1. Have you read the joint Christological statements made by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches*?
2. If so, what more needs to be affirmed and/or condemned, in your estimation, by the Eastern Orthodox to prove their Orthodoxy?
I have tried as objectively and impartially to consider this issue, and it seems that the only matter that needs to be clarified (for me personally at least, such that I can come to my own conclusion on this matter) concerns the making of the distinction between personal will/energy/act and natural will/energy/act.
In the First Agreed Statement (1989) there is a point made which needs to be clarified even further and elaborated upon:“It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.”
It needs to be emphasized, that the Logos was indeed the subject of all
the willing and acting of Christ - even those performed according to His humanity; such that the Logos becomes the subject of all His incarnational experiences
. Though this seems to be the obvious implication, it also clearly contradicts leo’s tome which explicitly depicts two subjects and centers of Christ’s acts and wills; one being The Word and the other being the flesh. Would the EO church really agree with the OO church on the above statement which is clearly in conflict with leo’s tome, if I have indeed interpreted it correctly?
If the EO Church can accept and admit to the fact that it is more correct, appropriate, and reasonable, to understand that The Word is the one who suffered for us according to His humanity, as opposed to the humanity or flesh suffering for us as opposed to The Word (the implication of leo’s tome), then it is clear to me and should be clear to anyone, that there is indeed no doctrinal dissonance when our respective Christologies are understood in their appropriate context.
In this case, what I believe needs to be dropped and addressed now, is the peculiar emphasis adhered to by each church regarding a peculiar aspect of Christology, over and above the others, which has lead to the unfortunate consequence of simpletons fallaciously interpreting such a peculiar emphasis on one aspect of Christology, as a denial of others.
Since neither Nestorianism nor Eutychism or any associated heresies, are of any significant or real danger to today’s universal Orthodox Church (EO and OO), then we should be willing to come to a mutual agreement concerning expressions and formulas which compromise our extreme accentuation of differing aspects of Christology, yet still manage to nonetheless incorporate our respective concerns.