OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 03:36:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who has accepted the Agreed Statements?  (Read 1650 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« on: July 14, 2010, 08:43:43 PM »

I'd like to discuss the ninth article of the Second Agreed Statement:

Quote
9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology 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.

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html

I think most, although not all, of the theologians who have in recent years studied the Christologies of the EO and OO Churches have come to the conclusion that we basically have the same faith.

However, someone in another thread has brought up a phrase in the above statement that indicates we have always believed the same thing:

Quote
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

The question is, doesn't this say that our Fathers were mistaken in rejecting Chalcedon?  Doesn't this say that the Chalcedonians had an Orthodox Christology even back when our Fathers were saying they didn't?  What are the implications of this phrase for our Church?



It would help to gauge the level of importance which the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church give to this paragraph, and to the Agreed Statement overall, if we knew which Churches have endorsed it.   The Statement itself concludes with an appeal for certain concrete actions and endorsement:

Quote

We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps :

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and Love, we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead us to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays.



http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2010, 08:45:47 PM »

I think that all of the Orthodox synods have received and endorsed the Second Agreed Statement....

I do not think that the two Churches with which I am most familiar have done so, the Serbian and the Russian.   Serbia sent simply one laymen to the  meeting of the Commission and Russia sent two laymen.   What makes me doubt any endorsement by either the Church of Serbia or the Church of Russia is 1)  it is not an unimportant thing and I would know of it, and 2) there would have been a reaction from various conservative elements in both Churches and also in the Russian Church Abroad.  I suspect that the two Churches simply did nothing about the Agreed Statement but filed it on a shelf.   But I would be pleased to learn specifics if you think they have endorsed it, and I shall make enquiries from my end.

Beyond this?
Quote
Statement of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Moscow, Russia, December 1994

The Synod of hierarchs, having heard the report of the Theological Commission of the on the question of the Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to Churches (1990) of the Joint Commission between the Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Churches, presented by His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Minks, President of the Theological Commission, has decided:

1. To approve the report of the Synodal Theological Commission;

2. To judge that the "Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to Churches" cannot be considered as a definitive text and that it is necessary for the Joint Commission of the Dialogue between Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches to continue its work;

3. To give the Synodal Theological Commission the task of preparing a more detailed study of the the previous meetings of theologians of both sides as well as of the discussions with the members of the theological dialogue from other Orthodox Churches. Following these steps the Russian Orthodox Church will make its opinion known to the Joint Commission of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches;

4. Having in mind the need for the People of God, who - according to the message of the Eastern Patriarchs - are the "guardian of the ancient piety", to participate in the cause of unity, the Synod considers that the time has come for organizing a discussion of the question with the participation of the whole Church.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state11.php

Quote
Second Statement of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Moscow, Russia, December 1997

Having heard the report of the Synodal Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church presented by His Eminence Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Slutsk, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus, on the history and theological pre-conditions for participation in the work of international Christian organizations and in bi-lateral dialogues between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental [non-Chalcedonian] Orthodox Churches, the blessed Bishops' Council decided:

1. To approve the report of the Synodal Theological Commission;

[...]

4. Having considered the information on the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Oriental [non-Chalcedonian] Orthodox Churches, to welcome the spirit of fraternity, mutual understanding and common aspiration to be faithful to the Apostolic and Patristic Tradition expressed by the Joint Commission of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches in "The Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations ot the Churches" [Chambesy, Switzerland, 1990].

"The Statement" should not be regarded as a final document sufficient for the restoration of full communion between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches as it contains ambiguities in some Christological formulations. To express hope in this regard that Christological formulations should be clarified in the course of studying the questions pertaining to the restoration of church communion between the two families of Churches of the Orthodox tradition of the Orthodox Churches.

5. To note that the Russian Orthodox Church has special historical and ecclesiastical reasons and grounds to promote the success of the dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Our Church throughout her history has protected and defended the Orthodox East. An obvious example are the activities of the Imperial Palestine Society and of the Russian Orthodox Mission in Jerusalem, the works of Bishop Kyrill Naumov and Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin, the activities of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky in the cause of the reunion with the Coptic Church, of Prof. V. Bolotov of reunion with the Urmi Assyrian Nestorians, and of Prof. B. Turaev on the rapprochment with the Ethiopian Church.

