuniune (Truth and Communiion), (Editura Basilica, Patriarhia Română,
Bucureşti, 2011).
4. Adrian Lemeni, coordonator al volumului colectiv Repere patristice în dialogul dintre teologie şi ştiinţă
(Patristic Referencences in the Dialogue between Theology and Science), (Editura Basilica, Patriarhia
Română, Bucureşti, 2009).
5. Pr. Răzvan Ionescu, Adrian Lemeni, Dicţionar de teologie ortodoxă-ştiinţă (Dictionary on Orthodox The-
ology-Science), (Editura Curtea Veche, Bucureşti, 2009).
6. Adrian Lemeni, Pr. Răzvan Ionescu, Teologie ortodoxă şi ştiinţă (Orthodox Theology and Science), (Editura
Institutului Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Bucureşti, 2007).

3
Pr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Iisus Hristos, lumina lumii şi îndumnezeitorul omului, Ed. Anastasia, (Bucureşti, 1993) 79.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (95) THE RELEVANCE OF ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY FOR THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT 1

Ciprian Toroczkai

According to Vladimir Lossky (1903-1958), one of the greatest Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century,
there has never been a clear distinction in the Eastern tradition between mysticism and theology, between the
personal experience of the divine mysteries and the dogma affirmed by the Church. In other words, there is no
Christian mysticism without theology, but mostly, there is no theology without mysticism; mysticism is the
completion of the entire theology or the theology par excellence.2
Drawing a parallel between mysticism and spirituality, Andrew Louth showed the interdependence of
theology and spirituality. “Spirituality – prayer – is … that which keeps theology to its proper vocation, that
which prevents theology from evading its own real object”.3 But the “object” of theology is actually a subject,
or rather the supreme subject, God. “Theology is neither concerned exclusively with the truth of certain doc-
trines, nor with the validity of a certain way of life, but with the response of loving devotion to the revelation
of God’s love and God’s glory in Jesus Christ – a response that involves an orientation of our whole being, a
way of life, and the articulation of that glory in what we call doctrine”.4
Dumitru Stăniloae (1903-1993) summarized the patristic teaching on spirituality and stressed that it pre-
sented the Christian advance on the path of perfection in Christ, by cleansing passions and acquiring virtues.
It is a process that takes place in a specific order: first, man goes from cleansing a passion to cleansing another
one, and thus acquires different virtues that fit a certain level of perfection; the peak of the process is love that
means cleansing all the passions and acquiring all virtues. Moving toward this peak, man comes in union with
Jesus Christ and in knowledge of Him through experience, i.e. deification (theosis). Deification or relentless
increase of divine love is the third and final stage of apophatism5 (the first step is rational knowledge of God
through rational negation, in the sense that He is not to be attributed anything evil, the second step is “the mind
rest”6 when the words of the prayer become fewer and the gift of tears appears7).
Understanding Orthodox spirituality has its dangers. Thus, two opposite but equally false trends may be
identified. The first may be called “Denzinger-Theology”. The logic of such a theology is that it consists of a
collection of true theological statements with reference to which any theological utterance may be checked.
Apart from the objective criteria (such as the Scripture and the creeds), the appeal is to reason or, more exactly,
to discursive reason.
The other tendency rejects such notions as prepositional truth; what is important is the authenticity of a
certain attitude to life. Those who support the second tendency insist that something as deeply true as theology
will not be easy of access (acceptance of God’s revelation is more than a merely intellectual matter).
We deal here with an “apparent interior antinomy” that exists between the concrete experience, which moves
us and helps us to determine our will, and abstract reasoning, which does not help directly to determine the will.
1
The first following article on this subject was written by Ciprian Toroczkai while the second one was written by Chris-
topher Savage (ed.)
2
Vladimir Lossky, Essai sur la théologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient, (Les Editions du Cerf, 1990).
3
Andrew Louth, Theology and Spirituality, (SLG Press, Convent of the Incarnation, Oxford, 1976), p. 4.
4
Ibid, p. 7.
5
Dumitru Stăniloae, Ascetica și Mistica Ortodoxă [Orthodox Ascetic and Mystic] 2 vol., (Deisis, Alba-Iulia, 1993).
6
See the prayer of the heart, which consists in repeating the words: “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner”, or
just “Lord Jesus Christ”.
7
Irénée Hausherr, Penthos: the Doctrine of Compunction in the Christian East, (Cistercian Publications Inc., Kalamazoo,
1982).
616 Chapter (95)

This antinomy resolved in the saintly life.8 It is not by chance that Evagrius said that “He who prays is a theo-
logian; a theologian is one who prays”. The saint proves that the theologian and the contemplative complement
one another. The contemplative knows by experience, the theologian declares what is thus known. “Neither
the contemplative nor the theologian is separated from the other: there is something of the theologian in the
contemplative and of the contemplative in the theologian”.9 The true understanding of theology is “Theology
interpreting spirituality, and spirituality informing theology”.10
We now understand the great appreciation that the saints have always enjoyed in Orthodoxy. The role of
the spiritual father (“abba”, called by the Greeks gheron, “elder” and by the Russians starets, “abbot”) is to be
a guide and companion for the other Christians towards salvation. The spiritual father received his ministry
through the direct work of the Holy Spirit. Although retired from the world, he helps people not through what he
says or does, but through his very existence, through the state of unceasing prayer. In this regard St. Seraphim
of Sarov said: “Acquire inner peace and lots of people will find salvation around you”. The saint achieves this
precisely because of the gifts he receives from the Holy Spirit, to help his spiritual “children”, i.e. 1) insight
or discernment, 2) the ability to love others and to make the sufferings of others his own, and 3) the power to
transform the human, material and immaterial environment (as e.g. in the case of the charisma of healing).11
In 1980, Professor Ion Bria published in Geneva a collective volume dedicated to the testimony of the Or-
thodox Churches at that time. He also reedited a small study which had been published by Fr. Stăniloae two
years prior to the publication of the volume.12 Although small in size, it has a special value because it exposes
not only the main features of the Orthodox mission, but also the main contributions that Orthodoxy can bring
in the future in the contemporary world.
The question that the Romanian theologian tried to answer was: why did the early Church experience a
tremendous missionary success among non-Christians, while in the second Christian millennium it was not
able to unfreeze the hardened hearts of the non-Christians? Is it about – asks Fr. Stăniloae – the very way that
the Christian Church introduced itself in the second millennium?
The answers that Dumitru Stăniloae offers in an attempt to unravel the cause of the failure of the Church
to be missionary, from both an internal and an external point of view, return to the present condition of the
human being. Humans have experienced the dominant role of technology in their lives; technology met all
their material needs, and led to the loss of spiritual interests. People today have tried to satisfy their spiritual
needs through a series of substitutes such as the television and the internet, drugs, alcohol or sex, and some,
unable to quench their spiritual thirst and hunger by means of material nature, turned to superficial religious
forms of spirituality. Only the Orthodox spirituality can enable humans to discover and accomplish the full
possibilities of their nature, and thus enter into a mystical and personal communion with the heavenly Father.
Orthodox spirituality can help them rediscover a balanced and profound life, and this is achieved by receiving
the uncreated power of God, which is accessible through Christ and in the Holy Spirit.
D. Stăniloae supported that the main concern of the Church in the contemporary world is to restore com-
munion among people, especially since they experience, paradoxically, more loneliness: communion was lost
in the life of the big cities, which is nothing but wilderness, now filled with great turmoil. He stressed that the
fact that Orthodoxy attracts the attention of the Western world is not just because it is preaching a message of
a personal, loving God, the only one who can save man forever by sharing this love, but also due to the fact
that it offers people who live here and now that delicate presence of love, and communion of faith, which
belong to a life of holiness.
8
Andrew Louth, op. cit., p. 6-7.
9
Ibid, p. 16.
10
Ibid, p. 13.
11
Kallistos Ware, “The Spiritual Father in Orthodox Christianity”, Cross Currents nr. 2-3 (1974), p. 296-313. see Irénée
Hausherr, Direction spirituelle en Orient autrefois (“Orientalia Christiana Analecta” 144), (Roma, 1955).
12
Dumitru Stăniloae, “Witness Through ‘Holiness’ of Life”, in Ion Bria (ed.), Martyria/Mission: the Witness of the Orthodox
Churches Today, Comission on World Mission and Evangelism, (World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1980), p. 45-51.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ciprian Toroczkai/Christopher Savage 617

Orthodox mission therefore is superior to all other missions not because of the superiority of a particular
type of message, but due to the very life of its preachers, saints and martyrs, who can truly awaken the thirst
for holiness and immortality in people, and also give them confidence that this possibility can be realized. Their
power comes not from certain human cultural and spiritual qualities, but from the divine grace that dwells in
them. Stăniloae wrote in this respect that only the saints and martyrs can lead people to Christ, drawing their
souls with the divine power that is shining in them. It is a power and capacity to love that makes them reach
the stage of total self-sacrifice. People have the conviction that being a saint or martyr can be achieved through
the divine grace, and they can acquire this grace too, and offer themselves to God and to their neighbor.
Consequently, the most important value of Orthodoxy consists in the possibility of holiness that it offers,
combined with an understanding of the Church as a divine-human communion in Christ (not as a mere human
institution). Thus, in order to prove its missionary orientation, the Orthodox Church must do nothing but be
open towards the uncreated power of God, and believe that helped by this power it is possible for believers to
live a life of holiness and sacrifice. Also, the Orthodox Church should be renewed as communion.
Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae points out that the efforts of the ancestors, the great hesychasts and saints or the
charismatic people of Orthodoxy are to be mentioned in this respect. Without specifically intending it, they
practiced mission through their very life and work. As St. Gregory Palamas affirmed in the 14th century, the
hesychasts participated in the same grace as that manifested in the early Church by the Apostles and their
immediate missionary successors. Since holiness and the absolute self-giving is the only way to do mission
effectively, we should therefore search for the experience of the uncreated divine power, which offers both
to humans.
The question then arises: are there saints in today’s Orthodox Church anymore? If so, what is their ecumen-
ical relevance? The answer to the first question is definitely yes. Let us recall Vladimir Lossky’s definition
of Tradition as “the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church”13. The continuous presence of the Holy Spirit in the
Church is shown both through the Holy Sacraments and the holy works and actions, and through the saints.
Concerning the second question, on the ecumenical relevance of contemporary Orthodox spirituality, we
will focus on a single example and recall the Athonite Schimonach Silouan Ivanovich Antonov (1866-1938).
Born in Russia, he reached the Holy Mountain in the fall of 1892. For 46 years, he lived in the Russikon
monastery the common life of a monk of the Holy Mountain, marked by long services and vigils in the church,
the rule of the personal prayer in his cell, frequent confessions and sharing, work and obedience. The long
process of inner perfection, through which Silouan gradually reached the spiritual level of the great Fathers
of the desert, is essential. It was a dramatic ascetic-mystical process, characterized by graceful illuminations
and their loss, which made Silouan exclaim: “Keep your mind in Hell and do not despair”14. Throughout
his life, St. Silouan demonstrated that only with Christ can one descend to hell, meaning that he/she can
overcome sin and death. To summarize, the center of his experience was universal love, the underpinning
of all virtues, and access to it was provided by unceasing prayer and humility.15 Hence Silouan’s great gift
for today’s world: prayer for all people, including the enemies. “Our brother is our life”, he said, showing
that salvation is not only an ontological event (a change from the physical “old man”, to the spiritual “new
man”), but also a cosmic event (salvation of the whole humanity, the whole cosmos, is part of one’s own,
personal salvation).
The recognition of his holiness came in June 1988, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate canonized the blessed
Silouan as “apostolic and prophetic teacher of the Church and of the Christian people”. Moreover, Archiman-
13
Vladimir Lossky, “Tradition and Traditions”, in Idem, In the Image and Likeness of God, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
Crestwood, NY, 1974), p. 141-168.
14
Старец Силуан, Жизнь и поучения [Life andTeachings], Издательство „Православнаяобщина”, Москва – Ново-
Казачье – Минск, 1991.
15
Although a simple and unlearned peasant, Silouan was visited by many bishops, priests and lay people, including ac-
ademics. One of the monks, surprised, asked another: “Why they go to him? It seems to me that still, he is not reading
anything”. The answer was: “He does not read anything but does everything, while others read everything but do nothing”.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
618 Chapter (95)

drite Iustin Popovici (1894-1979), the most important Serbian Orthodox theologian of the 20th century and
author of the collection in 12 volumes The Lives of the Saints, did not hesitate to compare St. Silouan with St.
Symeon the New Theologian.
The influential spirituality and spiritual fatherhood of the Blessed Silouan the Athonite manifested in differ-
ent ways, one of which being the flourishing of his spiritual sons who continued his spiritual work. His most
important disciple was Sophrony Sakharov (1896-1993). Born in Moscow, he went into exile in Paris in 1921.
He reached Mount Athos in 1925, entering as a monk at the monastery Russikon. He was practiced obedience
under Silouan the Blessed until the death of the latter in 1938. He was ordained priest in 1941. After a while,
he got sick and had to return to Paris in 1947, where he was operated. Miraculously, he survived the disease
and in 1948 he wrote a book about “Abbot” Silouan.16 He wanted to return to Athos, but he was denied a visa,
which made him settle in England, where he set in 1959, the Orthodox monastic community in Maldon/ Essex.
The first church dedicated to the Blessed Silouan was consecrated in 1988 at the monastery which is dedicated
to St. John the Baptist. Father Sophrony’s writings have been translated into several languages,17 influencing
people of different faiths.18
Member of the monastic community of Essex there was also monk Raphael Noica (b. 1942), of Romanian
origin, who now lives as a hermit in Romania.19 His life testifies the unity of the spiritual experience in the
Orthodox Church, regardless of the context (Mount Athos or the West) and the origin of those who are leading
a life of holiness: Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc.
One should notice that the recognition of Silouan’s holiness was not limited in the Orthodox space. The
expression: “and to the Christian people” in the act of canonization is not accidental. Silouan is considered a
saint not only of the Orthodox Church stricto sensu, but of all Christians, regardless of confession. Thus, the
famous American Cistercian monk Thomas Merton (1915-1968) wrote in 1958 that Silouan “was perhaps the
most authentic monk of the 20th century” and Enzo Bianchi called him a real “saint without borders”.20 The
great popularity that St. Silouan enjoyed is also affirmed by the establishment of the International Association
of St. Silouan the Athonite in Switzerland, in 1993, by twelve members among which there was a Benedictine
monk and two Protestant ministers. Today the Association has hundreds of members from over 20 countries,
their activity being centered on “the organization of meetings” and editing of “Notebooks of St. Silouan the
Athonite: The Burning Bush” (Buisson Ardent).
The circulation of Buisson Ardent led to the recognition of St. Silouan’s holiness and to the reception of
his thought (and that of Archimandrite Sophrony) beyond the visible boundaries of the Orthodox Church.
For example, even before the official canonization of Silouan, the Roman Catholic monks of the abbeys of
Saint-Wandrille, Lérins and Tamié were placed under the spiritual fatherhood of Abbot Silouan, adopting his
name. In the Latin litany he is invoked with these words: “Holy Father Silouan the Athonite, pray to God for us”.
The relevance of St. Silouan’s thinking for Western monasticism is attested in the writings of a Benedictine
monk.21 Also, the experience of a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment for murder who came to convert to
16
This book is Starets Silouan. Moine du Mont Athos (1886-1938). Vie – Doctrine – Ecrits, (Editions Presence, Paris, 1973).
17
We offer here the first edition of his main writing: Sa vie est la mienne, (Cerf, Paris, 1981); VoirDieu tel qu’Il est, (Labor
et Fides, Geneva, 1984); La félicité de connaître la Voie, (Labor et Fides, Geneva, 1988). On Sophrony’s spirituality, see
Nicholas V. Sakharov, I Love Therefore I Am, (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, NY, 2003).
18
An example here is the case of Klaus Kenneth, who describes the experience of conversion after meeting Abbot Sophrony
in the book Born to Hate, Reborn to Love: A Spiritual Odyssey from Head to Heart, (Mount Thabor Publishing, 2012).
19
Among his works we recall Celălalt Noica [The Other Noica], Anastasia, București, 1994; Cultura Duhului [Culture of
the Spirit], (Reîntregirea, Alba Iulia, 2002).
20
Likewise, Maxime Egger called him “a universal saint”. Cf. Maxime Egger, “Starets Silouane: un saint actuel et univer-
sel”, Contacts 171 (1995), nr. 3, p. 162-182.
21
Dom Silouane, “Quand un moine bénédictinreçoit la paternité de saint Silouane”, in Buissont Ardent. Cahiers Saint-Si-
louane l’Athonite nr. 1, (Ed. Le Sel de la Terre, Pully, 1995), p. 69-82. Worthy to be mentioned is also the conversion
experience of David Balfour (1903-1989), an English Catholic monk who met Abbot Silouan and Fr. Sophronius during a

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ciprian Toroczkai/Christopher Savage 619

Orthodoxy after reading the writings of Silouan in prison, becoming even an icon painter and monk, verifies
the same thing.22
A guide of the great religions published by Cerf in 1997 in France, considered Silouan the witness par excel-
lence of the Orthodox tradition “who summarizes in himself all the aspects of the Eastern holiness” alongside
Dalai Lama for Buddhism and Mahatma Gandhi for Hinduism. In 1998, Jean Biès published a book entitled
Les Grands Initiés du XXe siècle (Ed. Philippe Lebaud), where St. Silouan is remembered alongside great per-
sonalities like Sri Arobindo, Martin Buber, René Guénon, Georges Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti etc. Finally, in the
article on “forgiveness” in the Dictionnaire d’éthique et de philosophie moral – a reference work published in
1996 by Presses Universitaires de France – Abbot Silouan is quoted alongside Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca,
Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Ricoeur.
All these examples reflect interest in St. Silouan in particular, but also in the Orthodox spirituality in
general. It would be wrong to consider Silouan one of the “great Gnostic initiated people”, regardless of his
affiliation to the Church, and place him among the saints of the “universal Church”, passing over in silence
his adherence to the Orthodox faith and his ascetic-mystical practice inherited by the great tradition of the
Fathers of the Philokalia.
I conclude by evoking a lecture on the occasion of the 10th congress of the Orthodox Brotherhood in Western
Europe (30 October-1 November 1999, Paray-le-Monial, France) by Olivier Clément (published in Service
Orthodoxe du Presse suppl. 243, December 1999). He outlined three basic requirements for a fruitful witness
of Orthodoxy in the West: 1) “to try to make ‘talking’ coincide with ‘doing’”, 2) “to give back to history its
open and creative dimension through the work of the Holy Spirit in it”, and 3) “to try to think less against”.
Recalling examples of such attitudes of spiritual people like Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, Father Lev Gillet
or Fathers Silouan and Sophrony, Clément said: “We are not here (in the West, n. n.) to condemn, but to bear
witness and to share”.

Bibliography

Vladimir Lossky, Essai sur la théologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient, (Les Editions du Cerf, 1990).
Andrew Louth, Theology and Spirituality, (SLG Press, Convent of the Incarnation, Oxford, 1976).
Dumitru Stăniloae, Ascetica și Mistica Ortodoxă [Orthodox Ascetic and Mystic] 2 vol., (Deisis, Alba-Iulia, 1993).
Irénée Hausherr, Penthos: the Doctrine of Compunction in the Christian East, (Cistercian Publications Inc.,
Kalamazoo, 1982).
Irénée Hausherr, Direction spirituelle en Orient autrefois (“Orientalia Christiana Analecta” 144), (Roma, 1955).
Dumitru Stăniloae, “Witness Through «Holiness» of Life”, in Ion Bria (ed.), Martyria/Mission: the Witness
of the Orthodox Churches Today, (Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, World Council of
Churches, Geneva, 1980), p. 45-51.
Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1974).
Archimandrite Sophrony, Starets Silouan. Moine du Mont Athos (1886-1938). Vie – Doctrine – Ecrits, (Editions
Presence, Paris, 1973).

visit to Athos in 1932. He maintained an extensive correspondence with Fr. Sophronius which is important to understand
the Orthodox spirituality of the 20th century. See for example Archimandrite Sophrony, “Lettre à un ami”, in Buissont
Ardent. Cahiers Saint-Silouane l’Athonite no. 5, (Ed Sel de la Terre, Pully, 1999), p. 2-8.
22
Dan Siluan, Gotthinter Gittern. Mein Weg vom Straftäter zum Ikonenmaler, Herder Verlag, Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1994.
According to his own confession, the writer’s encounter with St. Silouan’s thinking totally changed his way of life: “behind
the bars and the prison walls I became a free man”.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
620 Chapter (95)

The relevance of Orthodox Spirituality for the ecumenical movement

Christopher Savage

It is important to state from the outset that the following reflections on the relevance of Orthodox spiri-
tuality to ecumenism stem more from my lived experience as an Orthodox monk residing in an Orthodox
monastery for over thirty years, than from disciplined, scholarly work. My monastery, New Skete, is
located in an area of the United States that has a very small Orthodox population, and while we have a
small but devout congregation that worships with us on weekends, the majority of visitors that come to
the monastery are largely from different traditions. For many, their encounter with us has been their first
experience of Orthodoxy, and the spiritual tradition they discover often encourages them to explore how
it might link with and enrich their own spiritual journey. More than anything, this fact is what has shaped
my convictions about how we share our heritage. My focus is decidedly from a grassroots perspective --
from the ground up -- and witnesses to the impact our spiritual tradition can have on ordinary people from
other denominations, even other faiths.
As Christians, we are called by Jesus to love God with our whole mind, our whole heart, soul and strength,
and to love our neighbor as ourself (cf. Mk 12:29-31). This commandment encompasses everything that is
truly human, from that which is innermost in the heart, to that which we communicate by word, to the more
external effects of our behavior. They form an indivisible unity that is meant to be a constant response through
the ebb and flow of our everyday lives. Inevitably we will do this out of the perspective of a particular tradi-
tion, and each tradition has important lessons to share with the others. This is one of the bases, the rationales
for ecumenical sharing. As the practice of our monastery is to welcome all without exception, we are simply
following a perennial hallmark of Orthodox spirituality: hospitality. Not only did the early monks of the desert
humbly welcome pilgrims in search of deeper understanding, we see the same warmth and openness manifest
throughout the best expressions of the history of our church. There is the appreciation, the awareness that in
welcoming the other, we welcome Christ.
For us, this has meant a willingness to share from the riches of our tradition, as well as being open to
listening to the other. One can’t have one without the other. The only way other Christians (or more broadly
individuals of other faiths) will be attracted to explore the deeper dimensions of Orthodoxy is if they encounter
in us a respect and love that reflect the Gospel values we hope to live by. That sort of witness resists any sort
of triumphalism, but is truly comfortable in its own ecclesial skin. We have nothing to be afraid of in such
an encounter, no fear of watering down the faith, for we know who we are and that God’s love extends to all.
When people experience such an attitude, they are actually interested in what we believe.
Given this, I believe that one crucial insight that other believers discover in Orthodoxy is anthropological
in nature: that Christian life is characterized by its organic wholeness. Orthodoxy resists any sort of artificial
separation of sacred and secular. Rather, it understands that life is permeated by the presence of God and
that fundamentally the human vocation is to come to share fully in the divine life, the process of theosis, or
divinization. “God came human so that humans might become God”23 wrote St Athanasius in the fourth cen-
tury and St Basil echoes this when he wrote, “The human being is an animal who has received the vocation
to become God.”24 Our vocation as human beings is to fulfill our humanity by becoming God through grace,
that is to say through a life of deepening (and ultimately unending) communion with God. This is to fulfill our
human nature in the most dynamic of ways, to live life in its abundance. It is to realize the freedom proper for
a creature made in the image and likeness of God.
23
On the Incarnation, sec 54.
24
quoted by Gregory of Nazianzus, Eulogy of Basil the Great, Oration 43, 48

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ciprian Toroczkai/Christopher Savage 621

Three Gifts

While there is obviously a wealth of spiritual treasure from Orthodoxy that could be relevant to a living and
vibrant ecumenism, in this short essay I would single out three gifts, three graces that the Orthodox tradition
brings to the ecumenical table: a radically incarnate spirituality, a tradition of worship that is truly transcendent
in character, and a tradition of prayer that emphasizes its continuous, unceasing nature, even in the midst of
the busiest of lives. Each believer needs to unpack each gift and apply it to their own life, but it seems to me
that the Orthodox tradition speaks from the wisdom of experience -- two millennia’s worth -- and I believe all
believers can benefit from its witness.