6. To entrust the Holy Synod and udner its guidance the Department for External Church Relations, the Education Committee, the Department for Religious Education and Catechization, the Department for Mission and the Publications Board to develop a plan of scholarly conferences and symposiums, of the publication of theological and historical and informative nature which would help introduce clergymen and faithful of our Church to the problems and development of the theological dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state12.php
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2010, 09:28:51 PM »

I think that all of the Orthodox synods have received and endorsed the Second Agreed Statement....

I do not think that the two Churches with which I am most familiar have done so, the Serbian and the Russian.   Serbia sent simply one laymen to the  meeting of the Commission and Russia sent two laymen.   What makes me doubt any endorsement by either the Church of Serbia or the Church of Russia is 1)  it is not an unimportant thing and I would know of it, and 2) there would have been a reaction from various conservative elements in both Churches and also in the Russian Church Abroad.  I suspect that the two Churches simply did nothing about the Agreed Statement but filed it on a shelf.   But I would be pleased to learn specifics if you think they have endorsed it, and I shall make enquiries from my end.

Beyond this?
Quote
Statement of the Russian Orthodox Church on the Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Moscow, Russia, December 1994

The Synod of hierarchs, having heard the report of the Theological Commission of the on the question of the Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to Churches (1990) of the Joint Commission between the Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Churches, presented by His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret of Minks, President of the Theological Commission, has decided:

1. To approve the report of the Synodal Theological Commission;

Of course this is not an endorsement of the Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Second Agreed Statement.  The Russian Synod is referring to the Synodal Theological Commission which meets in Moscow

2. To judge that the "Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to Churches" cannot be considered as a definitive text and that it is necessary for the Joint Commission of the Dialogue between Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches to continue its work;

Not an endorsement


3. To give the Synodal Theological Commission the task of preparing a more detailed study of the the previous meetings of theologians of both sides as well as of the discussions with the members of the theological dialogue from other Orthodox Churches. Following these steps the Russian Orthodox Church will make its opinion known to the Joint Commission of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches;

This statement from Moscow was 1994.  To my knowledge there has been no follow through in the last 16 years

4. Having in mind the need for the People of God, who - according to the message of the Eastern Patriarchs - are the "guardian of the ancient piety", to participate in the cause of unity, the Synod considers that the time has come for organizing a discussion of the question with the participation of the whole Church.

Again, no follow through at all in the last 16 years involving the faithful of the Church in any discussion



/\  Those are the Irish Hermit's comments in red.  Thought I should make that clear.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 09:40:06 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2010, 10:44:46 PM »

I really don't see anything happening from this statement for many reasons. It is, to my knowledge, unprecedented, which is not something a body dedicated for centuries to conserving a revealed and received faith with utmost fidelity is keen on--precedent breaking, that is. In the past, reunions (and even false unions) have involved a renunciation of error and an adoption of truth.  That is definitely not in this document, unless you want to say both sides renounce error, but then that makes no sense, because then you've lost the Church as the pillar and ground of truth. I'd pile more anathemas on Euthyches and Nestorius if it would help, but from what Fr. Peter has been saying, I see that our division remains the same. It comes not just from Chalcedon, but from Ephesus and after Chalcedon. There were, as I remember, many fathers who said, basically "don't go there" before Chalcedon because the doctrine of Christology was becoming more and more complicated. But we all crossed the theological Rubicon anyway because of a clash of very strong personalities fueled by theological disagreements. But now we are separated by over 1000 years of quite divergent understanding. The non-Chalcedonians have held to a narrower formula than the Chalcedonians were willing to accept. A union without a change in Christology from either side would I think result in, at best, much more confusion and turmoil in our Churches, and, at worst, would cause one, the other, or both to be inauthentic to her tradition as received from her own holy fathers. To have union while still maintaining our own firm beliefs would be to say that those beliefs are not as important as the union itself. Thus, it would be false union. If we're going to have real union, then we need to do far more than rely on statements by so-called theologians. (A theologian is one who prays and is enlightened by God. Are they in this case? I don't know.) A real union is going to require much more work. And in the end, it will still be false union if it is forced on the people. So, for these serious concerns, I am against this and favor the status quo.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2010, 10:58:46 PM »