A radically incarnate spirituality

When we say ‘radically incarnate’, what do we mean? In a word, we go to God through matter. Orthodoxy
has always highlighted the mystery in Christianity of bringing together the divine and human in the person of
Jesus. This was the essential balancing theme of the Council of Chalcedon long ago in 451 C.E., and it supports
the conviction that God, by his very nature and essence, communicates himself and has done so definitively
in Jesus. Chalcedon embraces the paradox that Jesus can be fully God and fully human at the same time. As
God, Jesus is the Word incarnate, who reveals God’s inexhaustible love for humanity and for all creation, and
the lengths God will go to bring us to salvation. As man, Jesus shares completely in the human experience,
understanding from within all that a human being feels without succumbing to the alienating lure of sin. Jesus
can be fully compassionate because he shares fully in our nature. Throughout his earthly life, at no time was
Jesus “out of touch with the Father”, and his example teaches us that life is not an impediment to living in
God’s presence, but is the very means we do so. We are not Platonists. Indeed, God can show Himself in every
human situation if only we are open to it. This reinforces the understanding of the creation account where six
times we find it affirmed that “God saw that it was good”, and finally, upon finishing and viewing all that he
had made, God saw that indeed it was very good (Gen 1: 4-31). God makes the entire created order good. Evil
comes about only through what emerges from the human heart, and thus, our penetrating recognition of the
created order can be the very means for living in the presence of God.
In today’s world this message cannot be more relevant. We don’t have to flee the material to be connected
with the spiritual. Indeed, beyond the person of Jesus, Orthodoxy teaches that the whole of creation is permeated
by the uncreated “energies of God” and are one of the means God uses to relate with the world, above all, with
humanity. While unknowable in his essence, God is revealed to us through his energies in the created order
and this leads to a reverent respect for creation. In an ecumenical context, it is extremely useful to be able to
witness to the fact that the Christian tradition, in its most authentic expression, has always been world and life
affirming and that concern for this is not simply the product of contemporary sensibilities. This is certainly
something that visitors to our monastery deeply resonate with.

Transcendent Worship
One of the principal characteristics that Orthodoxy has always manifested is a deep concern for worship.
When Prince Vladimir of Kiev sent envoys throughout the world to explore a fitting faith for his kingdom in
the eleven4th century, the envoys reported back that when they had attended liturgy in Constantinople, “we
did not know whether we were in heaven or on earth, for we have never experienced such beauty, nor do we
know how to tell of it.” Vladimir was so impressed by their witness that he chose Orthodoxy to be the religion
of his realm.
What this famous story highlights is that worship and a concern for its transcendent beauty has always been
a central concern of Orthodoxy. Worship, while using ritual, has nothing to do with mere ritualism nor is it seen
in any sort of a magical way. Rather, when conducted with deep reverence and with the artistic components

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
622 Chapter (95)

that have matured throughout the centuries, it expresses to its members the grandeur of God and the crucial
message that God must increase while human beings decrease. The Russian writer Dostoevsky once said that
‘beauty will save the world’, and one could argue that the beauty of Orthodox liturgy, which rises to the Lord
of the universe amidst incense, harmonious chant and gorgeous iconography and church architecture, gathers
the faithful in its embrace and lifts them to an experience of the Living God that is transformative and salvific.
This is why from the Orthodox perspective, the new life in Christ is always related to worship and liturgy,
never detached from them. As important as prayer, ministry, and the other elements of Christian life are, they
are never complete if they are not rooted in the experience of worship. Certainly the sacramental nature of
Christian worship leaves an open ceiling to the experience of God, the experience of the Holy. It is also what
binds the community together in a sense of ‘oneness’, of being part of the same body, making it a true ‘myst-
agogy’, something that progressively initiates us into the wonders of divine life.
Orthodoxy witnesses to this; it reminds the rest of the church of worship’s importance on an existential
level and offers the fruit of its own experience for deepening our sense of the Holy, the sacred. Over the
course of many years of receiving guests here at New Skete, we are aware of the profound impact Orthodox
worship has upon those who participate in it, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike. For the many non-Ortho-
dox, one of the constant comments we hear is how the beauty of the service made them forget themselves
for a time, how it ‘refreshed’ them, and left them wondering how they might draw the same sort of spiritual
nourishment from their own worship traditions. Beauty is surely not confined to one tradition. However, from
our own experience of beauty in worship, I believe Orthodoxy can call our separated brothers and sisters in
Christ to an appreciation and renewal of their own worship traditions, and the transforming place that each
has in Christian life.

A tradition of continuous prayer

Within the tradition of Orthodoxy there has always been a fascination with the inner life, and the role that
prayer has in being a follower of Christ. Orthodoxy possesses a vast literature on prayer that largely (though
by no means exclusively) stems from monastic sources that try to articulate what a life that is increasingly
contemplative might look like: not, let us be clear, a monastic, cloistered life (though a person’s attraction
could take them in that direction), but through realizing in whatever life one happens to be called to a prayer-
fulness that is increasingly constant, that seeks to express itself in the various rhythms of our lives. Believers
from other denominations and traditions often look to Orthodoxy for guidance in this regard, and I believe
we can speak helpfully out of our experience so long as we are honest and unpretentious. Prayer is a journey
for everyone.
Yet prayer becomes more vital when we look at it less as an individual act than as a state that progressive-
ly deepens. This comes from the call to unceasing prayer, what St Paul exhorts us to in his first letter to the
Thessalonians (5:17) when he writes, “Pray without ceasing.” Though utterly central to Christian monastic
tradition, East and West, we misunderstand this entirely if we conceive of it as applying only to monks. It is
each Christian’s vocation, indeed the fundamental human vocation, for prayer acknowledges and celebrates
who we are in God. To pray without ceasing is simply becoming who we truly are, for it is only in relationship
to God that we flourish.
But what would this look like? How would we avoid a practice that is fanatical and unnatural? St Basil
the Great gives us a clue when he says, “this is how you pray continually – not by offering prayer in words,
but by joining yourself to God through your whole way of life, so that your life becomes one continuous and
uninterrupted prayer…”25 You don’t have to be sequestered in a monastery to feel the relevance of that text.
Another desert father put it more tersely: “a person who prays only when they pray, is one who does not pray
at all.” What both of these fathers are getting at is prayerfulness, a climate of prayer in which we live and
25
Homily on the Martyr Julitta, 3-4.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Ciprian Toroczkai/Christopher Savage 623

breathe, and which expresses itself in a rich variety of ways, often without words. May it be said boldly and
unambiguously: To pray without ceasing has little to do with always saying prayers, being artificially pious – in
fact, to try to do that is the surest way to frustrate its development. While we may incorporate practices such
as the Jesus Prayer to deepen our sense of prayerfulness, a literal application of it can be counterproductive.
Instead, true prayerfulness is being absolutely in touch with reality, loving and serving the God of prayer in
quiet, attentive openness. There is no divided consciousness here, no trying to do two things at once. We don’t
pay any less attention to daily realities or retreat from life’s responsibilities. When we’re living prayerfully we
simply acknowledge God’s presence in the demands of the now and cooperate with it, moment by moment.
I believe these three “gifts” are one example of how Orthodox spirituality can enrich the ecumenical movement
by speaking out of its own experience in a way that touches the common concerns of Christians everywhere.
Granted, they have an Orthodox flavor, but isn’t that the desire of true ecumenical sharing?

Bibliography

Bulgakov, Sergius. Orthodoxy, (St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary Press: Crestwood, New York, 1997)
Clement, Olivier, The Roots of Christian Mysticism, (New City Press: London,1982).
Evdokimov, Paul Orthodoxy (New City Press: Hyde Park, New York, 2011)
Monks of New Skete, In the Spirit of Happiness (Little, Brown & Co.:, New York, 1999)
Spidlik, Tomas, Prayer: The Spirituality of the Christian East. (Cistercian Publications: Kalamazoo, Michigan,
2005)

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
 (96) THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
AS AN EXAMPLE OF ECUMENICAL LEARNING

Daniel Ayuch

Introduction

The theological reflection about the place of Scripture in the Church has a long history in the writings of the Or-
thodox Church. The liturgical celebrations give a constitutional role to the Bible and the Holy Fathers consecrate
a major amount of their studies to interpret the word of God. Scripture has not been considered as a mere topic
in theology, but rather as the true source to be consulted to discover the authentic contents of faith. Therefore,
it is undisputable that Scripture and Tradition are one corpus in the life and thought of the Orthodox Church.
On the other hand, the dialectical relationship between Scripture and Tradition was first proposed in the context
of the controversies between the rise of Protestantism and the apologetic answer to it by Catholicism. Within this
framework the insistence on sola scriptura was understood as a Protestant doctrine, while Catholicism stressed on
the importance of tradition. This simplistic exposition speaks above all about a situation that took place centuries
ago. With the course of time and after Vatican II many things have changed. Protestants have their own liturgical
and ecclesiastical traditions, while Catholics have reaffirmed the role of the Written Word in the Church.
Orthodoxy has interacted in this discussion from different points of view and in different periods of history.
Modern theological and systematic writings dealing with this issue reflect a variety of standpoints depending
on the writers’ own approach and the particular questions they deal with. This is why this question of Scripture
and Tradition seems to be one of the most discussed issues among Orthodox theologians. Some spheres reject
the idea of stressing on the primacy of Scripture over Holy Tradition. Others prefer to bring up Holy Tradition
since it also contains an oral Tradition that belongs to the apostles and it is not registered in the New Testament
but later on in the canons and liturgical writings.
Undoubtedly this debate has been enriched by the ecumenical character of theological education in mod-
ern times. Orthodox theologians read other Christian writings and take benefit from the theological research
worldwide. They also contribute to the ecumenical debates with their own points of view and with their re-
search in their own Tradition. This article draws a modern way of understanding the question of Scripture and
Tradition departing first of all from the writings of the Holy Fathers and the liturgical practice and considering
the questions raised by modern authors.

Scripture is Divine and Communitarian

When the Apostle Paul teaches about his kerygmatic work in his epistles, he says: “Our gospel did not come to
you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction;” (1Thes 1:5) and he adds,
“for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message, you
accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in
you who believe” (1Thes 2:13). These two quotations, among others, inspire the Fathers to refer to the whole
collection of scriptural Books in both the New and the Old Testaments as the Divine Scriptures (hai theiai
graphai) in the sense that they are both the writings inspired by God and the writings that instruct about God.
God has revealed his will to the prophets, apostles and saints so that men can attain salvation.
Furthermore, it is important to stress on the ecclesiastical aspect of Scripture, particularly in the first three
centuries of Christianity. Christian daily life at the levels of liturgical organization, catechesis and communi-
ty organization had the Bible as the sole source of divine revelation. The Church has never existed without
Daniel Ayuch 625

Scripture and Scripture has never existed without the Church. They are two inseparable realities that speak
of a single identity. The Old Testament was always part of Christianity in its Greek version of the Septuagint,
the Scripture on which the Fathers commented and interpreted. The early Church struggled to ensure that the
Biblical canon be formed according to Christian doctrine. On the one hand they contested Marcionism, who
cut the canon of the two Testaments, and on the other hand they struggled against Gnosticism, a movement
that was particularly hostile to the Old Testament.
When one reads the Church Fathers in the context of Church history as a whole, one can see that the Bible
was the sole document that was able to provide with the unit of the whole Church facing heresies and socio-
political changes. Christians took the Bible in both Testaments as one source of revelation following mainly
the school of interpretation that founded the apostles and that we find, for instance, in Saint Paul’s approach
to Genesis in his letters to Romans and Galatians. The centralizing and unifying power of the early Church
comes from Scripture, which spreads among the faithful through its teachers and interpreters and who were
able to find in the Bible every word of instruction and behavior.
Irenaeus of Lyons (+202) asseverates in his writings that Scripture must be understood within the Church.
He clearly develops the concept of regula fidei (kanôn tês pisteôs) or analogia fidei (analogia tês pisteôs), which
arises from Pauline texts such as Romans 12:6 and Galatians 6:16 and runs as a fundamental hermeneutical
principle for the Fathers. The authors of the Bible are true members of the Church. Therefore, it is the Church
who has the authentic authority of interpreting her writings. The Bible is a testimony of the Eucharistic faith
and the believers are the ones who have the authority to interpret it.1
For the Fathers the Word of God is testimony of revelation by any given Biblical author; this is why the
biblical texts are always read in the Orthodox liturgy in reference to their source, which is mostly in direct
relation to a witness’ name: The prophets, the evangelists, the apostle Paul, and the other apostles. It is a per-
son’s witness, accepted and recognized by the reading community, which validates the contents of the text. The
Eucharistic and communitarian dimension of revelation is manifested in this ritual of reading. Furthermore,
the word of God is always present on the altar and is the basis of the Eucharist and, by extension, of every
sacramental celebration. In any daily prayer other than the Eucharist, when there is neither chalice nor paten on
the holy table, we find the Evangeliarion lying there. The word of God is present on the most sacred place of
the Church having the key role of congregating people to meet in the presence of God. There is no sacrament
in which this book should not be open to bless the service and to guide the celebration into the right sense
and meaning. The centrality of the Evangeliarion in Orthodox liturgy expresses with no doubt the assembly’s
conviction that the biblical canon is the inspired Word of God.
When reading the Fathers’ understanding of the Bible, Georges Florovsky says that the Bible as a whole
has been created by the community of believers. The Bible is not a collection, but a selection of writings that
the community of faith has produced granting them a certain authority over the community.2 Scripture gains
the quality of inspired in the assembly of believers and in their act of reading. When Scripture sanctifies and
renews the community by the force of its Word, it proves to have been inspired. The same Spirit that inspired
the holy writers is the one that inspired the readers and still does. The Bible is a book and as such it proposes
an open communication by its mere presence amidst the readers.

Scripture is the Backbone of Tradition

Frequently enough, Orthodox scholars are oblivious to the role of the Bible for the fundamentals of any given
theological discipline. The Bible is the written source of revelation and the proof-text provider for every pastoral,
liturgical, and dogmatic theory. Furthermore, the Bible serves often as a comparison pattern, when it comes to
1
Cf. Against Heresies 3.2.2.
2
Florovsky, Georges, Bible, Church and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, CW vol. I (Massachusetts: Nordland
Publishing Company, 1972) 18.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
626 Chapter (96)

studying the historical behavior of the people of God throughout history. Far away from the saying sola scriptura,
Orthodox theology should never forget that Scripture has always been seen as the backbone of our faith and
the one which feeds any acceptable theological thought. Saint John of Damascus, who did not write biblical
commentaries, sets high value to Scripture. He constructs his theological arguments out of Scripture and speaks
of Divine Scripture as the source of God’s revelation and God’s mysteries. According to the Damascene, the
Church is the one who interprets and comments on the Bible.3 If we go back to John Chrysostom, one of the
most assiduous interpreters among the Church Fathers, he approaches the Scriptures as an inexhaustible source
of life. Wealth and abundance are predicatives used by the Saint to define the contents of the Holy Books. He
affirms that the Divine Scriptures are “a never-failing spring”.4 In one of his sermons on Lazarus and the Rich
Man, the Saint calls his audience five times in less than two columns to a persistent reading of Scripture.5 Saint
John Chrysostom belonged to one of the most relevant theological institutions in the classic times: the Antiochian
School of Theology, which is worth mentioning here because of the prominent role given to biblical studies by
its members. The Antiochian asketerion was a fellowship of men who dedicated their life to prayer, to study
the Bible and to spiritual guidance. In this school we can see a clear example for the tradition of studying and
teaching the Bible as one of the key activities in the history of Orthodox theological formation. The term askesis
recuperates in the Antiochian pattern its close relation to the Latin word studium, in the sense of endeavor and
training, not only for spiritual formation, but particularly for research and knowledge.
By consulting modern theologians, we can deduce that the Orthodox agree on the normative value of Scrip-
ture.6 Scripture is the backbone of tradition, which it nourishes and sustains. As to how to interpret the biblical
text, we also find a common hermeneutical principle in the modern Orthodox theological writings: Scriptures
should be interpreted in the light of Holy Tradition. “Tradition provides the hermeneutic perspective by which
any Biblical writing is to be properly interpreted,” says John Breck.7 Elias Oikonomos adds: “Tradition builds
the fundament for an ecclesiological exegesis”.8 These are echoes of Georges Florovsky’s understanding of
the relationship existing between Tradition and Scripture. In his book “Bible, Church, Tradition” Florovsky
highlights the authority of Scripture as the source of revelation, while he considers Tradition as the authoritative
hermeneutical principle for understanding the Bible.
However, there are two opposing views about how to interpret Holy Tradition and how to be part of the
modern theological debate about Bible and its interpretation. On the one hand, there are those who see in
Tradition a pattern for openness and a source of inspiration and challenge that encourages the dialogue with
modern theories and methods.9 On the other hand, there are those who see Tradition as the only accurate and
reliable source to consult, when it comes to investigating the meaning of any paragraph in the Bible. The latter
understand the continuity of tradition only through ritualism and encourage the repetition of the sayings of the
Fathers,10 while the former add to the sacramental life of the Church, the personal and communitarian effort,
and emphasize the necessity of an open intellectual formation.
If we place emphasis on the dynamic character of tradition, there will be no impediment for seeking dialogue
with modern scholars, no matter their origin or confession. This principle of dialogue is not only rooted in the
Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church but also in the message of the Bible.
3
Studer, Basil, Die theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus, (Ettal, Buch-Kunstverlag Ettal, 1956) 76-77.
4
PG 48:1007: “pege gar estin oudepote epileipousa”.
5
PG 48:992, 58-60.
6
Breck, John, Scripture in Tradition. The Bible and its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church, (Crestwood (N.Y.): St
Vladimir Seminary Press, 2001) 11.
7
Ibid., p. 10.
8
Oikonomos, Elias, Bibel und Bibelwissenschaft in der orthodoxen Kirche (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 81), (Stuttgart: KBW
Verlag, 1976) 46.
9
Karavidopoulos, Johannis, “The Exegetical Tradition of the Church and Modern Biblical Research Methods”, in St John
of Damascus Institute of Theology Annals 6 (2005-2006) 118-129 (in Arabic).
10
Breck, John, ibid., 217-219.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Daniel Ayuch 627

Since the foundation of the WCC, the issue of Scripture and Tradition has been part of the theological
dialogue agenda. A major agreement was reached at the Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order in Mon-
treal in 1963. All churches proclaimed that their theological thought is rooted in Scripture (both Old and New
Testament) and that there is a continuing attempt to interpret Scripture by the community of believers. The
WCC consultative body Faith and Order issued in 1998 a document titled “A Treasure in Earthen Vessels” in
which the representatives of the different Christian church families express their reflection on interpretation of
Scripture in the Church. This document recalls the achievements of 1963 and goes further in analyzing the act
of interpretation in diverse contexts. These two documents contain the principles of relation between Scripture
and Tradition and reflect in great extent what is common to Orthodox doctrine. The distinction between Tradition
and traditions is one of the most relevant points of discussion in this dialogue process. With Tradition is meant
what is common to all Christians and has clear roots in Scripture, while the plural “traditions” represents the
ways of living the faith in different cultural and historical contexts. This last point can be focused either as
confessional – Protestant tradition, Catholic tradition or Orthodox tradition – or simply as the external customs
in a given context.11 This matter becomes essential when theologians discuss the role of history in the identity
of the Church and when the assimilation of Christianity by new cultures is at stake. For the Orthodox it is very
important to define to what extent the traditional Greek-Mediterranean cultures are supposed to influence new
forms of Orthodoxy in the Americas, the Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia.