I really don't see anything happening from this statement for many reasons. It is, to my knowledge, unprecedented, which is not something a body dedicated for centuries to conserving a revealed and received faith with utmost fidelity is keen on--precedent breaking, that is. In the past, reunions (and even false unions) have involved a renunciation of error and an adoption of truth.  That is definitely not in this document, unless you want to say both sides renounce error, but then that makes no sense, because then you've lost the Church as the pillar and ground of truth. I'd pile more anathemas on Euthyches and Nestorius if it would help, but from what Fr. Peter has been saying, I see that our division remains the same. It comes not just from Chalcedon, but from Ephesus and after Chalcedon. There were, as I remember, many fathers who said, basically "don't go there" before Chalcedon because the doctrine of Christology was becoming more and more complicated. But we all crossed the theological Rubicon anyway because of a clash of very strong personalities fueled by theological disagreements. But now we are separated by over 1000 years of quite divergent understanding. The non-Chalcedonians have held to a narrower formula than the Chalcedonians were willing to accept. A union without a change in Christology from either side would I think result in, at best, much more confusion and turmoil in our Churches, and, at worst, would cause one, the other, or both to be inauthentic to her tradition as received from her own holy fathers. To have union while still maintaining our own firm beliefs would be to say that those beliefs are not as important as the union itself. Thus, it would be false union. If we're going to have real union, then we need to do far more than rely on statements by so-called theologians. (A theologian is one who prays and is enlightened by God. Are they in this case? I don't know.) A real union is going to require much more work. And in the end, it will still be false union if it is forced on the people. So, for these serious concerns, I am against this and favor the status quo.

The status quo has become untenable in Egypt (and further much of Africa), and even further in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and Jordan and much of the rest of the Near East.  Intermarriage will do that (the primate (EO) of Lebanon once told me what was holding things up is that no one likes to die).  Its days in the "diaspora" are numbered.  It can continue of course in Russia and Greece, but in a shrinking world, they will be drawn in with the rest of us.  It's already started among the people.  The hierarchy is just catching up.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2010, 11:19:05 PM »

I do see your point, Isa. I'm not sure if I contradict myself in saying this, but I just do not see either layity or bishops being of the needed theological caliber to solve a 1500 year old theological issue. Maybe I miss something. It just seems like a lose-lose situation to me. Shall I be in communion with those who would take private issue with Chalcedon even after the union? When the Chalcedonian fathers examined the works of St. Leo and confirmed them as Orthodox because they agreed with the works of St. Cyril? If people want to come into my Church, well and good. But we have two different phronemas operating here, it seems to me. We both anathematize Nestorius and Euthyches, but still we are divided. What, then, do we do? To me, it's not union if I keep Blessed Theodoret (minus, of course, his anti-Cyrillian writings), but they reject him, and if they keep Severus, but I reject him. If there is going to be real union, we have to agree on everything, and that agreement must be ratified not by today's bishops, but by the holy fathers somehow. I don't see theological synthesis as a workable solution. Maybe it's a matter of people caring more about particulars like they used to in the good old bad old days when they formed mobs. I'm not advocating violence, of course, or that there should be no reunion councils. Reunion councils are part of the Orthodox tradition, and not all of them were false. But, to me, the statement and the discussion of it looks like a union without a change of mind. The only issue resolved, it seems to me, is something that was not a theological issue at the time of division, but rather a creation and summation of a sort of anachronistic agreed-upon super issue that is suppose to contain all our disagreements.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2010, 03:32:10 AM »

I don't think that this issus is lacking people of the needed 'theological calibre'. I don't think the theological issues are that complicated. It requires a desire and a will and a degree of self-reflection and criticism that is not always present.

As for the lessons of history. I can't think of any reconciliation that really and thoroughly pulled up all the drains and went through every possible issue with a fine-tooth comb. That NEVER happened.

The reunion of 433 wasn't like that. The various schisms with the West didn't end like that. Chalcedon certainly wasn't like that. Ibas and Theodoret were received with no theological questions asked. Indeed I can't think of any time when 'we have to agree on everything'. That isn't the way the Church works. When Ibas was received he hadn't changed his mind. And when Theodoret was received (when did he receive the title Blessed?) he never changed his mind. Indeed he is writing after Chalcedon to his followers explaining that he hadn't changed his mind and that Chalcedon was consistent with his own Theodorean Christology.

Genrerally when that view has been held it ends in bloodshed. Even avoiding the OO/EO issues, what about the Old Believers? Or the Non-Possessors. None of them strike me as being un-Orthodox. They were rather conservative Orthodox in fact, but they fell foul of state power seeking agreement on everything and ended up being persecuted.