The Reading of Scripture

It belongs to Tradition that the Holy Fathers instructed people to read and listen to Scripture. Their commen-
taries, quotations and exegetical notes invite their readers and listeners to dedicate themselves to studying
and reading the Bible. This is important to stress especially today when some Orthodox thinkers consider that
reading the Fathers is more important than reading the Bible itself, because as they say, the Fathers would give
us the content of revelation already “chewed” so that we could understand it better.12
Saint Irenaeus speaks of a careful reading to understand the mystery of Christ present in the Scriptures.13
Those who read this way are the perfect disciples, who know how to interlace between the different Scriptural
texts. Furthermore, if we follow the homilies of Origen, Chrysostom and many other writers and Fathers, we
can appreciate that they used to follow the principles of a lectio continua rather than a lectio selecta of the
Sacred Books, i.e. they used to choose a book according to the local church needs and read it in successive
periscopes until it was finished.
Origen was the first to talk about theia anagnosis14 a term that was translated into Latin as lectio divina
and has had a great influence on the spirituality of the West. In this paragraph Origen urges Gregory to ded-
icate himself fist of all to read Scripture and to do it with perseverance, with faith and in prayer. Saint John
Chrysostom not only recommends that Christians read the Bible, but they should also make the reading of
Scripture a permanent practice. In his above mentioned homilies on Lazarus and the rich man, Chrysostom
uses two major key words: ceaselessly and continuously when he refers to the frequency of biblical reading
by the common parishioner.15 Chrysostom used to announce the subject of his coming sermon with the firm
purpose that people prepare themselves by reading not only the announced paragraph, but also its context so
that they can take a better profit from the Saint’s words.16
11
Cf. World Council of Churches, A Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An Instrument for an Ecumenical Reflection on Herme-
neutics (Faith and Order Paper 182), (Geneva, 1998), # 32-37.
12
Agourides, Savvas, “Biblical Studies in Orthodox Theology”, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17:1 (1972), 51.
13
Against Heresies 4.26.1.
14
See his Letter to Gregory Thaumaturgus, SC 148, 191.
15
PG 48:992, 58-60.
16
PG 48:991.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
628 Chapter (96)

In his second homily on Matthew, Chrysostom admonishes his listeners because they would not know to recite
a single verse from the Psalms, while they would say by heart pagan poems and songs. The saint says that the
Bible should be read in family and by all the faithful, not only by monks. The Word that has been heard in the
Church is supposed to be read again at home because it is like a remedy for the wounds caused by our passing
in the world. The saint says that even worse than not reading is to believe that reading is useless and vain.17
This categorical insistence of the Fathers to read the Bible in its both Testaments draws a compelling contrast
with some modern tendencies in Orthodoxy that encourage the reading of classical and not so classical Fathers,
the neo-monastic literature instead of the Bible itself, because they would fear misinterpretation.

Conclusions

The question of Scripture and Tradition has shown relevant theological implications in Orthodox modern
thinking. As it has been shown above, this is a topic with roots in the Western Church but with an influence
in contemporary Orthodox theology.
The questions raised in the context of this debate have provoked a new way of expressing the teachings of
the Holy Fathers regarding the place of Scripture in the Church, as well as discussing the sense and meaning
of Tradition in its diverse forms and contexts. From an ecumenical point of view, the Orthodox formulated
in modern terms that Scripture is the vital and focal element in this complex body called Church. Even when
Orthodox theology was sometimes reluctant to find a creative encounter with the significant topics of western
theology, the issue of Scripture and Tradition was one of the most attractive themes of discussion.
A major agreement was achieved in the field of ecumenical dialogue. This agreement is a good fundament for
further discussions on other issues such as sacramental theology and ecclesiology. Since theology is called to address
the questions and the needs of Christians in a certain place and time, the issue on Scripture and traditions requests
to be revisited now and then in order to explain, out of new contexts, what is one of the pillars of Christian faith.

Bibliography
Agourides, S. “Biblical Studies in Orthodox Theology”, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 17:1 (1972), 51-62.
Breck, J, Scripture in Tradition. The Bible and its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church, (St Vladimir’s Sem-
inary Press: Crestwood (N.Y.), 2001).
Florovsky, Georges. Bible, Church and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Collected Works, vol. 1 (Mas-
sachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972).
Jeanrond, W.G., “History of Biblical Hermeneutics,” in: The Anchor Bible Dictionary III, (1992) 433-443.
Kannengiesser, Ch. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity. (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
Karavidopoulos, J.“The Exegetical Tradition of the Church and Modern Biblical Research Methods”, St John
of Damascus Institute of Theology Annals 6 (2005-2006), 115-126 (in Arabic).
Nissiotis, N.A.“Unity of Scripture and Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox Contribution to the Prolegomena of
Hermeneutics”, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 11:2 (1966), 183-208.
Oikonomos, E. Bibel und Bibelwissenschaft in der orthodoxen Kirche (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 81), (Stuttgart:
KBW Verlag, 1976).
Stylianopoulos, T. The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective. Volume One: Scripture, Tradition, Herme-
neutics. (Brookline: Holy Cross Press, 1997).
Trevijano, R. La Biblia en el cristianismo antiguo. Prenicenos. Gnósticos. Apócrifos (IEB 10), (Estella: Verbo
Divino, 2001).
World Council of Churches. A Treasure in Earthen Vessels: An Instrument for an Ecumenical Reflection on
Hermeneutics (Faith and Order Paper 182). (Geneva, 1998).
17
In his Homily on Matthew 1:1 in PG 57.30.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (97) ETHICS AND ECOLOGY AS AN ISSUE FOR JOINT DIALOGUE
AND WORK WITH OTHER CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS

Elizabeth Theokritoff

“There might be more East-West conversation were it not for uncertainty about how to understand an approach
with all the trappings of ecological spirituality, yet insistently anthropocentric, even dominionist, and often
methodologically conservative.”1 This observation by Anglican theologian Willis Jenkins encapsulates the
paradox of Orthodox involvement in ecumenical eco-theology: the more Orthodoxy engages with its concerns
and offers approaches eagerly accepted by Christians of other traditions, the harder it is to pigeon-hole. But
rather than being an impediment to conversation, this could be seen as a challenge to the wider Christian world
to accept paradox, and recognise the creative tension in approaches that might appear contradictory.
Faced with the call for a Christian response to environmental destruction, Orthodox for their part have em-
barked on a remarkable journey of discovery of their own tradition. It is easy to focus on the traditional sources
thus uncovered and forget that ecumenical organisations, forums and publications were almost exclusively re-
sponsible for the early impetus to explore and articulate the tradition in new contexts. Furthermore, the practical
and programmatic emphasis of ecumenical organisations still challenges the Orthodox to show how cosmic
theology, liturgical practice and the example of the saints may bring forth fruit in the lives of Christians today.

Ethics or ethos?

The outspoken advocacy of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, with his insistence on the environmental
aspect of the whole range of social and ethical concerns, has earned very wide respect and made it increasingly
difficult to talk about ecumenical ecological concern without giving a prominent place to Orthodoxy. His ap-
proach is unusual in its concern with moral exhortation; he has even gained notice for talking about ‘ecological
sin’, an idea applauded by some other Christians and environmentalists, and which at least underlines that our
relationship with the rest of creation is not separable from our relationship with God. Patriarch Bartholomew
also speaks, however, of ethos rather than ethics, a point discussed explicitly in Metropolitan John Zizioulas’
seminal lectures ‘Preserving God’s creation’.2 Zizioulas’ critique of the ‘moral rules’ approach is perhaps even
more relevant today, as the question of how to motivate people increasingly preoccupies those concerned about
environmental inaction, Christians among them. Many now feel that environmentalist attempts to motivate
people through guilt are counterproductive, and this invites Christians too to look at their ‘ethical strategies’.
It suggests that there are advantages to the least moralistic approach, what Jenkins calls “ecological spiritual-
ity”,3 of which the Orthodox ecological ethos would be an example. Zizioulas speaks of the need for ‘a new
culture in which the liturgical dimension would occupy the central place, and perhaps determine the ethical
principle’; a sense of the world as ‘cosmic liturgy’, analogous to the lost pre-Enlightenment ‘understanding of
the world in which we live as a mysterious, sacred reality broader than the human mind can grasp or contain’.4
Central to introducing the spiritual and liturgical dimension into ecumenical ecological ethics was the 1990
publication by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Orthodoxy and the Ecological Crisis, with a message from
Patriarch Dimitrios calling for the dedication of 1 September as the Day of Protection of the Environment,
1
Ecologies of Grace: Environmental ethics and Christian theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 108.
2
Part 1; Sourozh 39 (March 1990), 2.
3
Ecologies, p. 19.
4
op. cit., 2-3.
630 Chapter (97)

subsequently adopted by the WCC. In this booklet, used by the WCC Assembly in Canberra (1991), we find
set out such key ideas as ‘man as priest of creation’ and “eucharistic and ascetic ethos”. We will return to these
themes; but first, to the idea of a ‘new culture’.

Reclaiming the ecological tradition of Christianity

A number of Western Christians seem to have accepted and internalised the idea that “guilt” for environ-
mental destruction lies with Christian tradition itself, which accordingly needs to be re-cast, with help
from other religions and non-traditional ideas. Orthodox have not only noted that such accusations against
“Christianity” take no account of the Christian East;5 they also usually incline to the view that the problem
stems not from the Christian tradition itself, but from its attenuation. The ‘new’ culture is not to be invented
but rather rediscovered. Orthodoxy thus speaks not as a cluster of local traditions which happen to have a
historical alibi, but as representative of a continuous Christian tradition in which all Christians are invited
to recognise their own roots. Orthodox have taken part in the essentially ecumenical project of revisiting
attitudes to creation in the church Fathers; as a result, it is today much harder to claim that an early cosmic
vision failed to survive past Athanasius, or to survey the world view of Christian tradition without reference
to the cosmic theology of St Maximus, with his vision of the Incarnation as the mystery for which all things
exist, the ‘cosmic liturgy’ in which all things participate through their constitutive ‘words’ which inhere in
the divine Word.
Such a theocentric cosmic vision has obvious ethical implications. No ethos that takes seriously the notion of
God’s ‘words’ or ‘wills’ in creation can make man the final arbiter of how creation is to be used; no vision of the
Incarnation as a ‘normative spiritual movement’,6 central to cosmic salvation, can see matter as mere resources
for consumption. Many Christians today are struggling to recover a vision that holds together creation and
salvation, matter and spirit – something that causes such difficulties especially for Christians of the Reformed
tradition. For Orthodox, this unified vision is practically expressed and experienced in sacramental life, where
matter becomes God’s means for his gift of himself. A sacramental view of the world is by no means limited
to Orthodox; it should strike some chord with all Christians who perform baptism and celebrate the Eucharist,
reminding them that they do not have to invent or import forms of eco-worship in order to celebrate the open-
ness of matter to the spiritual. Even those least comfortable with sacramental rites might be able to accept the
world itself as ‘the visible part of a universal and continuing sacrament’.7
Probably no manifestation of the Orthodox tradition is so widely embraced as the icon. For millions of con-
temporary Christians of all traditions, icons grace churches and homes in silent witness that salvation has been
accomplished through matter, and that the material world is destined to be transfigured. And, at a time when
many people are deeply ambivalent about human shaping of the world, it reminds us that human skill and work
are able to make the world more and not less transparent to its Creator.
Perhaps the most persuasive evidence for the ecological implications of Christianity is that of those who
practise their faith most consistently – the saints. There is a growing ecumenical awareness that St Francis of
Assisi, far from being a luminous exception, is part of a very extensive pattern in which love for God spills over
into love for all creatures and a profound sense of fellowship with them. Contemporary representatives of the
same pattern, such as Elder Porphyrios, help us interpret earlier stories – from East and West - and see how they
might serve as practical examples. The parallels between patterns of spiritual life in Eastern Christianity and in
the early West may also help reclaim earlier traditions such as Celtic spirituality as deeply embedded in traditional
Christianity, far from the New Age pastiche often presented in their name.
5
Vigen Guroian, “Ecological Ethics: An ecclesial event” in Ethics after Christendom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Issa J.
Khalil, “The Ecological Crisis: An Eastern Christian Perspective”, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 22:4 (1978), 193-211.
6
J. Chryssavgis, Beyond the Shattered Image (Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing, 1999), p. 54.
7
D. Staniloae, “The World as Gift and Sacrament of God’s Love”, Sobornost 5:9 (1969) 667.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Elizabeth Theokritoff 631

The human role

The ethical concern in modern ecotheology started by focussing on the Christian understanding of man’s role
in the world: is “let them have dominion” a license for exploitation? Does the exalted place accorded to man
mean that human interests are all that count? The latter is described as an “anthropocentric” ethic, although
Zizioulas and others have pointed out that “anthropomonistic” would be a more accurate label.
Writings from the early days of ecumenical creation theology already stake out a sense in which man is indeed
“the creature in which all the planes of the world converge, a microcosm”.8 He is structurally central in the sense
of being a creature at the boundary and thus a mid-point between creation and Creator.9 As an integral part of the
creation he represents, man participates in the priesthood of Christ;10 his ‘mastery’ of nature is thus held within
the eucharistic offering. Two points are evident here: the picture of man’s place is complex and nuanced, and
the general framework would be classed (or dismissed?) as “anthropocentric”.
The writings of Patriarch Bartholomew are a prime example of unabashed commitment to human superiority – and
a serious stumbling block to the assumption that ‘anthropocentrism’ in this sense entails any lack of reverence for
the rest of creation. It is the very exaltation of man, as a creature in the divine image, that imposes a Godly ethos.11
Such an approach sees Orthodox making common cause with Christians from the developing world in ecumenical
meetings,12 and can make a valuable contribution to thorny issues of balancing environment and development.
The effort to articulate man’s proper relationship to the rest of creation is a continuing one, carried on very
largely in dialogue with, and sometimes in counterpoint to, ecumenical efforts in the same direction. The search
for a single appropriate image was catalysed by the ecumenical emphasis on “stewardship”. After a brief dalliance
with this imagery in the early days of ecumenical ecological problematic, it was increasingly realised that it is a
poor fit for Orthodox theology of creation. Orthodox like to hold together paradox; Western Christian thinking
often prefers to split the difference. For the Orthodox tradition, man is king and servant, frail and immortal; the
earth praises the Lord and is cursed for man’s sake. The ‘stewardship’ image splits the difference to produce a
woefully impoverished world view. It gives some practical guidance for treatment of ‘property’ in a fallen world,
but says nothing about the cosmic drama of salvation which gives meaning to our actions on earth.
For Orthodox, the natural starting point for reflection on the world is ecclesial, liturgical and sacramental;
and this progressively leads to development of the image of “priest of creation” as an alternative to “steward”.
This language is favoured especially by Constantinople, and elaborated quite systematically by Metropolitan
John Zizioulas, mostly in ecumenical settings. It finds favour with some other Christians, especially of the more
sacramental traditions, but also wariness from others for whom “priesthood” implies clericalism, and priestly
“mediation” is taken to mean that the “laity” have no direct relationship to God.13 Even sympathetic commentators
readily miss the point that priesthood presupposes kinship with and origin from the laity.14 It may justly be pointed
out that the ‘priesthood’ image lacks ethical precision;15 but this is not necessarily a disadvantage. The notion of a
priestly ethos can appeal even to those who would minimise the degree of actual environmental damage that we
have to worry about, providing a common basis for evaluating behaviour between people who might find little
agreement on environmental issues. Furthermore, Orthodox writers who use this language increasingly attach to
this image an idea of great ethical significance, that of sacrifice. This has all the advantages of an approach that
8
Paul Evdokimov, “Nature”, Scottish Journal of Theology 18 (March 1965) 1-22 , at p. 1.
9
Metropolitan Paulos mar Gregorios, The Human Presence (Geneva: WCC, 1978). p. 64ff.
10
Mar Gregorios, p. 85.
11
John Chryssavgis, ed., Cosmic Grace, Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew I (Grand
Rapids, Michigan and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 140-1.
12
See Larry L. Rasmussen, Earth Community, Earth Ethics (Geneva: WCC, 1996), p. 233.
13
See further Elizabeth Theokritoff, “Creation and Priesthood in Modern Orthodox Thinking”, Ecotheology 10.3 (December
2005) pp. 344-363.
14
E.g. Christopher Southgate, The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution and the Problem of Pain (Louisville, KY: West-
minster John Knox, 1998), p. 106 and n. 71.
15
Ibid.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
632 Chapter (97)

exalts human dignity, while identifying man’s high calling of making holy (the literally meaning of ‘sacrifice’)
with the antithesis of consuming the world.
Orthodox are good at producing inspiring imagery having a deep resonance with Christian tradition. In ecu-
menical discussions, such imagery is often challenged and refined by appeal to the empirical world and questions
about practical meaning. So here: there are recurrent questions as to whether the emphasis on human ‘priesthood’
and mediation does justice to the antiquity, otherness and sheer scale of the creation.16 Such reservations do
not negate the possibility of “priesthood” imagery; but they do suggest that, pace Zizioulas, “man as priest of
creation” should be not the over-all rubric but rather a sub-title for part of a much broader liturgical, eucharistic
or sacramental picture. The metaphor of cosmic liturgy shifts the focus to the total worshipping community, in
which priesthood is but one of several interdependent roles. A “liturgical”cosmos is one where all creatures “con-
celebrate” – in their own way, according to their own order. Something similar is conveyed when iconography
depicts the elements with human faces - not that everything is humanised, but that everything has some personal,
relational quality. Nothing can be treated merely as an object. This strand of Orthodox tradition clearly strikes
a chord with indigenous people in many cultures. It also provides a compelling Christian alternative for those
who are tempted to turn to neo-paganism in search of a God-filled world.
An awareness of God’s presence in and to all creatures has a profound effect on all our dealings with other
creatures; and, as is frequently remarked, Orthodoxy finds it much easier than does Western thought to embrace a
radically panentheistic stance without compromising the absolute otherness of the Creator.17 In striving to express the
connectedness between God and creatures, both Orthodox and Western thought owes much to the cosmic vision of
the great Orthodox ecumenist Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, with Western theologians being more inclined to use his explicit
language of sophiology. Several Orthodox writers prefer to explore not the ‘wisdom’ but the “word” (logos) of God,18
in conscious if not always explicit response to Western anxieties about human ‘rationality’ (logos) as an excuse
for exploitation of ‘irrational’ nature. More than twenty years ago Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch, calling Christians
to a common task, remarked that “those who like to stress the Word of God will need to recognise that the world
also is a word of God”;19 Orthodox exploration of this idea and its ethical implications is still a work in progress.20
The image of ‘cosmic Eucharist’ depicts the world as gift rather than concelebrant, but it focuses on humble
gratitude rather than mediation. Or, one might say, the mediation is in the opposite direction: God’s good gifts in
creation are there to be distributed, for the benefit of all (all people, and by extension all creatures). “Cosmic Eu-
charist” also provides a starting point for evaluating human creativity. The eucharistic elements, we are frequently
reminded, are matter worked by humans; the sacramental world-view thus affirms human creativity in principle,
through not necessarily to the degree that some ecumenical interlocutors might wish. But it also reminds us that
after all our efforts, this worked matter is still wholly God’s own gift, for his purposes and to his glory.
Whether we speak of our cosmological vision as eucharistic or sacramental, or in terms of divine words or wis-
dom, there is one constant: the path to its manifestation and fulfilment is one of asceticism. The reason is simple:
the sacramental vision, as John Chryssavgis points out, encompasses three intuitions about the world. The world
is created good, it is fallen into evil, and it is redeemed and re-created; and “there is an incalculable cost for the
process of cosmic transfiguration because of the reality of evil”.21 It is remarkable how often the paradox gets lost in
the transmission, so that the sacramental, liturgical vision is misread as static, “lost in wonder of what is”, oblivious
to evil and injustice.22 The lesson, it seems, is always to speak of eucharistic and ascetic ethos in the same breath.
16
E.g. Southgate, p. 106; Celia Deane-Drummond, Eco-theology (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2008), pp. 60-61.
17
Philip Clayton, “Panetheism today: A constructive systematic evaluation”, in Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke (eds.), In
whom we live and move and have our being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World (Grand Rapids/
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 257-8.
18
E.g. Andrew Louth, “The cosmic vision of St Maximus the Confessor” in Clayton and Peacocke, op. cit. pp. 189-191.
19
“Three Sermons: A theology of creation; A spirituality of the creation; The responsibility of Christians”, Sourozh 38 (Nov
1989) 1-14 (14).
20
See further E. Theokritoff, “The Book of the Word: Reading God’s creation” Caring for Creation (July 2012).
21
Beyond the Shattered Image, pp. 38-42, 39.
22
E.g. Rasmussen, p. 240; cf. Southgate p. 113.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Elizabeth Theokritoff 633

While a sacramental vision reveals the original and eschatological meaning of the world, realising that meaning
in our lives requires a relentless battle with our fallen nature and the disordered relationships which it breeds.
The personal emphasis of asceticism might seem ill-matched to the scale of environmental problems, which
undoubtedly require action at the national and international level. But the ascetic ethos has much potential for
cutting though the tensions between rich and poor, developed and developing world. It embraces the call for hu-
mans to make sacrifices for the sake of other creatures – but demands that we ourselves should be those humans
by whom the sacrifices are borne. As John Chryssavgis says, it is a way of learning ‘to give and not simply to
give up’; to offer, to share, to connect with the natural world and the neighbour.23
If this aspect of the Orthodox ethos gains so little ecumenical traction, it could be because in practice, it is
usually honoured in the breach. Certainly, there are a number of impressive and inspiring examples of monasteries
making a conscious connection between “ecological life-style” and traditional monastic life, sometimes working
with environmental organisations. But their example is rarely followed in Orthodox parishes or local Churches.
Orthodox writing on “ecological asceticism” thus serves a dual purpose. It reminds the wider Christian world that
an ecological way of living that does not merely serve a practical necessity, is s traditional mainstay of spiritual
life. But it also reminds Orthodox that asceticism is not merely a matter of traditional rules, but can properly be
linked to social and environmental implications of our actions.
Some of the potential of these themes may be seen in the way they are taken up in recent work by the Protestant
theologian Norman Wirzba; drawing extensively on Schmemann, Zizioulas and Staniloae, he links sacrifice,
asceticism and gratitude in what he calls “a priestly approach”.24 By applying this approach to the basic act of
eating - an ethical mine-field - he explores concrete and practical implications of Orthodox theology in a way that
Orthodox writers almost never do for themselves. As Orthodox ecological theology reaches a wider audience and
ventures further into dialogue with other traditions, there will be more such opportunities to explore the concrete
ethical implications of the Orthodox theology of creation.

Bibliography

Olivier Clément, On Human Being: A spiritual anthropology, tr. Jeremy Hummerstone (London/New York:
New City, 2000)
Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, “Ecological Asceticism: A Cultural Revolution”, Sourozh 67
(February 1997); reprinted from One Planet 7/6 (1996).
Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, “Preserving God’s creation”, King’s Theological Review 12 (1989),
1-5; 41-5; 13 (1990), 1-5.
Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, “Lent and the Consumer Society”, in A. Walker and C. Carras (eds.), Living
Orthodoxy in the Modern World (London: SPCK, 1996), 64-84.
Gennadios Limouris (ed.), Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation: Insights from Orthodoxy (Geneva: WCC, 1990)
Crina Gschwandtner, “Orthodox ecological theology: Bartholomew I and the Orthodox contribution to the eco-
logical debate”, International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church10.2 (May 2010), 1-15.
Fr. Michael Oleksa, “Icons and the Cosmos: The missionary significance”, Sourozh 16 (May 1984) 34-45; Sacred
Art Journal 5.1 (1984), 5-13.
So that God’s Creation might Live, Inter-Orthodox Conference on Environmental Protection (ET publ. Syndes-
mos, 1994).
Elizabeth Theokritoff, Living in God’s Creation: Orthodox Perspectives on Ecology (St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2009)

Cosmic Prayer, Introduction., p. 32.

23

“A priestly approach to environmental theology: Learning to receive and give again the gifts of creation”, Dialog 50.5 (Winter
24

2011), 254-362; Food and Faith: A theology of eating (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
 (98) ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVES ON MISSION1

Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos

Human pride, in its individual, social or racial expression, poisons and destroys life in the world at large or
in the small communities in which we live. Human will obstinately exalts its autonomy Loneliness is on the
increase, nightmares multiply, and fears mount up. Old and new idols are being erected in the human con-
sciousness. They dance around them. They offer them adulation and worship them ecstatically. And yet at
the same time, every so often, new, sensitive voices speak out for a just and peaceful age. New initiatives are
being undertaken; a new awareness of worldwide community is growing.
All of these facts come to light in our ecumenical gatherings, sometimes alarmingly, sometimes hopefully.
Our problems overwhelm us. We describe them and try to solve them, but when we think we have solved one,
three new ones spring up. Our mood keeps swinging, like a pendulum, between hope and despair.
In this world the faithful continue to pray: “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” proclaiming quietly,
but resolutely, that above all human wills there is one will that is redemptive, life-giving, full of wisdom and
power, that in the end will prevail. The choice of the theme for our meeting is essentially, I think, a protest and
a refusal to accept that which militates against God’s loving design, and, at the same time, is an expression of
hope and optimism for the future of the world.

A. Reality and expectation

In the petition, “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” the firm certainty prevails that the Father’s
will is already a reality. Myriads of other beings, the angels and saints, are already in harmony with it. The
realization of God’s will is not simply a desire; it is an event that illuminates everything else. The center of
reality is God and His Kingdom. On this, the realism of faith is grounded. On this ontology is based every
Christian effort on earth.
1
The present paper under the initial title “Thy will be done”. Mission in Christ’s way was the basic report to the World
Missionary Conference of the World Council of Churches in San Antonio, Texas, 1989. · “Address by the Conference
Moderator,” (Conference on World Mission and Evangelism, San Antonio, TX, 1989) International Review of Mission 78
(1989), pp. 316-328. · The San Antonio Report, Your Will Be Done. Mission in Christ’s Way, ed., Fr. R. Wilson, Geneva:
WCC, 1990, pp. 100-114. Address of the Moderator, Conference on World “Mission and Evangelism,” San Antonio, 1989.
· German: „Dein Wille geschehe—Mission in der Nachfolge Christi,“ Dein Wille geschellte—Mission in der Nachfolge
Jesu Christi. Welt-missionskonferenz in San Antonio, 1989, Hrsg. J. Wietzke, Otto Lembeck, Frankfurt a. M., 1989, pp.
217-235. · German: Jahrbuch 6 des Evangeleischen Missionswerkes in Sudwestdeutchland. Mission bei uns gemeinsam
mit den Partnern, Stuttgart, 1989, pp. 8288. Greek:· «Γενηθήτω τό θέλημά Σον - Ιεραποστολή στά ίχνη του Χρίστον,»
Σάν Άντόνιο, Η.Π.Α., Πάντα τά ’Έθνη 9 (1990) 33, pp. 3-7, 34, pp. 35-38. · French: “Que ta volontée soit faite—Une
mission conforme au Christ,” Supplement a SOP, Courbevoie, France, 1990, No. 140b. Swedish: «Ske Din vilja—Mission
pa Kristi satt“, Till Heia Varlden— pa Kristii satt, Uppsala, Svenska Mission radet, (1990), pp. 7-17. The Ecumenical
Movement, An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices, eds. M. Kinnamon and B.E. Cope, Geneva: WCC, 1997, pp. 388-
392. This report was characterized as “the most solid theological contribution” to the aforementioned World Missionary
Conference (Dr. Wietzke, Director of the Evangelisches Missionswerke in Hamburg). “It was Anastasios’ presentation
that provided the theological framework for the conference theme. Its overall thrust was truly ecumenical in the best sense
of the word.” (Prof. Dr. D. J. Bosch, Director of the International Academic Journal, Missionalia, “Your Will Be Done?
Critical Reflection on San Antonio,” Missionalia 17:2 (1989), p. 127.) Mission in the footsteps of Christ. Theological
essays and homilies, Athens, 2007 (in Greek).
Anastasios Yannoulatos 635

To some, to mention “heaven” might seem anachronistic. We usually look for immediate answers, down
to earth and realistic—according to our own fixed ideas. We forget, however, that contemporary science and
technology have made important leaps forward with regard to a material heaven. A few decades ago, we sought
to solve humankind’s communication problems by using wires stretched out over the earth’s surface. Later on,
we used wireless waves, still following the surface of our planet. With the new technology, however, we have
discovered that we can communicate better above the earth, by sending wireless waves heavenwards. So in our
theological, ecclesial and missionary thinking, if we turn our sight once more to the reality of “heaven,” about
which Scripture speaks constantly, we shall certainly find new answers to the world’s problems and difficulties.
Our Church has not ceased to look in that direction, with prayer and celebration, affirming the supremacy of
God’s will. In order for this faith to shed light on the mass of problems that oppress us, a theological reference
to the significance of the two proposals that form our theme is needed. I shall first attempt a synoptic approach,
drawing on the Orthodox tradition of twenty centuries.
Permit me a parenthesis. In 1964, when for the first time the Orthodox were invited to a similar gathering
of the Committee on World Mission and Evangelism in Mexico, I remember we were only three representa-
tives. In San Antonio (Texas), we have altogether nearly one hundred participants. Already there has taken
place a serious common theological search and an exchange of experience, which we hope will be continued
creatively here as well.
1. “Thy will be done.” In the prayer our Lord taught us that this petition follows two others, with which
it forms a group: “Hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.” The chief characteristic of
the three is the eschatological perspective. They all begin to be realized here below, in order to be perfected
in the glory of the Kingdom that is to come.
The verb of the petition is in the passive voice. Who exactly is the subject of the action? A preliminary
answer says, God. In this petition, God’s intervention is sought for the implementation of His will, for the
establishment of His Kingdom. He has the initiative; He carries out His own will. The chief and decisive role
in what happens to humankind and the whole universe belongs to God. A second interpretation sees God’s
will be done on earth through humankind’s conformity with God’s commandments (cf. Matt 7:21; 12:50 and
John 9:31). Humankind is called to “do” the Father’s will. This is the point that is expressed in the insight that
permeates the Old Testament and in the continuity that is a dominant feature of Jewish literature. In it, our
participation in the fulfillment of God’s will and the necessity of obedience is emphasized.
There is, however, yet a third interpretation, a composite one, that sees as the subject of the action both God
and human beings, that considers that the divine will is realized by divine- human cooperation. Thus, the two
preceding views are intertwined. Certainly, so that His will may be done, God’s intervention is essential. But
we, by conforming to His precepts, God’s will in the here and now, contribute to the foretaste and coming of
the Kingdom in historical time, until its final consummation at the last day.
“On earth as it is in heaven.” In the next verse we can perhaps distinguish various closely connected aspects:
ethical, social, missionary, ecumenical, and a further one, which we will call ontological. They summarize
descriptively most of what Chrysostom meant when he said: “For he did not say, Thy will be done in me or
in us’; but ‘everywhere on earth,’ so that error might be done away with and truth established, all evil be cast
out, virtue return and so nothing henceforth separate heaven from earth.”2 The prayer that our Lord put on our
lips and in our hearts aims at a more radical change: the “celestification” of the earth. “That all persons and
all things may become heaven” (Origen).
By the phrase “Thy will be done,” of the Lord’s prayer, we beseech the Father that He will bring to com-
pletion His plan for the salvation of the whole world, and at the same time we ask for His grace that we may
be freed from our own will and accept His will joyfully. Moreover, not only we as individuals, but that all of
humankind may have fellowship in His will and share in its fulfillment.
2
John Chrysostom, Commentary on St. Matthew the Evangelist, Homily 19, 5, PG 57:280, Paris. (J. P. Migne, ed., Patro-
logiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca.)

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
636 Chapter (98)

2. After Pentecost this prayer on the Church’s lips is highlighted by the events of the Cross and the Resur-
rection. It becomes clear that the divine will has been revealed in its fullness by the word, life and sacrifice of
Jesus Christ. Each member of the Church is called thenceforth to advance in its realization, “So to promote
‘the’ Father’s ‘will/ as Christ promoted it, who came to do ‘the will’ of his Father and finished it all; for it is
possible by being united with him to become ‘one spirit’ with him” (Origen).3 Christ is made the leader of the
faithful in realizing the divine will.
The petition, “Thy will be done,” is at the same time our guide in Gethsemane, at the decisive point in the
history of the new Adam, our first-born brother. “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be
done” (Matt 26:42). This prayer, in which the conformity of the human to the divine will reaches it culmina-
tion, illustrates on a personal level the meaning of the phrase “Thy will be done” of the Lord’s Prayer. For all
those who are determined to be conformed to God’s will, who struggle for its realization on earth, the time will
come to experience personally the pain, grief and humiliation that often accompany acceptance of God’s will.
The repetition of “Thy will be done” by Christ in the context of His Passion sheds light on the second phase
of our subject: Mission in Christ’s way.”

B. Mission in Christ’s way

By this expression we often tend to concentrate our attention on some particular point in Christ’s life, such as,
the Passion, the Cross, and His compassion for the poor. It is certainly not strange to put particular emphasis at
times on one aspect, especially when it is continually being overlooked in practice. However, the theological
thinking and experience of the catholic Church insist on what is universal (to katholou). The same is true of the
person of Christ. This distinguishes the outlook and feeling of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”
from the schismatic, sectarian thought that adheres to that which is only a part. In this theological connection
I would like to indicate five central points.
1. Trinitarian relationship and reference. Jesus Christ is seen in a continuous relationship to the Father
and the Holy Spirit. He is the One sent [Apestalmenos) by the Father. The Holy Spirit opens the way for Him,
works with Him, accompanies Him, sets the seal on His work and continues it from ages to ages.
Through Christ’s preaching, we come to know the Father and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, even the
preaching of Christ would remain incomprehensible without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, impossible
to put into effect without the presence of the Paraclete.
In every expression of Christian life, but especially in mission, the work of Christ is done with the presence
of the Holy Spirit; it is brought to completion within historical time by the uninterrupted action of the Holy
Spirit. The Holy Spirit “recapitulates” all of us in Christ. He forms the Church. The source and bearing of our
own apostolic activity resides in the promise and precept of the risen Lord in its Trinitarian perspective: “‘As
the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them,
‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (John 20:21-22).
The Christ-centeredness of the one Church is understandable only within the wider context of Trinitarian
dogma. The one-sidedness of the Western type of Christocentrism was often caused by restriction of the im-
age of Christ to the so-called “historical Jesus.” However the Christ of the Church is the eternal Word, “the
only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:18), who is ever present in the Church through the Holy
Spirit, risen and ascended, the universal Judge, “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning
and the end” (Rev 22:13). The faith and experience of the Church are summed up in the phrase: The Father,
through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, creates, provides, and saves. Essentially, mission in Christ’s way is mission
in the light of the Holy Trinity, in the mystical presence and working together of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
2. Assumption of the whole of humanity. One of the favourite terms that Jesus Christ used to describe
Himself was “Son of man.” Jesus is the new Adam. The incarnation of the Word is the definitive event in the
3
Origen, On Prayer, 26, 3,10:277. Cf. John 4:34; 1 Cor 6:17.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Anastasios Yannoulatos 637

history of humankind, and the Church has persisted in opposing any Docetist deviation; “incarnate by the Holy
Spirit and the Virgin Mary” insists the Symbol of Faith. In His conception lies the human contribution, by
the wholehearted acceptance of the divine will, in obedience, humility and joy, by His mother, the most pure
representative of the human race. “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your
word” (Luke 1:38) was her decisive statement.
The absolute distinction between matter and spirit, as imagined by representatives of ancient Greek or Indian
thought, is rejected, and humanity is raised up as a whole. Jesus Christ is not only the Savior of souls, but of the
entire human being and the whole material-spiritual creation. This is as hard for classical thought to understand
as the Trinitarian dogma. Often indeed, an attempt is made to simplify or pass it over, but then mission loses
all its power and perspective. Christian mission does not mean taking refuge from our materiality, in one way
or another, for the salvation of mere souls, but the transforming of present time, of society, and all matter in
another way and by another dynamic. This perspective demands creative dialogue with contemporary cultures,
with secular persons stuck in the materialism of this world, with the new options of physics about matter and
energy and with every variety of human creation.
3. The radical and eternally new element: Love. Christ overthrows the established forms of authority,
wisdom, glory, piety, success, traditional principles and values, and reveals that the living center of all is
LOVE. The Father is love. The Son is love incarnate. The Spirit is the inexhaustible dynamic of love. This
love is not a vague “principle.” It is a “communion” of persons; it is the Supreme Being, the Holy Trinity. God
is love because He is an eternal trinity, a communion of living, equal, distinct persons. The Son reveals this
communion of love (koinonia agapes) in the world. In it He is not only the one who invites, but also the way.
Closely bound up with love are freedom, justice, liberation and the brotherhood of man, truth, harmony, joy
and fullness of life. Every sincere utterance and endeavor for these things, anywhere in the world, in whatever
age and culture, but above all in every loving, true expression of life, in n ray of God’s grace and love. Jesus
did not speak in vague and philosophical language about these great and holy things, but revealed them in
power by clear signs and speech, and above all by His life.
Among the many surprises that Christ held in store was the fact that He identified Himself with the humble,
the “least” of the people; from among whom He chose His companions and apostles. In the well-known saying
about the universal Last Judgment He directly identified Himself with the despised, the infirm, the poor, the
strangers and those in distress in the whole world. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you
did it to me,” He says, having “all the nations” assembled before Him (Matt 25:31-46).
This course remains determinative for His Church, His mystical body, for all ages. For this constitutes, in
its authentic form, the most benevolent power that fights for human dignity, worth, relief, and the raising up of
every human being throughout the length and breadth of the earth. Concern for all the poor and those unjustly
treated, without exception—independent of race or creed—is not a fashion of the ecumenical movement, but
a fundamental tradition of the united Church, an obligation that its genuine representatives have always seen
as of first importance. “To the extent that you abound in wealth, you are lacking in love,” declares St. Basil
the Great, criticizing the predilection of many for a “piety that costs nothing.”4 He did not hesitate to call a
“robber” not only the person who robs someone, but also the one who, though able to provide clothing and
help, neglects to do so. Tersely he concludes: “You do injustice to so many, as many are those you could help.”5
The modern reality of the world’s integration extends these judgments from the individual to the societal plane,
from individuals to wider conglomerations, to peoples, and the rich nations. The saints of the Church did not
simply speak for the poor, but, above all, shared their life. They voluntarily became poor out of love for Christ,
in order to identify with Him, who made Himself poor.
4. The paradox of humility and the sacrifice of the Cross. From the first moment of His presence in
humanity, Christ makes “kenosis” (self-emptying) the revelation of the power of the love of the Triune God.
4
St. Basil the Great, Homily, To those ioho become wealthy, 1.
5
St. Basil the Great, Homily, I will pull doum my barns, 7.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
638 Chapter (98)

He spends the greater part of His human life in the simplicity of everyday labor. Later, in His short public life,
He faces various disputes and serious accusations. The power of love is totally bound up with humility. The
opposite of love we usually call hatred, but its real name is egoism. This is the denial of the Triune God who
is a communion (koinonia) of love. Therein also lies the drama of Lucifer, that he can do everything except
be humble, and that is precisely why he cannot love. Christ destroys the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and
ransoms us chained in our egoism, by accepting the ultimate humiliation, the Cross. By the excess of this
humility He abolishes on the Cross demonic pride and self- centeredness. It is in that hour that the glory of
His love shines forth, humankind is redeemed.
Christian life means continual assimilation of the mystery of the cross in the fight against individual and
social egocentricity. This holy humility, which is ready to accept the ultimate sacrifice, is the mystical power
behind Christian mission. Mission will always be a service that entails acceptance of dangers, sufferings and
humiliations; experiencing simultaneously human powerlessness, and the power of God. Only those who
are prepared to accept, with courage and trust in Christ, sacrifice, tribulation, contradiction and rejection for
His sake, can withstand. One of the greatest dangers for Christian mission is that we become forgetful in the
practice of the cross and create a comfortable type of Christian who wants the cross as an ornament, but who
often prefers to crucify others than to be crucified himself.
5. Everything in the light of the Resurrection and eschatological hope. The basic precept of the universal
mission is given within the light of the Resurrection. Before the event of the Cross and Resurrection, Jesus had
not allowed His disciples to go out into the world. Unless one experiences the Resurrection, one cannot share
in Christ’s universal apostolate. If one experiences the Resurrection, one cannot help bearing witness to the
risen Lord, setting one’s sights on the whole world. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to
me. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matt 28:18-19). The first sentence takes our thought
back to “on earth as it is in heaven” in the Lord’s Prayer. Authority over the whole world has been given to the
Son of man, who fully carried out the Father’s will. He is the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come,
the Almighty” (Rev 1:8). The faith and power of the Church are founded precisely on this certainty. The Cross
and the Resurrection go together. Conforming one’s life to the crucified life of Christ involves the mystical
power of the Resurrection. On the other side, the Resurrection is the glorious revelation of the mystery and
power of the Cross, victory over selfishness and death.
A mission that does not put at its center the Cross and Resurrection ends up as a shadow and a fantasy. As
do simple people, so also do the more cultivated, who wallow in wealth, comfort and honors, come at some
moment of crisis face to face with the implacable, final question: What happens at death? In this problem that
torments every thinking person in every corner of the world the Church has the task of revealing the mystery
of Christ’s word: “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should
have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).
I recall a personal experience, in an out-of-the-way region of Western Kenya. We arrived at night at a
house that was in mourning. The little girl, stricken mortally by malaria, was lying on a big bed, as if sleeping
peacefully. “She was such a good child. She was always the first to greet me,” whispered the afflicted father
in perplexity. We read a short funeral prayer, and I said a few words of consolation. Alone in the room of the
school house where we were staying, by the light of the oil lamp, with the sound of rain on the banana leaves
and zinc roof, I remembered the events of the day. Away in the darkness a drum was beating. It was in the
house of mourning. In my tiredness I wondered. Why are you here? There came confusedly to my mind the
various things that are spoken about in connection with mission: preaching, love, education, civilization, peace,
development. Suddenly a light flashed and lit up in the mist of my tired brain the essence of the matter: You
bring the message, the hope of Resurrection. Every human person has a unique worth. They will rise again.
Herein lays human dignity, value and hope. Christ is Risen! You teach them to celebrate the Resurrection in
the mystery of the Church; to have a foretaste of it. As if in a fleeting vision, I saw the little African girl hur-
rying up to greet me first, as was her habit; helping me to determine more precisely the kernel of the Christian

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Anastasios Yannoulatos 639

mission: That is, to infuse all with the truth and hope of the Resurrection; to teach them to celebrate it. And
this we do in the Church.
What our brothers and sisters in the isolated corners of Africa and Asia or in the outskirts of our large and
rich cities long for, in their depression and loneliness, is not vague words of consolation, a few material goods
or the crumbs of civilization. They yearn, secretly or consciously, for human dignity, for hope, and to transcend
death. In the end they are searching for the living Christ, the perfect God-man, the way, the truth and the life.
All, of whatever age and class, rich or poor, obscure or famous, illiterate or learned, in their heart of hearts
long to celebrate the Resurrection and the “certification” of life. In this the prospect of a mission “in Christ’s
way” reaches it culmination.