What we have to do is agree within certain boundaries. Go back to St Athanasius and Nicaea. He was in communion with people whose detailed ideas he did not agree with, but on the main issues he understood that they stood on the same side. The rest worked itself out. I wonder - and only wonder - whether a union based on the same level of agreement as has been found in past reconciliations would create an environment in which a synthesis of terminology could more easily come about. I am not at all convinced that there is a great difference in substance.

What are the issues you think are so important that we should be divided?

At what point do you think that there should be a critical self-reflective process in regard to the EO account of Church history? Is this possible for you? Or is the account of Church history you have received of a dogmatic nature? These are all questions to you not polemical statements.

When the Easterners entered into communion with St Cyril they did not repudiate Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom they considered a saint. What does this mean? They were surely not in agreement in all things with St Cyril. There were bishops listed in the dyptychs of all of the Eastern cities who were heretics as far as St Cyril was concerned, but he deliberately chose not to insist on their removal because they were dear to the members of the congregation and he did not want to destroy the possibility of unity in the Church for the sake of a secondary issue.

What does that action mean for us? We must avoid creating a false account of history in which everything was always black and white and our side was always entirely white. It is just not true. Life and history is shades of grey. If we look at what actually happened we can find a way forward. If we look at a false history that has every problem photoshopped away then we will be stuck in a theological and polemical loop in time just repeating the same positions over and over.

As I have said elsewhere, I criticise Chalcedon, but that does not mean I have to act as though the modern EO have just walked out of the council. History has moved on. The people we are called to deal with have moved on.

As ialmisry says, the issue is moving on in any case. I regularly have EO come to my congregation because their own are too far away. In the Middle East, where Christianity is a life and death issue there is not the same concern with issues which do not seem to important in the face of real life.

I spoke with a modern and important EO bishop and he told me the main issues were ignorance, laziness, busyness and fear on the part of the bishops in his own Church. He also communes some OO with discretion.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2010, 08:59:27 AM »

When the Easterners entered into communion with St Cyril they did not repudiate Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom they considered a saint. What does this mean? They were surely not in agreement in all things with St Cyril. There were bishops listed in the dyptychs of all of the Eastern cities who were heretics as far as St Cyril was concerned, but he deliberately chose not to insist on their removal because they were dear to the members of the congregation and he did not want to destroy the possibility of unity in the Church for the sake of a secondary issue.

I have been thinking of this episode as indicating a possible way forward. I think St. Cyril foresaw that, if an agreement on an Orthodox statement of faith could be made, the other issues would eventually be resolved on their own. Even though the Antiochenes did not accept the Council of Ephesus, and did not repudiate Theodore, eventually the entire Church did both of these things- Ephesus was upheld at Chalcedon and Theodore was condemned Constantinople II. And now you will find no one in the Church rejecting Ephesus or venerating Theodore. Perhaps, if the two "families" sign a formula of union, clearly condemning monophysitism, monotheletism, and monoenergism, and upholding the dogmas of the Seven Councils without requiring a formal recognition of these councils, anti-Chalcedonian sentiment will wane within a few generations, and everyone will recognize the Councils de facto.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 09:00:55 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2010, 09:26:51 AM »

Yes, I do think this is a possible way forward.

Obviously I do not entirely agree with you final sentiment, but would hope an expect some more comprehensive settlement would take place. But I agree with the idea.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
GregoryLA
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Western Japan
Posts: 377



« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2010, 09:42:33 AM »

Did Iconodule just talk about reunion with the Oriental Orthodox in a non-negative way!?! Shocked Shocked
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,618


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2010, 11:33:22 AM »

I don't know who "accepted" the Agreed Statements, but I know that nobody took the recommended  step of bringing the liturgical book in line with the ecumenical directions therein.
I'm listening to vespers now, broadcast from a cathedral in my country,  and since it is the Sunday of the Holy Fathers of Chalcedon there are no nice things in there, about "Pyrrhus, Honorius, Eutiches and Dioscorus" among others.
They also sing about " the headless Severus".
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 11:54:29 AM by augustin717 » Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2010, 11:40:01 AM »

Eutyches is not honoured by any Church.

It is St Dioscorus who was condemned very late by the Byzantine community. He had not been condemned previously.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Dionysios
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate
Posts: 6



« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2010, 04:54:28 PM »

Eutyches is not honoured by any Church.