C. Fullness and Catholicity

The consequences of such a theological understanding are multifaceted. The important units, within which
groups of critical problems for our time will be studied, have already been fixed: (a) turning to the living God;
(b) participating in suffering and struggle; (c) the earth is the Lord’s; and (d) towards renewed communities
in mission. Before today much study, leavened with prayer, has taken place in small and larger groups, in
conferences and congresses. The third part of this summary report will focus on only two points.
1. “Thy will be done,” as it is repeated by Christ Himself in Gethsemane, helps us to overcome a great
temptation: The tendency for us to minimize the demands and cost of doing God’s will in our personal
life. It is usually easier for us to rest in the general, in what concerns mostly others and in what suits us.
(a) The will of God, however, as it is revealed in Christ, is a single and indissoluble WHOLE (“. . . teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you”). “Thy will be done” entirely, not by halves. The various
so-called corrections that have at times been made to make the Gospel easier and the Church more acceptable
or, so to speak, more effective, do not strengthen but rob the Gospel of its power. While waiting at a European
airport a couple of years ago there came into my hands an impressive leaflet in which, framed between other
things, was written: “Blessed are those who are rich. Blessed are those who are handsome. Blessed are those
who have power. Blessed are the smart. Blessed are the successful, for they will possess the earth.” I thought
to myself: How many times, even in our own communities, do we prefer, openly or secretly, these idols, this
worldly topsy-turvy representation of the Beatitudes, making them the criteria of our way of life?
The name of the city in which this meeting of ours is taking place reminds us not only of St. Anthony of
Padua, to which the toponymy refers, but also of St. Anthony the Great, one of the universal Church’s great
personalities, who traced a model of perfect acceptance of God’s will. This great hermit, in perfect obedience
to: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven; and come, follow me” (Matt 19:21), went out in an adventure of freedom and love. This led to the
outpouring of a new breath of the spirit in the Church at a time when it was in danger of compromising with
secular power and the spirit of the world.
In the midst of our many sociopolitical concerns we have to bear in mind and act on the understanding
that “this is the will of God, your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3). Our sanctification, by following the divine
will in all things, in our daily obligations, in our personal endeavors, and in the midst of many and various
difficulties and dilemmas. The simplistic anthropology that encourages a naive morality, overlooking our
existential tragedy does not help at all. Human existence is an abyss. “I do not do what I want, but I do the
very thing I hate. I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive
to the law of sin which dwells in my members” (Rom 7:15-23). Unfortunately, many of us, in critical situ-
ations, while we easily say “Thy will be done,” in practice add: “not as thou wilt, but as I will.” This overt
or secret reversal of the divine will in our decisions is the main reason and cause of the failure of many
Christian missions and initiatives. The hard inner struggle for purification and sanctification is the premise
and mystical power of the apostolate.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
640 Chapter (98)

The carrying out of God’s will in the world will always be assisted by continuous repentance, so that we
may be conformed to the model of Christ and be made one with Him. That is why in the Orthodox tradition
monasteries have special importance, above all as centers of penitence. Everything that accompanies this
struggle—worship, work, comforting the people, education, artistic creativity—follows, as a reflection of
spiritual purification, of transformation, of a personal experience of repentance. The quest for new types of
communities that will serve the contemporary apostolate must be closely bound up with the spiritual quest in
the contemporary social reality for concrete forms of communities that will live out, profoundly and personally,
repentance and longing for the coming of the Kingdom. The critical question for a mission in Christ’s way is
to what extent others can discern in our presence something, a ray, of His own presence.
(b) Conformity to God’s will does not mean servile submission or fatalistic expectation. Nor is it achieved
by a simple, moral, outward obedience. Joyful acceptance of God’s will is an expression of love for a new
relationship “in the Beloved”; it is a restoration of humanity’s lost freedom. It means our communion in the
mystery of the love of the Holy Trinity, communion within the freedom of love. Thus, we become “partakers of
the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Conformity to God’s will is in the end a sharing in what the Orthodox tradition
calls uncreated energies, by which we reach theosis, we become “god by grace.”6 The most blessed pages of
Christian mission were written out of an excess of love for Christ, and identification with Him.
(c) The Church continually seeks to renew this holy intoxication of love, especially by the sacrament of
the Holy Eucharist— which remains the pre-eminent missionary event—everywhere on earth. In the Divine
Liturgy the celebrant, as representative of the whole community, prays: “Send thy Holy Spirit upon us and
upon these gifts here present.” Not “on the gifts only,” but we beg that the Holy Spirit may be sent “upon
us” also, so that we may be “moved by the Spirit.” The whole prayer moves very clearly in a Trinitarian per-
spective. We beseech the Father to send the Spirit to change the precious gifts into Christ’s Body and Blood,
and in receiving Holy Communion we are united with Him; we become “of one body” and “of one blood”
with Christ, that we may become fertile and bear the fruit of the Spirit, become “God’s temple,” receivers and
transmitters of His blessed radiance.
The enthusiasm for the acquisition of the Holy Spirit, which is of late much sought after in the West,
has always been strong in the East; but in a sober Christological context and in a Trinitarian perspective. The
Church’s experience is summed up in the well-known saying of St. Seraphim: “The purpose of Christian life
is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit.” The saint continues: “Prayer, fasting and almsgiving, and the other good
works and virtues that are done for Christ, are simply, and only means of acquiring God’s Holy Spirit.”7 This
presence of the Holy Spirit has nothing at all to do with spiritual pride and self-satisfaction. It is at bottom
connected with the continual exercise of penitence, with holy humility. “I tell you the truth,” wrote a holy
monk of Mount Athos, Starets Silouan, “I find nothing good in myself and I have committed many sins. But
the grace of the Holy Spirit has blotted them out. And I know that to those who fight sin is afforded not only
pardon, but also the grace of the Holy Spirit, which gladdens the soul and bestows a sweet and profound peace.”8
2. The fact that the will of God refers to the whole world, the whole universe, excludes isolating ourselves
in an individualistic piety, in a kind of private Christianity.
(a) The will of God covers the whole human reality; it is accomplished in the whole of history. It is not pos-
sible for the Christian to remain indifferent to historical happenings in the world, when faith is founded on two
historical events: the Incarnation of the Word of God and the Second-coming of Christ. The social, the human
reality is the place in which the Church unfolds. Every expression of human creativity, science, technology and
the relationships of persons as individuals, peoples and various groupings are to be found among its concerns.
We are living at a critical, historic juncture in which a new universal culture, the electronic culture, is
taking shape. The natural sciences, especially astronautics, biomedicine, and genetics are creating and posing
6
St. Maximos the Confessor, On various questions of Saints Dionysios and Gregorios, PG 91:1084AC, 1092C, 1308.
7
P.A. Botsis, Philokalia of the Russian Vigilents, Athens, 1983, p. 105 (in Greek).
8
Archimandrite Sophrony, Starets Silouan, Moine du Mont-Athos. (Traduit du russe par le Hiéromoine Syméon) Sisteron,
1973, p. 318.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Anastasios Yannoulatos 641

new problems. Half of the earth’s population is crushed into huge urban centers; contemporary agnosticism is
eating away at the thought and gifts (charismata) that every local Church possesses (personnel, knowledge,
expertise, and financial facility), it can contribute to the development of the worldwide mission “to the end
of the earth” (Acts 1:8). It is time for every Christian to realize that mission is our own obligation and to take
part in it looking to the whole of humankind. Just as there is no Church without a worshipping life, so there
cannot be a living Church without missionary life.
(b) Those outside the Christian faith, who still have no knowledge of the will of God in its fullness, do not
cease to move in the mystical radiance of His glory. God’s will is diffused throughout the whole of history and
throughout the whole world. Consequently it influences their own lives, concerns them and embraces them. It
is expressed in many ways— as divine providence, inspiration, and guidance. In recent time in the ecumenical
movement, we have been striving hard for the theological understanding of people of other faiths; and this
difficult, but hopeful dialogue very much deserves to continue at this present conference.
Certainly for the Church, God’s will, as it was lived out in its fullness by Christ, remains its essential heritage
and contribution in the world. It is not, therefore, a sign of respect for others to agree on a so-called common
denominator that minimizes our convictions about Christ. Rather, it is an injustice if we are silent about the
truth that constitutes the givenness of the Church’s experience. It is one thing—imposition by force— that is
unacceptable, and has always been anti-Christian and quite a different thing, a withholding or diminution, that
leads to a double betrayal, both of our own faith and of others’ right to know the whole truth.
Jesus Christ went about doing good among people of other faiths (let us recall the stories of the Canaanite
woman and the centurion), admiring and praising their spontaneous faith and goodness. (“I say to you, not
even in Israel have I found such faith” Matt 8:10.) He even used as a symbol of Himself a representative of
another religious community, the good “Samaritan.” His example remains determinative: beneficent service and
sincere respect for whatever has been preserved from that which was made “in the image of God.” Certainly
in today’s circumstances our duty is becoming more clear and extensive: a journey together in whatever does
not militate against God’s will; an understanding of the deepest religious insights that have developed in other
civilizations by the assistance of the Spirit; a cooperation in the concrete applications of God’s will, such as
justice, peace, freedom, love, both in the universal community and on the local level.
(c) Not only the so-called spiritual, but also the whole physical universe moves within the sphere of God’s will.
Reverence for the animal and the vegetable kingdoms, the correct use of nature, concern for the conservation of
the ecological balance, the struggle to prevent nuclear catastrophe and to preserve the integrity of creation, have
become more important in the list of immediate ecclesiastical concerns. This is not a deviation, as asserted by some
who see Christ as saving souls by choice and His Church as a traditional private religious concern of certain people.
The whole world, not only “humankind,” but the entire universe, has been called to share in the restoration that was
accomplished by the redeeming work of Christ. “We wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness
dwells” (2 Pet 3:13). Christ, the Almighty and Logos of the Universe, remains the key to understanding the evo-
lution of the world. All things will come to pass in Him who is their head. The surprising design, “the mystery of
his will,” which has been made known to us “according to his purpose,” is “a plan for the fullness of time, to unite
all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph 1:9-10). The correspondence with the phrase of the
Lord’s Prayer is obvious. The transformation of creation, as victory over the disfigurement that sin brought to the
world, is to be found in the wider perspective and immediate concerns of Christian mission. [...]
Through all the length and breadth of the earth, we millions of Christians of every race, class, culture and
language repeat, “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Sometimes painfully, faithfully and hopefully,
sometimes mechanically and indifferently; but we seldom connect it intimately with the missionary obligation.
The conjunction of the two phrases: “Thy will be done” and “Mission in Christ’s way” gives a special dynamic
to our conference. Understanding the missionary dimensions of this prayer will strengthen in the Christian
world the conviction that mission is sharing in carrying out God’s will on earth. Put the other way round, that
God’s will demands our own active participation, working with the Holy Trinity.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
642 Chapter (98)

By sharing the life of the risen Christ, living the Father’s will, moved by the Holy Spirit, we have a decisive
word and role in shaping the course of humankind. The Lord is at hand. The history of the world does not
proceed in a vacuum. It is unfolding towards an end. There is a plan. God’s will shall prevail on earth. The
prayers of the saints will not remain unanswered! There will be a universal judgment by the Lord of love.
At that last hour everything will have lost its importance and value, except for selfless love. The last word
belongs to Christ; the mystery of God’s will reaches its culmination in the recapitulation of all things in Him.
We continue to struggle with fortitude. We celebrate the event that is coming. We enjoy a foretaste of that hour
of the last things. Rejoicing in worship —with this vision—with this hope.
Lord, free us from our own will and incorporate us in your own. “Thy will be done.”

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (99) A DYNAMIC UNDERSTANDING OF TRADITION AND MISSION
AND THE NEED FOR CONTEXTUALIZATION

Petros Vassiliadis

Tradition (in Greek παράδοσις=paradosis) is the entire set of historical facts, beliefs, experiences, social and
religious practices, and even philosophical doctrines or aesthetic conceptions, which form an entity transmit-
ted from one generation to another either orally or in a written and even in artistic form. Thus, tradition - we
may safely say - constitutes a fundamental element for the existence, coherence and advancement of human
culture in any given context.
In the wider religious sphere – taking into consideration that culture is in some way connected with cult – tradition
has to do more or less with the religious practices, i.e. with the liturgy of a given religious system, rather than with
the religious beliefs that theoretically express or presuppose these practices, without of course excluding them.
In Christianity, paradoxically, tradition was for quite an extensive period of time confined only to the oral
form of Christian faith, or more precisely the non-biblical part of it, both written in later Christian literature or
transmitted in various ways from one generation to another. Thus, tradition has come to be determined by the
post-reformation and post-Trentine dialectic opposition to the Bible, which has taken the oversimplified form:
Bible and/or (even versus) Tradition. Only recently, from the beginning of the ecumenical era, has tradition
acquired a new wider sense and understanding, which nevertheless has always been the authentic understand-
ing in the ancient Church. Tradition no longer has a fragmented meaning connected to one only segment of
Christian faith; it refers to the whole of Christian faith: not only the Christian doctrine but also to worship.
It is not a coincidence that the two main references in the Bible of the term in the sense of “receiving” (in
Greek: παραλαμβάνειν) and “transmitting” (in Greek: παραδιδόναι) as recorded by St. Paul in his 1st epistle to
Corinthians (ch.11 and 15) cover both the kerygma (doctrine in the wider sense) and the Eucharist (the heart
of Christian worship).
Thus the importance of tradition in Christianity underlines a sense of a living continuity with the Church
of the ancient times, of the apostolic period. Tradition in this sense is not viewed as something in addition to,
or over against, the Bible. Scripture and Tradition are not treated as two different things, two distinct sources
of the Christian faith. Scripture exists within Tradition, which although it gives a unique pre-eminence to the
Bible, it also includes further developments - of course in the form of clarification and explication, not of
addition - of the apostolic faith.
We exist as Christians by the Tradition (paradosis) of the Gospel (evangellion, kerygma), testified in Scrip-
ture, and transmitted in and by the Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Tradition (with capital T) is
distinguished from the various local or regional or even temporal traditions (with small t), which obviously
cannot claim a universal authority in the life of the Church. Yet, there is a close connection between the two.
“The traditions in Christian history are distinct from, yet connected with, the Tradition. They are expressions
and manifestations in diverse historical terms of the one truth and reality which is in Christ” (IV World Con-
ference on Faith and Order of WCC, Montreal, 1963).
At first glance the very concept of tradition, if it is connected only to the past, seems to be a contradiction,
since the Holy Spirit who guides the Church to all truth (Jn. 16:13), cannot be limited by traditional past values
only, for the “pneuma blows wherever he (or she) wishes” (Jn 3:8). If we take the Trinitarian and eschatological
principles of Christian faith seriously into account, the Church as a koinonia proleptically manifesting the glory
of the coming Kingdom of God, i.e. as a movement forward, toward the eschata, a movement of continuous
renewal, can hardly be conditioned by what has been set in the past, with the exception of course of the living
continuity and of the communion with all humanity - in fact with all the created world - both in space and in time.
644 Chapter (99)

Thus, tradition is not a static entity; it is rather a dynamic reality. It is not a dead acceptance of the past,
but a living experience of the Holy Spirit in the present. In G. Florovsky’s words, “Tradition is the witness
of the Spirit; the Spirit’s unceasing revelation and preaching of the Good news... It is not only a protective,
conservative principle, but primarily the principle of growth and renewal”.
Therefore, from an Orthodox perspective of mission, an authentic witness to the Gospel in any given context
needs to be somehow differently connected to the “traditional” understanding of Tradition. The obvious variety
of human experiences, formed in differing social, cultural, economic, political etc. contexts eliminates the very
possibility of a single universal application of Christian mission. In a given situation, therefore, a true and effective
mission has very little to do with any “local”, “temporal” etc. tradition. Hence the importance of a theology of
struggle (for liberation, for hope, for the integrity of creation etc.), or of a theology of spirituality and ascetic life,
of liturgical theology, and so on and so forth. Tradition, as well as the theology of mission, become “contextual”.
The question posed by contextual theology, in contrast to classical theology, is not so much whether and to
what extent the theological positions are in agreement with any local tradition, but if these positions have any
dynamic reference and relation at all to the given conditions of today’s world. Consequently, therefore, the
Churches that in the past were interested in charitable diakonia, with concrete expressions that were directed
toward the results of social and environmental indifference and injustice, nowadays are more and more inter-
ested in social diakonia, beginning to shift toward the causes of social indifference and injustice.
The same holds true on a purely theological level: nothing can serve as an authoritative basis, at least in
dialogue, or in mission, even if attested by “tradition” (Holy Scripture or Church tradition in general), since
every past experience in the Church is conditioned by a certain (and therefore relative?) context. Some argue that
the argument “from tradition” no longer constitutes an unshakable and unchangeable point of reference for any
contested issue relevant to Christian witness (e.g. the question of the ordination of women, or of the inclusive
language, or even the Trinitarian basis of Christian faith etc.). This also applies to the dialogue to achieve the
visible unity, the minimum required for an effective and faithful to the divine call common Christian witness.
Contextual theology, taking as its point of departure the certainty that the Church is a “sign” of the Kingdom
of God and of the “given by the triune God unity”, calls into question the ability of the established institutions
to advance on the road toward an egalitarian community of men and women, both within the Church and in
the society at large. Similar questions might be raised both about the relationship between the eternal and
inviolable “Gospel” and all finite “culture(s)”, and even more pointedly about the dialogue of Christianity
with other living religions, taking especially for granted that Christian mission is evolving in contexts that are
heavily influenced by the presence of people of other faiths.
It is natural, then, that the understanding, and to some extent also the application, of mission can be better
achieved as the natural consequence of the inner dynamics of the Triune God, i.e. of the communion and love
that exists within the Holy Trinity. This Trinitarian basis cannot only have tremendous effect in helping the
Church to overcome all kinds of imperialistic or confessionalistic attitudes, we experienced in the past; it also
gives a new and liberating meaning to tradition. In Ion Bria’s words,

“the Trinitarian theology points to the fact that God’s involvement in history aims at drawing humanity and creation
in general into this communion with God’s very life. The implications of this assertion for understanding mission
are very important: mission does not aim primarily at the propagation or transmission of intellectual convictions,
doctrines, moral commands etc. (i.e. does not depend on a static understanding of tradition), but at the transmission
of the life of communion that exists in God”.

This dynamic understanding of tradition has immensely helped contemporary world mission to move away
from the old “universal proselytizing mission” concept. It was rather the natural consequence of the authentic
identity of the Church and the rediscovery of the forgotten Trinity. More particularly it was the result of the
reinforcement of Pneumatology into the missiological reflections.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

Petros Vassiliadis 645

Bibliography

D. J. Bosch, Transforming Mission. Paradigm Schifts in Theology of Mission, (New York, 1991)
I.Bria, The Sense of Ecumenical Tradition: The Ecumenical Witness and Vision of the Orthodox, (Geneva 1991)
- (ed.), Go forth in Peace. Orthodox Perspectives on Mission, (WCC Mission Series: Geneva 1986)
E.Clapsis, “Tradition: An Orthodox-Ecumenical View,” Orthodoxy in Conversation. Orthodox Ecumenical
Engagements, (WCC Publications/HCO Press Geneva/Massachusetts 2000)11-39
Y.Congar, “Christianisme comme Foi et comme Culture,” Evangelizzatione e Culture. Atti del Congresso
Internationale scientifico di Missiologica, Rome 1975, vol. I, (1976) 83-103
G.Florovsky, “The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 9
(1963), 181-200;
K. Ware, “Tradition and Traditions”, in N. Lossky and others (eds.), Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement,
(WCC Publications, Geneva (2nd edition) 2002) 1143-1148.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
 (100) COMMON MISSION AS A TASK FOR ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT IN ECUMENISM1

Fr. John Njoroge

Introduction

Following the participation of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement and especially in the World
Council of Churches (WCC), it can be said that, the Orthodox churches have had profound impact on the
life and work of the WCC. Orthodox participation has promoted Trinitarian theology, the unity of doctrine,
ecclesiology of the local church, spirituality and sacramental life as well as the place of the liturgy in seeking
visible unity.2 This has been done in different forums in the life of the WCC, for example in the context of
Faith and Order, and the Conference on World Mission and Evangelism. This article, will, therefore, focus
on the participation of the Orthodox Church in the ecumenical movement and especially in the WCC and the
Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME). This is not only because the Orthodox churches
have contributed soundly on this area, but because they have also learnt from the others. In doing that, this
text will focus on the Pneumatological approach to mission. The article will conclude by highlighting the
importance of mission in the life of the Church which, therefore, should be taught in the Orthodox theological
institutions.
The participation of the Orthodox Churches in the WCC has greatly contributed to the enhancement
of the Pneumatological mission paradigm in the ecumenical movement. It is observed that the coming of
Trinitarian theology in ecumenism started appearing in articles following the WCC Third General Assembly
in 1961 in New Delhi. This is when Orthodox churches started joining the WCC. Concerning the theology
of mission, Prof. Petros Vassiliadis asserts that the decisive turning point was the 1963 World Mission
Conference in Mexico, after which the mission agenda was enriched by a new understanding of mission,
mostly represented by a variety of terms like witness (martyria), dialogue and liberation.3 In addition,
the Seventh WCC Assembly in Canberra, Australia with the theme “Come Holy Spirit-Renew the Whole
Creation” was the first assembly to focus on the Holy Spirit. This was hailed not only by the Orthodox
participants but also by others who acknowledged the importance of addressing world problems from a
Pneumatological perspective. For the Orthodox, this was important because the theology of the Holy Spirit
is addressed within the context of the Holy Trinity. This was a fundamental breakthrough in bringing into
light the patristic thought that was essential to the ecumenical movement that, in all God’s actions in regard
to His creation and redemption of humanity are within the Trinity. Although each person in the Trinity got
a definite role, they operate in unity.4As far as contemporary mission is concerned, the Pneumatological
dimension of mission was fully articulated during the CWME conference in Athens in 2005 with the theme:
“Come Holy Spirit, Heal and Reconcile”.5
1
The first following article on this subject is from Fr. John Njoroge while the second one from Valentin Kozhuharov.
2
Michael Kinnamon & Brian E. Cope, The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices, (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1997) 484.
3
Petros Vassiliadis, “Reconciliation as a Pneumatological Mission Paradigm: Some Preliminary Reflections by an Ortho-
dox” International Review of Mission 94: 372 (January 2005) 30-42.
4
Gennadios Limouris, Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism: Statements, Messages and Reports (Geneva: WCC Publications,
1994) 160.
5
“Come Holy Spirit, Heal and Reconcile” Conference on World Mission and Evangelism of the (WCC, Athens 2005)
Mission as Ministry of Reconciliation. Last accessed 17th June 2010. Available at: http://www.oikoumene.org/resources/
documents/other-meetings/mission-and-evangelism/athens-2005-documents/preparatory-paper-n-1-mission-and-evange-
lism-in-unity-today.html (last accessed, September 2013).
John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 647