It is St Dioscorus who was condemned very late by the Byzantine community. He had not been condemned previously.

Father Peter

Yes, father Peter. His "crime" was not even specified... Wink
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2010, 05:09:52 PM »

Well his crime was the usual set of trumped up charges that were indeed unspecified. It seems that it is always easy to find some minor cleric who is willing to make a complaint. I think one of them was that he threatened the grain supply from Alexandria to Constantinople. They hardly mattered. To be fair to people on all sides of the controversy it does seem that having some minor charges raised by discontented clergy was fairly normal.

The interesting thing is that the Orthodox never made a big thing about the deposition of St Discorus. That was never the basis of their opposition to Chalcedon. So many of the great Fathers of the Orthodox were martyred that it became rather the expected outcome. But Anatolius clearly states that St Dioscorus was not condemned for any heresy. It was only much later that the Byzantines decided that he had been. That must give a little scope for the Chalcedonians to reconsider what St Dioscorus actually said.

Father Peter
« Last Edit: July 17, 2010, 05:11:54 PM by peterfarrington » Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2010, 06:40:24 PM »

Well his crime was the usual set of trumped up charges that were indeed unspecified. It seems that it is always easy to find some minor cleric who is willing to make a complaint. I think one of them was that he threatened the grain supply from Alexandria to Constantinople. They hardly mattered. To be fair to people on all sides of the controversy it does seem that having some minor charges raised by discontented clergy was fairly normal.

The interesting thing is that the Orthodox never made a big thing about the deposition of St Discorus. That was never the basis of their opposition to Chalcedon. So many of the great Fathers of the Orthodox were martyred that it became rather the expected outcome. But Anatolius clearly states that St Dioscorus was not condemned for any heresy. It was only much later that the Byzantines decided that he had been. That must give a little scope for the Chalcedonians to reconsider what St Dioscorus actually said.

Not to mention what the Fathers at Chalcedon said: the Definition doesn't mention Pope Dioscoros at all, just Eutyches. And of course, Nestorius and IIRC Arius.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,618


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2010, 11:28:52 PM »

Yet the hymns for the offices of this Sunday (vespers&matins) put him in the select company of Arius, Sabelius, Pyrrhus, Nestorius, Severus etc.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,313


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2010, 11:36:59 PM »

Which is precisely why these talks took place.   Smiley

Is there a reason why you are bringing this up?

Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2010, 11:41:17 PM »

Yet the hymns for the offices of this Sunday (vespers&matins) put him in the select company of Arius, Sabelius, Pyrrhus, Nestorius, Severus etc.

But the infallible Definition of Chalcedon does not.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2010, 12:51:42 AM »

Steering the thread back on topic.... "Who has accepted the Agreed Statements?"

I have the impression that none of the Orthodox Churches* have accepted the Second Agreement.

and

All of the Oriental Orthodox Churches have accepted it.

Is this the way of it?

___________

*The Romanian Church has accepted the Third Agreement concerning the lifting of the Anathemas
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,313


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2010, 02:01:15 AM »

I'm also wondering if there is a list somewhere of who was actually present and participating at the meetings in which the agreement was drafted.  I was not able to find that on the Orthodox Unity website, but I may not have been looking in the right place.   Smiley
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 02:13:10 AM by Salpy » Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
Dionysios
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate
Posts: 6



« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2010, 02:13:50 AM »

I'm also wondering if there is a list of who was actually present and participating at the meetings in which the agreement was drafted.  I was not able to find that on the Orthodox Unity website.

You may try here, Salpy.
http://www.coptic.net/articles/OrthodoxUnityDialog.txt

There are lists of all participants who have signed both Agreed Statements.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,313


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2010, 02:44:01 AM »

I'm also wondering if there is a list of who was actually present and participating at the meetings in which the agreement was drafted.  I was not able to find that on the Orthodox Unity website.

You may try here, Salpy.
http://www.coptic.net/articles/OrthodoxUnityDialog.txt

There are lists of all participants who have signed both Agreed Statements.

Thank you!  That has everything.