Pneumatology and Mission of the Church

The Pneumatological approach to mission brings a new understanding of mission as the very nature of the
Church based on sharing and witnessing God’s love to His creation. God so loved the world and gave his
only begotten son so that he who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). God’s love
aims to restore the human being into the original state before the fall i.e. restoration of God’s image in the
human beings.6 The process here is that of transforming the old person into a new person in Christ through
the power of the Holy Spirit. Understanding mission from the Pneumatological dimension means the recovery
of the theology of the Holy Spirit in mission. Theology of the Holy Spirit, profoundly suggests the unity,
inclusiveness and the reconciliatory nature of the Trinity.
According to the Orthodox theology, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is inseparable from Christology and
Ecclesiology. Therefore, the whole school of Orthodox Pneumatology is understood and practiced within the
church doctrines and liturgical rites. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is in operation in the entire life of the Church.
It is the Holy Spirit who operates all the church mysteries. It is through participation in the mysteries of the
Church, that the faithful become spiritual through the process of sanctification, climbing from one degree of
glory to another (2 Cor 3:18) aiming for union with God (Theosis).
This is a daily experience of the Church and it is lived and witnessed by a worshiping community which is
then called to witnesses to the world through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). This form of witnessing
is an ideal missiological function of the Church and takes place through grace; hence the faith and the good
works of Christians become visible ‘with a demonstration of the spirit and the power’ (1 Cor. 2:4).7 This asserts
that, mission brings that what is experienced eschatologically into the visible and practical for the world to
believe. This makes Metropolitan John Zizioulas’ articulation of Pneumatology from an eschatological per-
spective profoundly ideal for mission today, because he understands the Church more as coming together as
a community of worshippers.8 The coming together as community reflects the Trinitarian communion of God
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This approach has greatly enlightened the understanding of mission
even in the ecumenical movement, making the former WCC General Secretary to suggest a radical shift to
a “new paradigm”, away from the “Christocentric universalism” and towards a “Trinitarian” understanding
of the divine reality for the future of ecumenism and Christian mission.9 This is because love, communion,
unity and interdependence of the Trinity should also be lived by the whole humanity created in the image
and likeness of the Triune God. This ‘Trinitarianism’ is reflected or else manifested by the coming together
of a worshiping community. A gathered community of believers through the sacrament of Eucharist becomes
more self-conscious to witness the kingdom of God here in the world. This is why in the Orthodox Church the
Eucharistic worship becomes the source of what Fr. Ion Bria calls ‘Meta-liturgy’ i.e. Mission as the Liturgy
after the Liturgy.10

6
Njoroge J. Ngige, Orthodox Christian Witness in Africa: The Dynamics of the Orthodox Pneumatology as a Mission
Paradigm Today, (Unpublished Ph.D: Thessaloniki, 2011) (in Greek).
7
Vassiliadis Petros, Unity and Witness Orthodox Christian Witness and Interfaith Dialogue-Handbook on Missiology
(Athens: Epikentro, 2007) 325 (in Greek).
8
Zizioulas John D., Being As Communion; Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 2002) 130-31, 182.
9
Konrad Raiser, Ecumenism in Transition. A Paradigm Shift in the Ecumenical Movement, (WCC Publications Gene-
va 1991) (translated with modifications from the German original ÖkumeneimÜbergang, C.Kaiser Verlag/München
1989) 79ff.
10
Ion Bria, The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective, (Geneva: WCC Publications,
1996) 19-35.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
648 Chapter (100)

The liturgy and Mission of the church

One of the greatest contributions of the Orthodox Church to the theology of mission is the Liturgy after the
Liturgy by Fr.Ion Bria.11 The Orthodox liturgy has a well-connected missionary structure and purpose.12 The
Divine Liturgy is basically celebrated as an event aiming to send the participants to a mission, to witness and
share with the others what they have experienced in the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the faithful. The
Orthodox understanding of worship is not only an expression representing Christ’s saving ministry, death,
resurrection and ascension but also it is a place where the members of the Church participate in the living an-
ticipation of the kingdom of God. As a community they are entitled to fully participate in God’s work (Missio
Dei) of salvation of the world. This is why the celebrant at the end of the Divine Liturgy proclaims; lets us go
forth in peace.13 Fr. Ion Bria interprets this dismissal as a:

Sending off [of] every believer to mission in the world where he or she lives and works, and whole community into
the world, to witness by what they are that the kingdom is coming. Christians who have heard the word and received
the bread of life should henceforth be living prophetic signs of the kingdom.14

This sending proclamation of the liturgy signals that liturgy is a basic spiritual preparatory form for mission
for its participants. This comes along after following the ethos of the entire Orthodox theology surrounding the
gathering of a worshiping community on the day of the Lord (Κυριακή). The act of gathering and the idea of
the Eucharist are set within the framework of a communion, not only the communion between the living and
the dead but also with the saints and the heavenly bodiless powers. This communion per excellence reflects
the Trinitarian communion making the Eucharistic liturgy be the springboard for mission where everyone and
everything is called into being.
Within the Eucharistic worship two major events take place that prepare participants to go forth in peace and
witness. First, if we are convinced that liturgy is a missionary event where a true divine revelation becomes a
reality, then the participants do par excellence witness a living anticipation of the kingdom.15 Secondly, as we
participate and become perfected as individuals through the Holy Communion, the whole community of believ-
ers is transformed into an authentic image of the kingdom of God. Through this transformation, however, the
whole creation through the Church is also transformed. Here the Church becomes the “uncreated” light placed
on a lamp stand to shine before the others (Mat 5:16). Therefore, it is this light Christians are sent to witness
to all people for Christ who is the head of the Church said “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me
will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). The light here has to be interpreted as
a continuous transfiguration of human lives into Christ Jesus with the power of the Holy Spirit. What is very
important and connects this light to the liturgy is that, this light is kept shining even brighter in our lives because
of our continuous participation in the mysteries of the Church. Just as the light drives away the darkness and
enlightens a darkened place, so does the light of Christ enlighten our spiritual consciousness making us more
aware of the worthiness of life in the world and giving us hope for the eschaton. Spiritual consciousness makes
individual members of the Church continue discovering various charismatic gifts received from the sacrament
of Chrismation and are empowered to utilize these gifts in the diaconal life in the mission of the Church.
In every liturgical gathering we do not simply hear the words of ‘anamnesis’ but we participate in the
very action of forgiveness of sins, sanctification and transformation of our very being (souls & bodies) into
11
International Review of Mission, 100:2, (Nov 2011) 190-192.
12
Stamoolis J. James, Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today (Minneapolis: Light And Life Publishing Company,
1986) 86-102.
13
Nicholas Cabasilas ΑCommentary on the Divine Liturgy, (London: S.P.C.K, 1960) 61.
14
Bria Ion, Go Forth in Peace; Orthodox Perspectives in Mission (Geneva: WCC Mission Series, 1986) 38.
15
Emmanuel Clapsis, The Orthodox Churches in the pluralistic World; An Ecumenical Conversation (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 2004) 193.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 649

the ‘body of Christ’ through the invocation of the Holy Spirit “epiclesis’.16 Archbishop Anastasios of Alba-
nia observes that, during the epiclesis the whole world is transformed into a Church, a Church which is in
communion with the Triune God.17 The communion takes place in the “Movement of Ascension” where the
creation is called into the throne of God, into the kingdom. However, the movement does not end there; it
takes a turn to descend into the world to put in place the “liturgy after the liturgy”, i.e. to witness into the
world the love of God. Within this movement of ‘Ascending’ and ‘Descending’ the Eucharist brings forth
the relationship between the Church as a whole and the Church in mission.18 Here mission is not just a mere
proclamation of Christ’s salvation for the world but a true revelation and calling into full participation in
Christ’s salvation through the Holy Spirit.
This means, although the Church is by nature a ‘message of salvation’ it has its apostolicity, to proclaim
the kingdom of God, both by words of the gospel and the good works (James 2:14-20). The Church has
just one ‘apostolicity’, because the Kingdom of God is one and this is why the Holy Apostles were not
commissioned to proclaim a set of given religious beliefs and customs, doctrines and moral orders, but
to proclaim the good news (ευαγγέλιον) which is the coming of the kingdom of God. So the Church has
a great commission to proclaim by witnessing this eschatological reality to the world. Archbishop Anas-
tasios affirms that, this creates a sense of mission responsibility to all who confess the apostolicity of the
Church. When the faithful confesses that the Church is apostolic they simultaneously declare to share in
her apostolic mission.19
Authentically, the Church gets into this eschatological reality during the celebration of the Eucharist where
the Church becomes par excellence the icon of Kingdom. It is worthy to note that this reality of the Church is
not intended only for a particular people, place or time but for everyone and everything and everywhere (John
4:21). Therefore, the apostolicity of the Church here becomes her mission to witness this reality to all people
(πάντα τα έθνη) (Mt 28:19). This applies to all aspects of the human being which include social, economic, po-
litical and human relations and dependence to the environment. This unique understanding of the eschatological
reality in the Eucharistic celebration has been well-developed by Maximus the Confessor who characterizes
the events of the Old Testament as the ‘shadow’ of the future and that the present reality of the Church is only
an ‘image’ of truth.20
Basically, if the reality of the Church is fully manifested within Eucharistic worship so is the mission of the
Church. This is why the church Fathers in the Nicene Creed characterize the Church as “Apostolic”.21 Metro-
politan Zizioulas argues that the apostolicity of the Church does not mean only the historical continuity and
unbroken lineage of bishops to the apostles and the apostles to Christ, thus forming the Apostolic Succession;
it also means and emphasizes a collegiality of persons with an eschatological function.22 This eschatological
function denotes the original apostolate of Christ’s teachings and His ‘calling and sending’ of the twelve to
proclaim the good news. The twelve form the inward layers of the didascalias of the Church and they even
today remain in the Church as the pillars for the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were
the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev. 21:14). Further, Archbishop Anastasios of Albania
enlightens: apostolicity of the Church implies having an “apostolic fire and zeal to preach the gospel ‘to every
creature’ (Mk 16:15), because it nurtures its members so that they may become ‘witnesses in Jerusalem and
16
The liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, where the priest prays: once again we offer to you this spiritual worship without shed-
ding of blood, and we ask you, pray and entreat you: send down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here present.
17
Yannoulatos Anastasios Mission in the Steps of Christ, Theological Essays and Homilies, (Apostoliki Diakonia of the
Church of Greece: Athens, 2007) 167-68 (in Greek).
18
Bassioudis George, The power of Divine Liturgy The contribution of A. Schmemann to Liturgical theology (Athens:
Enplo Editions, 2008) 139 (in Greek).
19
George Lemopoulos, Your Will be Done; Orthodoxy in Mission, (Katerini: Tertios, Geneva: WCC Publications 1989) p. 82.
20
Μάξιμος Ομολογητής, Περί διαφόρων αποριών, PG 91 1084C-D.
21
See the Nicene Creed where the church is characterized as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
22
Zizioulas, Being as communion; p 173

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
650 Chapter (100)

in Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth’ (Acts 1:8)”.23 This approach reminds all Christians that they
are called to participate fully in witnessing the gospel because the gospel is for all peoples and therefore, never
will the mission of the Church end unless all peoples (sheep) are brought into the fold (Church) of the good
shepherd (Christ) (John 10:1-17).

Conclusion

Pneumatology is an important paradigm of mission in the ecumenical movement today. This is because it reminds
churches and mission organizations that mission is rooted in the Triune God24. The Pneumatological approach
to mission is based on the love, communion and conciliatory nature of the three persons of the Trinity. Because
humanity has failed to actualize the love, communion and conciliatory nature of Trinity in the contemporary
society, the notion of healing and reconciliation has become a paramount aspect of Christian mission. Christ has
called His Church to be an icon of reconciliation. Christ did set the best example during His earthly ministry.
St. Luke has perfectly cupped the whole notion of salvation in the miraculous healing of Christ. St. Paul in his
letters is deeply concerned that those whom Christ has reconciled in His own body should always be united.
Unity here expresses God’s first plan to reconcile all things in Himself through Christ (2 Cor.5:17-18). Unity
for St. Paul is not only for the Jews and Gentiles expressed by Luke in the book of Acts, but also for the slave
and free, male and female in Christ (Gal. 3:28).25 John’s gospel understands reconciliation from the point of
view of truth and peace, which crowns Christ as a wonderful counselor and prince of peace (Isaiah 9:6).
The contemporary society is yearning for peace, justice and truth calling the churches to go back to the theol-
ogy of the Holy Spirit as the source of forgiveness and reconciliation. In today’s world, people are experiencing
economic injustice, sexual exploitation, racism, political conflicts, religious proselytism and abuse of human
rights. Those who are experiencing or have experienced in history any sort of injustice or exploitation may it
be economic, political or religious are locked in a cycle of victimhood and aggression. Inability of breaking
this cycle makes our societies to remain locked within the cycles of anger and revenge. It is the mission of
the Church to make individuals and communities learn how to forgive and acceptance others. Forgiving and
accepting one’s self or even the other is the starting point of what Stanley Harakas characterizes as “the making
of what one has into something other” or else, finding one’s self to be a new person by virtue of the exchange
of another.26 For this to happen, the Church must advocate for justice and truth. Justice and truth makes the
persons’ involved to want to change their hearts i.e. forgiveness, making it possible to replace bad thoughts
with good, anger with affection and bitterness with compassion.
Another important aspect of the Pneumatological approach to mission is that, it reminds the faithful that
the Church is not static but dynamic in nature. This is because the apostolicity of the Church is based on the
kenotic energy of the Holy Spirit who always goes where it wills (John 3:8). The kenotic dynamic of the
Holy Spirit guides the Church as it expands unlimitedly, culturally and geographically to all people. Within
her expansion, the Church will not avoid meeting the cultural, social, economic and political challenges of
today’s world. Pneumatologically, the Church has to immerse into the depths of these realities and give hope
to those who daily experience and are affected by these changes. For example focusing on Africa today, this
approach and its dynamic nature will give answers to many pastoral needs of the local communities. It will
23
See Anastasios Yannoulatos (Archbishop of Albania), Article; The missionary Activity of the Orthodox Church Church.
Available at: http://jean.square7.ch/wolfcms/public/SyndesmosTexts/Text_95%20The%20missionary%20activity%20
of%20the%20Orthodox%20Church,%20A%20Yannoulatos,%201964.pdf. Accessed on 10th July 2013.
24
See the concept of Missio Dei well-articulated by D. J. Bosch, in his famous book; Transforming Mission. Paradigm
Shifts in Theology of Mission,Orbis Books New York 1991.
25
Vasiliadis, Unity and Witness, p. 373-375.
26
Stanley S. Harakas, Forgiveness and Reconciliation. An Orthodox Perspective” in the Orthodox Church in a Pluralistic
World, an Ecumenical Conversation, ( Geneva/Brookline: WCC pub., Holy Cross Press, 2004) p.114.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 651

help the restoration of the once disregarded and disrespected elements of African culture(s). Christ through
His incarnation embraced all cultures so that the message of salvation can reach every culture. Therefore,
incarnation as a cosmic event will continue to humanity and its surroundings. St. Maximus the Confessor (7th
c.) affirms that “ God’s Word, being God Himself i.e. the Son of God desires the mystery of His incarnation
to be activated continuously and everywhere”.27 It is through the process of incarnation that man as the master
of the cosmos is called by the creator to draw all creation to God.28 Through the transformative energies of
the Holy Spirit, the incarnation process brings meaning to the message of the gospel uniquely to every local
context. These energies give balance between the universal meaning of the message and the contextualized
interpretation and understanding of the gospel.

Bibliography

Bassioudis, George. The Power of Divine Liturgy. The Contribution of A. Schmemann to Liturgical theology
(Athens: Enplo editions, 2008).
Bria, Ion. Go Forth in Peace; Orthodox Perspectives in Mission, (Geneva: WCC Mission Series, 1986).
Bria, Ion. The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective, (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1996).
Cabasilas, Nicholas. ΑCommentary on the Divine Liturgy, (London: S.P.C.K, 1960).
Clapsis, Emmanuel. The Orthodox Churches in the pluralistic World; An Ecuenical Conversation, (Geneva:
WCC Publications, 2004).
Harakas, Stanley. S., Forgiveness and Reconciliation. An Orthodox Perspective in the Orthodox Church in a
Pluralistic World, an Ecumenical Conversation, (Geneva/Brookline: WCC pub., Holy Cross Press, 2004).
Kinnamon, Michael. & Brian E. Cope, The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices,
(Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997).
Lemopoulos, George. Your Will be Done; Orthodoxy in Mission, (Katerini: Tertios, Geneva: WCC Publications
1989).
Limouris, Gennadios. Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism: Statements, Messages and Reports, (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1994).
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology; Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, (Fordham University Press:
New York, 1974).
Raiser, Konrad. Ecumenism in Transition. A Paradigm Shift in the Ecumenical Movement, WCC Publications
Geneva 1991 (translated with modifications from the German original ÖkumeneimÜbergang, (C.Kai-
serVerlagMünchen, 1989).
Stamoolis J. James. Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today, (Minneapolis: Light and Life Publishing
Company, 1986).
Vassiliadis, Petros. Unity and Witness: Orthodox Christian Witness and Interfaith Dialogue-Handbook on
Missiology (Athens: Epikentro, 2007) (in Greek).
Yannoulatos, Anastasios. Mission in the steps of Christ, Theological essays and Homilies, (Apostoliki Diakonia
of the Church of Greece: Athens, 2007).
Zizioulas, John D., (Metropolitan). Being As Communion; Studies in Personhood and the Church, (Crestwood,
New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002).

Maximos the Confessor, Περί διαφόρων αποριών, PG 91 1084C-D.

27

John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology; Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (Fordham University Press: New York,
28

1974) p.151.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
652 Chapter (100)

Valentin Kozhuharov

Exploring contemporary mission issues as found in Orthodox theology and the practical life of the believers
in the churches, and relating them to contemporary ecumenism, needs an extensive survey and reflection. In
a brief account, as this essay is, only some main characteristics of the understanding of mission, theology and
ecumenism from an Orthodox point of view can be pointed out. Let’s consider the three – mission, theology,
ecumenics – as they are understood and applied in contemporary Orthodoxy, most of all in (but not exclusively)
the churches and the theological schools of Eastern Europe.

1. Mission and missiology in contemporary Orthodoxy

Most Orthodox churches experienced persecutions and destruction in the past, either by foreign oppressors
(for example, the Ottoman rule in the Balkan region), or by home forces (i.e., the Communist regimes or
other type of political oppression). This is one of the reasons that theology as an academic discipline was not
well-developed in the past. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries did more systematic theological writings ap-
pear, and most of them were in some correspondence with the Western Christian theological thought. Surely,
Orthodox theology widely used the Church Fathers’ legacy, but this alone was not enough for the Orthodox
churches and their schools to efficiently develop theology as an academic and scholarly discipline, hence the
interactions with Western Christian theology.
Even today we can notice that in its structure and academic shape, theology in Orthodoxy is not much differ-
ent from the theological reflections as found in any other main Christian church and their theological schools.
It is well-known (though not always well-recognised) that in the last couple of centuries Orthodox theology
has been in constant relations with the Roman Catholic and the Protestant theological thought,29 where all
Christian theology has been in constant dialogue with one another. This fact found its confirmation in almost
the same structural function of theology in most of the theological schools in the Christian world where one
could observe the teaching of several dozens of theological disciplines under the domain of Biblical, Histori-
cal, Systematic and Pastoral/Applied Theology. Today we can see that in the traditional Orthodox seminaries,
spiritual academies and theological faculties within universities, most theological academic subjects fall into
these four main theological domains.
In a similar way, mission has not been well-developed in Eastern Orthodoxy, at least not in the forms and
methods of mission which have been employed by the western Christian non-Orthodox churches. Generally
speaking, it was only the Greek and the Russian Orthodox churches which undertook missionary activities
in the past; certainly, there have been exceptions, and the 9th century missions of the brothers St Cyril and St
Methodius is only one example. In the period of forming of most Eastern European nations (mostly during the
19th and the beginning of the 20th century), we can hardly observe any missionary activity within Orthodoxy.
Then the First World War and the Balkan wars put again the churches to the limits of mere existence, and
this was followed by a series of coup d’état in some countries and the forceful establishment of Communist
governments in most of the countries where Orthodoxy was in majority. These unfortunate circumstances pre-
29
The Greek and the Russian Orthodox theology greatly influenced the theological developments in the rest of the Orthodox
world in 18th century through the 20th century. Bearing in mind that these, on the other hand, have been influenced by the
Roman Catholic and the Protestant theological reflections since the 17th century, we can assume that almost all Orthodox
theology experienced a level of influence on the part of its Western counterpart. For the Greek theological development,
there is a brief mention in Stamoolis, 12 (see bibliography), and in more detail in Christos Yannaras, “Theology in Pres-
ent Day Greece,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 16, No 4, (1972), 195-214; for the Russian theology, see A.
Schmemann and his “Russian Theology: An Introductory Survey.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, Vol. 16, No 4,
(1972), 173-174.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 653

vented the Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe from undertaking any missionary activity, with the exception
of the Greek Church.30
The fact that Orthodox theology was slowly shaped in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the lack of mission-
ary initiatives during this period, was the reason that Missiology as an academic theological discipline did not
develop either. In many Orthodox theological schools there was a discipline called Mission, or Mission Studies,
or Missiology, but its content was not much different from the content of a study of Christian sects where all
the wrongs of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and the other Christian communities were discussed on the
pages of missiology textbooks. Time proved this approach inadequate and in many schools the teaching staff
felt that Sectology was not the main content of Missiology. However, it was not until recently that Orthodox
theologians started reflecting on truly missiological issues and have been trying to formulate the contents of a
renewed Missiology, which was supposed to theoretically summarise the missionary practice of the Orthodox
Church as found in the last two thousand years of existence of Christianity.
After the changes in Eastern Europe in 1989, new opportunities have arisen for the Orthodox churches
and their theological schools. The theological disciplines taught obtained new content and new shape which
aimed at providing theologically informed answers to the challenges that the contemporary societies have been
experiencing. One would expect that Missiology would also obtain its proper theological content. Reshaping
the subject, however, became a stumbling block for many theological schools, and this fact led to the situation
that Missiology was either abandoned as a theological discipline and was withdrawn from the curricula of the
schools, or it was left in its old-fashioned “clothing.” With a few exceptions, today Missiology is taught in the
traditional Orthodox theological schools as a type of Orthodox apologetics where the teachings of the other
non-Orthodox churches and communities are discussed and widely criticised.
When looking at the curricula of the Orthodox theological schools, we can observe the following picture.
Missiology as a teaching discipline at the Orthodox theological schools of Eastern Europe (seminaries,
academies and faculties within universities) is currently taught in five countries. In Russia it is taught in almost
all schools; in Belarus it is present in 3 out of 4 theological schools; in Ukraine Missiology is taught in 8 out of
11 Orthodox theological schools under the Moscow Patriarchate, and within the Kiev Patriarchate it is taught
in 2 schools out of 6; in Greece it is taught in 2 out of 6 schools, and in Romania Missiology is taught in all
Orthodox theological schools.31 There is no Missiology in the schools of Serbia, Bulgaria, Former Yugoslavic
Republic of Macedonia and Moldova.32 Even within the Finnish Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church in
America (which are churches that do mission), the discipline is not taught; it can be only found at St. Herman
theological seminary at the third year of study, under the name “Missions and Evangelism”.33
In seven out of 40 Orthodox theological schools, whose Missiology textbooks were briefly viewed, this
academic discipline has recently embraced a more theologically grounded content, and the subject has been
supported also by missiological research. These are the Moscow and St. Petersburg Orthodox theological
seminaries and academies, the Belgorod missionary seminary, three of the Romanian Orthodox schools
30
A brief but comprehensive exposition of the Greek missionary endeavours up to present day can be found in Athanasios N.
Papathanasiou, “Missionary Experience and Academic Quest. The Research Situation in Greece.” In: Frieder Ludvig & Afe
Adogame (eds.). European Traditions in the Study of Religion in Africa. (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004), 301-311.
31
For references see the curricula of the respective Orthodox theological schools at the websites of the schools which are
given below under point 2, where “Theology in Contemporary Orthodoxy” is discussed. (Providing websites as references
seems more reliable than citing curricula books, most of which were published at least ten years ago, while the websites, on
the other hand, reflect the dynamics of curricula changes which are quite often nowadays. Unfortunately, not all references
are in English. All website links were last visited on 12 May 2013).
32
In Bulgaria, an attempt was made in 2011, when for the first time since the changes of 1989, the author of this essay started
teaching Missiology at the Orthodox theological department of Plovdiv university; then in the spring semester of 2013 the
subject became elective and it is now taught by a theologian whose main subject is Apologetics; in the other 3 Orthodox
theological schools there is no Missiology and the teaching staff are not willing, and feeling unprepared, to teach the subject.
33
http://sthermanseminary.org/files/admissions/SHS-catalog--2012--updated.pdf, pp. 22, 28 (last accessed June 2012).