I think this answers my question:

Quote
Signatures of the Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to the Churches-
Chambesy, 28 September 1990,


Eastern Orthodox                            Oriental Orthodox

Metropolitan Damaskinos                  Metropolitan Bishoy
Co-President                                   Co-President
(Ecumenical Patriarchate)                 (Coptic Orthodox Church)

Prof. Vlassios Phidas                        Bishop Dr. Mesrob Krikorian
Co-Secretary                                  Co-Secretary
(Greek Orth. Patr. Alexandria)           (Armenian Church of Etchmiadzin)

Prof. Athanasios Arvanitis                 Metropolitan Dr. Paulos Mar Gregorios
(Ecumenical Patriarchate)                 (Orth. Syrian Church of the East)

Metropolitan Chrysostomos                Dr. Joseph M. Faltas
of Peristerion                                   Assistant Co-Secretary
(Ecumenical Patriarchate)                  (Coptic Orthodox Church)

Ecumenical Patriarchate                     Coptic Orthodox Church
Prof. Father George Dragas                Bishop Serapion

Greek Orth. Patr. Alexandria               Coptic Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Petros of Aksum              Father Tadros Y. Malaty

Greek Orth. Patr. Antioch                   Syrian Orth. Patr. Antioch
Metropolitan George Khodr                 Metropolitan Eustathius Matta Rouhm
Metropolitan Damaskinos

Russian Patriarchate                          Armenian Church of Etchmiadzin
Mr. Nikolai Zabolotski                        (see co-secretary)

Russian patriarchate                          Catholicosate of Cilicia
Mr. Grigorij Skobej                            Archbishop Aram Keshishian

Serbian Patriarchate                           Catholicosate of Cilicia
Prof. Stojan Gosevic                           Archbishop Mestrob Ashdjian

Bulgarian Patriarchate                         Orth. Syrian Church of the East
Dr. Ivan Zhelev Dimitrov                     Father George Kondortha

Gregorian Patriarchate                         Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Metropolitan David of Sukhum              Archbishop Abba Gerima of Eluvabur

Gregorian Patriarchate                         Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Mr. Boris Gagua                                  Rev. Habte Mariam Warkineh

Church of Cyprus
Horepiskopos Barnabas of Salamis

Church of Cyprus
Prof. Andreas Papavasiliou

Church of Greece
Metropolitan Meletios of Nikopolis

Church of Greece
Prof. Father John Romanides

Polish Orthodox Church
Bishop Jeremiasz of Wroclaw
per
Metropolitan Damaskinos

Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia
Bishop Christoforos of Olomouc

Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia
Father Joseph Hauser

Finish Orthodox Church
Father Heikki Huttunen
per
Metropolitan Damaskinos

Of course it doesn't answer which Churches officially accepted it afterwards, which I think is Fr. Ambrose' question.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2010, 04:25:59 AM »

The Romanian Orthodox Patriarchal website says the folllowing....

Sessions of the Romanian Orthodox Church Holy Synod, 8-9 December 1994, formally agreed the texts of the two joint statements. Thus, the Romanian Orthodox Church was the first church, which officially endorsed the dialogue after 1993.

It also says...

The Romanian Orthodox Church showed great openness towards this dialogue. It was present in almost all official and unofficial meetings.

I imagine that the Antiochian Patriarchate must also have responded positively otherwise there would not be practical intercommunion between the two Churches, and likewise there must be some positive reception in Alexandria among the Greek Orthodox there otherwise there would not be the possibility of full intercommunion in all the sacraments for mixed familes.

Father Peter
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 04:26:26 AM by peterfarrington » Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2010, 04:32:45 AM »

The Romanian Orthodox Patriarchal website says the folllowing....

Sessions of the Romanian Orthodox Church Holy Synod, 8-9 December 1994, formally agreed the texts of the two joint statements. Thus, the Romanian Orthodox Church was the first church, which officially endorsed the dialogue after 1993.

Is there a web link for this?  I did a search but could not locate it.
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2010, 04:40:28 AM »

It's in Romanian, I asked a church member to translate it some time ago.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2010, 04:58:12 AM »

It's in Romanian, I asked a church member to translate it some time ago.

http://www.patriarhia.ro/ro/relatii_externe/dialog_intercrestin_1.html

In sedinta Sfantului Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane, din 8-9 decembrie 1994, s-au acceptat in mod oficial textele celor doua declaratii comune. Astfel, Biserica Ortodoxa Romana a fost prima Biserica, care a aprobat oficial acest dialog dupa 1993.

But my Romanian is almost non-existent apart from common greetings and drinking toasts!  :-)
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 05:09:49 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Tags: Agreed Statements 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.127 seconds with 54 queries.