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
654 Chapter (100)

and the Theological Faculty of Athens. In all other schools Missiology is not supported by missiological
research and is taught in the old-fashioned apologetic way. This can be evidenced even by the mission
research done by Orthodox theologians and the books and articles on Orthodox mission recently published
by authors from Russia, Greece, Romania, Albania and the Orthodox Church in America (there are some
exceptions to this, too); it is not common to find missiological research published by the rest of Orthodox
churches and their schools.
In some of the Orthodox churches there are mission departments within the Synods (for example, in the
Russian, Greek, Romanian, Albanian, and Ukrainian Orthodox churches), the Finnish Orthodox Church has
its Mission Agency, and the Orthodox Church in America has its Orthodox Christian Mission Centre (the last
two missionary agencies closely cooperate with each other in the field of mission, especially in Africa). These
departments and agencies appeared because the missionary activities and the missionaries themselves in the
churches need guidance and advice, and furthermore, the mission of these churches is theologically reflected
upon in the context of the subject of Missiology. The lack of missionary departments in the Orthodox churches
in Bulgaria, Serbia, Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia34, Moldova, Belarus and the other Orthodox
churches indicates a lack of substantial missionary activity, and consequently – a lack of solid mission research
and missiological reflection.
It is not strange that Missiology is poorly developed within Orthodoxy: it is a postulate that mission research
reflects certain mission practice. Such mission practice has been observed in Greece, Russia, Albania/Africa,
Romania and Finland, and these are the countries which also produce missiological research. In the cases
where there are no research efforts concerning mission within an Orthodox church and her schools, this most
probably indicates that there is no substantial mission practice to be reflected upon. Social and educational
activities of the Church in schools, prisons, orphanages, etc. still does not constitute mission practice which
needs reflection: something more is needed for a church to accumulate substantial missionary experience which
at some point would urge the hierarchy and the theologians to reflect on it and present to Orthodox theology
relevant missiological research, i.e. to theologically describe and explain the practical missionary life of the
respective church.
We Orthodox recognise that our ecclesiastic life is very much centred in the liturgy, the Eucharist and the
proclamation of the Good News. From this perspective, it seems strange that we often fail to do what the the
liturgy and the Eucharist and the teachings of the Fathers require from us; to see the Church as fullness and as
the Church of Christ. Don’t we agree with Fr. Schmemann when he affirms: “Nothing reveals better the relation
between the Church as fullness and the Church as mission than the Eucharist, the central act of the Church’s
leitourgia, the sacrament of the Church itself”?35 As we are satisfied with our own “internal” church life and
reject to “go out” and preach the Gospel, while we often limit Christianity to our local church, or ethnic group
or nation, how can we understand and accept the truth in the words of Fr. Meyendorff: “A Church which ceases
to be missionary, which limits itself to an introverted self-sustaining existence, or, even worse, places ethnic,
racial, political, social, or geographic limitations upon the message of Christ, ceases to be authentically ‘the
Church of Christ’”.36 If “prayer, worship and communion have always formed the context for the witness of
faith, including evangelism, mission and church life,”37 how do we understand and practice this witness if we
are secluded and we shun the world around us? All these are missiological issues which we as believers in
Jesus Christ need to properly address.
34
The author here expresses his personal perception as regards the ecclesiastical situation and status in FYROM, since
there is no any local Orthodox Church that has been officially and canonically recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate
or other Orthodox Patriarchate or Autocephalus Churches yet (Ed.)
35
Schmemann Alexander. Church, World, Mission: Reflections on Orthodoxy in the West. (Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1979), 214.
36
Meyendorff John. Living Tradition. Creswood, (NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978), 153.
37
Bria Ion. The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective. Geneva, WCC Publications,
1996, 9.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 655

In some of the Orthodox churches there are believers who tend to see mission in every aspect of their church
life, to such an extent that they would consider mission such church activities as going to church every Sunday,
or receiving the Holy Gifts during liturgy, or teaching at the parish Sunday school, or “consecrating” (in the
rite of consecration of water) as many offices, clubs, businesses, etc. as possible. More than half a century ago
Nissiotis clearly stated that the social and educational activities within the Church are not missionary activities:
going into the world, preaching the Gospel and converting others to Christianity – this is mission.38
It may be this misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, of the role of the Eucharist, of the sacramen-
tal and social responsibility of the believers, that prevent the Orthodox in many countries from engaging
in true mission, and then theologically reflect on this practice within their missiological research, while
helping Missiology to occupy its proper place in the theological schools. Sometimes one can hear Orthodox
theologians saying that there is no such thing as mission or missiology: “Practical Ecclesiology”, they affirm
– this is mission as the Orthodox understand it. We could agree with this, but only if the Orthodox believers
truly practice Orthodox ecclesiology. In addition to this, however, we need to see also practical activities
where we preach the Gospel to others and convert them to Christianity, that is, to see acts of evangelism,
as Fr. Hopko eloquently described what Christian evangelism is.39 Many are the Orthodox who feel quite
comfortable when they “theologize” and use the Greek words, which Fr. Hopko used in the quotation below
(such as didaskalia, homologia, apologia, martyria, diakonia, etc.), but it seems that not so many are those
who also practice their ecclesiology. Isn’t it better to speak of proclamation of the Gospel and the Kingdom,
and of bringing others to Christ, that is, of mission, rather than speaking of “practical ecclesiology” while
not practicing this ecclesiology?
Missiology is slowly trying to find its proper place among the other theological academic disciplines, and
in order to better understand this process, and the question of what its connection is with the participation of
the Orthodox in the ecumenical initiatives, let us briefly consider Orthodox theology and its function at the
schools within Orthodoxy.

2. Theology in contemporary Orthodoxy

As mentioned above, Orthodox theology continues to be traditional where in most theological schools it func-
tions under the domain of the four “departments”: Biblical, Historic, Systematic and Practical Theology. As
societies develop, and the needs of the people change, theology inevitably tries to adapt to these needs so that
it better responds to the enquiries of the contemporary people and more adequately explains the modern social
and world’s developments. This has brought new tendencies which some Orthodox theological schools currently
follow where we can see new theological disciplines emerging, or old ones being reformed or re-designed.
38
Nissiotis writes: “It is a great mistake when we think that by discussing social questions, or by analysing the secular
environment, or by helping in educational and material needs we are performing mission. . . There is one immediate need
for those outside the Church: to be converted and become members of this community in a visible, concrete form.” He also
affirms that service, even the service done in the name of Christ, “is not absolutely necessary as a sign of the authenticity
of the Christian mission,” and that people do not believe because of service, “they are called to believe because they are
converted by the power of the saving grace which is to be announced to them by word and shared by them through the
sacraments in the Church.” (in: Nissiotis, N. A. “The Ecclesiological Foundation of Mission from the Orthodox Point of
View,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 7 (1961-62): 22-52, the quotes here on pp. 31-32).
39
Fr. Hopko writes: “This Christian evangelism is always accompanied by teaching (didaskalia) and confession (homolo-
gia) and defense (apologia) and witness (martyria). And, it is accomplished in works of love for human beings performed
in concrete acts of mercy without condition or discrimination. This is Christian philanthropy understood not merely as
various forms of charitable actions and almsgiving, but as sacrificial service (diakonia) and witness (martyria) in all areas
of human existence that contribute to human dignity, freedom, justice, and peace on earth according to God’s gospel in
Jesus” (in: Hopko Thomas. Speaking the Truth in Love: Education, Mission, and Witness in Contemporary Orthodoxy.
(Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 70.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
656 Chapter (100)

This process does not mean change in theology or in the teaching of the Church; it only means that the
new reality needs new theological expressions and terms, which are rooted in the same theology and the same
teaching of the Church and of the Church Fathers. It means that Orthodox theology is open to the world, as it
always has been, and that the contemporary theologians try to pass on theological truths to others in contem-
porary forms and expressive contents. While providing below some examples of new theological academic
disciplines in the Orthodox theological schools, we notice that this openness to the world can be observed in
those schools which have embraced Missiology as an academic discipline reflecting specific missionary practice
in the corresponding Orthodox churches, that is, the schools in Russia, Greece and Romania (and incidentally
also in some of the schools in Ukraine and Belarus).
Along with the traditional theological disciplines taught at the Moscow spiritual academy, today we can
find such subjects as: Challenges the Christian Faith Faces Today, Greek Paleography, Diakonia, Liturgical
Legacy of the Old Testament, Byzantine Studies, Eastern Christian Theological Reflections, Russian Patristics,
Contemporary Sects’ Developments (in addition to Sectology), New Developments in Molecular Biomedicine,
Russian Sects’ Review, Catholic Theology, Protestant Theology (in addition to Comparative Theology dealing
with the teachings of the main Christian denominations from an Orthodox point of view), Social Ethics, Ascet-
ical Theology, Orthodox Ascetics, three new types of exegesis: Exegesis of the Antiochian Theological School,
of the Text Related to the Messiah, and of Paul’s Epistles.40 In the Belgorod spiritual missionary seminary we
find Pastoral Ethics and Aesthetics, Natural Science, Ethnography, Phenomenology of Religion, Theology of
Apostle Paul, Orthodox Spirituality, Foundations of Prison Ministry, Catholic Missions, Protestant Missions41).
New theological academic disciplines have been introduced in the Minsk spiritual academy (Social Doctrine
of the Orthodox Church and Study of Schisms42), and in the Minsk Institute of Theology St. Methodius and
St. Cyril (Study of Holiness and Spiritual Guidance in the Russian Church, Foundations of Contemporary
Natural Studies, Intercultural Communication, Social Ministry of the Church, Orthodox Feasts in Dogmatic
Perspective, Principles of Intellectual Property’s Management, History of European Calvinism, Science From
the Point of View of Religion, Sociology of Religions).43
At the Kiev spiritual academy (under the Moscow Patriarchate) today we can find such academic disci-
plines as Orthodox Ecclesiology, Ascetics, Science and Religion, Social Doctrine of the Church, Orthodoxy
and Youth, Liturgical Theology. The Kiev seminary also teaches Heortology (the Study of religious feasts),
Cosmology, Religious Studies and Sacramentology.44 The Chernovitsky Orthodox theological institute offers
Christian Denominations (along with Comparative Theology), Soteriology and Eschatology, Principles of
Intellectual Property, Political Studies, Sociology, Journalism, Ecology.45 At the Kharkov spiritual seminary
one can find Religious Economics, Sects and their Psychology.46At the Kiev Orthodox theological academy
the new disciplines include Mystical Theology, Orthodox Ethical Code, Ecclesial Sociology, Christianity
and Islam, History of the Ecumenical Movement, Cultural Studies, Political Studies, Ecology, Liturgical
Tradition.47
In the Greek Orthodox theological schools one can observe greater diversity of academic disciplines, and
this is mainly due to their more visible “theological openness” to the world. It is not possible to mention here
all of them, we can only point to some of the new teaching subjects. At the theological faculty of Athens the
subjects offered are Ancient Judaism and the World, The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Woman in the New Testament,
Comparative Science of Religion, Entrepreneurship Development and the Art of Icon Painting, Contemporary
40
http://www.mpda.ru/edu/plan/ (in Russian only).
41
http://www.bel-seminaria.ru/node/16 (in Russian only).
42
http://minds.by/academy/education_plan.html (in Russian only).
43
http://www.inst.bsu.by/ru/student (in Russian only).
44
http://www.kdais.kiev.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=9&lang=ru (in Russian only).
45
http://www.cpbi.info/index.php?id=5 (in Ukrainian only).
46
http://www.eparchia.kharkov.ua/stat/20 (in Russian only).
47
http://www.kda.org.ua/plan.html (in Ukrainian only).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 657

Ecclesiastic History of the Orthodox East, Sociology, Gender and Education, Religion and Gender, Orthodox
Spirituality, Western Theology, Controversial Theologians after the 11th Century, Mystagogical Texts and Texts
of Vigilant Theology (at the undergraduate level48), and Study of the Comparative Philosophy of Religion, The
Dialogue Between Philosophy and Theology, The Study of Church and Dogma, Dialogue Between Theology,
Psychology and Psychiatry, Study of the History of Doctrine and the Contemporary Ecumenical Dialogue (at
the postgraduate level).49
At the Orthodox theological faculty of Thessaloniki, we can find such new disciplines like Computer Science
and Theology, Sociology, Interpretation of the Poetical and Prophetical Books of the Old Testament from the
Septuagint Text, Sociology of Religion, Sociology of Christianity, Interreligious Dialogue, Ecclesiastical Liter-
ature of the Slavs, The Ecumenical Movement, Old Testament Theology, Semiotics of Contemporary Culture,
Interpretation and Misinterpretation in Patristic Tradition, The Interpretative Approach of the Filioque in the
Patristic Tradition, Russian Spirituality, Mystic Thought in the Orthodox Slavic World, Theological Presupposi-
tions of the Christian Deification of Man, The boundaries of the Church: The Discussion within the Ecumenical
Movement, Church and Language, Historical Evolution and Theology of Sacraments, Volunteering, Diakonia,
Solidarity: Theory and Praxis, Neo-Greek Alienation, Eros, Sexuality, Desire and Pleasure in Eastern Orthodox
Theology, Churches and Religions in Dialogue to Promote Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation, Conflict
Management in Childhood and Parish Catechetical Service, Challenges of Bioethics, Religion and Migration
(at the undergraduate level50), and Jewish Mysticism, The Eucharistic Ecclesiology of the New Testament,
Slavic Philhellenism, Church literature of the Western Church, Dogmatic and Orthodox Tradition in Philosophy,
Iconology, Dogmatic Theology in the West in Modern Times, The Moral Limits of the Doctrine and Art, Society
and Sacrum, Heortology and Wishful Thinking, Cross-Field Ecumenical Theology, Eucharistic Ecclesiology
in the Modern Christian Testimony, Human Sexuality and Biblical Soteriology, Islam, Contemporary Reality
and Interreligious Dialogue, Bioethics, Pastoral Sociology, Theology of Worship and Contemporary Liturgical
issues, Human Sexuality and Christian Testimony, Ecumenical Social Ethics (at the postgraduate level.)51
In the Bulgarian, Romanian, Moldovan and Serbian Orthodox theological schools we can find only a couple
of new disciplines, and in the Orthodox schools of the Finnish Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church in
America, we mostly observe traditional theological curricula.
For centuries now Orthodox theology has accepted that it is not an abstract philosophical reflection but life
itself: “theology is related to life. (…) Theology is something in which all believers can and must participate”.52
We need to remember that “all theology is mystical, inasmuch as it shows forth the divine mystery: the data of
revelation”.53 “We must live the dogma expressing a revealed truth, which appears to us as an unfathomable
mystery, in such a fashion that instead of assimilating the mystery to our mode of understanding, we should,
on the contrary, look for a profound change, an inner transformation of spirit, enabling us to experience it
mystically,”54 and remember that “theology and mysticism support and complete each other. One is impossible
without the other”.55
These affirmations once more prove the importance of Orthodox theology for the lives of the believers
in the churches and in their witness beyond the church’s fence. In our liturgical life and in our prayers we
48
http://en.theol.uoa.gr/undergraduate-studies/program-of-studies-ects.html, where the courses of the four departments of
undergraduate level can be seen in separate windows; some of the courses are obligatory, some are mandatory-optional.
49
http://en.theol.uoa.gr/postgraduate-studies/program-of-postgraduate-studies-ects.html, where the courses of the four
departments of postgraduate level can be seen in separate windows; some of the courses are obligatory, some are manda-
tory-optional.
50
http://www.theo.auth.gr/theo/en/Undergrad/Pages/Courses.aspx, including core disciplines and mandatory-elective subjects.
51
http://www.theo.auth.gr/theo/en/Postgrad/Pages/Courses.aspx, including core disciplines and mandatory-elective subjects.
52
Stamoolis James. Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today. (New York, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1986), 10.
53
Lossky Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 7.
54
Lossky, The Mystical Theology, 8.
55
Lossky, The Mystical Theology, 8.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
658 Chapter (100)

practically experience what theology is, and in the Eucharistic participation we realise that “the whole life
of the Church is rooted in the Eucharist, in the fruition of this eucharistic fullness in the time of this world
whose ‘image passeth by’”.56 From this understanding, in our life in the church we need to come to the
conclusion which Fr. Schmemann noted while completing the above sentence: “This is indeed the mission
of the Church”.57
We therefore need to be sure that our theology does not remain a secluded or isolated “teaching of the
Church”. It is our life as believers which must show the others what theology is and what our witness (that
is, our mission to and with others) is about. Through our church activities and eucharistic participation,
through our life as a “liturgy after the liturgy,” we need to “proclaim” our theology in the same way in
which we declare our faith and our calling; we need to not only “satisfy” our spiritual needs but to obey
God’s calling and do our ministry in a true theological and missionary way. Otherwise we may be even
doing sin against our faith and against the calling of God to every faithful and to every follower of Christ.
In the words of Fr. Schmemann, “Is it not a sin against this basic calling when the Church, the ecclesial
community, locks herself in her ‘inner’ life and considers herself called only ‘to attend to the spiritual
needs’ of her members and thus for all intents and purposes denies that mission is a basic ministry and
task of the Church in ‘this world?’”.58
In the last few years in many Orthodox theological schools there has been the tendency of introduction of
various “liturgical” theologies, and this seems natural if we take into account the important role which liturgy
plays in our life as Orthodox believers. In all these liturgical subjects we can find abundance of evidence that
doctrine and personal experience of life in Christ are inseparable in the liturgy where the verbal proclamation
is essential for the affirmation of our faith. “In the liturgy, the verbal proclamation of the gospel is inseparable
from the doxological way of praying and symbolic ritual of the sacraments. This prevents the Orthodox from
separating doctrine and prayer, biblical texts from hymnology, biblical stories from the life of saints. It over-
comes the contradiction between doctrinal teachings and personal experiences. Lex credendi goes together
with lex orandi,” writes Fr. Bria.59 If “the law of prayer is the law of the faith” (that is, if our liturgical life and
the life of worshipping God is the foundation of our faith), then how can we separate our life as believers from
our theology and from our witness to the world?
Theology (that is, our faith articulated in rational terms), and the mission we are called to do, need to be
shared with others, both with other Christians and with non-Christians and the atheists. Many believers feel
comfortable with sharing their faith only within the circle of Orthodox faithful in the Orthodox churches, and
this feels right for them, and also right for the Church. Still, others are keen to “go out” and share the treasures
of their Orthodox faith with others, and while doing so, according to the requirements of the Gospel and the
teaching and the tradition of the Church, they do mission. But there is a difference; sharing your faith with other
Christians (either Orthodox or non-Orthodox) seems different to sharing your faith with Muslims, Buddhists,
new-age followers or atheists. If we cannot make this distinction, then we need to turn to our Orthodoxy and
theology and seek the right answers.
From this perspective, the above consideration on mission and theology leads us to the issue of inter-Chris-
tian relations, or ecumenical relations, a term more widely circulated in the last several decades of the 20th
and the beginning of the 21st century. Let us now turn to ecumenical relations, while keeping in mind the
previous two points of this essay.
56
Schmemann, Church, World, Mission, 212.
57
Schmemann, Church, World, Mission, 212.
58
Schmemann Alexander. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom. Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988, 87.
59
Bria Ion. The Liturgy after the Liturgy, 31. In fact, the original phrase of St Prosper is “lex orandi, lex credendi, lex
vivendi,” that is, “what is prayed is what is believed, is what is lived,”, or more literally, “the law of prayer is the law of
belief is the law of life.” (in: Prosper of Acquitaine, “Capitula Coelestini” Chapter 8 translated by Thomas M. Winger.
Studia Liturgica, Volume 24 (1994).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 659

3. Orthodoxy and ecumenism in a missionary perspective

We need to acknowledge that when Orthodox believers and theologians share their faith and theology and the
whole teaching and tradition of the Church with non-Orthodox Christians, this is a specific case which is dif-
ferent from the calling to “go and make disciples of all nations,” that is, from the mission of the Church. Some
Orthodox are inclined to think that this is mission because through this activity non-Orthodox Christians may
become Orthodox (and such affirmations we can occasionally see in Missiology textbooks). The assumption is
that the non-Orthodox are not truly Christians, if we are to bring them to “our” Christianity. This inclination and
assumption is incorrect, and in this case we speak of either proselytism or inter-Christian relations. If we leave
aside the issue of proselytism (here is not the place to discuss it), then the inter-Christian dialogue and relations
may be seen not as aspects of the mission of the Church, but as a communication or dialogue in connection
with the mission of the Church. If ecumenism is seen from this perspective – as a dialogue between Christians
in mutual understanding and love in the Lord – a way that is different to the understanding of ecumenism as it
was shaped and proclaimed some decades ago, then the issue of inter-Christian relations becomes vital for all
those who in their faith and church life profess the main postulates and doctrinal points of Christianity, i.e. the
Holy Trinity, the nature of the Church, the Holy Scripture and the Tradition, the sacramental and mystical life
of the Body of Christ, the Resurrection, the Redemption, the Salvation of believers and all the eschatological
consequences for humanity in relation to Jesus Christ.
Along with the theologians who specialise in the field of inter-Christian and inter-religious dialogue and
relations, it is the missionaries who seem to best understand the nature of the dialogue with others – both
non-Christians (belonging to other religions or to other teachings or atheists) and Christians. Entering into
dialogue with others is the most natural thing for the missionaries – this is how they share their faith and their
theology, in addition to their exemplary life in Christ. This specific characteristic of the missionaries and the
missiologists links – directly and inevitably – mission (as practical application of our faith in the dimension of
difference60), with Missiology/Theology (as academic theological field of study), and ecumenism (the dialogue
between Christians).
Where do the Orthodox stand in the efforts of theologians and missionaries to bring together Christians to
discuss common inter-Christian issues? The Orthodox stand at different positions: some are willing to take
part in ecumenical meetings and discussions and they do this openly and responsibly (the Greek, the Roma-
nian, the Albanian and the Finnish Orthodox churches, and to some extent – the Russian Orthodox Church
and the Orthodox Church in Ukraine); some have long ago withdrawn their participation from ecumenical
organisations and meetings, and are not willing to enter into any dialogue with non-Orthodox Christians (the
Bulgarian and the Georgian Orthodox churches); and others are quite inactive in inter-Christian meetings and
forums, although they have not withheld their participation in ecumenical organisations (all other Orthodox
churches, including the Orthodox Church in America).
Once again we can notice that the active members of ecumenical encounters are the churches which do
mission and which also extensively engage in missiological research: the Greek, the Romanian, the Albanian,
the Finnish and the Russian Orthodox churches. This fact once again indicates that engaging in ecumenical
dialogue is not about “how Orthodox you are” (because the hierarchy and the believers in Greece, or Romania,
or Russia, or Finland are not more or less Orthodox than those in other countries), but about how well you
know your faith and tradition and are willing to share them with others responsibly and openly. This does
not mean that the hierarchy and the believers of other Orthodox churches do not know their faith and do not
want to share it with others – they do know their faith and tradition no less than all other Orthodox believers.
One thing which they seem to lack, however, is the understanding of the role and importance of Orthodoxy in
the inter-Christian encounter. And we need to affirm that Orthodoxy has a big role to play in the ecumenical
60
An interesting and truly missiological understanding of doing mission as “ministry with a difference” was recently devel-
oped, see Presler Titus. “Mission Is Ministry in the Dimension of Difference: A Definition for the Twenty-first Century”.
International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 (October 2010), (New Haven, Connecticut, USA), 195-204.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
660 Chapter (100)

dialogue where all Christian participants are enriched by the treasures and the deep mystical experience of the
Orthodox Church. We may possess treasures and spiritual firmness but we ought to share these with others.
We need to accept the fact that in inter-Christian dialogue the representatives of different Christian communities
use different “language” and terms which are loaded with much of their theology and doctrine. This prevents
the participants from a true encounter with each other, not to speak about coming to common agreement on
doctrinal issues.61 We need to also agree with the observation Schmemann made: “To explain this initial failure
[i.e., no encounter happened between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox participants in ecumenical meetings:
my comment], two facts are of paramount importance. One is the isolation of the Orthodox church from the
Christian West, the other a specifically Western character and ethos of the ecumenical movement.”62 The last
point – that for many decades now the ecumenical movement has had a specifically western “disguise,” makes
many Orthodox quite hesitant to enter into dialogue with those who have long “forgotten” the “universal, or
catholic, language” of the Church, as some Orthodox theologians assert.
Fr. Schmemann considers the ecumenical dialogue and the difficulties with the language in the framework
of Orthodox mission which he also recognized as quite different in character and in spirit from the missionary
efforts of the western Christian churches and mission agencies. He writes:

“In the ecumenical encounter, the Orthodox Church had to face a Christian world with several centuries of “autono-
mous” theological and spiritual development behind it, with a mind and thought-forms radically different from those
of the East. The questions it asked of the Orthodox were formulated in Western terms, were conditioned very often
by specifically Western experience and developments. The Orthodox answers were classified according to Western
patterns, “reduced” to categories familiar to the West but hardly adequate to Orthodoxy. This situation, although years
of contact and conversations have no doubt improved it, is still far from being overcome completely. The “catholic
language” has not yet been recovered. All this, in addition to basic dogmatical differences, explains the “agony”
of Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement and constitutes a very real obstacle not only to agreement,
but to simple understanding. One must remember this when trying to grasp the Orthodox approach to missions”.63

In spite of these obstacles to a comprehensive dialogue between Christians, many Orthodox theologians
and missiologists have tried to find the most appropriate language and terms to express the true meaning of
the Orthodox teaching concerning specific theological and doctrinal issues which are discussed at ecumenical
meetings.64 Orthodox ecclesiology is one of the theological disciplines which has been extensively developed
in the last decades. Theologians have repeatedly confirmed that understanding the nature of the Church is
crucial to understand all (or at least many) doctrinal and denominational difficulties in our theology and in our
Christian legacy as inherited from previous centuries. In Orthodoxy, Fr. Bria came to the understanding that
61
Fr. Schmemann writes: “The ecumenical movement is by its very nature an encounter, a conversation, an accepted
partnership in the search for Christian unity and wholeness. The encounter, however, is fruitful and meaningful only
when it is founded on some degree of mutual understanding, on a common language, even if this language serves as a
means of a sharp controversy. The tragedy of Orthodoxy is that from the very beginning of its ecumenical participation
no such common language, no theological ‘continuity’ existed between her and her Western partners, within, at least, the
organized and institutionally structured Ecumenical Movement.” And he concludes: “There was no real encounter.” (in:
Schmemann Alexander. „Moment of Truth for Orthodoxy,“ in Daniel B. Clendenin (ed.). Eastern Orthodox Christianity:
A Western Perspective. 2-nd edition, 2003, USA/UK, Baker Academic & Paternoster Press, 203-210 (the citation here, on
pp. 203-204); italicized text in the original.
62
Schmemann, “Moment of Truth,” 205.
63
Schmemann, Church, World, Mission, 211.
64
In fact, it is the obstacles and the difficulties in explaining our faith or describing our theology that bear theological
reflection and create appropriate language and terms. While discussing the mission of the Church in her early history,
Stamoolis writes: “Serious theological reflection as to the nature and character of the missionary task of the Church did not
arise in the earliest history of the Church… Reflection did not take place until obstacles were encountered.” (in: Stamoolis,
Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today, 48).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

John Njoroge/Valentin Kozhuharov 661

the Church “is the sign of the contemporary presence of Christ,”65 Archbishop Yannoulatos clearly expressed
the idea of the “global koinonia of love,”66 and Fr. Hopko eloquently expressed the meaning of Church unity,
while affirming that the Church “is not an organization with a gospel; it is a gospel with organizations; it is
not an institution with mysteries; it is mystery with institutions. Church unity, in this perspective, is unity in
the gospel of God and the mystery of Christ as revealed, known, proclaimed, celebrated, and witnessed in
the formal ecclesiastical doctrines, sacramental structures, and liturgical rites of the Christian churches”.67
The Orthodox churches are often criticised for their linguistic and national inclinations68 where only the
local expressions of faith, theology and church life seem to be the true ones. And we need to admit that there is
much truth in this criticism and that we need to make every effort and try to listen to the Orthodox theologians
who also expressed their dissatisfaction over the ethnic and the cultural features which we have ascribed to
our belief and life in the church. “No nation has his [God’s] exclusive love. Identifying the nation with the
Church does damage to the ‘One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.’ It ignores fundamental elements
of the Christian creed. The fact that Orthodoxy has been accepted by and incorporated into the life of one or
several nations in no way justifies the belief that it is their exclusive property. Respect for and preservation
of our identity is natural and necessary, but if we limit Christ to an ethnic or national perspective we can
indirectly end up denying him,” writes Archbishop Yannoulatos.69
In terms of our missionary calling, we need to admit that seclusion is the antithesis of mission, and it is
the antithesis of the Church herself. While insisting that only our own local church (our own “jurisdiction”)
is the truest and the most authentic one, we seem to deny authenticity to other Christian churches. How then
we interpret the oneness, the holiness, the catholicity and the apostolicity of the Church? “No ‘jurisdiction’
which limits itself by ethnic ties can be truly missionary, except in relation to the ethnic group with which
it identifies itself. But then it ceases to be truly ‘catholic,’ since it places a limitation to its membership. The
marks of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church are inconceivable if local churches are isolated from
each other; together, they define what the Church of Christ truly is and what all of us together are called to
become”.70
For the Orthodox, the safest way to unity may be first through unity between the Orthodox churches
themselves and then between Orthodoxy and the other Christian communities. For decades now, concerns
have arisen as to how unified the voice of the different Orthodox churches is, and often appeals are made for
closer cooperation between them: “Closer cooperation between all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches is
essential: they must provide each other with mutual support, but they must also cultivate Orthodoxy’s global
consciousness. When we are united with Christ in his Church, we transcend our personal ‘I’ and our national
65
Bria, The Liturgy after the Liturgy, 73.
66
Yannoulatos Anastasios. Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns. Crestwood, NY, St. Vlad-
imir’s Press, 2003, 48, 203.
67
Hopko, Speaking the Truth in Love, 139.
68
In the most recent Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity the authors affirm that even today, language and ethnicity
continue to form the foundation of Orthodoxy and of its mission. In the article about the establishment of the Orthodox
Church in America, the authors notice the fact that in the aftermath of the Orthodox mission on this land, the first parishes
showed much greater openness to society and involvement in social issues with the native people, but then most of them
secluded in their own language and culture (initially, mostly Russian and Greek), to such an extent that in the late 19th
and early 20th century even the relations between the local Orthodox churches were reduced to a minimum, not to speak
of the relations with the wider society: “there was little contact among these parishes with other Orthodox groups and
little sense of mission beyond the needs of a particular ethnic family. The large urban centers in the United States during
the late 19th and early 20th centuries contained neighborhoods where the various immigrant groups could maintain their
faith, culture and language, somewhat insulated from the wider society.” (“Orthodoxy in the United States of America”,
in: McGuckin John Anthony (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Chichester, UK, 2011, Volume II:
N-Z, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 609-617; quotation here on p. 611).
69
Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 202-203.
70
Meyendorff John. The Vision of Unity. (Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987), 68.

Part VII: Particular Themes and Issues for Orthodox Involvement in Ecumenism
662 Chapter (100)

‘we’, so that we can join with all human beings and all peoples and nations in understanding and love,”71 states
Archbishop Yannoulatos.
This does not in any way mean that local expressions of faith and life in Christ should not be maintained
and developed; quite the contrary: when we do mission in another country, our purpose must be to establish
an authentic local church; from an Orthodox perspective, this should be a Church which is deeply eucharistic
and liturgical.72 When we go to Africa to build a church only for the Russians who speak Russian, or only for
the Romanians who speak Romanian, or for the Greeks who speak Greek, etc., we need to ask ourselves what
we have done so that also the local people obtain an Orthodox church which is true to their culture, language
and ways of expressions of life, without betraying the dogmatic and patristic value of Orthodoxy.
We would be ultimately led to admit that the Orthodox churches, through their sacramental and soteriological
character, are called to play a substantial role in the world’s events, and this we must do in a responsible and
open way. Let us conclude this brief review with the words of Archbishop Yannoulatos: “If Orthodoxy is to be
equal to its great mission in world events, it must maintain its sacramental, soteriological character intact, it
must be open to humanity’s constant quest, and it must conscientiously live its awareness of the Resurrection
and live it up to its global responsibility”.73

Bibliography

Bria Ion. The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox Perspective. Geneva, WCC
Publications, 1996.
Hopko Thomas. Speaking the Truth in Love: Education, Mission, and Witness in Contemporary Orthodoxy.
Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004.
Lossky Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1976.
Meyendorff John. Living Tradition. Creswood, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978.
Meyendorff John. The Vision of Unity. Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987.
Schmemann Alexander. Church, World, Mission: Reflections on Orthodoxy in the West. Crestwood, NY, St
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979.
Schmemann Alexander. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom. Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1988.
Stamoolis James. Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology Today. New York, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1986.
Veronis Luke. “Everything in Love: the Making of a Missionary,” in: Road to Emmaus: A Journal of Orthodox
Faith and Culture. Vol. VI, No. 4 (23), Portland, Oregon, USA, 2005, 3-27.
Yannoulatos Anastasios. Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns. Crestwood, NY,
St. Vladimir’s Press, 2003.

71
Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 203.
72
As Fr. Luke Veronis affirms: “One has to be very clear about the purpose of missions. The goal of missions is to establish
an authentic Eucharistic worshipping community in the people’s own language and culture.” (in: Veronis Luke. “Everything
in Love: the Making of a Missionary,” in: Road to Emmaus: A Journal of Orthodox Faith and Culture. Vol. VI, No. 4 (23),
Portland, Oregon, USA, (2005), 3-27; the quotation here on p. 13.
73
Yannoulatos, Facing the World, 204.

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism

 (101) INTERFAITH DIALOGUE AS AN AREA FOR ORTHODOX INVOLVEMENT IN ECUMENISM

Alina Patru

1. Brief overview of interfaith encounters of the Orthodox Church

Orthodox Christianity has been engaged in interfaith encounters and dialogue from its very beginning. The
dialogue between Orthodoxy and Judaism is considered as probably one of the oldest dialogues in the civilized
world1. Christianity, an offspring of Judaism, had to define itself primarily in relation to Judaism and thus en-
gage in dialogue with the Jewish beliefs and teachings. Moreover, Christianity had to spread into a world full
of different religious convictions and to implicitly engaged in dialogue with them. Models of such a dialogue
are given in Acts 17:16-34: the encounter of St. Paul the Apostle with the Athenian philosophers, but also in
other New Testament fragments, like Acts 14:11-18: St. Paul and St. Barnabas the Apostles in dialogue with
the pagans in Lystra. After the biblical era the Church Fathers starting with St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century
have continued to engage in dialogue with the surrounding cultural and religious world.2
The dialogue between Eastern Christianity and Islam started immediately after the emergence of Islam in
the 7th century.3 The dialogue reaches a peak in 367, after the fall of Jerusalem to the caliph Umar I. St. So-
phronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, reflects on the incident, enters in negotiations with the muslim leaders and
even invites Umar I to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre4. Archbishop Anastasios Yannoulatos speaks
about three phases of the Byzantine-Islamic dialogue.5 The first two phases are merely polemic, but later, St.
Gregory Palamas and Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos in the 14th century, and Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios
in the 15th century, the latest under the Ottoman rule, engage a series of serious, profound dialogues with the
Islam, reaching a new level of mutual understanding and respect between the two religions.6
The coexistence of Orthodox Christians and Muslims in the same territory has lead to a “dialogue of life”7
which has enriched both parts over the centuries. In recent times, the globalisation and the pluralisation of our
societies have led to more frequent and diverse encounters between religions. The Orthodox Churches started to
deal institutionally with the new forms of inter-religious encounters during the second half of the 20th century,
either on their own or through participation in ecumenical initiatives. In 1972 Metropolitan Emilianos Timiadis
noted that “in increasing measure our society appears as pluralistic. [...] The life and its realities oblige us to look
attentively to the religious convictions of the others and to study them without prejudices and fanaticism.”8 In
order to support his ideas, he pointed to the provisional “Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and
Ideologies”, discussed at the Central Committee of the WCC in 1971, signed and supported by the representatives
of the Orthodox Churches, too.
1
Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, in the opening of the first National Colloquium on Greek Orthodox – Jewish Relations (New
York,1972). In Thomas Kratzert, “Wir sind wie die Juden”. Der griechisch-orthodoxe Beitrag zu einem jüdisch-christlichen
Dialog, (Berlin: Institut Kirche und Judentum, 1994) 195.
2
George C. Papademetriou, An Orthodox Christian View of Non-Christian Religions, at http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/
ourfaith8089#_edn9, (last accessed at June 1st .2012).
3
Grigorios Larentzakis, Die Erklärung des II. Vatikanums Nostra Aetate über das Verhältnis der Kirche zu den nichtchristli-
chen Religionen aus orthodoxer Sicht, in Hans Hermann Henrix (ed.), (Nostra Aetate – Ein zukunftsweisender Konzilstext,
Aachen: Einhard, 2006) 112.
4
See Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1 The First Crusade, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 3-4.
5
See Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Bischof von Androussa, “Der Dialog mit dem Islam aus orthodoxer Sicht”, in Rudolf
Kirchschläger, Alfred Stirnemann, Ein Laboratorium für Einheit, 25 Jahre Pro Oriente 1989, (Innsbruck: Tyrolia 1991) 210.
6
Ibidem, 210-212.
7
Ibidem, 219.
8
Metropolit Emilianos Timiadis, Die orthodoxen Väter und die nichtchristlichen Religionen, in Una Sancta 27 (1972), 163.
664 Chapter (101)

2. Modern ecumenical and Orthodox documents that established interfaith dialogue

“The desire of the World Council of Churches to open a dialogue with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Mus-
lims resulted in the 1971 Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies program.”9 Most Orthodox
Churches were part of this process from its very beginning. The “Guidelines on Dialogue with People of
Living Faiths and Ideologies” were first published in 197910 and serve as a basis for various bilateral and
multilateral interfaith encounters of the churches which are members of the WCC. The document tries to
define terms such as “community” and “dialogue”, to reflect on the “theological significance of people
of other faiths and ideologies” and to formulate basic rules for a honest, open, and mutually enriching
encounter.
At the Third Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference held in 1986 in Chambésy, the Orthodox Chruches
adopted a statement called “The Contribution of the Orthodox Local Churches to the Fulfilment of the
Christian Ideals of Peace, Liberty, Fraternity, and Love among the Nations as well as to the Eradication of
Racial Discrimination and Other Forms of Discriminations” was adopted. This Pan-Orthodox documents
contains statements referring to the participation of the Orthodox Churches in interfaith encounters and
dialogues:

“The Orthodox local Churches see it as their duty to collaborate closely with believers from other religions who
love peace for the peace on earth and the realisation of fraternal relations among nations. The Orthodox Churches
are called to contribute to the interfaith understanding and cooperation and thus to the eradication of any fanaticism
and therefore to the fraternization of the nations and to the enforcement of the goods of liberty and peace in the
world, for the benefit of the contemporary man, independent of race and religion. It is obvious that this collaboration
excludes any syncretism as well as any temptation to impose one religion to others.”11

The 1986 document is not the first Pan-Orthodox statement in favour of the interfaith engagement. This
form of engagement has been recommended at the First Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference (1976,
Chambésy), too, where the participants drew up a list of ten themes to be discussed at the Holy and Great
Council12. Besides that, several discourses of the Ecumenical Patriarchs Dimitrios I13 and Bartholomaios I14
invite to interfaith dialogue and cooperation for the purpose of peace and freedom.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches have developed their own documents in favour of the interfaith dialogue
and cooperation. E.g., the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church has on its website an own statement about the
“Dialogue with World Religions”, signed by the leader of the Department of Ecumenical Relations, Metro-
politan Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios.15

9
http://www.idcpublishers.com/pdf/479_brochure.pdf, (last accessed at June, 5th 2012).
10
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/interreligious-dialogue-and-cooperation/interre-
ligious-trust-and-respect/guidelines-on-dialogue-with-people-of-living-faiths-and-ideologies.html, (last accessed at June
5th 2012).
11
Der Beitrag der Orthodoxen Kirche zur Verwirklichung des Friedens, der Gerechtigkeit, der Freiheit, der Brüderlichkeit
und der Liebe zwischen den Völkern sowie zur Beseitigung der Rassen- und anderen Diskriminierungen, in Una Sancta
42: 1 (1987), 16-17.
12
Damaskinos Papandreou, Art. “Pan-Orthodox Conferences”, in Erwin Fahlbusch (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Christianity,
Vol. 4, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Leiden-Brill, 2005) 26.
13
See “1976 Patriarchal Christmas Encyclical”, in Episkepsis (Special edition), (December 25, 1976).
14
See the whole Chapter 5, “Interfaith Dialogue: Interreligious and Intercultural Dimensions” in Bartholomew I, John
Chryssavgis (ed.), In the World, Yet not of the World: Social and Global Initiatives of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,
(New York: Fordham University Press, 2010) 222-289.
15
http://malankaraorthodoxchurch.in/index.php?Itemid=236&id=114&option=com_content&task=view, (last accessed
at June 6th 2012).

Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism