The Greek Orthodox Review

In this Issue

The Third and Fourth Consultations

between

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental

Orthodox Theologians

THE GENEVA CONSULTATION

AND

THE ADDIS ABABA CONSULTATIONS

VOLUME XVI DOUBLE ISSUE SPRING & FALL, 1971 NOs. 1 AND 2

Holy Cross School of Theology Hellenic College Brookline, Massachusetts The Greek Orthodox Theological Review

In this Issue

The Third and Fourth Consultations

between

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental

Orthodox Theologians

THE GENEVA CONSULTATION

AND

THE ADDIS ABABA CONSULTATIONS

VOLUME XVI ' DOUBLE ISSUE SPRING & FALL, 1971 NOs. 1 AND 2

Published by the Holy Cross School of Theology Hellenic College Brookline, Massachusetts THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW is a publication for the exchange of scholarly papers and reviews in the fields of Biblical Studies, Orthodox Theology, Church History, Byzantine History, and related Classical, Archaeological, and Philosophical Studies.

A subscription to the REVIEW costs five dollars per annum. The price of a single number is three dollars.

Communications to the Editor, books for review, requests for advertising and subscriptions, and notices of change of address should be directed to the Editor of THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, 50 Goddard Avenue, Brookline, Mass. 02146.

All MSS submitted for consideration by the REVIEW should be typewritten double-spaced; and all notes and documentation should be separately paged. Articles are approved for publication, or rejected, by the Editorial Boards. Rejected articles will be returned to the Author only if the latter has supplied a self-addressed stamped envelope.

The REVIEW is published twice yearly, Spring and Fall, by the Holy Cross School of Theology, Hellenic College, 50 Goddard Avenue, Brookline Massachusetts 02146. It is indexed in Historical Abstracts,Religious and Theological Abstracts, and The Index to Religious Periodical Literature. EDITORIAL For the third time in the last six years, the pages of this periodical are devoted to papers and discussions exchanged between theologians of Eastern Christendom. We believe that these documents are epoch-making in the history of the Christian East, as well as in the annals of the Ecumenical Movement. This journal is pleased to be a participant in this history. The progress in the dialogues between Eastern (or Greek) Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians is promising. For while the Ecumenical Movement has promoted an at­ mosphere of goodwill and mutual understanding among several Christian Churches and many Denominations, little has been achieved in overcoming major doctrinal, ec­ clesiological, or even ethical obstacles (save some achievements within the Protestant world). But this is not the case concerning the theological dialogues between the representatives of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Thanks to the Aarhus, Bristol, Geneva, and Addis Ababa Consultations, the two ancient bodies of Christendom are now closer to each other than ever before. This phenomenon is the most hopeful sign and indeed a breakthrough event in the Ecumenical Movement. To be sure, much work remains to be done, but the way has been paved. The Orthodox worlds must move .forward with even a more intense and prayerful attitude. Either before or even after reading the present issue, the reader may desire to study or consult the papers and resolutions of the previous theological conferences. The “Aarhus Consultation” was printed in Volume X No. 2 (Winter 1964-1965), and the “Bristol Consultation” appeared in Volume XIII No. 2 (Fall 1968) of this periodical. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, which has generously subsidized efforts intending to bring closer Orthodox theologians, and Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School, which publishes this journal, are happy for the opportunity to print the “Geneva and Addis Ababa Consultations”. Because of the nature of the present issue, no book reviews have been included here. Indeed, because of the massive material we have been compelled to make this a double issue. Demetrios J. Constantelos THIRD AND FOURTH UNOFFICIAL CONSULTATIONS

BETWEEN

ORIENTAL ORTHODOX AND EASTERN ORTHODOX

THEOLOGIANS

Geneva, 16-21 August 1970

Addis Ababa, 22-23 January 1971

MINUTES AND PAPERS

Editors: NIKOS NISSIOTIS PAUL VERGHESE FOREWORD

The first of this series of conversations took place in 1964 at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. The participants were pleasantly surprised at the results, for the degree of agreement was much greater than was anticipated. In fact the mutual agreement discovered at Aarhus was so wide that some critics who were not present even thought that the participants were jumping to conclusions before adequate and detailed study of all the issues involved.

The seven years that have passed since Aarhus served only to confirm and elucidate the basic conclusions of that first meeting. No doubt problems have emerged, but these were already anticipated at Aarhus.

The meeting at the University of Bristol, England in 1967, provided more documentation for the conclusions of Aarhus, and eliminated the possibility that the Monothelete position was the one espoused by the Oriental Orthodoxy.

The third and fourth meetings of which the minutes and papers are here published dealt with the more difficult problems which still remain to be settled - recognition of Councils, anathemas of teachers.

These being unofficial consultations we were not expected to settle these differences, but merely to clarify the position on either side. The problem of anathemas seems much easier to resolve than the problem of the recognition of the four later Councils by the Oriental Orthodox. The discussion has to become more official before an adequate solution to the problems can be discovered.

One thing is clear. The Holy Spirit, Who can always surprise us by doing what is humanly impossible, has been with us in all these conversations. And it is in His guidance and power that we continue to trust.

Geneva E aster 1971 Paul Verghese THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

DOUBLE ISSUE

VOLUME XVI SPRING & FALL, 1971 NOs. 1 AND 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword Paul Verghese

A. The Consultation in Geneva (16-21 August 1970)

1. Summary of Conclusions...... Pages 3-8 2. Minutes...... Pages 9 - 43 3. Appendix I A Brief History of Efforts to Reunite the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Sides from 451- 641 A.D...... Pages 44 - 62 Prof. V.C. Samuel 4. Appendix II The Christological Decisions of Chalcedon - Their History down to the 6th Ecumenical Synod - 451 - 680/ 8 1 ...... Pages 63-78 Prof. G. Konidaris 5. Appendix III The Distinction between the Horoi and the Canons of the Early Synods and their Significance for the Acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon by the non-Chalcedonian Churches...... Pages 79-107 Prof. J. Karmiris 6. Appendix IV The Difference between the Horos and the Canon and its Importance for the Reception of the Synod of Chalcedon...... Pages 108-132 Prof. N. Chitescu 7. Appendix V Ecclesiological Issues Concerning the Relation of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodox Churches...... Pages 133-143 Fr. Paul Verghese THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

8. Appendix VI Ecclesiological Issues Inherent in the Relations between Eastern Chalcedonian and Oriental non- Chalcedonian Churches...... Pages 144-162 Dr. J.D. Zizioulas 9. Appendix VII The Canonical Traditions of the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Churches...... Pages 163-172 Bishop Pierre de Chersonese 10. Appendix VIII A Historico-Theological Review of the Anathemata of the Fourth Ecumenical Council by the Armenian Church...... Pages 173-192 Metropolitan Damaskinos Papandreou 11. Appendix IX The First Three Ecumenical Councils and their Significance for the Armenian Church Pages 193 - 209 Vardapet Mesrob Krikorian

B. The Consultation in Addis Ababa (22-23 January 1971)

1. Summary of Conclusions...... Pages 210-213 2. M inutes...... Pages 214-235 3. Appendix I Condemnation of Teachers and Acclamation of Saints...... Pages 236 - 244 Prof. V.C. Samuel 4. Appendix II Recognition of Saints and Problems of A nathem as...... Pages 245 - 259 Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy 1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1. The third unofficial consultation between the theologians of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches was held from August 16-21, 1970 at the Cenacle, Geneva, in an atmosphere of openness and trust which has been built up thanks to the two previous conversations at Aarhus (1964) and Bristol (1967).

REAFFIRMATION OF CHRISTOLOGICAL AGREEMENT

2. We have reaffirmed our agreements at Aarhus and Bristol on the substance of our common Christology. On the essence of the Christological dogma our two traditions, despite fifteen centuries of separation, still find themselves in full and deep agreement with the universal tradition of the one undivided Church. It is the teaching of the blessed Cyril on the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ that we both affirm, though we may use differing terminology to explain this teaching. We both teach that He who is con­ substantial with the Father according to Godhead became consubstantial also with us according to humanity in the Incarnation, that He who was before all ages begotten from the Father, was in these last days for us and for our salvation born of the blessed Virgin Mary, and that in Him the two natures are united in the one hypostasis of the Divine Logos, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect man, with all the properties and faculties that belong to Godhead and to hum anity. 3. The human will and energy of Christ are neither ab­ sorbed nor suppressed by His divine will and energy, nor are the former opposed to the latter, but are united together in perfect concord without division or confusion; He who wills and acts is always the One hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate. One is Emmanuel, God and Man, Our Lord and Saviour, Whom we adore and worship and who yet is one of us.

3 4 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

4. We have become convinced that our agreement extends beyond Christological doctrine to embrace other aspects also of the authentic tradition, though we have not discussed all matters in detail. But through visits to each other, and through study of each other’s liturgical traditions and theological and spiritual writings, we have rediscovered, with a sense of gratitude to God, our mutual agreement in the common Tradition of the One Church in all important mat­ ters - liturgy and spirituality, doctrine and canonical prac­ tice, in our understanding of the Holy Trinity, of the In­ carnation, of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, on the nature of the Church as the Communion of Saints with its ministry and Sacraments, and on the life of the world to come when our Lord and Saviour shall come in all his glory. 5. We pray that the Holy Spirit may continue to draw us together to find our full unity in the one Body of Christ. Our mutual agreement is not merely verbal or conceptual; it is a deep agreement that impels us to beg our Churches to con­ summate 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.

SOME DIFFERENCES

6. Despite our agreement on the substance of the Tradition, the long period of separation has brought about certain differences in the formal expression of that tradition. These difference have to do with three basic ecclesiological issues - (a) the meaning and place of certain Councils in the life of the Church, (b) the anathematization or acclamation as Saints of certain controversial teachers in the Church, and (c) the jurisdictional questions related to manifestation of the unity of the Church at local, regional and world levels. (a) Theologians from the Eastern Orthodox Church have drawn attention to the fact that for them the Church teaches that the seven ecumenical Councils which they acknowledge have an inner coherence and continuity that make them a 'single indivisible comples, to be viewed in its entirety of SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS dogmatic definition. Theologians from the Oriental Orthodox Church feel, however, that the authentic Christological tradition has so far been held by them on the basis of the three ecumenical Councils, supplemented by the liturgical and patristic tradition of the Church. It is our hope that further study will lead to the solution of this problem by the decision of our Churches. As for the Councils and their authority for the tradition, we all agree that the Councils should be seen as charismatic events in the life of the Church rather than as an authority over the Church; where some Councils are acknowledged as true Councils, whether as ecumenical or as local, by the Church’s tradition, their authority is to be seen as coming from the Holy Spirit. Distinction is to be made not only between the doctrinal definitions and canonical legislations of a Council, but also between the true intention of the dogmatic definition of a Council and the particular ter­ minology in which it is expressed, which latter has less authority than the intention. (b) The reuniting of the two traditions which have their own separate continuity poses certain problems in relation to certain revered teachers of one family being condemned or anathematizedjby the other. It may not be necessary for­ mally to lift these anathemas, nor for these teachers to be recognised as Saints by the condemning side. But the restoration of Communion obviously implies, among other things, that formal anathemas and condemnation of revered teachers of the other side should be discontinued, as in the case of Leo, Dioscurus, Severus, and others. (c) It is recognised that jurisdiction is not to be regarded only as an administrative matter, but that it also touches the question of ecclesiology in some aspects. The traditional pattern of territorial autonomy or autocephaly has its own pragmatic, as well as theological, justification. The manifestation of local unity in the early centuries was to have one bishop, with one college of presbyters united in one eucharist. In more recent times pragmatic considerations, however, have made it necessary in some cases to have more than one bishop and one eucharist in one city, but it is im­ portant that the norm required by the nature of the Church be safe - guarded at least in principle and expressed in Eucharistic Communion and in local conciloar structures. 6 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

7. 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 pluralistic variability need to be more clearly worked out, in the areas of the forms of worship, in terminology of expressing the faith, in spirituality, in canonical practice, in administrative or jurisdictional patterns, and in the other structural or formal expressions of tradition, including the names of teachers and Saints in the Church.

TOWARDS A STATEMENT OF RECONCILIATION

8. We reaffirm the suggestion made by the Bristol con­ sultation that one of the next steps is for the Churches of our two families to appoint an official joint commission to examine those things which have separated us in the past, to discuss our mutual agreements and disagreements and to see if the degree of agreement is adequate to justify the drafting of an explanatory statement of reconciliation, which will not have the status of a confession of faith or a dogmatic definition, but can be the basis on which our Churches can take the steps necessary for our being united in a Common Eucharist. We have given attention to some of the issues that need to be officially decided in such a statement of reconciliation. Its basic content would of course be the common Christological agreement; it should be made clear that this is not an in­ novation on either side, but an explanation of what has been held on both sides for centuries, as is attested by the liturgical and patristic documents. The common un­ derstanding of Christology is the fundamental basis for the life, orthodoxy and unity of the Church. Such a statement of Reconciliation could make use of the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria as well as expressions used in the Formula of Concord of 433 between St. Cyril and John of Antioch, the terminology used in the four later Councils and in the patristic and liturgical texts on both sides. Such terminology should not be used in an ambiguous way to cover up real disagreement, but should help to make manifest the agreement that really exists. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 7

SOME PRACTICAL STEPS

9. Contacts between Churches of the two families have developed at a pace that is encouraging. Visits to each other, in some cases at the level of heads of Churches, and in others at episcopal level or at the level of theologians have helped to mark further progress in the growing degree of mutual trust, understanding and agreement. Theological students from the Oriental Orthodox Churches have been studying in in­ stitutions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches for some time now; special efforts should be made now to encourage more students from the Eastern Orthodox Churches to study in Oriental Orthodox institutions. There should be more ex­ change at the level of theological professors and church dignitaries. It is our hope and prayer that more official action on the part of the two families of Churches will make the con­ tinuation of this series of unofficial conversations no longer necessary. But much work still needs to be done, some of which can be initiated at an informal level. 10. With this in mind this third unofficial meeting of theologians from the two families constitutes: (a) a Continuation Committee of which all the par­ ticipants of the three conversations at Aarhus, Bristol and Geneva would be corresponding members, and (b) a Special Executive Committee of this Con­ tinuation Committee consisting of the following members, and who shall have the functions detailed further below: 1. Metropolitan Emilianos of Calabria 2. Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy 3. V ardapet Mesrob Krikorian 4. Professor Nikos Nissiotis 5. F ath er Paul Verghese

FUNCTIONS:

(a) To edit, publish and transmit to the Churches a report of this third series of conversations, through the Greek Or­ thodox Theological Review. (b) To produce, on the basis of a common statement of 8 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW which the substance is agreed upon in this meeting, a resume of the main points of the three unofficial conversations in a form which can be discussed, studied and acted upon by the different autocephalous Churches; (c) To publish a handbook containing statistical, historical, theological and other information regarding the various autocephalous Churches; (d) To explore the possibility of constituting an association of Theological Schools, in which all the seminaries, academies and theological faculties of the various autocephalous Churches of both families can be members; (e) To publish a periodical which will continue to provide information about the autocephalous Churches and to pursue further discussion of theological, historical and ec­ clesiological issues; (f) To make available to the Churches the original sources for an informed and accurate study of the historical developments in the common theology and spirituality as well as the mutual relations of our Churches; (g) To sponsor or encourage theological consultations on local, regional or world levels, with a view to deepening our own understanding of, and approach to, contemporary problems especially in relation to our participation in the ecumenical movement; (h) To explore the possibilities of and to carry out the preliminary steps for the establishment of one or more common research centres where theological and historical studies in relation to the universal orthodox tradition can be further developed; (i) To explore the possibility of producing materials on a common basis for the instruction of our believers including children and youth and also theological text-books. 2. MINUTES

Participants

EASTERN ORTHODOX ORIENTAL ORTHODOX Dr. Athanase Arvanitis Kahali Alemu C. (Church of Greccc) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy Very Rev. Nerses Bozabalian (Russian Orthodox Church) (Armenian Apostolic Church) Prof. Nicolae Chitescu Abba G.E. Degou (Rumanian Orthodox Church) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Metropolitan Emilianos of Calabria Bishop Anba Gregorius (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) (Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt) Prof. Georges Florovsky Metropolitan Severius Zakka Iwas (Ecumenical Patriarchate) (Syrian Orthodox Church) Metropolitan Georges of Mount Lebanon Rev. Dr. K.C. Joseph (Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch) (Syrian Orthodox Church in India) Bishop Pierre de Chersonese Dr. Mesrob K. Krikorian (Russian Orthodox Church) (Armenian Apostolic Church) Prof. J. Karmiris Metropolitan Mar Theophilus Philipos (Church of Greece) (Syrian Orthodox Church in India) Prof. G. Konidaris Fr. T. Paul Verghese (Church of Alexandria) (Syrian Orthodox Church in India) Prof. John Meyendorff Liqe Seltanat Habte Mariam Worqneh (Orthodox Church in America) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Metropolitan Nicodim q£ Sliven (Bulgarian Orthodox Church) Prof. N.A. Nissiotis (Church of Greece) Archim. Damaskinos Papandreou (Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) Prof. Bojan Piperov (Bulgarian Orthodox Church) Prof. John S. Romanides (Church of Greece) Prof. Liverii Voronov (Russian Orthodox Church) Dr. J.D. Zizioulas (Church of Greece) Prof. Ilia Zonewski (Bulgarian Orthodox Church)

Consultant

Dr. Lukas Vischer (representing the Faith and Order Secretariat of the World Council of Churches)

9 10 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Co-Chairmen: Dr. Nikos Nissiotis and Father Paul Verghese Meeting at 8:15 p.m ., Sunday, August 16, 1970:

After prayers, Father Verghese welcomed all the delegates. He hoped that this third unofficial consultation could be the last of the unofficial meetings, and that after this it might be possible for more official work to be started for taking steps towards restoring communion among all the Churches concerned.

Dr. Lukas Vischer announced that the following papers will be ready for .presentation to the Consultation :-

1. Analyses of the Historical Developments before and after Chalcedon: Dr. V.C. Samuel (App. I) and Prof. G. Konidaris (App. ID

2. The Distinction between Horos and Canons and its Significance for the Reception of the Council of Chalcedon: Prof. J. Karmiris (App. Ill) and Prof. N. Chitescu (App. IV)

3. Ecclesiological Issues Concerning the Relation of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches: Fr. Paul Verghese (App. V) and Dr. J.D. Zizioulas (App. VI)

4. The Canonical Traditions of the Two Families of Churches: Bishop Pierre de Chersonese (App. VII)

5. Review of the Anathemas of the Armenian Church Against the Council of Chalcedon: Metropolitan Damaskinos (App. VIII)

6. The Armenian Church and the Ecumenical Councils: Dr. Mesrob K. Krikorian (App. IX)

From the chair, Father Paul Verghese asked if there was general agreement that the discussions in connection with the papers should aim at producing two results:- (1) an agreed statement incorporating the theological points about which the theologians of the two sides are agreed, and (ii) an agreed agenda of steps that might be taken with the aim of restoring communion between the two families of Churches. MINUTES 11 On this being generally agreed, the meeting proceeded to elect a Committee which would both act as a steering com­ mittee and be responsible for producing the joint statement. The following members were elected Dr. Mesrob Krikorian Dr. Nikos Nissiotis Father Paul Verghese Father John Romanides Romanides asked for a Report as to what has so far been done in the various Churches in this field of relationships between the two families of Churches. This was agreed to be taken up as the first item on the agenda.

2nd meeting: 9 a.m ., Monday, August 17, 1970:

After prayers led by Father Paul Verghese, the Chairman Dr. Nissiotis welcomed those who had arrived after the previous evening’s meeting. Then the members were requested to report the situations in the various Churches in the matter of relations between the two families of Churches. Konidaris: For the last six or seven years, the Church of Greece has had a Commission on this question. We have consulted the Patriarch of Alexandria, and we hope that Constantinople will also appoint a similar Commission. Karmiris: In Greece, there has been general interest among theologians in the Reports from Aarhuus and Bristol, and these have been studied carefully. I have myself written several papers on this question. Zabolotsky: Relationships between the Russian Orthodox Church and different Churches of the Oriental tradition have been developing at various levels. Meetings were held bet­ ween Patriarch Alexis on the one hand and the Emperor of Ethiopia and the Bishops of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on the other. Moscow and Kerala have exchanged Episcopal visits to each other. Moscow and Armenia are in contact with each other on various questions. The Reports of the previous unofficial consultations have been translated into Russian and are being studied by various theologians. Every attempt is being made also to inform the common people about what is happening. There is great interest in the liturgical life of the non - Chalcedonian Churches. The Liturgy of St. James is 12 TI1E GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW now actually being used in the Russian Orthodox Church. The fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has a Commission on theological questions is a great help in carrying forward studies to help external relations like this. There are also practical contacts with the Oriental Churches in the field of education. Indian and Ethiopian students are studying at the Leningrad Academy. Three such have graduated this year. Konidaris: We in Athens also have had students from Ethiopia for a fairly long time. Recently one of them, Ato Zelleke, won a doctorate from Athens. Meyendorff: At. St. Vladimir’s we have students from both India and Ethiopia. Recently, we have made an agreement with the Armenian Church in the U.S.A. by which Armenian students will have their regular theological studies at St. Vladimir’s, combining it with special courses at Etchmiadzin during the summer vacation time. The Oriental Churches whose numbers are small in the U.S.A. have a problem of identity in the country and we are trying to help in facing this question. Liqe Seltanat Ilabte Marian: After Aarhuus, the Ethiopian Church has been taking steps to have talks with the Russian Orthodox Church, the Rumanian Church, and the Greek Church in Alexandria. We have students in Russia, Greece, and Rumania. We are now trying to have exchanges at the level of professors also. The theological College at Addis Ababa is right now trying to secure some professors from the Orthodox Churches. Metropolitan George: The Syrian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch have had conversations together on topics of common interest. In Syria, our two Churches use the same curriculum and text-books for religious instruction. The Greek Church there is beginning to teach the Syriac language as a common basis of mutual interest. Bishop Theophilos: The Orthodox Church in India has had several contacts with Churches of the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Patriarch of Rumania visited our Church and then conversations were held regarding mutual relations. As a result of those conversations, a joint commission has been appointed to study the question of more close relationships. We have one student in Rumania. From our Church Father Paul Verghese gave a series of lectures in the Theological Academy at Bucharest. We hope that in the near future we MINUTES 13 may have a Rumanian student studying at our Seminary at Kottayam. We have had a visit from a Russian Orthodox Delegation under Bishop Antony, and as was already men­ tioned we have students at the Leningrad Academy. Bishop Nikodim: Bulgaria has encouraged study and publications regarding the Oriental Orthodox Churches. After the present consultation there will be more such steps to have a better understanding of the Oriental traditions among our people. Chitescu: Rumania had students from India, Ethiopia, and from the Armenian Church. We have several visits of bishops from other Churches. Krikorian: Armenians are dispersed all over the world and everywhere we try to keep contact with the Chalcedonian Churches also in the area. In Austria, the Roman Catholic Church was also interested in the Aarhus and Bristol con­ sultations, and at their request I have written about those two consultations. The Roman Catholic groups in Austria have a plan to invite the Oriental Orthodox representatives to join them in an effort to undertake studies about the christological disputes. Metropolitan Zakka I was: The Syrian Orthodox and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch share the same language. Many member^of our Churches think that we are the same Church with two different Rites. And the hierarchy en­ courage them to help each other in liturgical practice. We do not yet have our students in Eastern Orthodox Seminaries. However, our Church is very much interested in fostering closer contacts with the Chalcedonian Churches. Nissiotis: We might also spend some time making suggestions as to what more can be done in order to bring the Churches closer together. Borovoy: We have developed close contacts in many ways, through exchange of students and episcopal visits etc. Now I suggest that there is another channel for closer relations. Let us try to record all these in some kind of a Handbook giving information about our Churches to each other so that more people may be helped to understand what is happening. Romanides: When I was a student in Athens between the years 1955-1956 the custom of having matriculating Ethiopian students was already an established tradition. Members of the Coptic Church also began studying in Greece and also members of the Armenian Church. The languages of the Non- 14 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Chalcedonian Churches should be taught in Orthodox Seminaries and those of the Orthodox in the Non- Chalcedonian Seminaries in order to improve the research abilities in each other’s traditions. We hope that very soon Orthodox students may begin studying in the Non- Chalcedonian Seminaries. Careful research in each other’s sources, exchange of professors, and the publication and translation of sources and the publication of a common periodical should be encouraged with a section for regular news and with main emphasis on material coming out of this research into one another’s traditions. Perhaps a research center could be agreed upon in Cyprus, or some other easily accessible and centrally located place or even places. Finally we should encourage our Churches to assume the respon­ sibility or guiding these activities by means of Official Consultative Committees. Nissiotis: The suggestions of both Borovoy and Romanides deserve careful consideration. We must encourage a two- way traffic between the two families of Churches. Verghese: Articles in Magazines are read only by the select few; therefore personal visits are still very important if the common people have to become increasingly aware of Churches of other traditions than their own. I suggest that there should be more occasion during these visits for people to participate in the liturgies of the Churches of the visiting persons, so that as they see and hear their guests, they may also worship with them. It would be most useful if a common Research centre could be established. This is, however, long­ term plan. There are certain immediately urgent and short term concerns. Both our families are in the ecumenical movement, and we should consider together our common problems which encounter in our relation with the Roman Catholics and the Protestant Churches. We need also greater cooperation in the production and use of theological works, like text-books for our Seminaries. Liqe Seltanat Habte Mariam: It is important that the con­ tacts are maintained not only among theologians, but also among bishops, because only bishops can really initiate new relationships with other Churches. Metropolitan George: We very often talk as if there is one world-wide Chalcedonian communion and another world­ wide non-Chalcedonian communion and that relations can develop only on the world level. But the fact is that we have MINUTES 15 different national and regional situations involving both the families of Churches; and it is important that we should think in terms of cooperation at the regional and national levels. I am speaking with the realities of the Middle East specially in mind. Arvanitis: We certainly have a good beginning; but so far efforts have been unofficial. We need more official and systematic work. Commissions should be established in all the Churches to study these questions seriously with a view to specific action before long. There should be an inter - church committee to coordinate all such activities. Our Theological Faculties should include in their curriculum systematic opportunities for our students to be well-informed about all the efforts that are being made to create better un­ derstanding between the two families of Churches. Bishop Theophilos: All these suggestions are good. But we should not wait for all these things to bear fruit in the next half-century; we should think of immediate ways of reestablishing Communion between our two families of Churches. Borovoy: I agree with Metropolitan Theophilos’ suggestion. We should press the authorities of our Churches to go forward and implement the proposals regarding the restoring of communion. In connection with our common concerns in our relations with the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, can we arrange unofficial meetings of the representatives of our two families of Churches at every ecumenical gathering? I would also suggest that World Christian Handbook should be requested to give more detailed and accurate information regarding both the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches and their relation to one another. Konidaris: I support the above two suggestions. Bishop Ireneos of Kissamou in Crete is working towards the establishment of a Theological Institute for the whole of the Mediterranean area. The Greek Church would be glad to have more meetings of theologians. Our publications should be reported to one another. For example, the critial edition of the minutes of the 5th Ecumenical Council published in Bonn should be more widely known. A Bibliography of all our theological publications would be a great help. I agree with Father Borovoy that we should not wait indefinitely for all studies to be completed. Romanides: It is important that Official Consultations should 16 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW begin as soon as possible and this should be our last unofficial consultation. It would be natural that the work of these consultations should be undertaken by the theological faculties of the Churches. Chitescu: When Father Paul Verghese visited Bucharest he mentioned a proposal made by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1965 which has not yet been carried out. Professor Karmiris suggested that a joint-commission should work out a formula of reconciliation. In preparation for that let us have a small committee to gather together the threads of our con­ versations so far. This may lead to the appointment of a joint commission which can then carry on the work more of­ ficially. The present one should be our last unofficial con­ sultation. Zabolotsky: There is need for a practical common witness by our two families of Churches. Can we not establish a list of concerns that are common to us in any ecumenical discussion? For example, our concept of Catholicity and how we understand it. Bishop Pierre: We are no longer at the stage of preliminary contacts. We have advanced a great deal in our un­ derstanding of one another. We should now be able to work out specific proposals regarding the next step that our Churches should take. Karmiris: All this is true. But our Churches have to be prepared psychologically before practical steps are taken, because most of our common people have not followed our theological discussions. Meyendorff: I want to make two points: (i) Our work at Aarhus and Bristol did not cover all theological problems, and therefore theological consultations should continue; and (ii) it is good to have practical action plans; but who will implement these plans? We need to have a Continuation Committee to continue the working according to the present proposals. That Committee should take charge of the proposed Handbook, periodicals, etc. Florovsky: Our problems are not properly understood at Ecumenical meetings. We therefore need an objective presentation of what is common to us. What we say to the Western Churches should be in the context of our ancient common tradition. Bishop Gregorious: I want to make two points: (i) Exchange of visits by Heads of our Churches, Bishops, and other people MINUTES 17 is very important. In Egypt, the visits of the Patriarchs of Moscow, Constantinople, Rumania, and Bulgaria made a very good impression; (ii) We should do something to coordinate our theological teaching in our seminaries. Perhaps a committee of our theological professors should work out a common curriculum for all our seminaries. I)egou: The psychological barrier between our Churches is still very high. Exchanges of students are very good, but not enough. We should assist one another in other ways also. Perhaps a common journal might help to create a better feeling of oneness among our people. Borovoy: I agree about the need for official action. But I do not think that this should be our last unofficial consultation. There are several theological questions to be worked out; and these are better done in unofficial meetings where members will feel more free. There is also a very practical reason. Our Churches may not at the moment be willing to budget money for these consultations. Perhaps we should continue for some more time to depend on financial help from Faith and Order, which will be easier if our consultations continue to be unofficial. Nissiotis: We need more clarity regarding the official or unofficial nature of our meetings. We meet unofficially ; but we are responsibly persons in our Churches. Even if our Church authorities agree to begin official conversations, we are likely to be the individuals asked to do the work. Although our meetings are technically unofficial, it is a fact that our consultations have indeed brought our Churches closer together. Therefore, we should continue our discussions, without worrying too much whether they are technically unofficial or not. Voronov: We should recognize the impact that our con­ sultations have had on our Churches. It was our consultations that brought our Churches nearer to one another. Our further progress will depend on whether our Churches have the means to have closer co-operation. Up to now we have been considering primarily the question of Christology. Now we have to begin thinking of other things also. We have had 15 centuries of independent growth. The developments in the East after Chalcedon may be compared with the develop­ ments in the West after the Reformation. We should study the nature of the consolidation of tradition within the non- Chalcedonian family. 18 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Krikorian: We have to give some attention to our relations with the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. In Austria, we have a meeting of all the Churches together, and there the Roman Catholics and the Protestants in some cases regard me as representing both the Chalcedonian and non- Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. That kind of situation calls for the development of a common strategy for our two families. Nissiotis: What are the practical possibilities of our having a joint-Committee? The Orthodox Working Party in the WCC Ecumenical Centre at Geneva is considering what we can do together at the m eting of the Central Committee at Addis Ababa. Metropolitan George: Seventy years ago the Russian Or­ thodox Church wanted seriously to consider reestablishing communion with the Coptic Church. We are now in some ways behind that stage. Therefore we should think of prac­ tical steps. Our theological consultations should continue. But also our Churches should begin to take official action. Can we think of closer co-operation not only on the world level, but also on the national and regional levels? Can we have joint-commissions at these two levels? Romanides:Our joint theological work need not necessarily be connected to our relations with the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. Our Churches should be able to find the money needed for our joint work. Bobzabalian: Will it be possible to organize visits by a joint- group of our Churches to visit all our Churches to draw at­ tention to what is happening? Joseph: One practical way in which our Churches can be helped to draw together is by establishing a joint Association of our various theological seminaries and colleges; it is high time that we did something about it. Orthodox theological education needs a new look. Can we start doing something about this together? Verghese: It would be very good if our Churches can themselves finance our consultations. But it is a fact that these three unofficial consultations would not have materialized unless we had help from the Faith and Order Secretariat. And I would very much like to place on record our indebtedness especially to Dr. Lukas Vischer. Let us now try to sum up our practical proposals. Shall we take it that we should have a Continuation Committee? I would suggest that MINUTES 19 the following steps may be taken by a Continuation Com­ mittee to be appointed before we close:- (i) present an analytical summary of our present discussions to our Churches (ii) prepare the suggested Handbook of our Churches (iii) organize a theological Consultation on Ecumenical issues (iv) explore possibilities of publishing a joint periodical (v) take steps for the establishment of an Association of all Orthodox Theological Seminaries and Colleges and Faculties

The meeting closed on a note of general agreement regarding these practical steps.

4:30 p.m., Monday, August 17:

Meeting chaired by Father Paul Verghese.

In the absence of Professor V.C. Samuel, Dr. K.C. Joseph presented a summary of Prof. Samuel’s paper on the Historical events before and after Chalcedon, especially the various attempts to bring the two sides together (Appendix D. This was followed by the presentation of his own paper by Professor Konidaris (Appendix II).

Discussion:

Meyendorff: It will not be advisable to go over again the history of the controversies of the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. Florovsky: To understand why the non-Chalcedonians were so opposed to Chalcedon we should bear in mind the distinc­ tion between two types of diophysitism - the semantical and the soteriological. Chalcedon was wedded to semantic diophysitism. The two sides did not understand each other because there was a real lack of understanding of the soteriological Christology. The New Testament did not try to teach metaphysics, but dealt with the incarnation of God to redeem mankind. The main point of Christology is to un­ derstand that manhood was redeemed through the in­ carnation. The distinction between the manhood and the? Godhead made the unity of the two soteriologically 20 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW significant. That is the whole point. The formula is only an attempt to state this. Verghese: The non-Chalcedonian opposition to the Chalcedonian formula was more than semantics. The Chalcedonian formula tended to give a symmetrical in­ terpretation of the incarnation, by putting the humanity of Christ as it were in a parallel relation to the divinity. The non- Chalcedonians were convinced of the a-symmetrical nature of the incarnation, and thought the Chalcedonian formula misleading. Meyendorff: Byzantine Christology really did not follow the symmetrical line of thought. It stood for an a-symmetrical understanding of the incarnation. I have a feeling that a mental block concerning terms is the real stumbling block. We must make a distinction between words and content. The Church is not bound by words, but by the real content. Verghese: That is the point. But unfortunately, in the thinking on both sides, terminology, formulation, and content tend to get mixed up. Florovsky: It should not be forgotten that the incarnation is a mystery and that therefore a paradoxical formulation is likely to be nearer the truth. Konidaris: I would like to have the opposition to Chalcedon discussed further in order that we may see things more clearly. Justinian tried to bypass the opposition to Chalcedon, but he could not go far. Nissiotis: Dr. Samuel’s paper shows that the non- Chalcedonians see the events of the 5th, 6th and the 7th centuries in a very different way from the Chalccdonians. Professor Konidaris has interpreted the history of the period from the Chalcedonian point of view. It should be recognized that there exists a totally different point of view. Only when that history is presented from that point of view also there can be true understanding of the whole matter. Karmiris: It was because of this difficulty that the 5th Council tried to interpret the 4th Council. We should follow the 5th Council’s interpretation. Romanides: In view of the fact that this paper of Father Samuel is directed to me personally, I thank the chair for finally getting around to letting me speak. However, in the light of Father Samuel’s absence and inability, therefore, of discussing with me my observations, I hesitate to occupy these sessions with my observations on this paper since the MINUTES 21 writer cannot speak for himself. At this point I limit myself to the observation that going into the details of the opposition to Chalcedon in subsequent centuries is nowhere near as important as studying in great detail both the theological debate and historical events leading to Chalcedon and thoroughly examining Chalcedon itself. Father Samuel has rightly pointed out the inner con­ sistency of the non-Chalcedonian interpretation of the faith in the incarnation and its fundamental Orthodoxy and the Orthodox since Aarhus have been generally convinced of this. However, when he deals with Chalcedonian Orthodox he systematically refuses to apply the same method of ob­ jectivity and possibility of seeing inner-consistency between Chalcedon and the Orthodox non-Alexandrian and non- Nestorian traditions. Even the Cyril of the 433 reconciliation has to be made subject by Father Samuel to rigid Alexan­ drian inner consistency. We cannot help to detect here a very strong psychological self - defensive obstacle to sound method in this over-anxiety of avoiding any position whose implication would be the necessity to accept Chalcedon. This self-defending anxiety makes it impossible to understand the inner-consistency and Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonian Greek tradition. In any case Father Samuel’s paper is the first time in our consultations that a member of the non-Chalcedonian side has tried to deal with the questions I have been con­ sistently raising since Aarhus concerning the 433 recon­ ciliation. Krikorian: Self-defending attitude on the other side also prevents enlightenment. However, my point is that both Professor Konidaris’ paper and Professor Samuel’s paper fail to set forth fully why there was so much opposition to Chalcedon. For example (i) was there also at that time a clash of personalities and personal prestige which com­ plicated m atters? (ii) Was the opposition to the Chalcedonian formula aggravated by the examples used by its protagonists to explain it? Both theological and non-theological factors have to be studied in this connection.

August 17th, 8:15 p.m.:

Continuation of discussion on papers by Dr. Samuel and Prof. Konidaris. 22 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Konidaris: Only a new research into what happened after Chalcedon will show us how to understand the teaching of Chalcedon. To take one example, the Encyclion of Emperor Basiliscus was accepted by the bishops under pressure, and they repudiated it as soon as Basiliscus ceased to exercise power. Or, consider the policy of Justinian. There is reason to believe that if he did not die when he did, but lived longer, his whole attitude would have been different about the faith of Chalcedon. In judging his policy we should take into con­ sideration the fact that he signed the fourth edict about Aphthartodocetism (in 563/ 564). His was clearly a henotike policy to reunite the Orthodox and the Monophysites. It was only due to the difficulty of the task that he did not succeed in his efforts. We must continue our historical study of this question. Verghese: Let us be clear that there are different views of the history of those times. The non-Chalcedonians do not accept the Chalcedonian’s interpretation of that history. In our two previous unofficial consultations we have gone over this question and we have come to a certain agreement that the two families of Orthodox Churches can agree about the substance of the faith which Chalcedon tried to define. But if we are again to take this question up, let me point out frankly that the non-Chalcedonian Churches suspected Chalcedon of the heresy of Nestorianism. The whole understanding of the situation will depend upon whether one considers Ap- pollonarianism or Nestorianism to have been the greater or the more immediate danger at that time. It is now agreed that Chalcedon did not have a heretical intention, but the Chalcedonian formula did seem to be Nestorian to the non- Chalcedonians. The Chalcedonian... Verghese continued: The Chalcedon formula accordingly cannot be the last word in this matter; it needs further clarification and perhaps redefinition. There is also the problem of the two wills, the divine and the human, in Christ. These have a bearing on our conception of spiritually also. Romanides: The remarks of Father Verghese bear out what I said this afternoon. We have known for centuries the non- Chalcedonian accusations against Chalcedon. Now we are given the impression that the Chalcedonians can be con­ sidered Orthodox by the non-Chalcedonians, not because Chalcedon is Orthodox, but because the Chalcedonians are no longer faithful to Chalcedon. I do not see where at Aarhus or MINUTES 23

Bristol we have studied Chalcedon in such detail that we can now say that we can no longer study this Council in detail. Only Dr. Samuel has finally now taken up some of the questions I raised at Aarhus and Bristol about the theology and events before and at Chalcedon in some semblance of detail and in doing so attempts to demonstrate that the reconciliation of 433 did not involve any real acceptance on the part of Cyril of two natures ‘te theoria mone’ as Cyril himself explains. St. Cyril was so strong on this point that he did not allow the controversy over Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus to destroy the accom plishm ent of 433. The fundamental agreement between John and Cyril which was rejected by Theodoretos became the basis of Chalcedon and was agreed to by Leo. I have described these factors at Aarhus but these factors are not dealt with by the non- Chalcedonians. If the non-Chalcedonian position on Chalcedon is correct then the Chalcedonians must reject Chalcedon. If the Chalcedonian Greek position on Chalcedon is correct then the non-Chalcedonians must accept the dogmatic teaching of Chalcedon as Orthodox. Bishop Zakka: I would like to point out that human pride played a part in the schism regarding Chalcedon. Leo refused to accept the Second Council of Ephesus because there his Tome was refuted. The Alexandrians refused to accept Chalcedon because it deposed Dioscorus and per­ secuted Bar Sauma. Let us not forget these human factors. Voronov: Should we really divide the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians as representing two different types of spirituality, as Father Florovsky implied? Of course there was a difference in emphasis; but were not both sides trying to understand the mystery of the incarnation? I would not characterize the two sides as representing a contemplative or a rationalistic attempt to understand the incarnation. Horos taken out of the context can lead to all kinds of op­ posing conclusions. While Eutychus’ teaching was unor­ thodox monophysitism, Dioscorus’ teaching might be con­ sidered as orthodox monophysitism. Similarly while Nestorius represented unorthodox diophysitism, Chalcedon represented orthodox diophysitism. If Cyril lived to be at Chalcedon, he would probably have formulated his Christology differently. I agree with Father Paul Verghese in his suggestion that both sides should recognize that they were not wholly right. I doubt whether the Church as a whole ever 24 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW considered any of these definitions as finally settling the issue. Zabolotsky: We have been separated for 1500 years, and it is very difficult to get out of our theological straight-jackets. Only a genuine spirit of reconciliation can restore our inner links. Zizioulas: It is interesting to go over the historical facts. Non- Chalcedonians have come to dissociate Chalcedon from Nestorianism; then why should they not now accept Chalcedon? Our real problem is our concept of Tradition. Should we not now start asking ourselves what exactly is true Tradition and separate it from what may be history but not part of true Tradition. Romanides: Tradition has retained certain permanent features of spirituality in both families. Bishop Theophilos: Can we make a more positive approach to the whole question? It is now generally seen that the content of faith is the same in both the families. Can we not on that basis go forward to consider the problem of restoring communion? Krikorian: Some people contradict themselves by saying on the one side that Chalcedon was final and definitive, but agreeing on the other side that Chalcedon should be un­ derstood on the basis of the 5th, 6th and 7th Councils. Joseph: We speak of different types of spirituality. I often wonder whether even when we speak of spirituality, we are dealing merely with intellectual concepts of spirituality. We always want to go to the sources. Do we mean by that only words spoken or written 15 centuries ago, or do we think in terms of the new illumination that can be given by the living Holy Spirit who is the real Source of our understanding?

Tuesday, 18th August, 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Bishop Pierre presented his paper on “The Canonical Tradition of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches (vide appendix). To sum up, I would emphasize three points:- (i) there is a fundamental affinity between the two families of Churches in the matter of Canon Law, (ii) the differences are especially in Liturgical practice, and (iii) Canonical traditions need not be a stumbling block in restoring communion between the two families. Konidaris: The question of canons was treated in different MINUTES 25 ways in the 3rd and 4th Councils. Only a close scrutiny of the various canons will show the different conception. Romanides: The question of similarities of canonical structures must be studied with great care. It is not correct to assume as is usually done that the Church in the West was influenced by Roman Imperial administration more than the East. In actuality the East remained much more faithful to the Roman Imperial elements than the Franco-Latin West which succumbed to ecclesiological theories and canonical structures conditioned by the Feudal society of the Franco- Germans. The East did not have the same Church State problems as the West since Church administration was divided up among autocephalous and autonomous provincial synods within which each Metropolitan presided as primus inter pares as was the case with the Archbishops who had the primacy of honor based on their Sees being capitals of Empires out of which the Roman Empire was fashioned, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Thessaloniki and by 381 New Rome or Constantinople. Except occasionally in the Sees of Old and New Rome the Roman Emperors did not appoint the bishops of the Empire as was the case with the Franco-German emperor who appointed all bishops. Theoretically the Franco-German theoreticians who con­ cocted the donation of Constantine and the pseudo-Isidorean decretals placed the bishop of Old Rome in the place of a Feudal bishop and finally in the place of the Emperor of the Franco-German Empire himself and it was from this source, and not from the older Roman practice that the medieval Franco-Latin understanding of the papacy evolved. Florovsky: The concept ot the imperial church can be misleading. The idea of the state church is not an ancient but a medieval idea. The conception of the Church and state as two different entities arose only in the middle ages. In the early ages the “state” as we understand it did not exist. It is incorrect to say that in the early centuries the state dominated the church. The idea of a universal Christian commonwealth had not been developed then. Outside the Roman empire there was the church within the Persian empire which had its own independent existence unrelaed to the state, (ii) The modern concept of autocephaly is also a later development. It is related to territorial independence. The life of the early church was unrelated to such categories, (iii) The pentarchy - the predominence of the five Patriar­ 26 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW chal sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem - cannot be a final basis of the concept of the Church. Apart from these five sees, there was the practical independence of various metropolitan Churches. On the other hand, quite apart from its political importance, the see of Rome had a unique function in the unity of the church universal, (iv) Let us also recognize that ancient canons cannot be applied as they are to the life of the church in the modern world. Only the principles behind the canons can be accepted for Christian life today. Bishop Pierre: (i) It is true that the term ‘Reichskirche’ should not be applied in the modern sense to the ancient church; (ii) it cannot be said that the development of canon law in the West was identical with the development in the East; (iii) autocephaly - the concept of provinces in the Church universal is not the same as that of national churches like the Armenian church for example; (iv) it is true also that canons cannot be isolated from their context and that therefore only the principle behind canons can be of universal value. Krikorian: Gregory the Illuminator received his con­ secration in Cappadocia not because the Armenian Church was in any way under the jurisdiction of Cappadocia but because there were not enough bishops in Armenia. In the fourth century already the Armenian Church was divided between the Byzantine empire and the Persian empire. Rome tried to be the Reichskirche in the West and suc­ ceeded; but Byzantium never succeeded in having a Reichskirche in the East(Thecanonsof Chalcedon are seen in some Syrian and Coptic compilations of canon law, although those churches repudiated Chalcedon.) Meyendorff: The question of common canons and a common Tradition of the Church is related to the concept of one church. The ancient idea seems to have been that in each place all Christians should form one Church. The existence of several parallel churches in any one place cannot be reconciled with our conception of the Church. We have to face the problem created by the concept of ethnic autocephaly which is in contradiction with the old conception of territorial autocephaly. Romanides: Italy was divided into two Synods with centers in Rome and Milan. The Pope presided over his own Synod and over none else, and for a time was in danger of coming MINUTES 27 under the surveilance of Milan which had superceded Rome as the administrative center of the Western Provinces. With the Franco-German ecclesiastical take-over of Italy and with the implimentation of the renovated Franco-German ec- clesiology all territories controlled by the Franco-Germans were brought under papal ecclesiastical control. In the East the Orthodox until today preserved the original canonical structure except in the areas where autocephaly began to be identified with the nation as has happened among the Slavs thus giving rise to the modern Orthodox National Churches. In any case the difference between autocephalous and autonomous Churches as preserved till today exists clearly in the canons of the Councils, although not based on national identity. As clearly seen, e.g., in the 28th canon of Chalcedon, the presidents of provincial Synods are elected by the bishops of the Synod, but ordained by the Archbishop of the autocephalous grouping to which the provincial synod belongs. Under certain conditions we do have the co­ existence of two Synodical Churches in the same territory as in the case of the Synod of Cyprus which was moved elsewhere during Arab occupation.

Tuesday, August 18, 11:30 a.m.:

Horos and Cahon: Papers by Prof. Karmiris and Prof. Chitescu (Appendices III and IV)

4:30 p.m. Discussion on the papers

Verghese: I am not convinced that this question has much relevance to the problem of the relation between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. However I would like to make brief remarks on some of the points raised. (i) Prof. Karmiris seems to treat the horos of the Councils as being on a par with Scripture. I cannot agree with this. (ii) In the matter of consensus ecclesiae we have to make a distinction between consensus patrum and consensus fidelium. When and how do we know whether there is con­ sensus fidelium on any question? Was there consensus patrum even in Nicea? (iii) Prof. Karmiris asserts things on the assumption that the seven councils have been accepted by all. This is not the case. The seven councils were not accepted by the whole church; in 28 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW fact that is one of the main problems we are here to discuss! (iv) Prof. Karmiris speaks of those who were ex­ communicated by the councils. The fact is that we have excommunicated each other; but there is not much point in trying to have discussion here on that basis. (v) On page 7 he speaks about the final reception of the Council of Chalcedon. This is meaningless in the context in which we are discussing things here. (vi) I would suggest that the Chalcedonians should put themselves in the position of the non-Chalcedonians, and try to see how it is impossible for us to be bound by decisions of councils in which our fathers did not take part, and which they refused to recognize. (vii) The idea of dogma used by Prof. Karmiris has to be questioned. There should be a distinction between the Nicene creed on the one hand and other dogmatic teaching in the Church. If the Horoi of the later councils are to be given the same status as the horoi of the first two councils, there will be real difficulty. Zabolotsky: We should study the question of the acceptance of the various councils against the backgrounds of the par­ ticular situation in which the church was at each time. The Church at the time of Chalcedon was trying to keep its inner life from disintegrating. There were two aspects of the situation - one was the divine and the inner spiritual aspect, the other the human aspect. Both these played a part in the choice between ‘from two natures’ and ‘in two natures’. At Chalcedon, it was not merely the Christological doctrine that was being settled, but also the question of the conciliar structure of the Church. Chalcedon asserted the in­ dependence of the Church from imperial policies. At the same time, it expressed the teaching of the Church about the Person of our Lord in a way that was basically acceptable. Meyendorff: There has been some passion in our discussions today. The passionate way in which we approach doctrine is a sign of hope. Passion for truth is good. Nevertheless, I would like to remind us that we are discussing not only Prof. Karmiris’ paper, but also that of Prof. Chitescu. And Prof. Chitescu has put some of these things in a different way which deserves to be looked at. I am sure that Father Paul will agree that physical presence at a Council is not necessary to accept the teaching of that council. Our com­ mon concern for truth should enable us to overcome MINUTES 29 psychological difficulties. Bishop Theophilos: We are grateful to Prof. Karmiris for trying to give the reasons why he thinks that non- Chalcedonians should accept Chalcedon and the subsequent councils. His appeal for a wider unity including the Roman Catholics and the Protestants who accept Chalcedon is also valid. Nevertheless, it will be helpful if Chalcedonians would realize the strong feeling against Chalcedon in non- Chalcedonian Churches. That is a historical reality which arguments may not be able to overcome. Prof. Karmiris wants that a new formula should be developed; but let us be quite clear that that should not be an attempt to get the non- Chalcedonians to accept Chalcedon. Krikorian: Prof. Karmiris’ paper has this positive aspect, that itsuggeststhat definitions can be revised. But let us not go on the assumption that our ultimate reunion will be on the basis of acceptance or non-acceptance of Chalcedon. Prof. Karmiris’ quotation from two Armenians are based on wrong translations of Armenian texts. In the 13th century an Ar­ menian Catholicos agreed to accept Chalcedon, but he was killed by the people. Joseph: Within the last five years, a bishop of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was suspended from his bishopric because something that he; wrote lent itself to be interpreted as an acceptance of Chalcedon. Degou: When we were invited to come to this consultation, we understood it as both sides coming to Christ to find the truth. Here I have the feeling that one side is assuming that they have a monopoly of the truth and think that the other side should admit error. If, as the papers seem to admit, there is no difference in the substance of Christological teaching of the two families, why do we insist on one side accepting or the other side rejecting Chalcedon? Karmiris: My source of information regarding the Ar­ menians is a German translation of an Armenian text. I have also several Coptic and Ethiopian Liturgical texts with me which show the influence of Chalcedon. The 5th Council quotes Cyril who is our common father. That is why I thought we should discuss the question of whether our non- Chalcedonian friends could not accept Chalcedon. Romanides: Our discussions have now reached the point where the Chalcedonian Orthodox are clearly being told that the non-Chalcedonians should not be expected to accept 30 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Chalcedon as condition of union. This now seems to be put to us as a condition for continuing our unofficial dialogue. Such a condition is unacceptable and for us can only mean the end of dialogue. We strongly sense that either (1) there has taken place a radical change since Aarhus and Bristol, or (2) we have all along been the objects of an Ecumenical technique which aims at the accomplishment of inter-communion or communion, or union without agreement on Chalcedon and the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. The non- Chalcedonian should very clearly realize that from our side the faith professed cannot be separated from the people who profess. The faith confessed by the Fathers of Chalcedon is the true faith. If we accept that faith we must accept also the Fathers who profess this true faith. Otherwise, the com­ munion of saints confessing this faith is not accepted as a reality. In this connection I would stress that we are not going to be maneuvered into positions predetermined for us by ecumenical technicians and strategists. Bishop Gregorios: We are asked why, if we accept the faith of Chalcedon, we not accept the council itself. The fact is that we have difficulties about the horos of Chalcedon. Our fathers found Nestorianism in the horos of Chalcedon. We cannot accept any expression that lends itself to be in­ terpreted as a duality in the person of Jesus Christ. We confess Christ our Lord as one in every way. We have no objection to speak of two natures before their union at the incarnation. The two are united into one, “of two natures, but not in two n atu res.” Even if we accept the teaching of Chalcedon, we are not obliged to accept Chalcedon. For example, consider the Vatican II Council. They claim that it is an ecumenical council; but can we accept that, even if we have no objection to any of the things taught by that council? Liqe Seltanat Habte Mariam: From the beginning we have been trying to explore our common faith. We have been teaching that faith in different ways. We have always held that Chalcedon was not ecumenical. By all means, you continue to believe in Chalcedon; but do not expect us to accept Chalcedon. We should not try to force each other to accept or reject what we have rejected or accepted. Bishop Zakka: When we say we accept the faith, we mean the faith that the Church had before Chalcedon, formulated by the three ecumenical councils accepted by all. Let us be quite MINUTES 31 clear; Chalcedon is not acceptable to us. Verghese: I must apologize for becoming emotional. We must not go on in this atmosphere of mutual fault-finding. There is no question of manoeuvring anyone into any position. Prof. Karmiris asks: When the teaching of Chalcedon is found in many non-Chalcedonian liturgical texts why should not Chalcedon be accepted? The question can be put the other way round also. When the faith is already there without Chalcedon why insist on Chalcedon being accepted? There should be no misunderstanding of the position of the non-Chalcedonian Churches; there will be no formal ac­ ceptance of Chalcedon. Konidaris: I must point out that I came here not as representative of the Church; I am here for a dialogue on points of faith based on historical evidence. We should take into account the science of history, and we should look at things scientifically. We should not say that we will not ac­ cept something because it had not been accepted before. I made my observations on the basis of a scientific study of history. Joseph: I would very much like us to have a second look at the principle of general acceptance by the whole Church. As long as there is a living Nestorian Church ostensibly con­ tinuing to holc| the Nestorian faith whatever it was, I find it difficult to give even the Council of Ephesus the same veneration as the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. How much less reason have we to insist on Chalcedon being ac­ cepted by everyone?

W ednesday, August 19, 9 a.m.:

Father Paul Verghese presented his paper on the “Ec­ clesiological Issues between the two families of Orthodox Churches” (Appendix V).

Meyendorff: We are constantly shifting from one question to another. We thought that Aarhus and Bristol had brought us to the conclusion that we are in agreement about basic christological teaching, and that at this third consultation we could go forward from there. May I suggest that we spend our time raising questions that need further study. Konidaris: Verghese’s paper raises questions regarding the 32 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 5th, 6th, and 7th councils. We must first solve the question of Chalcedon, and then only can we go on to the later councils. Nissiotis: We refer to the 5th and 6th councils because they tried to interpret Chalcedon. Romanides: I am amazed that we are repeating the same mistake made at Bristol. At that time as now Father Verghese presented a paper about the Sixth Ecumenical Council and then as now there was no paper on the Sixth from the Chalcedonian side. We were then given the impression that this manner of putting the Chalcedonians at a disad­ vantage would not be repeated. In any case at Bristol an attempt was made to explain the Chalcedonian position on the Sixth and the weaknesses and misunderstandings in Father Verghese’s presentation were pointed out. On the basis of this a great measure of agreement was reached. Father Verghese has now chosen to ignore what was said at Bristol and now we have additional questions on the Sixth Council and again no paper from the Chalcedonian side. Nissiotis: The paper at Bristol was a preliminary paper. Here we are offered a more substantial study of the 6th Council. Verghese: The question before us is that of acceptance of non-acceptance of councils. I am only trying to give reasons why a particular council is not accepted by our Churches. Borovoy: I think that we are making a methodological mistake. If we try to work out agreement on details between the two families of Churches it will be impossible. Even within the Chalcedonian family, we disagree on details. We belong to one Church but to different schools of thought. Therefore, my suggestion is that we reserve this kind of discussion for our academic meetings. But in consultations like this our purpose is to come to agreement regarding basic doctrinal teaching. At Aarhus we came to some agreement. There was further progress at Bristol. Let us see where we can go from there. Let us not put forward official positions. Let us remember that we are trying unofficially to work out ways in which the two sides may understand each other. Let us by all means discuss councils, but much will depend on how we do it. If we find ourselves in essential agreement regarding substantial teaching, then we leave particular formulations aside and proceed to study other questions like the anathemas, the saints etc. Krikorian: Father Verghese tried to explain why it is dif­ MINUTES 3:5 ficult for the Oriental Orthodox Churches to accept the 5th, 6th and 7th Councils. As a matter of fact we have not yet come to that stage. We have yet to solve the problem of the Council of Chalcedon. So let us concentrate on that. Nissiotis: At the preparatory meeting we thought that we should go on to deal with the ecclesiological issues around Chalcedon. Father Paul felt that he could not deal with that in isolation from the similar questions around the 6th Council. That was how that question came in. Meyendorff: I assume that we are working towards the acceptance of a common statement on the basis of which our Churches can proceed to deal with the question of restoring communion between our two families. My question therefore is, do we really need to mention the various councils separately at all? Will it not be enough if the formula con- cordiae simply states our general agreement in our common faith and leave the councils to be treated merely as the historical background? Borovoy: We should remember that a formula concordiae can be issued only by the Churches. What we as a group of theologians can do is only to clarify the various points of faith on which there is genuine fear that we have difficulties in agreeing. Romanides: I understand that the position of the non- Chalcedonians is that they hold the substance of orthodox Christology, and that therefore there is no need for their accepting Chalcedon. Meyendorff: Our real problem is how we should deal with Tradition. I am optimistic about real agreement on Christology. The problem is not just the acceptance of cer­ tain councils, but how we should deal with the whole range of problems connected with Tradition.

W ednesday, August 19, 11 a.m.:

Zizioulas presented his paper (Appendix VI).

Nissiotis :We should not drop the questionof theacceptanceof councils because that is a question that our Churches will not easily solve. We should try to state our disagreements as clearly as possible. Verghese: I would suggest that Dr. Zizioulas’ paper has given us a different method of studying the question of ac­ 34 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW ceptance of councils. We should, of course, not go back upon our agreements of Aarhus and Bristol. In my mind it is clear that we do agree on the substance of the teaching of not only the 4th, but also the 5th, 6th, and 7th councils. The real dif­ ficulty is in the form in which that teaching is given. Let us discuss the question on the lines suggested by Dr. Zizioulas’ paper. The first thing is for us to recognize that there are two continuous Traditions and that our task is to see how these can be reconciled. In particular I would like to consider the following: (i) The non-Chalcedonian Churches are not in communion with Leo, for example; but in the same way, the Chalcedonian Churches are not in communion with Severus for example. What do we do about that? We do not want to repudiate our fathers. (ii) We should decide whether we hold councils to be in­ fallible. Conciliar fundamentalism is as bad as Biblical fundamentalism. Councils are not above the Church. I would plead for a certain freedom regarding councils. (iii) On the question of jurisdiction also, we should not adopt an attitude of Canonical fundamentalism. The idea that there should be only one bishop for the same geographical area is generally good; but we have to recognize exceptional situations. I believe that we have made some progress in this third consultation. I only wanted to emphasize the fact it is a really big stumbling block for us if the Chalcedonians assert that the 7 councils are inseparable. Meyendorff: I support what Paul Verghese has said now. It is true that we have tended to take a position of conciliar fun­ damentalism. In the matter of Tradition, continuity is essential. The Roman Catholics are struggling to find con­ tinuity in their Tradition, but in my opinion they are failing. We should try to realize continuity. But I doubt if true con­ tinuity can be maintained on the level of persons. For example, take Leo and Severus. How do they stand in the communion of saints? Or take Origen. He was indeed in communion with many, but does not even a council proclaim him out of communion? I would suggest that all that we can do is to consider individuals as models in particular situations. Theophilus was considered a model in Egypt; but certainly he was not a model in his treatment of Chrysostom. MINUTES 35

Wednesday, August 19, 3 p.m.:

Paul Verghese presented the first draft of a Statement that might be adopted by the consultation. After some brief discussion it was suggested that a revision should be at­ tempted and that the text should be brought back for further discussion.

August 19, 4:30 p.m.:

Further discussion on the contents of the summary statem ent.

Verghese: At this meeting we should come to some agreement about what is to go into the Statement we want to come out of this consultation. I suggest that the following should be included in such a statement:- We should begin by a brief statement of the agreements we have reached so far. It might be good to emphasize the asymmetrical concept of the Incarnation as the only way of a real understanding of that mystery. We should perhaps say that we recognize that a Tradition that is basically the same may be formulated in different terms. The only way in which we can reconcile the fact that the Chalcedonian Churches think in terms of the seven ecumenical councils while the non-Chalcedonian Churches base all their formulations on the three councils only, seems to be to treat the councils mainly as historical events in the development of the Church and not as fixed points for the Tradition, and to hold that it is the Church itself which should interpret the councils and their decisions. The acceptance of the principle of pluralism seems to be very necessary. Pluralism may be applied to five aspects of the Churches’ life: (i) terminology used to ex­ pound doctrine, (ii) structural expression of Tradition, (iii) ways of worship, (iv) administrative practices, and (v) the list of saints. Voronov: We should work towards a Formula Concordiae, but at the same time remembering that only the Churches themselves can authorize it. Such a Formula Concordiae must affirm our agreement in faith. The Chalcedonians hold on to the 7 councils; and the non-Chalcedonians have only the 3 councils; the way out seems to be for the non-Chalcedonians 36 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW to agree that they do not object to the teaching of the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th councils. We should perhaps state that the ecumenical councils are the normal, but not the only, means by which the infallible teaching of the Church is expressed. Further, the infallibility of the ecumenical councils apply only to the substance, and not necessarily to the form, of doctrinal teaching. The anathemas pronounced by the councils should not be allowed to stand in the way of restoring communion. For the sake of a Formula Concordiae the anathemas may be simply ignored as having lost their significance for the life of the Church now. Persons who are considered saints by some traditions and condemned by others should be regarded as persons locally venerated and not condemned by others. Metropolitan George: (through translation) I agree that a Formula Concordiae is desirable. But speaking of the Middle East situation, I can say that a Formula Concordiae is needed not to create unity but to give recognition to a unity which is actually felt and experienced by both sides. It has to be recognized that several traditions maintained by the non- Chalcedonian Churches are ancient and that the Chal­ cedonians have just forgotten them. Metropolitan Emilia nos: Another aspect that we should not forget is our liturgical and spiritual life. The high standard of monasticism, and the penitential discipline to come to the Holy Communion which the non-Chalcedonian Churches have preserved will enrich the Chalcedonian Churches. Mevendorff: We should not forget the problem of our relation with the Churches in the West. We should not think merely of the Orthodox uniting, and ignore the West. The Church in the West will be asking questions. The attitude to Leo, for example, should be considered seriously. On the other hand there is also the problem of some non-Chalcedonian Churches being exposed to much more powerful Western influences than most Chalcedonian Churches have to confront. Borovoy: The skeleton of the Statement presented by Verghese is good; but there is a lack of guidelines for action. The Statement should not be merely a theological proposition, but also must contain a programme of action. The 5 points mentioned in connection with pluralism should be elaborated. Some points from Zizioulas’ paper also can be incorporated into the Statement. Nissiotis: Shall we return a little to the question of ac­ MINUTES 37 ceptance of councils? It is good to think of working out a Formula Concordiae; but what will the formula say about the acceptance of the seven or the three councils? Perhaps Professor Konidaris’ way of looking at the question would suggest a procedure. Shall we study further what it is really that which make the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon? Konidaris: Is the question of formal acceptance of the four later councils a matter of time? Verghese: Let me put two questions. What exactly do we mean by the formal acceptance of a council? What is in­ volved in accepting the substance of the teaching of a council while not accepting the council itself? Karmiris: I suggest that the Formula Concordiae of 443 between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandra can be a model for us. That was a genuine attempt to reconcile two really different points of view in Christology. We must at­ tempt something like that. Verghese: Two questions: Should the Formula Concordiae be only theological, or should it include other aspects of our relationships? Can we agree about a form which the non- Chalcedonians might state their acceptance of the teaching of the 7 councils while not committing themselves to a formal acceptance of the Councils? Karmiris: I think the main problem is agreement in doctrine. To my mind thb form of acceptance is not the decisive factor. Konidaris: I think that the question of acceptance of councils should be the last one to be taken up. As far as the definitions are concerned there will have to be a reinterpretation which will be acceptable to both sides. In this reinterpretation, we should take into account the fact that the terminology used by the Fourth Ecumenical Council is both dogmatically and philosophically precise and correct. Krikorian: I have a two-fold proposal which I think is simple. First, after so many centuries of repeating anathemas on each other, the two sides should give up those anathemas. Second, we Oriental Churches should come out with a statement that although for historical reasons we do not formally accept the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th councils, we may accept the teaching that has come down from them. Romanides: I think that the 433 Reconciliation between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria is the real problem for the non-Chalcedonians. On the one hand there was no com­ promise in dogma, but there was accomodation in ter­ 38 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW minology. On the basis of mutual explanations and clarifications each side accepted the other as Orthodox in spite of differing terminologies. However John did accept as Orthodox both the Third Ecumenical Council and the Twelve Chapters of Cyril and Cyril did accept John’s use of two natures. No one gave up his position, but recognized and accepted the other as Orthodox. This must be the pattern for us also. Metropolitan Damaskinos: The reasons for the Oriental rejection of Chalcedon should be worked out in greater detail. If the main reason was not theological it would be easier to solve the problem. Zabolotsky: I believe that we can work out a Formula Concordiae. But we should not minimize the importance of councils in the life of our Churches. I think not merely of the ecumenical councils, but also the various provincial councils. Bishop Gregorios: Apart from the reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, the way in which Severus of Antioch interpreted the non-Chalcedonian position would help to see the essential unity of our faith. Verghese: It is of course agreed that only the Churches themselves can proclaim a Formula Concordiae; but we can help to work it out. Do we all agree that we should start from the Formula Concordiae of 443? Metropolitan George: If we are thinking only in terms of the theologians, the formula of 443 will be enough; but if we are addressing the whole Church at the present time we have to speak in a language that will be understood. Borovoy: We need two formulas, one for theologians, and another for the common people. Zizioulas: I am a little skeptical about the proposed Formula Concordiae. We should not fall into the Western practice of confessionalism - which is rightly dying in the West. We should think more in existential terms of the life of our churches rather than in terms of statements. Nissiotis: I share Zizioulas’ fears as to whether the Formula Concordiae is going to lead to a new Confessionalism. But what we should attempt is not a new confession of faith, but a clarification of existing material in order to avoid misun­ derstanding. It is new clarification, and not new definition, that we want. Meyendorff: The character of the Formula Concordiae will depend on what it is meant to achieve. If it is meant only to MINUTES 39 manifest a unity which, as Metropolitan George pointed out, already exists, then the formula will be drawn up for that purpose. If on the other hand, the formula is meant to help us to unite, then it will have to go into explanations. Romanides: The 5th council itself was a Formula Concordiae and that may serve as a model. Damaskinos: We should not forget the spiritual aspect of it all. The formula should not be aimed at hiding points of real difference. Verghese: There is no need to juggle with words. In a preamble we can make it clear that the formula is not a new creed or confession, but a statement to clarify the misun­ derstandings that separated us for such a long time. As there is real agreement, it needs only to be stated.

Thursday, 20th August 1970, 9 a.m.:

Lukas Vischer gave an account of the Faith and Order study on the Council of Chalcedon and its reception by the chur­ ches. In course of this study it became clear that the process of acceptance has been different in different Churches. The Roman Catholic position regarding the acceptance of Chalcedon has been questioned. Again and again it was pointed out that'the really important question is “What does Chalcedon mean for today?” It has been agreed that the interpretation of the councils for today is to be further in­ vestigated. The acceptance of a council should not be a static conception; there is need for constant re-reception in the light of the experience at different times. This study by Faith and Order may prove to be of some use to this consultation. Konidaris: Dr. Vischer’s report that a new discussion has been started is encouraging. In this connection, I have one question. Is the relation of Chalcedon to Scripture being studied? Vischer: We could agree on the general line taken at Mon­ treal. We need not put Scripture and Tradition in opposition to each other. Verghese: We should somehow work out what meaning this Christological discussion can have to the ordinary believer. Florovsky: This is a crucial problem. Many theological discussions are confined to a group of theologians, and the ordinary believer thinks that that has nothing to do with him. 40 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW But our Christological studies have a close relation to our understanding of salvation. The meaning of the incarnation is that the human has been taken up into the life divine and that the divine has identified itself with the human, and that is the basis of salvation. Man was created in the image of the Word that was to be incarnated. And in the incarnation the fullness of manhood was revealed. The first chapter of any theological study ought to be on Jesus Christ, and it should be from that particular life that the study should proceed to the Fatherhood of God. Theology is closely related to spirituality. Metropolitan George: In our pastoral work, I find many of our people to be Nestorians or semi-Nestorians. Many of them assume that in the Crucifixion, it can only be the man who died, but not God. Thus many people do not have any sense of the mystery of the death of Christ. Pastorally speaking, what is important is not to use the term “two natures”, but to show that both divinity and humanity are equally involved in the death and resurrection of Christ. The problem of man’s salvation is how to be united to God, and an understanding of the incarnation is the only basis of a satisfactory answer. Metropolitan Emilianos: The modern tendency is to think that man’s life is autonomous and that reference to God is unnecessary. The incarnation properly understood can remedy this misconception. Verghese: In the Churches in the West there are many people to whom only the humanity of Christ matters; and for them worship tends to have no meaning. In the Oriental Churches, the idea that Christ is God tends to overshadow the fact that he is at the same time true man, and therefore the idea of being united with him is not as effective in practical life as it should be. The teaching of the Councils should help us both to worship rightly and to experience oneness with Christ in daily life. Florovsky: Jesus who comes to us as the friend of man is also the one who created heaven and earth. The Eucharist is the supreme act of worship because it is at once the experience of union with this Jesus, friend of man and creator of the universe. Worship should result in the worshipper ex­ periencing the fact of our being members of the Body of Christ and hence members of one another. It is true that there is a lot of Nestorian tendency in modern Christian MINUTES 41 thinking, but Chalcedon should not be blamed for this. Augustine said that Christ is not only incarnated but also incorporated with humanity. We should interpret the spirituality implied in the doctrine of the incarnation. Romanides: We should not forget the catechetical use of credal statements in the practical life of the people. Instead of trying to make the creed relevant to the people; what is needed is to make the people relevant to the creed.

Thursday, 20th August, 10:45 a.m.:

Archimandrite Damaskinos Papandreou presented his paper on the “Anathemas of the Armenian Church against the Council of Chalcedon” (Appendix VIII).

Krikorian: It is not correct to say that the Armenians had no knowledge of the 3rd and 4th Councils. The records say that early in the 5th century some Armenians were sent to Con­ stantinople to bring a correct copy of the Scriptures. There is reason to believe that they brought back to Armenia also the records of the third ecumenical council. It was only in 508 A.D. that the Armenians condemned the 4th council; but it is incorrect to say that it was the influence of the Syrians that made the Armenians reject Chalcedon. Also it was not language difficulty that led the Armenians to reject Chalcedon. There was of course the influence of the Syrians; but the Byzantines had in fact more political and cultural influence on the Armenians. It was the advice of Armenian theologians who had studied the problem thoroughly that led to the Armenian Church to reject Chalcedon. Damaskinos: My main point is that the reason for the Ar­ menian rejection of Chalcedon was largely non-theological. As for the question of language difficulties, we need only to remember that the Armenian language was put into writing only after 450 A.D. It is hard to believe that at that early stage of a language it could express the very subtle distinctions made in philosophical Greek. Krikorian: The non-theological factors influenced the Chalcedonians also. The non-theological factors that led to the decisions of Chalcedon, if studied carefully, will reveal whether it is all that important to hang on to the Chalcedon definitions. 42 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Thursday, 20th August, 4:30 p.m.:

Discussion of the draft “Summary and Conclusions” (see Appendix XII).

Friday, 21st August 1970, 9 a.m.:

I)r. Mesrob Krikorian presented his paper on the “Armenian Church and the Ecumenical Councils”.

Verghese: Does the Armenian Church in its liturgical texts say anything against the Council of Chalcedon? Krikorian: Yes, in the book of hymns and the ordination service there are express statements condemning Chalcedon. Metropolitan George: The Byzantine Canonical tradition has express condemnation of the Armenians. Metropolitan Damaskinos: How can our Churches come to agreement if we continue to anathematize one another in our liturgical texts or canons? Verghese: In the case of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, it will be a problem of educating our common people and perhaps revising some parts of our liturgical texts to remove condemnatory reference to Chalcedon as well as to Leo and others. For the Chalcedonian Churches the problem will be greater because they have to deal with all that is associated with the 7 councils. Dogmatic definitions are more difficult to revise than liturgical texts. Karmiris: I think that when we agree about our Christological teaching, it should not be impossible to revise the anathemas. The Church is not a static entity, but a living and growing organism. Zizioulas: I agree with the view that the Church is not a static entity. But if this is the case, how can we maintain the position that horos is unchangeable? Will not the revising of the anathemas involve revision of horos also? This question arises, for example, in connection with the horos of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The anathema against Severus is found explicitly in the text of the horos. Metropolitan Emilianos: We must not wait till we reach complete agreement regarding doctrine before we revise the anathemas. We should proceed the other way round. We MINUTES 43 should request our Churches to discard the anathemas on any person which the other side regards as a saint. That should be a beginning, not the end. Karmiris: The anathema against Dioscorus was not based on doctrinal considerations, but on ecclesiastical and ad­ ministrative considerations. It should not be difficult to remove that. I think that the question of anathemas is not a dogmatic question, and should be solved without difficulty. But we cannot compromise on basic questions of faith.

After this the discussion again moved back to consideration of certain points in the Summary and Conclusions to be issued by the Consultation; it was agreed that the Statement should be adopted and issued.

Nissiotis in his concluding remarks expressed thanks to everyone for the spirit of co-operation and suggested that the Continuation Committee should finalize the “Summary and Conclusions of the Third Unofficial Consultation” and send it to the heads of all the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches for their study and appropriate action. This being unanimously agreed to, the Consultation came to an end at 12:30 p.m. Appendix I

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EFFORTS TO REUNITE THE CHALCEDONIAN AND NON-CHALCEDONIAN SIDES

V. C. Samuel

I. Some General Observations On reading in print two comments on my paper presented at the Bristol consultation by the Very Rev. Prof. John S. Romanides (See Bristol Report, pp. 166-7 and 168-9), I have come to feel that I should try to avoid any further misun­ derstanding by clarifying my point of view regarding the Council of Chalcedon and the split in the Church which happened on its account. So let me say a word here to make clear my standpoint, reserving my response to the comments themselves to the end of this paper. I fully admit that the division in the Church on account of the Council of Chalcedon was most unfortunate. But I do not believe that Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria and the non- Chalcedonian side were really at fault. They had maintained only the already established faith of the Church, and even in opposing the Council their only aim was to remain loyal to Orthodoxy. They were led by a fear that the Council had in fact betrayed the one faittt, a fear which had sufficient grounds in the Council’s proceedings. At the same time, it should be granted that the Chalcedonian side also had no intention of deviating from the orthodox faith. So there was misunderstanding on both sides. In a situation of this kind the triumphant side ought to have allowed a re-examination of the issue, as one of the Emperors of Constantinople had suggested. But the Chalcedonian side, without agreeing to this course of action, let the division continue, hoping that, with the support of the imperial authority in Constantinople, the opponents of the Council could be made to conform either by force or by persuasion. This expectation was not fulfilled, with the result that the two sides were further estranged. So we remain divided, and both sides deserve to be blamed for it. Now it is our Christian duty to transcend the passions 44 V.C. SAMUEL 45 which the ancients had against each other, and work, assisted by the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of the unity of our Churches. If we have the necessary patience and good­ will, the time which we spend on it will never be a waste. It is on this belief that an attempt is made in the present paper to discuss briefly the history of the various efforts made during the period 451 to 641 A.D. to bring the two sides back to unity. This paper is based primarily on the accounts of events recorded by historians such as Zacharia Rhetor, John of Ephesus, Patriarch Dionysius Talmabre, and Patriarch Michael the Great (l). From these and other historical records we learn that the Council of Chalcedon was viewed with great resentment by large bodies of Christians in many areas in the East. But during the first few years after the Council, clear opposition came to be expressed only in Palestine. With the death of Emperor Marcian in 457 Egypt also entered the lists, and then the rebellion broke out in Syria and elsewhere. Marcian was succeeded by Leo I, on whose death in 474 Zeno was declared Emperor. His authority was challenged by Basiliscus, a brother of the deceased monarch’s wife, who captured power for a period of about two years. The new Emperor began his reign by issuing an encyclical con­ demning the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. As Zacharia Rhetor testifies, this document was signed by about seven hundred Eastern bishops (2). But Basiliscus was ousted by Zeno, who restored the Council to its official status in the Empire (3). However, there were Christian com­ munities in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and elsewhere in the East who refused to accept the Council. At the beginning of his reign in 457 Emperor Leo issued an encyclical and sent it to the bishops asking for their opinion regarding the Council of Chalcedon and the consecration of Timothy Aelurus as Patriarch on the See of Alexandria soon after the death of Marcian (4). All the bishops who answered the imperial missive gave their verdict against Timothy and all but one in favour of the Council. This incident is being noted by scholars of the Chalcedonian persuasion as evidence that the Council of Chalcedon was ratified by the Church as a whole (5). If however, we take the following facts into ac­ count, we shall see that this reading cannot be admitted. Firstly, as Zacharia reports, Emperor Leo’s plan was to 46 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW convene a fresh council to settle the problem. But he was dissuaded from this step by Pope Leo of Rome and Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople. The latter suggested to the Emperor the idea of issuing the encyclical. Meanwhile, Anatolius himself persuaded the bishops to stand firm in their defence of the Council. This explanation of the incident is certainly not improbable. Secondly, Emperor Leo issued the encyclical in 457, barely six years after the Council of Chalcedon, so that most of the men to whom the document was sent had themselves taken part in the Council of Chalcedon. Whether Leo of Rome or Anatolius of Con­ stantinople influenced them or not, it was only natural that they tried to save their face by defending a position which they had adopted earlier and in which they could still remain without fear. Thirdly, it should be emphasized that the leaders of the Chalcedonian side were opposed to the con­ vening of a council to settle the problem, even in the face of a veritable division of the Christian community in the East. Fourthly, the signing of the encyclical of Basiliscus by about seven hundred Eastern bishops about twenty-five years after the Council of Chalcedon shows that the Church in the East had not really accepted the Council till then. In this way the Christian community in the East came to be divided into two camps. Both of them had strong con­ victions, so that neither of them would give in to the other. The Chalcedonian side, for instance, would not accept a union which ignored the Council of Chalcedon. and the non- Chalcedonian side would have nothing to do with even a talk of union which in any way required a recognition of the Council. At the same time both sides claimed continuity with the three earlier ecumenical Councils and even vied with each other as much in condemning the then known heresies as in developing their own theological positions against those challenges brought against them. So, whereas the Chalcedonian body tried to make out that the Council of 451 was a necessary logical development of the doctrinal decisions of the earlier Councils in the face of the Eutychian heresy, the non-Chalcedonian body asserted that the Council of Chalcedon had deviated from the faith of the fathers of the previous Councils and that Eutychianism could be excluded without adopting this course. The Emperors of Constantinople, seeing in this situation a V.C. SAMUEL 47 real threat to the unity of the Empire, imposed very strict measures against the opponents of the Council in order to lead them to conformity even by force. But this failed, and some of them from the time of Zeno (who died in 491) to Heraclius (610-641 A.D.) carried on a series of negotiations with the leaders of the non-Chalcedonian body with a view to solving the problem of disunity among Christians.

II. A Brief History of the Negotiations

Although Zeno declared himself in favour of the Council of Chalcedon on his return to power in 477, he soon came to realize that the non-Chalcedonian movement was strong enough to disrupt the unity of the Empire, and that the matter required serious attention. So with the concurrence of Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople he published the Henotikon in 482 as a compromise formula for both sides to accept that they might settle the dispute between them on its basis.

a. The Henotikon of Zeno

Broadly speeking, the Henotikon had three parts (6). In the first, it described the situation in the Church which demanded the reunion of the parties. In its second part, the Henotikon stated that the Nicene Creed was the only symbol of the faith, and that the Creed was to be understood in the sense in which it had been ratified by the Council of Con­ stantinople in 381 and again by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Nestorius and Eutyches were to be condemned, insisted the Henotikon, and the Anathemas of St. Cyril were to be ap­ proved. In the third part of the document there is an anathema against all those who have maintained, or do at any time maintain any different faith (particularly that held by the above mentioned Nestorius and Eutyches and their followers), whether at Chalcedon or at any council. By this anathema the Henotikon tried to satisfy the critics of the Council by apparently conceding their point that the Council of Chalcedon had to be evaluated in the light of the Creed of Nicea as ratified by the Councils of 381 and 431, a creed which alone constituted the faith of the Church. On this account and also because its theological statement was 48 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW acceptable, the document commended itself to the non- Chalcedonian side. But it was not Acacius’ plan to concede the point of the Council’s opponents and thereby to enter into a theological dialogue. He hoped only that the acceptance of the Henotikon by both sides would lead the Council’s critics to unite with those who endorsed the Council and eventually even to the ratifying by the critics of the Council itself. In other words the publication of the Henotikon was another subtle move to win the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon over to the Chalcedonian side, as was the circulation of the Emperor Leo’s encyclical letter through the influence of Anatolius. The Henotikon had an initial victory. Soon after its publication, it came to be endorsed by Acacius of Con­ stantinople, Peter Mongus of Alexandria, Peter the Fuller of Antioch and Martyrius of Jerusalem. But not Rome; without seeing the plan of Acacius, it came out openly to oppose the efforts to reunite the parties in the Church by means of the Henotikon. The Pope did, in fact, break off communion with Acacius, insisting that no union which refused to admit the authority of the Council of Chalcedon was to be entertained whatsoever. In spite of Rome’s disfavour, Acacius remained loyal to the Henotikon. Meanwhile, Peter Mongus of Alexandria who had signed the Henotikon and thereby entered into communion with men of the Chalcedonian side who also had endorsed the document was made to face a strong opposition from a large body of monks in Egypt. They insisted that since the Council of Chalcedon had deviated from the faith of the Church, the signing of the Henotikon by its followers was not enough basis for reunion; the Chalcedonian side should be asked to con­ demn the Council and the Tome of Leo. On these grounds the monks blamed Peter for his establishing fellowship with the Chalcedonian side, and they put up a hard resistance against him (7). Faced with opposition from his own people, Peter Mongus was forced to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon. In this way the Henotikon failed to unite the two sides. The cause of the Henotikon’s failure lay, not in its theology as such (8), but in its vagueness about the Council of Chalcedon. Thus the real issue between the two bodies was the Council of Chalcedon. V.C. SAMUEL 49 b. The Discussion for Reunion in the Days of Justinian

Zeno died in 491. His successor, Anastasius, defended the non-Chalcedonian side in all possible ways (9). On his death in 518 Justin I was declared Emperor. Since the non- Chalcedonian movement had gained enough strength and vitality to weather the persecution let loose against it by the new Emperor Justinian, his nephew who came to the im­ perial throne in 527, saw the need for negotiating with the leaders of the harassed non-Chalcedonian body for a set­ tlem ent of the issue. So from 531 to 536 he carried on a series of discussions with these men, whom he invited to Con­ stantinople from their places of exile or hiding on promise of safe conduct. Our recorded basis is not adequate to delineate the history of these efforts. But we have enough evidence to say that the Emperor, who was himself a theologian, was personally satisfied with the statements of the faith presented to him by the leaders (10). In fact, Justinian’s point was that since these people were clearly holding a sound theological position, it should be possible for them to accept the Council of Chalcedon in the light of the clarification of the Council’s decrees as manifested under his direction. The discussion between Justinian and the leaders of the non-Chalcedonian body belongs to two periods. The first was held from 531. Although the exiled Patriarch Severus of Antioch, the most learned and outstanding leader of the non- Chalcedonian side at that time, was especially invited by the Emperor to take part in the consultation from the beginning, he politely declined (11). The discussion failed in its first phase, not because the interpretation of the faith offered by the men was unorthodox, but because the Emperor wanted them to accept the Council of Chalcedon, which they refused to do. Now Justinian was anxious for a discussion of the issue with the leaders of the non-Chalcedonian movement with Severus also taking part. So he continued to press the exiled Patriarch to come to Constantinople. He finally yielded to the request. Severus was received honourably and entertained by the Emperor and the Empress for a period of not less than eighteen months, and the discussion between him and the Emperor during this time constituted the second phase in the consultation. This time the non-Chalcedonian leader was 50 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW joined by both Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople and Pope and Patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria. The latter had taken refuse in the capital in the face of trouble created for him by a certain Gaian who had recently captured his See. The discussion between Justinian and the non- Chalcedonian leaders was certainly cordial. Supported by the Empress and taking advantage of the Emperor’s silence, the three Patriarchs agreed to stand together and carry forward the movement against the Council. Now many of the Chalcedonian side felt that the Emperor might abrogate the Council of Chalcedon. Ephraim, who occupied the Patriar­ chal See of Antioch in place of Severus was confronted with this fear, realizing the gravity of the situation more than anybody else, made up his mind to act. He sent his envoy, a certain Sergius, to Rome, to apprise the Pope of the situation. Now Agapetus came to Constantinople. With the arrival of Agapetus in Constantinople, the situation changed. It is said that Justinian who had planned to reconquer Italy, a project for which he needed the support of Rome, brought to an end his discussions with Severus and others. The three Patriarchs were asked to leave the capital, and Pope Agapetus was satisfied. But he died unexpectedly in the midst of his triumph. Justinian now convened a council. Attended by five Roman legates and forty-five Eastern bishops, this meeting ratified the Council of Chalcedon, and the Emperor drew up a new constitution totally outlawing the non-Chalcedonian body from his Em­ pire. Ephraim of Antioch also held a council with one hun­ dred and thirty-two participants, which confirmed the Council of Chalcedon and condemned Severus and his followers. Like the Henotikon of Zeno, Justinian’s consultations also failed, not because of the unorthodoxy of the position which the critics of the Council of Chalcedon maintained in their statements presented to the Emperor, but because they were not willing to accept the Council of 451. Now Severus and his men again went into hiding, and the Christian community remained divided. Severus died in 539 A.D. in Egypt, where he had remained ever since his ex­ pulsion from Antioch in 518, with the exception of the eighteen months which he spent in Constantinople for con­ sultations as desired by Justinian. In 541 Jacob Baradaeus and Theodore of the Arabs were consecrated bishops in V.C. SAMUEL 51 Constantinople. With the moral support of the Empress, these men particularly Jacob who went round many times almost all over the East in the guise of a wandering men­ dicant, organized the non-Chalcedonian body in the face of terrible hazards. From that time on the non-Chalcedonian side had an unbroken succession of Patriarchs in the See of Antioch as there was a similar succession in Alexandria almost from the beginning of the conflict. In this way the two sides became two fully organized ecclesiastical bodies.

c. Discussions for Reunion in the Days of Justin II

Even after 536 A.D., Justinian was keen to help the reunion of the two sides. But his plan was to remain loyal to the Council of Chalcedon, and to see that no barrier was created on the Chalcedonian side to hinder men of the non- Chalcedonian side from being persuaded to accept the Council. The Council of Constantinople in 553 was indeed a concrete step in that direction. Except for its defence of the Council of Chalcedon, its decrees were in substance acceptable to the non- Chalcedonian side. But it was a unilateral action, intended primarily to establish the Council by clarifying its decrees in line with the Alexandrine viewpoint. So it could not solve the problem of disunity between the two sides. Justinian died in 567 and was succeeded by Justin II. The new Emperor is said to have planned to work for the reunion of the two sides, even while his uncle was alive. So on his ascension to the throne he was already arranging con­ sultations with the leaders of the non-Chalcedonian body during the first year of his reign. Through these efforts he began to realize that the opponents of the Council were in­ sisting on three conditions for reunion (12). They were:- (i) that the Creed of Nicaea was the only symbol of the Church’s faith; (ii) because the anathemas pronounced against Severus of Antioch were unjustifiable they should be revoked and his name should be included in the diptychs; (iii) that on the conclusion of the reunion, the names of all the fathers who had died in persecution should also be remembered in the diptychs. The Emperor Justin II conceded all these points and in­ corporated them in an edict which he sent to the non- Chalcedonian side for their approval. The main points in the 52 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW imperial document were as follows:- There is only one symbol of the faith, and that is the one adopted by the Council of Nicaea and ratified by the Councils of Constantinople in 381 and Ephesus in 431. In respect of the Incarnation, the edict stated:- We affirm the two births of God the Word, the one from the Father in eternity and the other from Mary the Virgin in the fulness of time. We confess that God the Word, the Only-begotten who remained in truth unchanging in His Godhead, suffered in the flesh, and that He ac­ complished miracles as God. He is not one and another: one being Christ and the other God. But He is one, the same being composed of two natures, divine and human. He is one hypostasis and one prosopon; not two hypostases or two prosopa or two sons; but one incarnate hypostasis of God the Word incarnate. All heresies were then anathematized, and the edict con­ cluded: We accept Patriarch Severus and revoke the anathema pronounced against him wrongly and without reason; and we abandon all con­ demnations that have been made from the time of St. Cyril to this day. The leaders of the non-Chalcedonian side who received the edict suggested two amendments (14). The first was a request that the last three sentences of the statement on the Incarnation include the following short addition:- But He who is one and the same being composed of two natures, (namely two hypostases, divine and human) and forming one nature, (namely one hypostasis of the Word incarnate) is one hypostasis and one prosopon. He is not two hypostases, or two prosopa, or two natures, or two sons. Secondly, they asked for the inclusion of the Anathemas of St. Cyril as an accepted document of the faith. John of Ephesus testifies that the Emperor granted the amendments, but that the man who made copies of the edict V.C. SAMUEL 53 in its final form omitted them, to his great annoyance (15). Even this effort did not lead to the unity which it sought to achieve. But the Chalcedonian side, under the instigation of Patriarch John of Constantinople, created a great deal of difficulties for the non-Chalcedonian body. Thus they were deprived of their churches, their leaders were forced to be reconsecrated, some were compelled to receive the Eucharistic communion with the Chalcedonian side, and those who resisted were exiled to far-off places under very trying circumstances. The historian gives a detailed account of the way in which the critics of the Council were made to communicate with the Chalcedonian side. When they were pressed to receive the communion, the opponents of the Council insisted that they would do it only after the Council of Chalcedonian was formally abrogated. They were told that on communicating with each other the Council would automatically be dropped. (16). On this assurance some of the men, including John of Ephesus himself, yielded to pressure and received the Eucharistic communion from the Chalcedonian body. Seeing, however, that the Chalcedonian side had no intention of giving up the Council, these men went back to their former position, expressing sorrow for what they had done. In this way the union efforts again failed, and Justin II emerged from now on as a merciless persecutor of the non-Chalcedonian body (17).

d. Some Incidents in the Reign of Heraclius

Justin II’s successor was Tiberius. He is described by Syrian historians as a fair-minded person, who never yielded to the pressure of the Chalcedonian leadership to trouble the non-Chalcedonian body (18). Maurice who succeeded Tiberius was not concerned about the reunion of the two bodies. He and his children were all murdered on account of his despotic rule and Phocas was made Emperor. Now Chosroes of Persia, who was a friend of Maurice, took his vengence and annexed Mesopotamia and parts of Syria to his dominions. According to the Syrian historians the non-Chalcedonian body in those areas flourished under the Persians. Heraclius who came to the throne in 610 A.D. regained the areas which the Persians had ceded. After his conquests, the 54 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW new Emperor visited Syria and Mesopotamia, where he saw manifest the loyalty of his non-Chalcedonian subjects (19) and was led to work for the reunion of the two bodies. Once again the Emperor’s plan failed. This time it hap­ pened that the Emperor who was officially on the Chalcedonian side asked for the communion of the non- Chalcedonian side, and that it was denied to him. On this account he became a pronounced persecutor of the non- Chalcedonian body.

III. Some Concluding Remarks

From the foregoing survey we can see the passion with which one side defended and the other side opposed the Council of 451. They could agree on statements of the faith which did not mention the Council of Chalcedon or adopt the phrase “in two natures”. So the real issue between them was not theology per se. An answer to the question of the nature of the real issue cannot be attempted without an examination of the Council of Chalcedon. Although this cannot be undertaken in the present context, a few words about the Council and a point of divergence in theological exposition between the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian ecclesiastical traditions should be noted here, particularly in the face of the comments by Father Romanides, to which reference has already been made at the beginning of this paper.

a. Rigidity Regarding Terms

Father Romanides maintains that there was a rigidity regarding terms in Dioscorus, Severus and the non- Chalcedonian side, but that it is not to be found in Cyril. This is an over-simplification for the following reasons:- 1. It is an undeniable fact that Cyril had never endorsed the phrase “two natures after the union”; neither had he ever employed the phrase “in two natures”. In fact he was an indefatigable opponent of the first phrase all through his life, and the second phrase was equal in import to the first. Even in his letters to Acacius of Melitene, Valerian of Iconium, and Succensus of Diocaesarea, which he wrote in defence of the Reunion Formula of 433, his argument is not that the “two V.C. SAMUEL 55 natures after the union” may be granted, but that the use of the words “two natures” in the document is quite harmelss. In other words, Cyril, with all his prestige as the victor over the Nestorian party and as a friend of the Emperor at the time who could exercise a great deal of freedom in theological exegesis, had never given up his terms or con­ ceded even an iota to the Antiochene side. Rather had he bequeathed a theological tradition to this successor, a tradition which he had himself defended in every possible way until the last moment of his life, so that on his death Theodoret of Cyrus wrote to Domnus of Antioch: “At last with difficulty the villain has gone. The good and the gentle pass away all too soon; the bad prolong their life for years.” In the letter Theodoret complains that Cyril had always fought for the establishment of his own point of view, without any respect for his opponents (20). 2. It is very clear from his own statements made at the Council of Chalcedon that Dioscorus remained thoroughly loyal to the theological legacy of his illustrious predecessor. As I have noted in my previous papers, he was the person at Chalcedon who for the first time insisted that in the union the natures continued without confusion, division, change, and mixture; and he was also willing to admit “from two natures the union”. Further than this Cyril had never gone. The fact is therefore ttiM Dioscorus was a man who remained un­ swervingly loyal to the then already established theological tradition of the Church. It is unfortunate that Pope Leo of Rome had no knowledge of the real situation. So the petitions presented at the Council of Chalcedon on 13th October 451 by the four men from Alexandria containing complaints against Dioscorus, to which Father Romanides makes implicit reference, can only be dismissed as absolutely baseless, as had the petition against Athanasius presented by the Arians at the council of Tyre in 335 A.D. 3. We have clear evidence in the m inutes of the Council of Chalcedon that although the Council had met on 8th October 451 and that by 17th October almost all his friends and associates had deserted Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, even on 22nd October it was the Cyrilline legacy upheld by him that was maintained by the vast majority of the Coun­ cil’s delegates - namely the entire assembly with the sole exception of the Roman legates and the Antiochenes. On 22nd October when the Council brought up the subject of adopting 56 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW a definition of the faith, the Eastern bishops who had already accepted the Tome of Leo fought tooth and nail to have “from two natures” only employed in the Council’s formula (21), that is to say the Cyrilline position represented inflictingly by Dioscorus. When they finally accepted “in two natures”, it was not because they were less rigid regarding the meaning of terms than Dioscorus. But faced with, firstly, the argument of the imperial commissioners that “from two natures” was the position of Dioscorus whose deposition they had already ratified, secondly, that “in two natures” was the teaching of Archbishop Leo of Rome, and that they had to choose between the two men, they were simply surrendering (22). 4. Even after the Council of Chalcedon, it is only about half a century later that men of the Chalcedonian side had begun to explain the meaning of the phrase. In the days of the Council we have evidence that Theodoret of Cyrus had tried to make out that the “one hypostasis” of the Chalcedonian formula was only “one prosopon”, so that the Antiochene side ought to harbour no misgivings about the Council. But this interpretation was not helpful in commending the Council to its critics. In the sixth century, when the Chalcedonian side endeavoured to define the terms, their position was not fully accepted by the non-Chalcedonian side. 5. Dioscorus who was exiled to Gangra in Paphlagonia soon after the Council of Chalcedon and who died there in 454 A.D. was not the originator of the non-Chalcedonian movement. It was rather a natural development of opposition against the Council, organized voluntarily by men in the East who had received the Cyrilline legacy in theology. The way in which the Council ratified the deposition of Patriarch Dioscorus and exonerated men like Theodoret and Ibas of Edessa on the one hand, and the amazing cleverness evinced by Rome in alliance with the imperial authority in Con­ stantinople in order to have the Tome of Leo declared a document of the faith on the other, created in the minds of these people a great horror towards the Council. So that even if Dioscorus had endorsed the decree of the Council and made it up with the triumphant party, the opposition would in all probability have broken out. The very fact that the opponents of the Council could withstand persecution and denunciation by the imperial authority in Constantinople and the Chalcedonian side for a period of about two hundred years V.C. SAMUEL 57 shows that it had a real inner strength and dynamism.

b. Difference in Theological Exposition The difference in theological exposition between the two sides has something to do with the definition of terms which they adopted. In order to bring this out, it is necessary to glance into history a little. About the beginning of the sixth century John the Grammarian, who later became bishop of Caesarea on the Chalcedonian side, wrote a book defending the Council of 451. Now Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, whose writings had aroused the Grammarian to engage himself in this literary activity, published a criticism in his famous Liber Contra Impium Grammaticum. John the Grammarian maintained that the Chalcedonian side accepted the phrases “from two natures”, “in two natures”, and “one incarnate nature of God the Logos”. As to the word “nature”, he admitted that it meant either ousia or hypostasis. “Ousia,” he wrote, signifies the common. For example, the one Godhead of the Holy Trinity or what is common to us, namely humanity in general. Hypostasis refers to the one prosopon of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit; or again of Peter, John, or of any man. But nature is employed sometimes in place of ousia and sometimes in place of hypostasis” (23). The Chalcedonian author, then, applied the definition to the phrases by arguing that “nature” in the terms “from two natures” and “in two natures” meant ousia, and that in the “one incarnate nature of God the Logos” it meant hypostasis. In his work against the Grammarian Severus rejected the view that “nature” in “from two natures” meant ousia, and insisted that in all the phrases it should mean only hypostasis. It is this Severian position that the non- Chalcedonian side had maintained ever since (24), and it is to this teaching that I made reference in my papers. In the final analysis the question whether this position is Nestorianism or not must be judged by the way in which it is interpreted. This is where I have come to feel that Father Romanides merely misread my papers presented both at Aarhus and at Bristol. A clear-cut example of this misreading may be seen in his insistence that “It is not enough to say ‘Christ is both con­ substantial with the Father and with us’, but it should be that ‘the Logos Who is consubstantial with the Father became by 58 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW His Own birth as man consubstantial with us’.” What I wrote in my paper was: “He who is consubstantial with God the Father became consubstantial with us.” It is true that my sentence does not contain all the words used by Father Romanides; but then I was not quoting him. Father Romanides believes that the position outlined in my papers presented at the Aarhus and the Bristol con­ sultations is reminiscent of Nestorianism. If this is so, I have no regrets. It is my belief that although scholars of the Chalcedonian persuasion try to make out that the Council of 451 made a synthesis of the Alexandrine and the Antiochene theological traditions, the real synthesis is to be found in the theological position worked out by the non-Chalcedonian side. In fact, I have no hesitation in saying that if this position had been worked out a century earlier, the history of the Church would have been spared a number of condemnations. When I began reading the comment of Father Romanides, I was afraid where his own position would lead him. It is only when I came to the sentence, “Is there one subject willing and acting in two natures as Godman...?” that I really got over the shock. My answer to the question will make clear what I understand by Nestorianism and Monophysitism, and that is a categorical Yes; the one subject is God the Son in­ carnate. It is not merely God the son; neither is it God the Son and the man Jesus. To say that it is God the Son is monophysitism; and to say that is God the Son and the man Jesus is Nestorianism. But the Orthodox faith would insist that it is God the Son incarnate. I believe that on this em­ phasis the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian sides agree, and this is why I signed the common statements both at Aarhus and at Bristol that in essence we hold the same faith. This does not mean that we hold the same position in terminology and even in every detail of exposition. For both the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian traditions, God the Son incarnate is the God-man. In Him the two natures of Godhead and manhood remain united without confusion and mixture, division and separation. As to the m eaning of the phrase “from two natures” , nature being taken in the sense of hypostasis, Severus maintains that it does not imply “two natures before the union” which for him is Nestoriamism, but that the manhood of Christ is created manhood brought into being only in union with God the Son in His incarnation. So in uniting manhood to V.C. SAMUEL 59 Himself, God the Son individuated the manhood in union with Himself, whereby He who is eternally “simple” became “composite”. The non-Chalcedonian side always speaks of the one hypostasis of Jesus Christ as a “composite hypostasis”. Without this individuation, Jesus Christ cannot have lived a concrete life in this world of ours as a real person. This position is certainly not Nestoriamism, but it can answer the challenge of Nestoriamism. This explanation will, I hope, bring out the point which I wanted to make by the sentence: “There is a distinction between the pre-incarnate Son and the incarnate Son, so that the hypostasis and prosopon of Jesus Christ, although they are continuous with those of God the Son, were not simply the hypostasis and prosopon of God the Son.” Both the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian sides affirm two births of the Son, the one from God the father in eternity and the other from Mary in time. The second birth is a real one, whereby God the Son accepted an incarnate state and He who in eternity is “simple” became “composite”. So to admit a distinction between the pre-incarnate Son and the incarnate Son is indispensable for any sound theology. To affirm it is not Nestorianism; but not to affirm it is Monophysitism. The Church rejected Nestoriamism, because it saw the subject of Christ’s willing and acting in God the Son and the man Jesus separately. x It is due to a fear that an affirmation of two wills in Christ would lead to a division of the one Christ into two centres of willing and acting that the fathers of the non-Chalcedonian side have always refused to admit this expression. If I were in a position to represent my ecclesiastical tradition as precisely as Father Romanides can represent his, there would be no need for our consultation. So far as I am able to think, no fair-minded critic would see in my statement: “it is not that there are two wills in the one Christ, but that His is the will in which the will of God and the will of man found their absolute union”, a suggestion that “the will of Christ is something more than or less than or other than or a confusion into a third form of will of the uncreated will of the Logos and His created will”, as Father Romanides does. The fathers of my tradition have never used the expression “two wills in Christ”. My purpose in putting the statement in the paper was to say that although my ecclesiastical tradition does not use the expressions “in two natures” and “in two wills”, they 60 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW admit the dynamic continuance of the natures with their respective properties including the volitional faculty in the one Christ.

c. One Final Word

From the time when the Chalcedonian and the non- Chalcedonian sides broke away from each other in the fifth century, the two bodies have each stood by its respective language. This state of things was not my making, neither will my endorsing of the Chalcedonian language help the two traditions to regain their lost unity. Charity and patience alone can bring us together again. In the last analysis what is needed is not intellectual victory or earthly success, but a spiritual awakening to see the love of God who in His Only Son has redeemed the world. May God help us to see the meaning of this love and seek to find our unity in it.

Footnotes 1. The Syriac version of Zacharia Rhetor’s Ecclesiastical History has been edited and published in two volumes in Louvain by E. W. Brooks with a Latin translation. Part III of John of Ephesus has also been so published by E. W. Brooks. In his massive work the Syrian Patriarch Michael has in­ corporated most of the material contained in each of the other three authors. See J.B. Chabot: Chronique De Michael Le Syrien, P aris. 1899. 2. Zacharia Rhetor: op. cit. Syriac I, P. 213. This author preserves a summary of the encyclical of Basiliscus and notes that it was signed by about seven hundred Eastern bishops. 3. Basiliscus issued a second encyclical abrogating the earlierpublicationin the hope that he could thereby enlist the support of the Chalcedonian side. But this did not help him. 4. Zacharia Rhetor: ibid., Syriac I, pp. 178f; and Evagrius in P.G. LXXXVI 253A-B. 5. Emperor Justinian refers to the encyclical of Emperor Leo in his letter read to the Council of Constantinople in 553. See Prof. G. Konidaris in the Aarhus Report, pp. 54-60; and the essay of Charles Moeller entitled “Le Chalcedonisme et le neochalcedonisme en Orient...” published in Das Konzil Von V.C. SAMUEL 61 Chalkedon, vol. I, ed. Grillmeier and Bacht. 7. The view of Andre de Halleux (see Philoxene De Mabbog: Sa Vie, Ses Ecrits, Sa Thelogie, Louvain, 1963, p. 73) that there were two views about the Henotikon on the non- Chalcedonian side, need not be questioned. He says that Severus of Antioch and men like him, took the document as having in itself abrogated the Council of Chalcedon, but that this view was not shared in Alexandria. 8. The non-Chalcedonian side accepts the theology of the Henotikon. The verdict of Duchesne that “In its substantial content, aside from the circumstances in which it was put forward, it could not raise any objection from the side of orthodoxy” (The Early History of The Church, John Murray, 1924, vol. Ill, p. 349) may be endorsed by the Chalcedonian side. 6. For the Henotikon, see Zacharia Rhetor: Ecclesiastical History, op. cit., Syriac I, pp. 227-231; and Evagrius III: 14 in P.G. LXXXVI 2620C-2625A. 9. The view of Andre de Halleux that Anastasius was merely impartial on the religious question (Philoxene De Mabbog, op. cit.; p. 73) need not be ignored. But it should be noted that from 451 to the Arab conquest of the N ear E ast he was the only impartial monarch of that kind in Constantinople. Judging from the achievements of the non-Chalcedonian side during his reign, one can very well see that enough sub­ sequent Emperors of his calibre would have altered the history of the Church in the East. 10. For the statement of the bishops presented to Justinian, see Zacharia Rhetor: op. cit. Syriac II, pp. 115-123. 11. The letter of Severus to Justinian expressing his un­ willingness to comply with his request is preserved by Zacharia Rhetor. See op. cit. Syriac II, pp. 123-131. 12. Michael le Syrien: op. cit. Syriac: p. 331. 13. Michael le Syrien: op. cit., p. 334 14. Ibid., p. 335 15. John of Ephesus: Historiae Ecclesiasticae, Part III, ed. E.W. Brooks, Louvain, 1952, Syriac, pp. 23f. 16. Ibid., p. 32 17. John of Ephesus: op. cit., p. 39f. 18. Michael le Syrien, op. cit., p. 372. 19. Michael le Syrien, ibid., p. 409. 20. See excerpt from the letter in J. Stevenson: Greece, Councils and Confessions, S.P.C.K., pp. 301-303. 62 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 21. For the fervour with which the bishops, led by Anatolius of Constantinople, clamoured for the adoption of their draft statement with “from two natures” only, see E. Schwartz: Acta Concioliorum Oecumenicorum, II; i., pp. 319-321; paras 4-25. 22. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, op. cit. II; i, p. 321; para 26. 23. In his Contra Grammaticum, Severus reproduces this passage from the work of the Grammarian. See the Syriac, Vol. I : ed. J. Lebon, Louvain, 1952, p. 145. 26. For an illustration, see above p. 14. Appendix II

THE CHRISTOLOGICAL DECISIONS OF CHALCEDON THEIR HISTORY DOWN TO THE 6th ECUMENICAL SYNOD (451-680/ 1)

An introduction and summary with particular reference to the inner consistency of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma in the seven Ecumenical Synods*. The Unity of the Church and the Unity of the State in their mutual relation and influence on the definitions of dogmas.

(G. Konidaris) Some Important Preliminary Remarks

From antiquity right down to the present day, Christology has been frequently discussed as a dogmatic and historical problem. But in the context of the dialogue between the Churches which are members of the Ecumenical Movement, the time has surely come to look at this theme from a fresh standpoint and to re-introduce the question of its truth, content and form. Christology needs to be seen within the context of the doctrine of the Trinity, from the standpoint of its consistency, settlement and formulation in the seven Ecumenical Synods. The great importance which the subject of its unity and its orthodoxy has always had for the Church’s life is inseparably bound up with the question of the veracity of the seven Ecumenical Synods. It is also bound up with the fact that these two dogmas, which are to be regarded as a single dogma, form the universal basis of the Christian Church: They are Scriptural (New Testament) in origin and, from the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic standpoints, have been authoritatively established by the seven Ecumenical Synods which form part of the authentic tradition. Ever since the fourth century they have been ac­ cepted in spirit by the Church, i.e. by clergy and by the laity (1). Furthermore, since the question of the inner consistency of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma is also bound up with relations between Church and State (2), and since other factors also played their part in the decisions of the 63 64 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Ecumenical Synods, we should make a fresh and objective study of this problem of church history, especially in the period of Chalcedon, on the basis of a survey of the sources and their theological treatment. Many of the useful findings of the special studies made in connection with the Aarhus and Bristol meetings should be of value in this research. The size of the task, the extent of the literature and the importance of the individual problems, together with the complexity of the history of the years 451-787, have led the author of this paper to make a study of the history of the Church and its doctrine from this standpoint, in order to be able then to do justice to the question itself (3). The fact that the Chalcedonian theology should have prevailed at the 6th Ecumenical Synod after protracted conflicts with the rationalist spirit and its accompanying philosophy and that the Imperial religious policy of compromise should have been abandoned demands thorough investigation. In addition to this starting point for my thesis (cf. my two papers at Aarhus and Bristol which are closely related to this theme) there is not only the major question of Church and State in Byzantium but also the even more far-reaching problems connected with the Church policy of Justinian, vigorously debated in contemporary scholarship. Our brother in Christ, Father Samuel, dealt with a problem in his lecture which has also been taken up in the great three- volume work of the Munich church historian, Adolf W. Ziegler, on Religion und Kirche in Geschichte und Gegen- wart, namely, the religious policy of the usurper Basiliscus, who achieved miracles in the brief 18 months of his reign. The details of this episode are, unfortunately, of crucial importance for a just assessment of the Church’s attitude to the question of the Chalcedonian Synod. A detailed treatment of this problem with reference to the sources was essential and proved fruitful. Such fundamental research was all the more requisite since, if present problems are to be solved, fresh efforts of a responsible and genuinely scientific kind are called for. In the ‘dialogue of love’ - to use the fine phrase employed by our Ecumenical Patriarch to describe our situation - we should be ruled by a genuinely scientific as well as an ecumenical spirit. For this is a time of preparation for the theological dialogue between our Churches (a dialogue which is within their competence), and such a dialogue is and always be one G. KONDARIS 65 of truth. The theological truth which really serves the Church’s unity is to be derived from its sources, i.e. from Scripture and Tradition, by scientific methods and in full awareness of the historical and theological contexts. The problems which we formulated so clearly in Aarhus and in Bristol and the great task which our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has laid upon His Church call for a sincere striving for the truth. On the basis of these formulations, I once again examined the findings of our previous research in the light of the sources and a selection of the literature; the problem of the inner consistency of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma after Chalcedon. This study led me to the conclusion that the term ‘analysis’ (i.e. detailed dissection), which we properly employed in our resolution, must also be applied by us to the treatment of the Christological problem. The necessity of doing this is not only implied in my introductory remarks at the beginning but is also followed from the findings of detailed studies. These studies dealt with key problems: the Church’s unity and orthodoxy; the emperor and the Ecumenical Synods; in­ fallibility; imperial policy and power in the Church; relation between Church and State; Papacy. These problems are so closely related to the history of the definition of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma by the Ecumenical Synods that they can hardly be ignored or lightly dismissed. What in the first instance on the bishop-churches of the first and second centuries and later the He ton Ekklesion henosis (4) had done for the Church in the second and third centuries, i.e. preserved the Christology and unity of the Church in the paradosis and the succesio apostolica, the Ecumenical Synods which were universally recognised had later safeguarded. The unity of the Eastern Church and the identity of the Catholic Church with the primitive Church in reference to the basic dogmas of the Trinity and of Christology came to have fundamental significance, and these dogmas were therefore formulated and fixed by the Ecumenical Synods. The following paper starts from the position that the Christological dogma of Chalcedon was recognised by the 5th Ecumenical Synod and, in controversy with the Imperial policy of religious compromise, was finally confirmed by the 6th Ecumenical Synod and at the Trullan Synod in 680. The details of the discussions and debates deserve close study.My time was toolimited tocompleteit(5). 66 TIIE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW THE CHRISTOLOGICAL DECISIONS OF CHALCEDON THEIR HISTORY DOWN TO THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD

There seems no possible doubt whatever that ‘the inner consistency of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma is a central theme of dogmatics and of doctrinal history, and so also of theology and history ; so that we are dealing here with one of the bases of the development of church history as a whole. For this theme is intimately related not just to the process of the material and formal establishment of dogma, but also to orthodoxy as a whole and to the question of the unity of the Church, particularly in ancient times. This theme therefore concerns the basis of Christianity and its existence within the Church - and, therefore, a fundamental aspect of the historical development which has its roots in the revelation itself and whose development runs straight through the Church’s history to the present day binding both past and present. Without this development, the Church would be unthinkable. It alone secures the existence of the Church, Trinity, Christology, God’s Saving Plan, Revelation and Salvation History belong together since they are coeval. It is precisely for this reason that they determined the con­ tent of the objective mind of Christianity despite all division. The denial of these fundamental truths would mean the end of Christianity itself. The inner consistency and the unity of the two dogmas uphold the unity of the Church. A faulty understanding of Christology, on the other hand, leads Christianity into divisions and denominations. “Christianity is the truth and the Church is the essence of Christianity”. I believe that these words of Irenaeus sum up the ancient witness of the Church of the second century. But underlying this truth is the revelation of the Trinity and of Christ as Lord and Saviour, who in His theanthropic ap­ pearing in time made Himself known and still makes Himself known as the new Adam and as the beginning of salvation. For thinking men this represents a challenge in the history of mankind. The problems presented here arise necessarily from the question: How can God become man? The mystery of the historical appearance of the Godhead in and through Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos and founder of the Church, is an eternal problem for the human mind. Man has, therefore, constantly wrestled with the truth of the G. KONDARIS 67 revelation, seeking to understand it insofar as it is possible at all. These basic revealed truths are preserved in Holy Scripture and are made intelligible by this written Tradition only emerged in the second and third centuries because of the responsible action of the Church. In addition to Holy Scrip­ ture, the understanding of the historical revelation in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour was also preserved for us by the united post-Eusebian Church. The essence and hallmark of revelation is that God Himself reaches down into the history of mankind and in so doing binds firmly the supernatural and the natural and human, for the sake of man’s salvation. Incarnation without salvation is impossible; which is why there can be no true understanding of God’s saving action without a true understanding of the anthropological dimension of Christology. It is entirely opposite to say that the mystery or paradox of the revelation in Jesus Christ consists in the fact that the revelation of the saving activity of the divine Trinity binds together the horizontal and the vertical. When the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given as distinctive marks within the historical continuity of the Church, this is not only an event in the vertical dimension but also historical. Jesus Christ is the recapitulatio of the history of the world and mankind (cf. N. Matsunka, Entstehung des Wesens des christologischen Dogmas; Analecta Blatadon II, Thessalonica 1969, pp. 177ff.). To diminish the complete reality of Jesus as an historical personality by imprecise terminology can clearly involve a departure from the true interpretation of His saving work as the Christ of salvation history (cf. F. Heiler, Urkirche und Ostkirche, p. 428). In the early Christian centuries the true understanding of the historical revelation in Jesus Christ was exposed to the greatest dangers from human intellect and, above all, from human invention. The apostolic kerygma and tradition had found their champions in the leadership of the Church. But the Trinitarian and Christological dogma presented a more difficult problem for the Church and for the many who streamed into it. Basically it was always a problem of the divine revelation of the Trinity and economy, coming in time as a mystery from the transcendent and the suprahistorical. For man wishes to understand what his Christian faith is all about. The human spirit, in particular the Greek mind with its constant mobility and dialectic, wrestled with these 68 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW problems when it came into the Christian Church, not just with the basic truths as individual parts of revelation but with revelation as a whole. For the inner coherence and consistency of the basic truths of revelation were always compelling factors in man’s continued questioning. They are essential to the human mind and they constitute a central problem of faith and unbelief. Of course the Trinity, on the one hand, and the revelation in and through the historical Jesus on the other, constitute two different sides of the one truth. Yet the attempt to un­ derstand the unique appearance of Jesus Christ in the world produced bitter, centuries-long quarrels. Simeon’s prophetic words about Jesus, which Luke the physician and the Church’s first historian has preserved for us that Jesus would be ‘a sign that is spoken against’, really came true. Why had the Church to wrestle about Christology with the human intellect for so long? Clearly a true understanding of Jesus as Lord of history and as a historical figure cannot be divorced from the Church’s existence. The inner unity and consistency of these truths constitute the essence of Christianity insofar as it can be grasped by the human mind. There is always the danger of abandoning the historical New Testament element in our faith in Christ for fantasy and invention. We recall the Judaising Christian sects in the primitive Church and in particular Gnosticism, Marcionism, the anti-Trinitarian, patropassian, modalist or dynamic- monarchian movements of the second and third centuries, which threatened the historic faith. The Christ presented in revelation was exposed to two dangers, from Arius and Apollinarius: the reduction of His divinity on the one hand and His humanity on the other. Both these trends were prejudical not only to the divinity and humanity of Christ but also to the divine economy, to the salvation history itself. For the responsible leadership of the Church it was a matter of constantly reaffirming against onesidedness and human frailty the full divinity of Jesus Christ and the completeness of His human existence without sin (6), and His personal unity. At the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods, deviations from the historical revelation of Jesus Christ as true God who can only be known and understood in the Trinity wrere excluded and rejected. Every diminuation of Christ’s divinity was skillfully eliminated by the phrase homoousion to patri and G. KONDARIS 69 other expressions. The problem of the unity of the two natures was made more acute by the human logic of Apollinarius and Nestorius (7). Two problems surfaced about the year 360: firstly, the problem of the relation between the two natures in the one historical Jesus, whose divinity had been secured by the first two Synods, and secondly the problem of His full humanity, regarded by rational thought as a threat to the unity of Jesus Christ as a person. Although both problems had been solved on the basis of New Testament revelation, the Church found itself obliged to provide fresh elucidations of the clear Christological doctrine in the creeds of the first two Ecumenical Synods, as in those of the Ecumenical Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon. It is characteristic of the development of these two problems, raised by Apollinarius’ rationalist philosophical thought on the one hand and by Nestorius’ superficiality of thought on the other, it was the second - relating to the full humanity of Jesus - that was resolved by the definition of the Synod of Ephesus (cf. A. Adam, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I, 1965, p. 328). Because Apollinarius did not attribute to the incarnate Logos the full humanity of Jesus Christ, the way was open for him to secure the unity of the person of Jesus by means of the rationalism of a heretical doctrine of two persons. It was Gregory Nazianzus who delivered the fatial blow to the theory of Apollinarius, which by reducing the humanity of Jesus made nonsense of the salvation history attested in revelation. It seems to me that the theological stand of Ephesus was directed not simply against Apollinarius who was condemned there but also against the denial of the full humanity of Jesus implicit in Apollinarius’ statement: mia physis tou theou Logou sesarkomene (8). As has been said, it was Gregory Nazianzus who struck the decisive blow. I question, therefore, whether the definition of Ephesus can be recon­ ciled with the statement: omoousion emin kata ten an- thropoteta etc. The two definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon (9) clinched the matter and excluded the Apollinarian for­ mulation, quite apart from their inner logical consistency. But we should not forget that, leaving aside the con­ demnation of Apollinarius and his teaching (and he was the father of an already hidden monophysitism) and the con­ demnation of the phrase: mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene (we have to view this from the Orthodox 70 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW standpoint) (10), this Christological and historical for­ mulation was borrowed from Cyril but mistakenly regarded as Athanasian. The elucidation (declaratio) of the Ephesian Synod was basically already within the two creeds. With the theory of Eutyches, however, the difficult problem of the unity of the person of Christ did not merely sharpen but assumed the character of a threat. The Catholic Church and its theologians as responsible leaders had to remain true to itself and to the three Ecumenical Synods as the authoritative interpretation of the historical revelation in Jesus Christ as Lord, Saviour and Head of the Church. Its essential task was the careful and constant preservation of the historical New Testament element in Christology. The Christ of doctrine could not be represented by explanations of the Ecumenical Synods otherwise than as He really was and is in history. The Church’s task is to see that its definition of Christ faithfully presents and maintains the harmonious co-existence of the two natures in the one single person, in accordance with the Holy Scripture and Tradition, i.e. in accordance with its (the Church’s) history. Delivered from the two schools of Alexandria and An­ tioch, reflecting on both Scripture and Tradition coherently and consistently, the Church through the Ecumenical Synods (the practical spirit of Rome was also a factor) arrived at a definition in Chalcedon which, while remaining faithful to the New Testament and to history, made eclectic and logical use of philosophy. The Catholic Church and its theology remains scriptural and when it begins to philosophise it does so in an eclectic manner. The heresies take a different course, in the triumphs of rationalism over Scripture for example (cf. G. Konidaris, Die Formung der katholischen Kirche bis zum Anfang des 5. Jahrhunderts und die drei Hierarchen (On the nature of Christianity and the philosophy of its history), in Greek, Athens 1955). In this way the Church (as shown by the condemnations of Nestorius and Eutyches) was able to ward off not only the rationalism of the Antiochenes which represented a threat to the unity and historicity of the person of Jesus, but also the oversublety and sophistication of the Alexandrian Logos doctrine from which monophysitism sprang. As is well known, the Antiochene school not only maintained a strict distinction between the two natures in Jesus Christ but also, with the help of logic and by division G. KONDARIS 71 and separation it upheld the completeness of His humanity. The Logos doctrine of the Alexandrians led to oversublety. The Church, on the other hand, clearly stated and con­ sistently and carefully elaborated its Christology in the 4th, 5th and 6th Ecumenical Synods. To this process Cyril’s theology made a decisive con­ tribution, in particular his understanding of the unity of the pre-existent One and the incarnate One in the person of the Logos. Supremely important in this respect were the well- known adverbs which Cyril introduced (asynhytos, atreptos, adiaeretos) which cannot altogether be reconciled logically and conceptually with the formula mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene, at least not if we have any real feeling for the Greek language. It can be put as a question and in­ terpreted in an orthodox way, but this is scientifically inadvisable. Is the formula comparable with the definitions of the Synods of Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople? As a scientifically minded believing theologian and as a church historian desirous of respecting the truth, I do not believe it is. Turning now to the history of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma after Chalcedon, a number of factors must be borne in mind. After seven centuries of conflict, deputation and struggle particularly between the years 451- 681, the Christological dogma of Chalcedon came to be recognised. In the following papers, we find that even con­ temporary ttheologians like the late Karl Barth endorse Chalcedon. A. Adam states explicitly in his Dogmengeschichte that the Chalcedonian Christology has the character of a synthesis which is far removed from even the appearance of compromise (see p. 335). The settlement of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma both in content and form, in the statements of the last three Ecumenical Synods based on Scripture and Tradition, was not only a supremely interesting historical process but also a vivid illustration of a powerful process within the Church. The impressive in­ tellectual process whereby the Christological dogma was fashioned is of fundamental importance for the basis, existence and realisation of the Church’s unity, and not only for its Trinitarian Christological theology. For this process was the victory of the unity of the Catholic Church and its principles over the external unity of the Empire for which the Emperors struggled and finally achieved. The Emperors - 72 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW set on a policy of compromise and unity - found themselves faced in this unique historical process with a Church which looked to the inner consistency of truth, tradition and logic for its unity and orthodox existence. The orthodoxy and unity of the Church which were rooted in New Testament history played a normative role in this process. We can see how, in the power of the Holy Spirit, the various methods and policies employed by the Emperors in their pursuit of compromise and union were overcome in the Church of Christ. As a problem of history, the famous question of Church and State or Church and Emperor was solved in Byzantium in fact in the history of dogma and above all in the history of the Christological controversy. The question is often asked (see e.g. Stephanides, Beck, Konidaris (12), Michel) (13) whether it was principles or people who exercised greater influence on the relations between State and Church in Byzantium. The historical answer (for which detailed treatment follows) is that the principles of the orthodoxy and unity of the Catholic Church as formulated in the Trinitarian and Christological dogma defeated the person of the Emperor. The unity and orthodoxy of the Church, which from the time of Constantine the Great were regarded as the basis of the unity of the Empire and which were more often destined to be sacrificed for the sake of Imperial unity, won the day with the result that the two concepts of unity momentarily coincided (14) or, rather, became contangential 15). It can be said with some justification, at least from the standpoint of the history of ideals, that in this important question of settling the substance of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma, the Greek mind took on a new lease of life in entering the Christian era, after having for a long time lost its vigour. The vitality, flexibility, adaptability and originality of Greek thought - I am thinking of the great Cappadocians and of Cyril of Alexandria - entered the service of the historical Jesus and of His Christianity, His Church. It was given the task meditating and of reaching a conclusion on the mystery of the Trinity, on Christology as incarnation (cf. Athanasius the Great) and salvation history, and of defining the basic truths of the Christian faith in terms adequate to the theme. The dialectical, progressive Greek mind was in this process just as important outside the political and cultural conditions of the East, particularly in G. KONDARIS 73 the frontier areas of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. In addition to the problems inherent in the theme itself there were now also the difficulties referred to above, such as the power of the Emperor in the Eastern Church. But this power was responsible for the unity of an Empire compromising dif­ ferent races and movements. The Emperors could hardly be expected to display much appreciation for subtlety of theological language and the need for inner consistency. Johannes Tsimiskis was honest in his confession to the monks of the Holy Politeia in Athos (cf. the first basic constitution of the monastic state of Athos, in the so called Tragos) (16). Emperors and politicians find it difficult to understand church questions. The situation between the years 313-381, in which the unity of Christianity and the Church was made the basis of the Empire by Constantine and Theodosius and regarded as the morally superior religion compared to others in Eastern history and of the Mediterranean countries, was a specially favoured one for the Empirical Church. At the same time it involved new implications, especially in connection with the secular character of the unity of the State and the power of the Emperor who as a Christian emperor wanted to be more in the church than “episkopos ton ektos”, as Constantine the Great called himself. The difficulties were increased by the politically oriented Imperial theology and the interference of the Emperors in difficult theological questions for political motives (cf. Basiliscos, Zeno, Justinian, Heraklios, Con- stans). Factors both human and historical decisively in­ fluenced the Emperor’s policy of compromise and unity. This policy, however, could not in the long run be sustained since it could not make headway against the unity and inner consistency of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma and the orthodoxy and unity of the Church for which that dogma provided the basis. On the one side we have the Church, a historical and united institution living as a continuation of its historical New Testament basis and expressing that unity ultimately in the twofold dogma; on the other the history of the Emperor’s policy of compromise and union, where it was a matter of disconnected statements or of purely politically motivated measures (cf. Justinian’s Decrees) whose con­ trived inner consistency betrays a purely opportunist theology which in the long run proved untenable (cf. - Zeno’s Henotikon (484), the Ekthesis of Heraklios (638) or the Typos 74 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW of Constans II (648). The way in which the union policy of the Emperors was carried out may give some answer to the question about the many misconceptions and ultimate failure of this union policy. In addition to the complications and confusions in­ volved in the compromise union policy, there was also the fact that the people were unable to follow the complexity of the theological arguments in these politically conditioned religious controversies. Christ had founded a Church but human wilfulness and historical factors had divided Christians. Despite this division, the Trinitarian and Christological dogma became the common possession of the Christian Churches and, since New Delhi, of the Ecumenical Movement. Despite different terminologies, there has been agreement as to the substance itself. It can unhesitatingly be affirmed that after centuries of struggle the ancient Catholic Church established and secured by its Ecumenical Synods the foundation of the truth by which Christianity lives. The unity and inner consistency of the Trinitarian and Christological dogma and its roots in Scripture and Tradition was carefully and responsibly elaborated and settled by the Church. It can therefore be said that the basis of Church unity contained in this dogma finally mastered the Imperial power. One paradoxical element can be observed, however, in this matter of the relationship between Church and State in Byzantium, namely, that after all the controversies about the formulation of the Christological dogma, the very juristic principle which Justinian I laid down in his famous 6th Novella, came into its own. After long struggles, it was people and not principles which had finally gained the day. This is the finding of this short study of the questions arising in the field of the history of the Church and of doctrine in the context of our dialogue, which is a dialogue of truth and is based on Scripture and Tradition (17).

Footnotes * Working over the sources again has led me to believe that this central theme in the history of the Church and its doc­ trine is not just an abstract question of terminology related to intuitive philosophical and theological thought as we con­ sider the historical development of the Church and its G. KONDARIS 75 theology, but also a consciously held conviction of the fathers of the ecumenical councils which comes to expression in the statements they formulated when defining doctrine. For this precise reason, I regard it as essential to compare and assess these sources (e.g. epomenoi tois patrasi). The philological- historical approach will strengthen and possibly add depth to the historical-philosophical, i.e. theological approach. 1. Cf. Ger. I. Konidaris, Hamilcar Alivisatos (1887-1969), Athens 1969. The reference here is to the book by Alivisatos (special issue of Epistimoniki Epetiris tis Theologikis tou Panepistimiou Athenon) Athens 1935, which was the first attempt to present this important factor in the history of the Church. 2. It is obvious that not only was there a connection, but also a resultant confusion in the Christological controversies in consequence. The Emperor’s religious policy involved a compromise theology dictated by political considerations with a view to securing unity of Church and State. 3. One very important result of research into the sources may be mentioned here. With the confrontation between, on the one hand, the inherent consistency and truth of the Ecumenical Council’s decisions about the Trinitarian Christological dogma and, on the other, the Emperor’s compromise policy of unity, the term of oikonomia began to be employed * by the Emperor’s supporters as an apt description of his policy. The notion of practicality and pastoral wisdom, in other words, the notion of expediency, seemed an argument of oikonomia in formulating doctrine, since it was a matter of “saving” thousands of believers (letter of Sergius of Cappadocia to Honorius of Rome, cf. Eusebius’s Church History ). The sources are a veritable mine from which to quarry further leads for a thorough study of the theme. 4. Cf. Eusebius, Church History. 5. Cf. G.I. Konidaris, Allgemeine Kirchengeschichte (Griechisch), 2nd ed. 1957. A 3rd edition is in preparation. 6. The word of Jesus is potent and unparalleled in the history of the world religions: tis elegxe me peri am artias? 7. Apollinarius, an important theologian of the 4th century and a keen supporter of the Nicene Creed, made it his basic principle that two perfect natures cannot become one (dyo teleia en genesthai ou dynatai). To avoid the idea of two persons in Jesus and to secure the unity of the person, he 76 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW diminished the humanity of Jesus (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene). The only and therefore complete and perfect nature of Jesus was the divine, which took the place of the rational soul. The trichotomy of human nature in Neo- Platonism was a help to Apollinarius’s theory. According to him Jesus had not assumed a perfect and complete humanity. 8. This statement of Apollinarius constitutes the real starting point of a concealed monophysitism. This deeper implication was not recognised at the time, since Cyril and other fathers used the statement and interpreted it in an orthodox sense. 9. It is very significant that of the two special problems which together make up the Christological problem, namely, the relationship between the two perfect and complete natures (posed by Apollinarius) and the perfection of the humanity of Jesus, the second problem was first settled in Ephesus and not until twenty years later was the first settled in Chalcedon by affirming that only once in the history of mankind, in virtue of the hypostatic union of the divine Logos with the perfect man Jesus, did a unique person with two natures appear. In this unique historical person, Jesus Christ, the philosophical principle is suspended (see note 7) dyo teleia en genesthai ou dynatai. This principle prevented the theology which was influenced by the rationalist thinking of the An- tiochenes (two natures - two persons or hypostases) from finding a solution to the Christological problem (not of the mystery itself as such). A solution had to be found which did justice to the New Testament witness to Jesus’ person. There we found evidence that in Jesus Christ there was a har­ monious coexistence of two natures, such as appeared only once in our world. At the ecumenical councils the Church felt obliged to defend to the utmost the witness of the New Testament and history, since the Christological dogma is fundamental both for the existence and orthodoxy as well as for the unity of the Church. By a right belief in Christ as a person of the Trinity, as the divine Logos who became perfect man, not only do we enter more fully into the divine oikonomia and work of salvation but also come closer to the ontology of the Church itself and its Trinitarian character. The essence of Christianity is Jesus Christ, the incarnate divine Logos who with the Father and the Holy Spirit in eternity is at once the founder and guide of his Church. But Christ as the eternal body of the Church in the eucharist also G. KONDARIS 77 constitutes the true ontology of the Church, eucharist also constitutes the true ontology of the Church, binding the eternal with the temporal. In this unique process in the history of mankind, the perfection and completeness of the human nature is of decisive importance for the Church’s existence, theology and unity. For because of it not only is there man’s salvation as the new Adam (Paul, Romans ) and the salvation history as a new beginning and meaning of history, but in addition the eternal is projected into human history as the divine. Through it it has become possible for human existence to be lifted heavenwards. The Greek fathers’ idea of the divinization of human nature and of the transfiguration of the cosmos is rooted in the incarnation of the divine Logos and in the eschatology which is inseparably bound up with the resurrection of Christ. (Cf. my study on “The State and civic life in the Church of Orthodox Christianity” reprinted from “Der Kult und der heutige M ensch” ed. Prof. Dr. Michael Schm aus, Munich, 1961, p. 215ff.) 10. An Orthodox interpretation of Apollinarius’ statement has been made the basis of the Christology of the Syrian-Jacobite Church. 11. In its original sense and Cyril’s understanding of language. 12. Allgemeine Kirchengeschichte (Griechisch), 1957 13. Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959 14. It was not just in the period of the Christological con­ troversies (Marcian 450-457, Leo I 457-474, Zeno 474 & 476-491, Anastasius I 491-519, Justin I and Justinian I 519-565) that the unity of the Empire was a special problem, and particularly in the period of Heraklio (610-649 Persian and Arab in­ vasions) but also in the 8th century. In the period of the Iconoclastic Controversy Leo III (717-741) saved Byzantium in the year 718 just as Charles Martel saved the West in the year 732 at the battle of Poitiers. 15. I mean here that the agreement of Church and State on the basis of acceptance of the fundamental doctrines of the seven ecumenical councils meant that the State had in the end recognized the unity of the Church which consists in and is recognized by orthodoxy in doctrine. As is common knowledge, the Emperor at the end of each council also formally accepted the decisions. This did not in itself of 78 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW course ensure universal acceptance of the council as ecumenical (cf. the confirmation of the “Robber Synod” of Ephesus in 449 which was accepted by Theodosius II). 16. Cf. Philip Meyen, Die Haupturkunden fur die Geschichte der Athoskloster, Leipzig, 1894, pp. 141-142. Also G. Konidaris, Kirchengeschichte Griechenlands (in Greek), vol. II, Athens, 1970, p. 82 ta ton monachon tois kosmikois me dia vathous ginoskesthai. 17. Cf. G. Konidaris, Der Historiker, die Kirche und der Inhalt der Tradition in den ersten zwei Jahrhunderten, a sketch, Theologia, vol. 31, p art 4, cf. esp. P. 7-8. The complex of facts and the idea of tradition are most clearly presented in Irenaeus. Church, Order, Ministry, Responsibility for the proper safeguarding of the true historical tradition about Christ by the apostles and their successors, and the unity of the Church, all belong inseparably together. One can trace clearly this line of the history of the Christianity (as Church from Irenaeus back to the New Testament). Appendix III

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE HOROI AND THE CANONS OF THE EARLY SYNODS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON BY THE NON- CHALCEDONIAN CHURCHES

(Ioannis Karmiris)

We shall treat the subject, entrusted to us,briefly hereinby dividing it into the following three sections: a) Introductory Remarks concerning the Synods of Antiquity, b) The Distinction between the Horoi and the Canons of the Early Synods, and c) The Possibility of the Council of Chalcedon’s being accepted by the Non-Chalcedonian Churches.

A. Introductory Remarks concerning the Synods of Antiquity* It should be pointed out at the very beginning that our subject is of great and universal significance since the teaching of Holy Scripture, together with that of the seven ancient Ecumenical Councils and of the Local Councils ratified by them (thus gaining ecumenical authority) con­ stitute the substance of the faith of the Orthodox Christian World. Indeed, the Orthodox, with good reason, ascribe the highest importance to the dogmatic teachings of the ancient Ecumenical Synods because they believe that these councils defined dogma under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, on the basis of the teachings of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Thus the articles of faith were authentically formulated with divine authority as infallible and unassailable, possessing absolute and eternal validity and binding upon all Christians and for all ages. According to Constantine the Great (1), “Whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops has reference to, and is indicative of, the Divine Will.” It is precisely this conviction that all the Fathers who participated in the Synods had; and it is this conviction which they expressed with the Apostolic phrase: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15,28), for they believed that, 79 80 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW as successors to the Apostles, they expressed the common faith and universal conscience of Church, based on the teachings of Holy Tradition. Thus, Eusebius compares the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea with “the company of the Apostles (2).” Gregory the Theologian believed that “The Holy Spirit gathered them into one (3).” Basil the Great was convinced that “they did not speak without the action of the Holy Spirit (4);” and Celestinus of Rome, writing to the bishops at the Council of Ephesus, said that they represented the Synod of the Apostles (5). From these and other authors, the belief and conviction that the Ecumenical Councils were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and that they had their beginning in the First Apostolic Council held inJerusalem in 48 A.D. (Acts 15,6ff.) becomes abundantly clear. It was on the model of the latter that the synodical system continued in the East from the second century onwards, (e.g. in Asia Minor against the Montanists) in order to meet the practical needs and problems of the Church as they came up. This is why the work of the Synods began with prayer and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, to Whose enlightment and action the Fathers of the Council submitted themselves, their thoughts, and their will, so that the decisions taken might bear a character of infallibility, through the prevalence of the divine element and the minimization of the human factor within the Synods. Thus, from the Orthodox humns of the praying and worshipping Church, we are taught that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council as “mystical trumpets of the Spirit” who “received the full spiritual brightness of the Holy Spirit” and having gathered together all the science of the soul, and deliberating with the Holy Spirit, formulated the blessed and holy Symbol, as if written by God”... thus, “these blessed ones, being divinely inspired, gave utterance as preachers of Christ and guardians of the evangelical dogmas... and having clearly received from above the pious traditions, and having been enlightened they issued the horos taught to them by God” thus “casting out from the fullness of the Church, with the sling of the Spirit,” the heretics (6). The Ecumenical Synods were, in particular, great gatherings, epi to auto, of bishops from the entire Christian oikoumene for joint counsel and decision on important dogmatic questions and other ecclesiastical matters con­ cerning the entire Church, which received their decisions as IOANNIS KARMIRIS 81 “Word of the Lord”, and thus the ecumenicity of these Synods was received and they were recognized as having taught by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (7). For this reason, their decisions were considered to be unalterable and eternal, or, as Athanasius the Great writes: “The word of the Lord which came through the Ecumenical Council at Nicaea abides for ever,” and therefore, “the whole oikoumene agreed to that Council and the subsequent Councils accepted it (8).” The ecumenicity of the Councils is not dependent upon the participation in them of all the bishops of the Christian oikoumene, but upon the agreement of those present who represent the various parts of the Church, and upon the subsequent acceptance, by the remaining bishops and by the entire Church, of what the Councils dogmatized, as precisely expressing the supernaturally revealed common faith, borne in the conscience of the Church. The bishops who compose the Ecumenical Councils represent the entire Church, or the body of the Church, (corpus fidelium), and therefore the authority of all the Synods is subject to the authority of the entire Church. The Church is free to accept or reject a Synod. The criterion by which a Synod is accepted by the body of the Church, i.e., not only by a portion of the bishops and other clergy, but by the faithful as well, (con­ sensus Fidelium) - the totality of which does not err in its faith because it> possesses the charism of the Holy Spirit and the truth - is the accurate formulation of the orthodox faith in accordance with the teachings of the Fathers which are in turn based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Because the Ecumenical Synods were of this character, they gradually became the supreme instrument for for­ mulating the dogmatic teaching of the Church, for ensuring that this teaching was maintained always and in all places in an agreed and uniform manner, for settling the worship, morals, organization and polity of the universal Church, and in particular, for combating the various heresies and preserving the unity of the Church, a unity which rests upon dogmatic agreement. Generally speaking, the Ecumenical Synods constituted the supreme didactic, legislative, and governing authority in the Church of Christ, which was represented in these Synods, not indeed by the entire episcopate of the whole world, but by a sufficient number of representatives of the various patriarchates and ecclesiastical dioceses. These 82 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW representatives were the bearers, witnesses, and spokesmen for the universal mind and conscience and common faith of the pleroma of the Church, i.e. of both its clergy and people. As such, the bishops taught what the Apostles and Fathers before them had taught, continuing their tradition and preserving it unaltered, as St. Athanasius and other Fathers stressed. “Thus the mind (phronema) of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council is apostolic, and what they wrote is not their own invention but identical to that which the Apostles taught”. “They stand upon the foundation of the apostles and possess the tradition of the fathers”, thus achieving the concensus Patrum (9). As the successors of the apostles, and successors “to their grace and dignity” (10), as guardians and interpreters of the Apostolic tradition and of the faith of the Fathers, the bishops formulate these things and express the living mind of the Church’s pleroma in the Ecumenical Councils. Thus, under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit they teach, and transmit unaltered to the faithful, the revealed doctrine of faith and salvation, and in this way, they are bearers of the charisma veritatis. Thus, they are aware that they represent the Synod of the Apostles and that Christ is present in their midst as He was present at the Council of Nicaea, “formulating and decreeing all things”, since “if two or three are gathered together and Christ is in their midst, then all the more so is He present in their midst when three hundred and very many more are gathered together” (11). It is clear from this that although the bishops participating in an Ecumenical Council are canonical representatives of their own particular dioceses and flocks and express their faithful’s common faith, they nonetheless ipso jure make decisions in virtue of their sacramental priesthood and the charisma veritatis, which they derive from the Apostles themselves through unbroken episcopal succession, and by which they are illumined in the Synods through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For all these reasons, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, particularly the dogmatic decisions, are for­ mulated under the supervision of the Holy Spirit by the bearers of the Church’s authority, namely the bishops as successors of the Apostles, and express “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (12), that is, the universal faith and conscience of the body of the world-wide Church of all ages. This body is the bearer of the Church’s IOANNIS KARMIRIS 83 infallibility. These decisions were received by the entire Church as infallible and binding on all, and with them, at the same time, the ecumenicity of these Councils by the pleroma, or the body of the entire Church, or the conscience (syneidesis) of the Church (13). Thus emerges the consensus ecclesiae of all ages. Thus, the “oikumene” recognizes chiefly and above all, and receives as ecumenical, those Synods in which the world episcopate was suffieiently represented, and whose decisions have been recognized by the entire ecumenical Church as true and orthodox ex­ pressions of the catholic faith, formulated under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in contrast to Synods, which, although convened as ecumenical, have not been recognized as such, because they failed to meet the internal and external requirements mentioned, and, above all, because they did not truly and precisely express the common faith and mind of the Church. Thus, until the year 1054 when the Schism oc­ curred, only seven Synods had been recognized by the Church as ecumenical, out of about twice the number con­ vened as ecumenical. Synods in fact derive their authority from being authoritatively defined by the bishops, as suc­ cessors to the Apostles, and as guardians of the faith and of the Church itself, having in their midst the enthroned Christ Himself, and with Him, the Holy Spirit which enlightens the bishops of the Syrlod, and acts in the Synods in such a way as to make their decisions the expression of the will of God Himself (14). This is why St. John Chrysostom writes, “Great is the power of the Synod” in the Church - which very term (ekklesia) is “the name for an assembly and a synod” (15). Each Synod is a charismatic event in the life of the Church, and when it is recognized by the conscience of the Church as ecumenical, it acquires the highest authority and eternal validity, binding upon all the faithful in the universal Church. All this is attributed to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. From what has been said, we can readily see why the Orthodox Church attributes a credal character only to those seven ancient Councils recognized as ecumenical by the universal Christian conscience. These particular Councils are recognized as truly representing, interpreting, and ex­ pressing the infallibility of the Church. Only to their dogmatical decrees (horoi), therefore does the Church, with good reason, assign eternal validity, absolute value and authority, catholicity and binding character, and regards 84 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW them as the chief written records of Holy Tradition and as the canonical, authentic, and unshakeable standards of the or­ thodox faith. This is why it uses only these ecumenical dogmatic Horoi as the primary and chief source of its dogmatic teaching, possessing the same status and authority as Holy Scripture. This is because these decrees embody the authentic Holy Tradition, which, together with Holy Scrip­ ture, provides the Church with its two equally respected and equally authoritative sources of its orthodox faith (16). It must be stressed, however, that it is the Church that stands above the Ecumenical Synods and employs them as means, and not vice versa. Even without the Ecumenical Synods, the Church persists and fulfills its divine mission in the World, just as it did in all its fullness even before the First Ecumenical Council and after the Seventh. As we have already said, the authority and ecumenicity of a Synod rests upon the consensus ecclesiae, i.e. on agreement with its decisions and acceptance of them by all the Local Churches, by the clergy and the faithful of the whole Church (17); in other words, on the agreement, the unity in concord and love, of the whole body of the Church. But this recognition has to be regarded as a simple outward sign; the demonstration and attestation of the infalliblity of synodal dogmatical decrees and, therefore, of the ecumenicity of a synod depends solely on the mystical action of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church, and acting both in the Ecumenical Synods and in the whole body of the Church.

B. The Distinction between the “Horoi” and the “Canons” of the Early Synods

The early Synods of the Church formulated: a) “symbols” or “Horoi” or “Tomoi” or “Homologiai” and “Ektheseis”, all of which deal with dogmatic belief; and b) Canons which deal with the morals, administration, order, polity and general life of the Church; these hold the place of laws which are binding on the members of the Church, and belong to the laws of the Byzantine State (18). Thus, the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod wrote to the Byzantine Emperor, Theodosius the Great: “We pronounced some concise definitions (horoi) ratifying the faith of the Nicene Fathers... We also framed specific canons for the good order of the Churches” (19). The formulation and issuing of the horoi was IOANNIS KARMIRIS 85 the work primarily of the Ecumenical Synods, whereas the issuing of Canons was usually the work of the Local Synods and certain Fathers (20). Nevertheless, the two go together, i.e., Ecumenical Synods drew up Canons as well as horoi, while Local Synods also dealt with dogmatic questions. Thus all the Ecumenical Councils produced not only horoi but canons as well. The only exceptions are the Fifth and the Sixth Synods, whose failure to produce canons was remedied by the so-called Quinisext (Penthekte) (21). Thus all Ecumenical Synods have issued the more authoritative horoi as well as Canons; the former dealing with theoretical doctrine, the latter, with the practical and ethical, the liturgical and administrative order (taxis) of the Church’s life. But while the horoi deal solely with dogmatic theory and not with Church practice, the canons on the other hand usually deal with both, though with the emphasis on practice. More precisely, the canons dealt with a) the theoretical truths of the faith; b) credal differences between the Churches; c) Christian morals; d) Christian worship, especially with Sacraments and Divine Liturgy; and e) administration and discipline in the Church (22). Because they deal with dogmatic teaching, canons are sometimes called horoi, as for example, canons 17, and 18 of the First Ecum enical Synod; Canons 4, 10, 14, 20, 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod; Canons 40, 46, 81 and 95 of the Quinisext Council; Canons 19, 21, 23, of the Synod of Ancyra; Canons 1, 6, 21 of the Synod of Antioch; Canon 15 of Council of Sardica etc., “because horos is the name both for the Typos and the Canon” (23). Therefore, whereas the Canons almost always regulate practical and ethical questions and matters of Church order and discipline, a good number of them, by exception, deal directly or indirectly with dogmatic questions so that they are called, in a much broader and less exact sense, “dogmatic” Canons. Thus, the eminent canonist Zonaras observes that, “the Ecumenical and Local Synods... have issued canons, some for the sake of of doctrinal precision, others for the sake of Church order” (24). This small number of Canons intended to contribute to dogmatic precision and its practical application, are called “dogmatic” Canons not in strict and narrow sense, but in a less exact sense because they refer to dogmas and are, so to speak, the directives for applying the dogmatic decisions of the Synods; they impose various penalties on those who do 86 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW not accept what has been commonly defined as dogma in the Church. Compared with the horoi on the one hand, these canons are, by their content, of secondary importance; compared to the totality of the canons on the other hand, they are few in number. So, too, there are a few canons which are credal in character, and which are followed by a host of practical, moral and ethical, liturgic and administrative canons, as we have already said (25). From what has been said, it may be concluded that the horoi of the faith of the seven ancient Ecumenical Councils, referring as they do to the dogmatic belief of the Church, have absolute authority and validity as well as universal and binding character for all parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church and for all individual Orthodox Christians. As a result, they cannot be annulled, changed or faulted, but only developed hermeneutically or expressed by a new terminology at a great Pan-Orthodox Synod, i.e. by a Church organ of status and power equal to that of the Synod which originally promulgated them, in order that they should be better understood by the present Orthodox world, but without any distortion of their dogmatic content , because the dogmas to which the horoi refer, are unchangeable and eternal in essence and content, being revealed divine truth, and can only be changed in respect to their outward form and verbal formulation in accordance with spiritual needs arising in the pleroma of the Church at any given time. The Church, when pronouncing upon dogmatic questions in Synod, does not introduce new dogmas, but sets forth the same dogmas transmitted to it by supernatural revelation (and thus essentially unchangeable), in new ways and in new formulas. This absolutely holds true not only for the dogmatic Horoi and Creeds of the first three Ecumenical Synods, but for the dogmatic horoi of the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Ecumenical Synods as well. Moreover, economy has no place in the dogmas promulgated by the seven Ecumenical Synods, “because neither economy nor con­ descension ever have any place in the divine dogmas, since these dogmas are unshakeable and kept in all devoutness by all the Orthodox as inviolable; and anyone departing from them even a little is condemned as a schismatic and a heretic, anathematised and regarded by all as ex­ communicated” (26). Therefore, the recognition of the seven Ecumenical Synods by all and the reception of the dogmas IOANNIS KARMIRIS 87 formulated in their horoi are absolutely essential and in­ dispensable for a reunion of the divided Churches and are therefore to be regarded as a criterion of Orthodoxy. But, as we have said, new theological exegesis and development (with the agreement of all dissenters) of some of the horoi and a new verbal formulation of them through a deeper understanding, and in order to supplement them, is still possible, although all the essentials of previous Synodical formulations must be repeated and explained in such a way as to ensure a clearer and fuller transmission of that which is handed on. For it should never be forgotten that from the time of the First Ecumenical Council, the Church has never hesitated to employ new terms, phrases and for­ mulas in order to achieve a more complete formulation and development of dogmatic truth. As eloquent examples of this, one can mention the debate of the Holy Fathers of that great Synod on the homoousion, the negotiations between Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch and Paul of Emesa over the terms of the statement of faith of the so-called “diallagai” of Third Ecumenical Synod, and similar events during the following Synods, or even the tendency of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon to complete the decisions of the Third Ecumenical Synod; or even recently, the attempt of Vatican II to complete the decisions of Vatican I. The Church therefore is not obliged to remain permanently frozen and to dispute over words and phrases: “its duty is to look not to the words but to the meaning, ” (27) and it is free to replace the former words by other words, through a Synodical instrument of status, provided that the essence of the orthodox dogmas remains untouched and unchanged, for this is eternal and unchangeable and must remain so, being the truth revealed by God (28). This is something which the Church of today, since it is the teacher and the interpreter of the revealed divine truth, is certainly free to do by synodically exercising its authority which it derives from the prophetic office of the Lord. So far as concerns the canons of the ancient Synods, we observe that they clearly hold an inferior place to that of the horoi and are subject to change or completion by a newer Synod. They are subject to annulment or adaptation, especially when they deal with particular circumstances or changing times and relationships, with transient matters or changing conditions and customs in the life of the Church. 88 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW and which are therefore inapplicable today and have fallen into disuse; these can be adapted by a new Synod to current attitudes, needs and circumstances in the life of the Church. Out of the innumerable ancient canons, greater importance is of course attached to a small number which are dogmatic in content, i.e., those which contributed to the more precise definition of dogmas and, as it were, dealt with the practical application of the dogmatic decisions of the Synods. We believe that only those canons which have reference to the essence and nature of dogma are unchangeable and subject only to reinterpretation and development in accordance with the Church’s needs. By contrast, the other canons, those which deal with the customs and practices of the local Churches and with liturgical and administrative directives and customs - human law but certainly not divine law - and not deriving their existence from the nature of the dogmas, are subject to revision by the Church, the local Churches being allowed to retain them or to change them (29). In the case of these canons which deal with transient matters or with temporary aspects and conditions of human life and of the ancient Church which have now disappeared, as well as in the case of all non-dogmatic differences between the Churches of the East, we should apply the correct principle of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, which has ever since been a strong and constant principle in the Orthodox Church: “Where the faith is not set at naught and there is no falling away from a common and universal decision; where it is a matter only of the observance of different customs by dif­ ferent people, the right thing to do is neither to accuse those who observe these customs of wrongdoing nor to condemn as lawbreakers those who have not adopted them” (30). So, too, wrote Theophylact of Bulgaria: “Not every custom can cause schism in the Church but only that custom which leades to a difference in dogma” (31). The Orthodox have followed this principle down to the present day. We confine ourselves here to two illustrations: a ) The Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople and the Emperor Manuel I Komnenos wrote to the Armenians in the year 1177 informing them that their liturgical customs (this can be extended to the other non-Chalcedonian Churches) did not constitute a barrier to reunion (32). b) the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East wrote as follows to the Anglican non-jurors in the year 1723: “In the case of the other customs and orders (taxeis) of the Churches IOANNIS KARMIRIS 89 and the correction of the holy mystagogy and liturgy, even here correction will be easy, when with God’s help union comes about, because it is clear from the accounts of Church History that certain customs and order have been, and still are different in different places, yet the same unity of faith and unanimity in dogmas has been preserved” (33). C. The Possibility of the Council of Chalcedon’s being accepted by the non-Chalcedonian Churches

What has been said above in general temrs, can be applied to the Fourth and the three following Ecumenical Synods and to the possibility of their reception by the non-Chalcedonian Churches. In particular, as regards the horos of Chalcedon, it is possible, without of course transgressing, falsifying, or changing the horos of the Council of Chalcedon and those of the Fifth and Sixth Synods which are extentions of it, to undertake a new theological interpretation, explanation and development of those points which constitute a stumbling block for the non-Chalcedonians, and thus to find in a theological dialogue a Formula Concordiae which can be accepted by all the sister Churches in the East. In this way, these Churches can, by such a renewed examination of the entire matter on their part, in the spirit of understanding and love, in brotherly dialogue with the Orthodox, be led to a reception of the Synod of Chalcedon; and this all the more so since the Synod of Chalcedon was received by the fifth and following Ecumenical Councils (33a) and since the historical reasons which led these Churches in the 5th century to reject the Fourth Ecumencal Synod no longer apply. Moreover, the reception of this Synod by the non-Chalcedonians does not conflict with their nature as Churches nor with their dogmatic system as a whole. We believe, at least, that although the venerable Churches of the East seem to reject the Fourth Synod in accordance with a tradition which arose out of well known historical, psychological and other non-theological factors, they nevertheless, in essence, accept its dogma in agreement with the Orthodox and only use a special terminology and phraseology. This is clear from the various texts, especially the liturgical texts of the Eastern Churches (34), as we tried to show at Aarhus and subsequently (35), mainly on the basis of the Christological doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria, 90 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW which the non-Chalcedonians have adopted to such a degree that the Armenian Church is rightly characterized as more a “Cyrillian” than a monophysite Church. This description can also be applied in part to her other sister Churches. From our studies, we have come to the general conclusion that the ancient non-Chalcedonian Oriental Churches agree with the Orthodox Church in the traditional Christological faith which once and for all was transmitted to the saints: that “the Word became flesh” (John 1, 14), appeared as God- man (Theanthropos) “perfect in divinity, perfect in humanity”, two natures being united in His one person “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation... the properties of each nature being preserved, and coming together in one person and one hypostasis, and not divided or separated in two persons” (3(>). Thus, with St. John of Damascus we Orthodox confess Christ as both “of and in two natures” (ek dyo te kai en dyo physesin) (37). With the non-Chalcedonians we also believe that the two natures in Christ were brought together in un­ confused and undivided union, constituted one single hypostasis or natural person and after the union distinguished conceptually (te epinoia); for, as St. Cyril taught: “All our holy Fathers, in rejecting the confusion speak of the two natures conceptually as separate because of the difference but not because of division... The Catholic Church confesses an unconfused union (of the two natures) and separates the natures only conceptually, without separation (te epinoia kai mone diairei tas physeisadiairetos) confessing one and the same Emmanuel after the union.” Accordingly, the Orthodox believe along with St. Cyril that “it is one thing to divide the natures, and this, after the union, and quite another to say (with Nestorius) that man was joined to God in equal honor alone, and again quite another thing to use different terminology (Orthodox). Where then do Nestorius’ new dogmas (kainophoniai), agree with the doctrines of the Orthodox? Nestorius’ kakodoxy is a com­ pletely different matter...” (38) Accordingly, the Orthodox do indeed distinguish conceptually the two natures from one another, accepting an essential difference between them, but they do not divide them as did Nestorius, who, rejecting their union, taught the natural division (physiken diairesin) of the two natures in Christ. As St. Cyril puts it, the Orthodox generally, both then and now, but especially then, “the IOANNIS KARMIRIS 91 brethren abiding in Antioch accepted the (natures) from which Christ is understood (to be composed) as if they were but fine conceptions (os en psilais kai monais enniais dechomenoi) and spoke of a difference in natures, i.e. that divinity and humanity are not identical in natural quality, accepting indeed one Son and Christ and Lord as truly one being and one person; for in no way do they separate that which is united, nor indeed do they accept a natural division” (39). Or as St. John of Damascus later formulated the dogma: “the natures of the Lord are united without confusion according to the hypostasis, but divided without division because of the special manner of the difference (dierentai adiairetos logo kai tropo tes diaphoras)” (40). We believe that, in accordance with the general meaning given above, the non-Chalcedonians will be able to accept the phrase “in two natures” (en duo physesin), which natures are united in the one person of the God Logos without con­ fusion, without change, inseparably and inconvertibly, and in such a way that each of them “has preserved whole its own identity (idioteta);” divinity on the one hand remaining simple and impassible (apathes), while on the other hand, the human nature did not change, or dissolve within the divine so as to make up “one composite nature” which naturally implies the commingling, change and confusion of the two nature^. On the contrary, however, the two natures, having been united, remain unconfused and unchangeable, coming together in an indivisible union in the one Hypostasis of the God-man (41). Therefore, on the basis of the Christological doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria in general, it would be possible to bring about an agreement on both sides by a christological text composed of related passages scattered throughout the writings of St. Cyril, as for example the following: “the only begotten Son became man; we speak of two natures that were united, but of one Christ, Son and Lord, the Logos of God the Father, incarnate and made man. And, if agreeable, let us accept as an example, our very own composition as men. For we are composed of soul and body, and we observe two natures, one distinct nature of the body and the other of the soul, but one man composed by the union of both. And we must not think of two men because man is composed of two natures, but rather of one by synthesis, composed of body and soul. For if we were to put aside the fact that the one and only Christ is composed of two different 92 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW natures and indivisible after the union, the enemies of or­ thodoxy will say: If the whole is one nature, how did it become man or what flesh did it make its own (42)?.,. Indeed we confess that one is the nature ( - hypostasis) of the Logos, and we know that it has become flesh and man, and that this nature has thus assumed and united according to the Hypostasis (kath’ hypostasin) the human nature with the divine. “And according to this alone should one understand the difference of the natures, i.e., the hypostases: that divinity and humanity are not identical in quality. For how can the Logos, being God, empty Himself and submit Himself to our lowly state? When therefore the manner of the in­ carnation is dwelt upon, the human mind observes two things which are inexpressibly and inconfusedly united to each other and in no way standing apart, yet it both believes and fittingly accepts that from both of these (ex amphoin) there is but one God the Son and Christ and Lord” (43). According to this, both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians confess, “in that they unite these, the one Christ, the one Son, the same one Lord, and therefore the one incarnate nature (physin-hypostasin) of God the Logos” (44), so that the Theanthropos, after the union is “of two natures” (ekdyo physeon) and “in two natures” (en dyo physesin) which compose the “one” person, the “one” hypostasis (or “in­ carnate nature”) of “the one and same Christ” ; for the great patriarch of Alexandria brings into harmony the “in two natures” without confusion and without change, with the “one something from the both” (hen ti to ex amphoin) and with the “one incarnate nature (- one hypostasis) of God the Logos” (45). This last formula of St. Cyril’s “one incarnate nature of God the Logos”, which the non-Chalcedonians always bring forward, was already accepted by neo- Chalcedonian theologians from the 6th century and on, in its orthodox sense, which is to be found in St. Cyril himself. Such neo-Chalcedonians are for example, Leontius of Byzantium 946), Ephraim, Patriarch of Theoupolis (47); Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (48); Maximus the Confessor (49), Theodore, presbyter of Raitho (50); Anastasius of Sinai (51), John of Damascus (52), Theorianus (53) and others, as we have shown elsewhere (54). We believe that even con­ temporary theologians could accept the same formula as the basis of the agreement desired by both parties, but in the orthodox sense given to it by others and especially by St. IOANNIS KARMIRIS 93 John of Damascus who states: “we confess one incarnate nature of God the Logos, but we understand ‘incarnate’ to mean and signify the nature of the flesh, according to St. Cyril, and by the ‘one nature’ we understand the one hypostasis of the Logos, because the two natures are at­ tributed to the one nature and one hypostasis of God the Logos” (55). In brief, the above teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria could also be accepted by the non-Chalcedonians, just as could the teachings of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, un­ derstood in its light, and also the teaching of the later Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Synods whose teachings are based upon that of the Fourth. Indeed the doctrine of these Councils is even found in the non-Chalcedonian writings, expressed in their own tongues and in their own particular way. It could even be said that the non-Chalcedonians have, in practice, long ago tacitly accepted these Synods, at least in part - especially the Fifth which interpreted the Fourth and made concessions on their behalf, as well as the Seventh, authoritative because of its common Eastern tradition and accepted in practice by the entire Church (56). Furthermore, as we have already said, they have accepted and continue to accept, quietly and in practice, the actual dogma of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, though not of­ ficially and legally because of their different terminology and their hostility to the Byzantine State (57). It would indeed be paradoxical however, if the non- Chalcedonians were willing to accept the teachings and doctrine of the last four Ecumenical Synods - whether in­ directly, tacitly, or in practice - yet rejected those very Synods, and indeed the Fourth, which put forth these doc­ trines, and which even the Protestants have accepted along with the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics. This being so, the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians have a sacred obligation, implicit in the Lord’s command “that they all may be one” (John 17, 21), to undertake a new formulation of their common Christological faith in contemporary theological terminology and linguistic expression on the basis of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition and in con­ temporary categories of thought by drawing up a statement of “reconciliation” (diallagai) - following the example of that between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch in 433 (58) - but not having the character of a Symbol or Confession of 94 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Faith, and leaving the essence of the dogmas which have been synodically transmitted intact, and satisfactory to both sides. They must try to resolve certain practical differences, arising from the ancient sacred canons, and certain customs of a secondary nature, to which the above-mentioned statement applies; namely that “not every custom can lead to a schism in the Church but only a custom which leads to a difference in dogma.” This course is all the more necessary, first because the theological factors which led to the separation and estrangement between the Eastern Churches no longer exist, and secondly because the horoi and canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and those of the other Ecumenical Councils present no barrier to the reception of the Fourth Synod by the non-Chalcedonians, provided that both sides made a sincere and unprejudiced effort to interpret the horoi in a way acceptable to all. Thus the non-Chalcedonians also will be able to accept the great and holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod, already accepted by the rest of Christendom under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox Churches have accepted it in all their later Synods, in thier sacred worship (59) and in their theology under the leadership of such great theologians as Leontius of Byzantium (60), Maximus the Confessor (61), John of Damascus (62) and others. To reinforce what has been said above, we recall that at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (62a), which was continued by the Sixth, a similar attempt was made to reconcile opposing views and to achieve reunion, while the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, dealing with venerations of the holy icons, as we have already mentioned, is in practice accepted by the non- Chalcedonian Churches. In the year 532, the Emperor Justinian, likewise seeking agreement between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, organised a debate between them - the famous Collatio cum Severianis - in which Hypatos of Ephesus led the Orthodox and Severos the non- Chalcedonians (63). Moreover, many neo-Chalcedonian theologians from those present at the Fifth Ecumenical Synod up to and in­ cluding John of Damascus, tried to broaden, in a way, the framework of the dogmatic teaching of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and to harmonise this teaching of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and moreover, many neo- IOANNIS KARMIRIS 95 Chalcedonian theologians from those present at the Fifth Ecumenical Synod up to and including John of Damascus, tried to broaden, in a way, the framework of the dogmatic teaching of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and to harmonise this teaching with that of St. Cyril (64), as can be seen in the orthodox interpretation of the monophysitic-sounding phrase: “one incarnate nature of God the Logos” (64a), in Leontius of Byzantium’s doctrine of the “enhypostaton” (65), as well as in the doctrine of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Synods. We have also been led to the above conclusion by a special investigation of relations between the Orthodox and the Armenians following the Fourth Ecumenical Synod and especially the famous 12th century theological dialogue between them, conducted by the Byzantine theologian and philosopher Theorianos and the Armenian Catholicos, Nerses IV, Schenorhali, in the years 1170 and 1172, as well as the Union Address of Nerses de Lampron, Archbishop of Tarsus to the Armenian Synod in Tarsus in 1196-1197 (66). The for­ mer of these said in his letter to the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel I, that he recognised the Fourth Ecumenical Synod along with its doctrine: “I accept the Fourth great and Holy Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon” (67). In the course of the debate with Theorianos, Catholicos Nerses IV averred: “We accept the great and Ecumenical Fourth Holy Synod in Chalcedon and those holy Fathers whom it accepted; those whom it anathematises, we, too, anathematise, i.e. Eutyches and Dioscorus, as well as Severus and Timotheus, and all who spoke against it” (68). With respect to the Christological dispute he said: “We also confess two natures because of the ‘un-confusion’ of the natures, but again we also confess one nature because of the ‘inseparability of the natures’; for in saying ‘one nature’ we avoid the division of Nestorius, and in saying ‘two natures’ we avoid the confusion of Eutyches” (69). Similarly, he accepted that “there is no doubt that we are to attribute two natures to Christ, provided we confess that these are united inseparably in one Hypostasis” (70). Thus in writing to the Emperor Manuel he says: “If we say ‘one nature’ this is to be taken only to mean the indivisible union of the two natures, which is what we learned from the orthodox teachers of the Church and especially from St. Cyril of Alexandria... Since we, too, have these teachers as guides towards the path of truth which leads to God, we rightly and 96 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW freely examine the matter in a dual manner, speaking of one incarnate nature of God the Logos, in accordance with St. Cyril, and because of the ineffable union, and of two (natures) according to St. Gregory the Theologian because of the immutability of the natures, concerning which natures no new teaching may be introduced, both the divine and the human. Thus, our weapons of righteousness are not one­ sided, but on the right and the left, as the Apostles says...” (71). We shall limit ourselves to what has already been said above about the main Christological differences between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians and refer to my more complete presentation of the related teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria in this respect, given at our first consultation at Aarhus and subsequently in greater detail in a study published five years ago (72). The Synod which met in Tarsus in the years 1196-1197 under the presidency of Nerses of Lampron, Archbishop of Tarsus, declared its mind on the fourth and subsequent three Ecumenical Synods as follows: Definitio et causa quarti Concilii reperitur inter nos quidem concors est cum aliis tribus praecedentibus, idcirco et a nobis iam receptum est”, and it adds: “And if the three other Synods are faithful to the first four, we accept them also” (73). Finally, the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian theologians at their first meeting at Aarhus realized that “the Council of Chalcedon (451)... can only be understood as reaffirming the decisions of Ephesus (431), and best understood in the light of the later Council of Constantinople (553). All councils... have to be seen as stages in an integral development and no council or document should be studied in isolation” (74). Likewise, at their second meeting in Bristol in 1967 the following agreement was reached concerning the Christological doctrine of the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils: “Both sides speak of a union without confusion, without change, without divisions, 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. Those who speak in terms of ‘two’ do not thereby divide or separate. Those who speak in terms of ‘one’ do not thereby commingle or confuse. The ‘without division, without separation’ of those who say ‘two’, and the without change, without confusion of IOANNIS KARMIRIS 97 those who say ‘one’ need to be specially underlined, in order that we may understand each other. In this spirit, we have discussed also the continuity of doctrine in the Councils of the Church, and especially the monenergistic and monothelete controversies of the seventh 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 con­ fusion or separation does not appear therefore to be in­ compatible with the decision of the Council of Constantinople (680-81), which affirms two natural wills and two natural energies in Him existing indivisibly, inconvertibly, in­ separably, inconfusedly” (75). In addition, the common stand shared by the non- Chalcedonians and the Orthodox towards the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, as well as their common ecclesiology and Tradition, serves to confirm what has been said above, for it is a fact that all the holy Churches of the East live the same Christian life and share the same spirituality, breathe the same spiritual atmosphere of a shared Eastern*piety and, in general, draw wholly from the same sources of their common and most ancient orthodox tradition. In view of all this, let me conclude my paper by expressing the hope that, once the heads of the Holy Chur­ ches in the East have reached an agreed decision and the people have been carefully prepared for it psychologically, we may quickly proceed together to the commencement of the official theological - ecclesiastical dialogue between our Churches, so that, in accordance with the decisions taken by the non-Chalcedonians at Addis Ababa in 1965 and by the Orthodox at Geneva in 1968 (76), this dialogue may seek the | truth, and the truth alone, by harmonising the christological I teaching of Chalcedon and that of St. Cyril (77), with good will and sincerity, without prejudice and with true love and brotherliness, leaving behind the nationalistic and chauvinistic spirit of the local Churches and their people, as well as the bitter memories of our unhappy heritage from the Byzantine past, during which the division of Eastern Or­ thodox Christendom occurred without adequate reason; not m THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW so much on theological grounds, but rather for reasons of political, racial and psychological motivation and, because of enmity between the different peoples of the great Byzantine Em pire.

Footnotes * Selected BIBLIOGRAPHY on Synods: Nectarius KEPHALAS, The Ecumenical Synods of the Church of Christ, Athens 1892; B. STEPHANIDES, The Historical Development of the Synods of the Ecumenical Patriarchate from their beginning until the Fall of Constantinople, in “Neos Poimen” 1 (1919) 99-124 (German trans. in “Zeitschr. f. Kirchegeschiote” 55 (1933) 127-157); K. RHALLES, The Provincial Synods according to the Canon Law of the Or­ thodox Eastern Church, in “The Law School Annual” 1 (1925) 1-24; Philaret BAPHEIDES, Concerning Councils and particularly Ecumenical Councils, Salonika 1926; Callinicus of Cyzicus, The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, Con­ stantinople 1930; I. PANAGOPOULOS, The Ecum enical Councils and Church - State Relations during their Times, Athens 1939. Proces - Verbaux du prem ier Congres de Theologie Orthodoxe a Athenes 1936, Athens 1939; I. KAR­ MIRIS, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents of the Or­ thodox Catholic Church, 2nd Edit. Vol. I, Athens, 1960, Vol. II Graz 1968; G. RHALLES and M. POTLES, “ Syntagm a” of the Holy and Sacred Canons, Vols. 1-6, Athens 1852-1859; A. ALIVIZATOS, The Holy Canons and Ecclesiastical Laws, Athens 1949; By the same author, Die Kirchliche Geset- zgebung des Kaisers Justinian I, Berlin 1913; Chrysostom PAPADOPOULOS, The Constitution and the Sacred Canons, Athens 1936; Panteleim on KARANIKOLAS, M etropolitan of Corinth, Index to the Sacred Canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Athens, 1970; C.J. HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, Freiburg i.B, Bd. i-4, 1873-1879; H.J. MARCULL, Hrsg., Die Okumenischen Konzile der Christenheit, Stuttgart 1961; 0 . ROUSSEAU (Hrsg.), Le Concile et les Conciles, Editions de Chevetogne, 1960; E. SCHWARTZ, Uber die Reichskonzilien von Theodosius bis Justinian, in, “Gesammelte Schriften” 4, Berlin 1960; G. TANGL, Die Teilhahme an den allgemeinen Konzilien des Mittelalters, Weimar 1932 (Nachdruck Graz 1969); H. JEDIN, Kleine Konziliengeschichte, Freiburg 1959; D. HORST, Die grossen vier Konzilien, Munchen 1961; IOANNIS KARMIRIS 99 JAEGER - LORENZ, Das Okumenische Konzil, die Kirche und die Christenheit - E rbe und Auftrag, Paderborn 1960; P. MEINHOLD, Konzile der Kirche in evnagelischer Sicht, Stuttgart 1962; A. G RILLM EIER and H. BACHT, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte un Gegenwart, 3 Bde, Wurzburg 1951-1954; J. ALBERIGO etc., Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, Freiburg 1962; K. STUERM ER, Konzilien und okumenische Kirchenversammlunger, Gottingen 1962; Okumenischer Rat der Kirchen, Konzile und die Okumenische Bewegugng, Fenf 1968. 1. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 3, 20, PG 20, 1080; Theodoret, Epist. to the Churches, 12, in “Griech. christl. Schrisfsteller”, by L. Parmentier, p. 45. 2. Loc. cit., 3, 7, PG 20, 1061. 3. Homily 21, 14, PG 35, 1096. 4. Epist. 114, PG 32, 529. 5. Epist. 18, PL 50, 505-509. 6. From the “Stichera” of the Matin Service in honour of the Fathers of the 1st, 4th, 6th and 7th Ecumenical Synods. 7. J. Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Vol. 1, pp 105-106. 8. Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa, 1 ff., PG 26, 1029ff; 1032. Cf. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, 3. PG 48, 865. 9. Athanasius, Epist. on the Synods, 5, 54, PG 26, 688, 789. Cf. Ibid. 1036-1040, 1052, and PG 25, 456-460. On every Sunday of Orthodoxy, the Orthodox repeat the phrase: “This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Orthodox.” This very same phrase was declared by the F athers of the Fourth Ecum enical Synod, (cf. C. Hefele - H. Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, P aris 1908, Vol. II, 2 p. 733; J. Mansi, Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 7, 169; E. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum II, i, 2, p. 155; Triodion, p. 145; J. K arm iris, Op. cit., Vol. 1 p. 169, n. 1, 241, 244). 10. John of D am ascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, I, 3, PG 94, 783. 11. John Chrysostom, Homily 3, 3, PG 48, 865. Cf. John of Damascus, Epist. to Cosmas, PG 94, 524. 12. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium prim ., 2, PL 50, 640. 13. Cf. A. Alivizatos, The Conscience of the Church, Athens, 1954. 14. See above p. 1 note 1, for Constantine the Great’s testimony. He believed that when “by the Holy Spirit there was such agreement between so many and such distinguished bishops... it is the will of God.” Apart from the 100 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW question of whether or not these letters of Constantine to the Nicenes and to the Church of Alexandria are genuine, they represent in any case the belief of Constantine’s con­ temporaries about the Ecumenical Synods. See esp. Eusebius, Life of Constantine III, 16-20, PG 20, 1073-1080, and also Socrates, Church History 1, 9, PG 67, 84-93. It must be added that the ancient Church believed that the Holy Spirit was present not only in the Ecumenical Councils but in local and regional Councils as well. Thus, we can understand why Pope Gregory I says the following about the first four Ecumenical Synods: “Sicut sancti evangeli quattuor libros, sic quattuor concilia suscipere et venerarime fateor.” (E pist. 25, PL 77, 478). 15. John Chrysostom, Homilies on II Corinthians, 18, 3, PG 61, 427. On Psalm 149,1 PG 55, 493. 16. Cf. I. K arm iris, Op. cit., Vol 1, p. 17ff. 17. Athanasius the Great confirmed that “All the Churches in every quarter have assented to the faith of Nicaea”, (Epist. to Jovian) I and 2, PG 26,816. 18. As is well known, the Byzantine Emperors gave to the decisions of the Synods the status of civil laws. For example, Justinian I commanded: “We decree that those sacred ec­ clesiastical canons which have been issued or confirmed by the seven holy Synods shall have the authority of law, for we accept the dogmas of these Synods as we accept Holy Scripture, and obey the canons as laws.” (Neara/ Novelle 131, ch. 1), Cf. Basilika, Book V, Title 3b. See also Cod. Just. I, 3, 45: “Even our laws wish the divine canons to have no less validity than our civil laws. We decree that in these matters we shall apply what the sacred canons say, as if they were numbered amongst the civil laws”. 19. J. Harduin, Acta Conciliorum, P aris 1715, Vol. 1, p. 808. J. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, nova et amplissima Collectio, Florence and Venice, 61, Vol. 6, p. 651. 20. Cf. Gratian, Dist. Ill, 2: “Canonum alii sunt decreta pontificum, alii statuta conciliorum”. 21. For precisely this purpose was the Ecumenical Council in Trullo, or “Penthekte” as it is characteristically called, summoned. It completed the work of the two previous Synods and issued the canons which these had omitted, or in the words of Zonaras and Balsamon, “What these (i.e. the 5th and 6th Synods) lacked, namely the formulation of canons, this (Synod - the Penthekte) supplemented”; in G. Rhalles IOANNIS KARMIRIS 101 and M. Potles, Syntagma of the Holy and Sacred Canons, Athens 1853, Bk II, p. 294, 300. The Fathers of the Penthekte Synod, in their Prosphonetikon to the Emperor Justinian Rhinotmetos state that, “because the Holy Ecumenical Councils... (the 5th and 6th) which paternally proclaimed the mystery of the faith issued no canons at all, in contrast with the other four Ecumenical Councils, we therefore have put forth sacred canons” (Ibid. p. 298/ 9). Thus, all the Ecumenical Synods issued both horoi and canons. 22. Cf. Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, Vol. II (1937), pp. 1283-1288. Out most complete collection of sacred canons in general use is the Syntagma of G. Rhalles and M. Potlis, in 6 books, Athens 1852-1859. More generally, cf. also, E. Sch­ wartz, Die Kanones-Sammlungen der alten Reichskirche, in “G esam m elte Schriften,” IV, Berlin 1960. 23. Zonaras, in G. Rhalles and M. Potlis, op. cit., vol. II, p. 159. 24. Ibid., p. 217. 25. According to J. Meyendorff, the canons “apparently constitute the expression of Holy Tradition, and we can safely say that they really express the authentic and per­ manent nature of the Church... They appeared as a kind of remedy employed by the Synods and the Fathers of the Church to cure certain illnesses of the ecclesiastical body”. (Orthodoxie et Catholicite, Paris 1965, p. 100). 26. Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Anglican Non- Jurors, in I. Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents etc., Vol II, pp. 888-9. Indeed “Compromise in matters of faith cannot be tolerated” (Mark Evgenicos of Ephesus, in Gregory of Chios, Concerning Union with the Armenians, Constantinople 1871, p. 132 n. 1). “Up to this point, logic accepts the principle of economy; that it, to the point where no innovation is put forth at the expense of the dogmas of the Church... Logic employs economy when the dogmas of faith are in no way harmed, for when the dogmas remain unadulterated and closed to speculation, then economy concerning outward matters finds a footing.” (Eulogius of Alexandria, in Photius, Bibliotheke Ch. 227, ed. Bekker p. 244). Thus one cannot distinguish between primary and secondary, essential and non-essential, or great and small dogmas. All, without exception, are of equal authority and status as “dogmas of God”. To sin against a dogma whether great or small is exactly the same thing, for to do 102 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW either is to set at naught God’s law. (Tarasius of Con­ stantinople, in the Acta of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod in J. Harduin, Acta Conciliorum IV, 60; Cf. Jerome Cotsonis, Problem s of Ecclesiastical Economy, Athens 1957, pp. 167ff. 27. Leontius of Byzantium, the Jerusalemite, Against the Monophysites, PG 86, II, 1809, 1812. 28. Cf. I. K arm iris, The Ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East and the Basis for their reunion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, Athens 1966, pp. 161-162; also cf. the related teachings of St. Augustine, in F. Hofmann, Der Kir- chenbegriff des hi. Augustinus in seinen Grundlagen und in seiner Entwicklung, Munchen 1933. p. 306-315. 29. See also Liviu Stan, in Councils and the Ecumenical Movement, WCC Studies No. 5, Geneva 1968. 30. I. Valetta, Epistles of Photius, Patriarch of Con­ stantinople, London 1864, p. 156; See also I. Karmirs, Or­ thodoxy and Protestantism, Athens 1937, pp. 324ff, 364, 369, 394ff. 31. In G. Rhalles and M. Potlis, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 432. 32. Cf. also P. Tekeyan, Controverses christologiques en Armeno-cilicie dans la second moitie du Xlle siecle (1165- 1198), Rome 1930, p. 35ff 65f. The Armenian, Nerses of Lampron, Archbishop of Rarsus, was in agreement with this, (see Synodal Address of Nerses of Lampron... trans. into German from Armenian by G. Neumann, Leipzig 1834, p. 55f, 62ff). Among other things he comments: “Clearly the leavened bread is not, as we think, a profanation in Christ, nor, as they say, the unleavened bread a shambles. So too, it is clear that the water adds nothing to the sacrament, any more than its absence involves a deficienty; for the wine itself is already a sign of the blood of the New Covenant. So too, it is obvious that the fact that the celebration of a feast in one month rather in another is no reason why it should deserve God’s blessing or His wrath... The festivals and customs sprang from love, not love from the festivals. It is therefore wrong to preserve these unchanged at the cost of destroying that for which they were instituted...” This secondary difference in festivals and customs should not divide Christians, Nerses rightly insists. 33. In I. Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents etc., Vol II, p. 819. Cf. also The Ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches of the E ast etc., pp. 164-165. 33a. Mansi, Conciliorum etc., 4, 368ff. I. Karmiris, The IOANNIS KARMIRIS 103 Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents etc., Vol I, p. 191ff, 221ff, 239ff. 34. See I. Karmiris, The Ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East etc., p. 153ff; The Coptic Liturgy, authorized by H.H. Abba Kyrillos VI, Cairo, 1963; The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, transl. by the Rev. Marcos Daoud, rev. by H.E. Blatta Marsie azen. Cairo 1959; Ambrosios Stavrinos, Metropolitan of Caesarea, The most Ancient and the Most Contemporary Liturgies of the Churches of Christ. Vol 1-2 Constantinople 1921-1922; P. Tremblas, Liturgical Types of Egypt and the East, Athens 1961. For example, during the consecration of the precious gifts in the Coptic and Ethiopian Liturgies, the priest recites a prayer which presupposes the christological teaching of the Fourth Synod. Thus, in The Coptic Liturgy, p. Ill is found: “I believe, I believe, I believe and confess till the last breath, that this is the Life-giving Flesh, which Thy Only begotten Son, our Lord, our God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, took from our Lady, the Queen of us all, the Mother-of-God, the Saint, the Pure Mary. He made It one with His Divinity, without mingling, without confusion, without alteration...”. See also Ambrosius (Stavrinos) of C aesarea, op. cit., V. II, p. 558, 499 etc. Also see The Ethiopian Liturgy, p. 82, “I believe I believe, I believe and I confess, unto my latest breath, that this is the body and blood of our Lord and Our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, which he took from the Lady of All, the Holy Mary of two-fold virginity, and made it one with his Godhead, without mixture or confusion, without division or alteration...” See also p. 14, 275, 114, 136, 220, 147, 246, 193, 300, 252 etc. 35. See The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 10 ! (1964/ 65), No. 2, pp. 61-81; I. K arm iris, The Ancient non- Chalcedonian Churches etc.; Relations between the Or­ thodox and the Armenians and in particular the Theological Dialogue between them during the 12th Century, Athens 1967. 36. I. Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents etc., Vol. I, p. 175. It should be pointed out that the Horos of i Chalcedon, compiled on the basis of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd j Ecumenical Synods, the Synodical Epistles and other related writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Cappadocian Fathers is the best definition of the mystery of the unity of the two natures in Christ. It bases this unity upon the “person” or “hypostasis”, and not, as in St. Cyril, upon the “Nature”. It makes a distinction between the christological terms 104 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW “hypostasis” and “nature” and does not confuse them or consider them identical, as did Nestorius and Eutyches (Ibid., 159-160), thus achieving “a synthesis, on the one hand, of the Nestorian division of the one Christ, and the monophysitic union and confusion of the two natures in Christ, on the other” (Ibid., p. 170). The definition of the exact meaning of the terms “person”, “hypostasis”, “nature”, and “essence” (ousia) used by the Fourth Ecumenical Synod was accomplished especially by Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene. 37. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 3, PG 95, 989. 38. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 40, PG 77, 193-197. 39. Ibid. 40. John of Damascus, op. cit., Ill, 8; PG 94,1013. 41. I. Karmiris, The Ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches of the E ast, etc., pp. 158-9. 42. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 45, PG 77, 233. 43. Cyril of A lexandria, Ep. 40, PG 77, 193. 44. Cyril of Alexandria Epis. 44, PG 77, 225. 45. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople also writes, “We do not deny that one may speak of one incarnate nature of God the Logos which was made man, because out of both (Ex amphoin) Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same.” (ii. I. K arm iris, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 167. E. Schwartz, Acta Concil. Oecum. II, 1,1, 1, p. 35, 114). 46. Leontius of Byzantium, Questions to those who say that our Lord Jesus Christ is one composite Nature, PG 86, II 1852; The Thirty Chapters against Severus, 16-20, PG 86, II, 1905-1908. Scholia Acts 8, PG 86, I 1252/ 3; Against Nestorius and Eutyches, Homily I, PG 86,1,1289.1292.1296.1297. 47. Ephraim of Theoupolis, Various Homilies in Photius, Myriob. 228, PG 103, 968/ 9. 977. 48. In Photius, Myriob. 230, PG 103, 1025-1037. 49. Maximus the Confessor, Ep. 12, PG 91, 477-481. 50. Theodore, presbyter of Raitho, De Incarnatione, PG 91, 1489-1504. 51. Anastasius of Sinai, Guide I, PG 89, 189-192. 52. John of Damascus, Concerning the composite Nature, against the Akephaloi 3, PG 95, 116/ 7. 53. Theorianus, Dialogue with Nerses IV Schenorhali, PG 133, 125/ 5. 149.157. 54. I. Karmiris, The Ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches IOANNIS KARMIRIS 105 etc., p. 99ff., 124ff. 55. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 7,8, PG 94,1012. Cf. also Ibid., 1008 and Against the Akephaloi 3, PG 95, 116-117. 56. K. N. Khella, Do the four later councils prevent recon­ ciliation of the Orthodox Churches? in : The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XIII, 1968, No. 2, p. 282. 57. K.N. Khella, Ibid., p. 280. In particular, the conflict is over the two prepositions “ek” (out of, or from two natures) and “en” (in two natures) and the Byzantine Empire which no longer exists! 58. Cf. I. Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents etc., Vol. I, p. 147ff. 59. See I. Karmiris, The Christological Dogma in Orthodox Worship, in: The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. XIII, 1958, No. 2, pp. 241-257. 60. Leontius of Byzantium, Against the Monophysites, PG 86, II, 1804-1896. 61. Maximus the Confessor, Theological and Polemical Writings, PG 91, 264-265. 62. John of D am ascus, Against the Jacobites, PG 94, 1485- 1501 etc. 62a. Cf. I. K arm iris, op. cit., vol. I, p. 181ff. 63. C. Hefele - Leclercq, op. cit., II, 2 p. 272, 273. 64. From as early as after the 4th Ecumenical Synod and since the 6th Century the neo-Chalcedonian theologians tried “to show that Chalcedon and Cyril do not contradict one another, and that indeed it would be well to expand the for­ mula of the Synod by the formulations of 433 proposed by the Alexandrians but disallowed in order to protect the formula against Nestorianising misinterpretations. This new ten­ dency amongst the defenders of Chalcedon has recently been given the name, Neo-Chalcedonianism. They have more and more set the seal of their approval on the theology of the Orthodox in the 6th century... For them it is not just a matter of adopting particular statements, but one of adopting the whole rich and varied theology of Cyril of Alexandria into Chalcedonian theology” (H.G. Beck, Kirche und Theologishe Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich, Munich 1959, p. 284ff, 371 , ff.) 64a. Cf. I. Karmiris, The Ancient non-Chalcedonian Chur­ ches etc., p. 124f. 65. See A. Theodorou, Christological Terminology and 100 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Teaching of Leontius of Byzantium, Athens 1955. (»(». See I. Karmiris, Relations between the Orthodox and the Arm enians... p. 35f. 67. Dialogue, PG 133, 212. Cf. Columns 233 and 240. 68. PG 133, 209. Moreover it should be noted that Nerses justified his former cautious stand and that of the Armenians towards the 4th Ecumenical Council as a result of a fear of the phrase “in two natures” in the Synod’s horos. “I feared,” he says, “that in avoiding Eutyches’ expression: ‘one nature’, we would fall into Nestorius’ pit, by introducing two persons through the two natures”, for he thought that “to confess two natures was to emphasize the division” (PG 133, 145). In particular, in regards to the dogmatic horos of this Synod he observed: “Having read the horos, I found nothing in it contrary to the Orthodox faith and I am at a loss to ex­ plain how those before us so imprudently calumniated it. This horos is most correct (orthotatos), having been dictated by the Holy Spirit through so many and so great, holy, and God-bearing F a th e rs” (PG 133, 145. 204. 208). See also I. Karmiris, Ibid., p. 41. 09. Dialogue with Theorianus, PG 133,153. 156. 160. 240. 70. Ibid., PG 133, 149. 71. Pittakion of Nosersus, Catholicos of Armenia to the King, Lord Manuel, PG 133, 217. 220. See the sam e in P. Tekeyan, op. cit., p. 80: “Ac nos e traditione sanctorum hoc af- firmamus, non vero secundum opiniones haerticorum, confusionem aut conversionem aut variationem in- troducendo in incarnationem Christi, unam dicendo naturam, sed pro una persona (hypostasi) quam nos dicitis in Christo, quod rectum est et a nobis confirmatum. Nostrum quoque ‘unam naturam’ dicere, unum ideque est... idque exinde apparet, quod quando distincte loquimur de eadem re non in una (sc. natura) tantum acquiescimus, sed duarum proprietates demonstramus... Una enim natura non alia de causa a nobis dicitur quam propter inseparabilem et inef- fabilem unionem Verbi et Corporis; neque abhorremus a dicendo ‘duas naturas’ quando non significamus divisionem secundum Nestorium, sed ut demonstremus confusionem locum non habere contra haereticos Eutychem et Ap- polinarem”. 72. See The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10 (1964-65) No. 2, p. 61-81; I. K arm iris, The ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches etc., p. 93-159. It should be noted that Nerses of IOANNIS KARMIRIS 107 Lampron, the Armenian Archbishop of Tarsus expounded before the Synod of Tarsus in 1196-1197 a christological doctrine almost identical to that of Catholicos Nerses IV Schenorhali. A German translation of Nerses of Lampron’s Synodical Homily, from the Armenian, was published by C.F. Neumann, Synodalrede de Nerses von Lampron, Leipzig 1834; a sum m ary of this Homily is to be found in Greek in I. Karmiris, Relations between the Orthodox and the Armenians... p. 67-77, who recommends that “this homily serve as the basis and starting point of the new theological dialogue in preparation between the Orthodox and the Ar- meniansand the remaining non-Chalcedonians”(Ibid.,p.77). 73. In P. Tekeyan, op. cit., p. 63; I. K arm iris, Ibid., p. 60; Cf. also Nerses de Lampron, Synodalrede des Nerses von Lampron... Aus dem Armenischen uberzetz von C.F. Neumann. Leipzig 1834. 74. Unofficial Consultation between Theologians of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, August 11-15, 1964. P apers and M inutes, in: The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10, (1964-65) No. 2, p. 15). I. K arm iris, The Ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East... p. 182. 75. Papers and Discussions between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Theologians. The Bristol Consultation, July 25-29, 1967. vin: “The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 13” (1968) No. 2 p. 134. “Theoligia” , 39, (1968) 682-683. 76. Cf. Nicolaos, M etropolitan of Axum, Consultation of the Oriental Orthodox Churches in Addis Ababa, 15-21 January 1965, Athens 1965. I. K arm iris, The Fifth Pan-Orthodox Conference, Athens 1968. 77. For as the Emperor Justinian concluded: “The Holy Church of God rightly accepts all that was said by St. Cyril... St. Cyril even before Nestorius’ condemnation and during it... and after... did not cease to proclaim and profess the two natures of the one Christ... He clearly teaches that Nestorius was condemned not because he spoke of two natures, but because he denied the union of the tw'o natures according to the Hypostasis (kath’ hypostasin), thus creating two sons. St. Cyril wishing to eradicate this impiety, spoke of one nature of the Son which he showed to be incarnate, thus in­ dicating that the nature of the Godhead is one thing and that of the flesh another”. (E. Schwartz, Drie dogmatische Schriften Justinians, in: Abh. Bayer. Akad. Wis., NF. 18, Munchen 1939, p. 33, 35-36. Appendix IV

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ‘HOROS’ AND THE ‘CANON’ AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR THE RECEPTION OF THE SYNOD OF CHALCEDON

N. Chitescu Preparation for a genuine ‘dialogue’ entails for the Churches involved a reassessment of their entire heritage from the standpoint of doctrine, worship and organisation. In the field of canon law, for example, the problem of authority is discussed, while in the field of dogmatics it is the human capacity to know and formulate Revelation which is examined, i.e. the meaning of Revelation and the terms employed by the holy fathers in formulating it. An understanding of the precise meaning of the terms ‘horos’ and ‘canon’ will make it easier to see what possibilities of accomodation exist both in the doctrinal and juridical fields for the Church engaged as partner in the dialogue. Clearly this problem is unsolved otherwise it would not now be raised in the context of these unofficial discussions. Hence its difficulties and the seriour respon­ sibility in making affirmations in these areas. The dif­ ficulties undoubtedly arise from the doctrinal formula, the horos. It implies knowledge of the divine mysteries which is variable both intensively and qualitatively, is variable and which rests on a relative understanding of the divine Revelation itself. Paradoxically, that which transcends human possibilities - the content of revelation - is the object of continual meditation, which implies a constant develop­ ment, an unceasing discovery of new depths by the Church, while synodal decisions motu proprio - i.e. canons in the strict sense - apparently enjoy a stability sui generis, namely, within the unstable conditions of this age through which the Church is passing.

I. The Revelation: 1. The Unknown God 2. Preem inence of Apophatism 1. Dogmas are not simple intellectual propositions but rather divine life which transfigures human life in ac­ N. CHITESCU 109 cordance with the divine mode: “This is eternal life: to know thee who alone are truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent” (John 17,3 NEB). They presuppose a restoration of the communion, the familiarity with God enjoyed by Adam before the F all (Gen. 3, 9f; 2 Cor. 12, 1-5). This condition, forfeited through sin, is restored by Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. This is why Holy Scripture speaks antinomically (paradoxically) of the knowledge of God: it is conditioned by the anger and the just judgment against sin. God is a hidden God and a Saviour (Isa. 45, 15). “In anger thou has turned and pursued us and slain without pity; thou hast hidden thyself behind the clouds beyond reach of our prayers” (Lam. 3, 43-44). Always it is because of sins that “My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways” (Isa. 55, 8-9). The Psalmist expresses the horror of this “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” - of this God - for­ sakenness: “How long, 0 Lord, wilt thou quite forget me? How long wilt thou hide thy face from me?” (Ps. 13, 1). “Bestir thyself, Lord; why dost thou sleep? Awake, do not reject us for ever. Why dost thou hide thy face?” (Ps. 44, 23f). “Therefore night shall bring you no vision, darkness no divination; the sun shall go down on the prophets” (Mic. 3,6). This condition appears contradictory precisely because of the sin which determines it. In the prologue of the Book of Judges and in the eschatological sections of the prophetic books, the shadows alternate with the light or with the assurance of salvation. In the verse from Isaiah cited above, the same sentence refers to God as both a hidden God and a Saviour (Isa. 45, 15). (1) But there is a development of the Revelation, as we are reminded by the Epistle to the Hebrews (1,1) and several of the fathers (Gregory Nazianzus in his Theological Ad­ dresses, for example) in connection with the transition from the Old to the New Testament. The use of Revelation is also conditioned. The Saviour himself, the Light of the world, declares that sin prevents men from receiving the Truth: “Your father is the devil... But I speak the truth and therefore you do not believe me” (jn. 8, 44f). The universality of sin ( 1 Jn. 1,8) as well as the skandalon of the cross (Phil. 2, 7; 1 Cor. 1, 23) strengthens still further the antinomy of the Old Testament in the New. St. Paul recalls the veiled Revelation of the God incarnate and shows us God dwelling in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6, 110 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 16). “For in making all mankind prisoners to disobedience, God’s purpose was to show mercy to all mankind.” This antinomy (paradox) moves the apostle to cry: “0 depth of wealth, wisdom and knowledge in God! How unsearchable his judgments, how untraceable his ways! Who knows the mind of the Lord? Who has been his counsellor?” (Rom. 8, 32ff). Everything pertaining to man in this age is subject to relativisation and degradation: “This ‘knowledge’ breeds conceit; it is love that builds. If anyone fancies that he knows, he knows nothing yet, in the true sense of knowing” (1 Cor. 8, If.). 2. Revelation shows us the man of prayer, the man who contemplates the divine mysteries fighting with or against God, like Jacob (Gen. 32, 24ff), in order to ask God’s blessing, the blessing of possession of these mysteries. Their un­ derstanding is not granted us in the mould of the human mind and spirit. Both the ocean of the Divine and the unfathomable depths of the divine mysteries are inaccessible to the human mind. In this age, Revelation therefore always remains inexhaustible, like the mystery it veils even as it unveils it. Otherwise it is conceivable that the human mind which succeeded in understanding it would even attribute its own concepts to God, would create a God in its own image and likeness. The holy fathers often remind us of this human tendency to divinise the human, by pointing to the way in which the prophets themselves interpreted the words of God. Thus St. Augustine affirms, on the one hand, that Dcus per hominem more humano loquitur (in De civitate dei xvii, 6, 2); but in respect of the apostle of love, he says: “Perhaps it is that John did not speak of the thing as it is but only as he was able to express it, being a man who was speaking of God, doub­ tless a man inspired by God, but, all the same, a man...” (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John 1,1). We shall not extend our study of the assessments made by the holy fathers of the impression which the character, preferences and personality of the prophets left upon their work. We confine ourselves simply to repeating in conclusion that although it is impossible to separate completely the divine and the human in the Revelation, we are nevertheless sufficiently aw'are of the tw'o in man’s effort to understand that which transcends him. We emphasise this fact because it is reinforced in the N. C1HTESCU 111 Church’s efforts to understand the divine in human words. The apostle Paul has expressed superlatively this effort which can never exhaust the Revelation in this present age; the divine mystery always remaining incapable of ex­ pression in human fashion. After having solemnly proclaimed that prophecies will cease and knowledge vanish away, he continues: “For our knowledge and our prophecy alike are partial, and the partial vanishes when wholeness comes... Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we shall see face to face. My knowledge now is partial; then it will be whole, like God’s knowledge of me” (1 Cor. 13, 8-12 ). The holy fathers, as well as the theologians of all periods, are unanimous in confessing that the deeper they went into the divine mysteries the more strongly did the divine inef- fability manifest itself; the via negativa, the apophatic, has had a preeminent place in the experiences of the mystics. Finally, the theological conceptualism of all periods - it manifested itself mainly in the West - has often been regarded as a Luciferan attempt to confine the Absolute within the limits of human relativity, which has often provided the occasion for a display of the sin of pride. It will be recalled in this connection how St. Denis the Areopagite began his work on Mystical Theology (De Mystica Theologia) with an invocation to the Holy Trinity, Whom he prayed to guide him “beyond ignorance itself to the very summit of the mystical writings, there where the simple, absolute and incorruptible mysteries of theology are revealed in the darkness more luminous than the silence” (2). St. Basil went so far along this road as to assert, in op­ position to the conception of Eunomius, that not only the divine essence, but even created essences cannot be ex­ pressed by concepts (3). Whereas St. Gregory of Nyssa did not hesitate to declare every concept related to God a mockery (simulacre), a misleading image, an idol (4), St. John Damascene teaches us in the same sense: “God then is infinite and in­ comprehensible: and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm concerning God shews forth not God’s nature but only the qualities of His nature... For assuredly that which is above knowledge must certainly be also above essence; and conversly that which is above essence will also be above 112 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW knowledge” (5). Contemporary theologians have insisted on apophatism, presenting it as an attitude or a method, namely of con­ templation. “Apophatism,” writes one of them, “teaches us to see in the dogmas of the Church above all a nagative sense, a warning to our minds not to follow their natural inclinations and create concepts which would take the place of the spiritual realities” (6). Nicholas Berdyaev declares that “though God can be revealed in the religious life, He can also be hidden within it. Revelation does not abolish mystery; in fact it discloses its very depths in all their ineffability. Revelation is poles apart from rational thought; it does not imply that God is capable of being grasped by reason and by conceptual thinking, and that is why an element of mystery always remains. Religion is a paradoxical combination of that which is revealed and that which remains hidden” (7). Karl Barth placed great emphasis on the transcendance of God and on the incapacity of the creature to comprehend revelation. Yet he shows dialectically why it is that the hidden God can be known. In this connection he formulated this axiom: “As ministers we ought to speak of God. We are human however, and so cannot speak of God. We ought therefore to recognise both our obligation and our inability and by that very recognition give God the glory” (8). “What lies between them (sc. this before and after) we can never express or state, because it is not revealed to us. And it is not revealed to us because it is revelation itself. Any attempt to state or express anything concerning what lies between would be foolhardy, because it could consist only in arbitrary speculation, based on the pre-supposition that we can ac­ tually bypass God. But it would also be fatal, because it would reveal that we regard the leap not as the divine necessity but as a necessity that we can penetrate, that with the mystery of revelation we do not acknowledge but deny revelation at the critical point... If it is now clear that at this point a silentium altissimum is far more eloquent than any attempted demonstration it is also clear that at this point only a silentium altissimum can say positively what has to be said with demonstration... It is exactly the same here as it is with the objective reality of revelation. For only by the knowledge of that revelation, the knowledge of Jesus Christ, do we learn that God is a hidden God.. Amost everything that N. CHITESCU 113 we can say about man from the standpoint of revelation tells against the possibility that God can be revealed to us. But the work of the Holy Spirit is in favour of that possibility. Now we cannot make either statement except from the standpoint of revelation. Therefore we cannot mean the same thing when on the one side we say God cannot and on the other we say God can. ‘God cannot’ means that He cannot do it on the basis of a human possibility. ‘God can’ means, of course, that He can on the basis of His own possibility” (9). (Barth, Church Dogmatics, Prolegomena, I, 2, pp 234f., 245f.) We must keep this in mind as we pass on to the possibility of knowing God.

II. The ‘Horos’: 1. The origin of doctrinal formulas 2. The process of form ulation 3. The developm ent of dogm as 1. The Holy Spirit was sent into the Church to lead its children towards the whole truth (Jn. 16, 13). As the Lord’s mystical body, the Church is the instrument of salvation; as pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3, 15), it cannot be deprived of the certainity of the truth which saves: “This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent” (Jn. 17, 3.). This would explain the paradox that the same holy fathers who asserted the apophatism of religious knowledge were also the great masters of doctrinal formulas. They were organs of the Holy Spirit. It is by the work of the Holy Spirit that the presence of the Lord in his mystical body is perpetuated by the holy eucharist and its three ministries continued. The Holy Spirit bears witness to the Lord; it is He who gives the power (dynamin) to the apostles to be witnesses of the resurrection of the Lord and to announce it to the ends of the earth (Lk. 24, 48; Acts 1,8; Jn. 1,1 etc.). The apostolic succession perpetuates the sacerdotal mystery as well as that of witness of the truth by the disciplines, the apostles, the bishops. These receive the grace by consecration performed by two or three bishops, as well as by the confession of the true apostolic faith - signs of the continuity of the apostolic tradition and basis of the authority of the magisterium in the Church. This authority is manifested by conciliarity. The Synods themselves declared their intention of bearing witness to the same faith as their 114 TIIE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW predecessors. They interpreted the reception of a formula of faith as a sign of its divine origin, attested therefore by Scripture and Tradition. This customarily justified the reception of the Synod by the people of God (10). The Church formulated the revealed truth in doctrinal definitions, the ‘horoi’, it also issued its own laws, the canones, rules which are juridical in character. To simplify things from the outset we recall that there are canons which are doctrinal in content (11). We include these in the category of doctrinal definitions; we shall recall them separately only when we have established the distinction between doctrinal definitions and the canons, according to the definition of the ancient fathers: “Sacrarum Synodarum et dogmata ut divinas Scripturas suscipiamus et canones tanquam leges custodiamus” said the Emperor Justinian, while St. Gregory the 1st, wrote in his Synodal Letter of 591, addressed to the other patriarchs: “Sicut Sancti Evangelii quatuor libros, sic quatuor concilia recipere et venerari me fateor”. The seven Ecumenical Synods of the undivided Church were regarded as the seven pillars of Wisdom which bestow the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (12). Historically, these new formulations were called forth only by special unfavourable circumstances i.e. the heresies (13); in reality the heresies themselves are the consequence of an objective fact: the dogmatic development which Vin­ cent of Lerins proclaimed in a unique way in the primitive Church (14). What is the significance of these two con­ testations? Although contradictory, they lead to the same conclusion: the doctrinal formulas are the continuation of a process of reflection and exploration of the revealed divine truth, a process which never ceases here on earth. (It was not in vain that the desert fathers set themselves to meditate for days, weeks, years, on a single word of the Lord and often right to the end of their life regarded themselves as not having adequately understood it). The fact of giving the synodal formulas under a negative form shows us that they do not contain the apostolic truth in its entirety, but only in part: precisely the part which calls forth the particular synod, in order to condemn the heresy as a rebellion, either against the Holy Spirit or against the Tradition. The new formulas counted therefore as an ‘an­ tidote to heresy and not as an end in themselves’. This provided the occasion for an even deeper meditation on the N. CHITESCU 115 revealed truth if not to its reconsideration from the stand­ point of heresy. They thus opened up new perspectives to theological thought, whether they were accepted by the adversaries or not. It has also been recalled that, although the Church itself regarded the Ecumenical Synods as ‘events’, thinking of the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in them, these Synods never counted as isolated factors in the kingdom of God but as ‘events’ related to other factors: the written revelation or Tradition. As such the decisions of a Synod were not confined to condemning other theological opinions; on the contrary, the Ecumenical Synods also tried to reaffirm the ancient faith and its defence in every form - always keeping in mind the new heresy. It has been added that it is within this action of renewal that mutual criticism of reception in the contest of ecumenist reunions finds its natural place. Such mutual criticism becomes a duty and a promise both for the individual Churches and for their Communion within the Ecumenical Movement, in accordance with the claims of the Church’s conscience. In this same context one should stress the fact that dogma should become the point of departure for new experiences of the spiritual life; “ierothee said St. Denis the Areopagite is wise because he not only knows but also suffers the divine things” (I)e divinis nominibus II, 4).

2. The doctrinal formulas have never met with a unanimous reception.

The reason for this, apart from the main reason, is that they are not and cannot be exhaustive. “Only the Spirit of God knows what God is” (1 Cor. 2, 11). It is no accident that a Roman Catholic work of theology, summarising at the beginning of this century the years-long struggle between different philosophical systems over the knowledge given by dogmatic formulas (15), should have chosen as its mottos the texts of 1 Cor. 13, 12 and 1 Jn. 3, 12, both of which indicate the limits of our knowledge in this present age. But, again apart from the main reason, there is also another even more important reason why doctrinal formulas have not been received. If what has been said by a modern theologian who made no concessions to natural knowledge be 116 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW true (I refer to Karl Barth), namely, that “if we open our mouths we find ourselves in the province of philosophy” 916), then we cannot be surprised to find the holy fathers in the parristic period for example employing the philosophical terminology then in use, i.e. the Platonic and Aristotelian terminology, as a natural and rational mean of expressing certain supernatural and suprarational truths. This fact is not without its inconveniences. For example we know that the Greek formulas passed through a maturation stage - often a dramatic and stormy one - before being accepted by the Ecumenical Synods. Sometimes for example it was their biblical character which was challenged (as in the case of the homoousia, which was even condemned by the Synod of Antioch in 269 before it eventually became the glory of the Christian East at Nicea). The term prosopon- because of its theatrical associations - was accepted only hesitantly - because it seemed to favour Sabellianism. The meaning of the word ousia was long covered in obscurity; sometimes used in the sense of ‘essence’ and sometimes in the sense of ‘person’. (We know that St. Denis the Areopagite was accused of heresy for using it in the sense which was eventually to prevail at the 1st Ecumenical Synod). The same applies to physis and so on. (Moreover, to take another aspect, extremely con­ temporary gifted Roman Catholic historians like Gustave Bardy readily recognise that the Latinisation of the Western Church, achieved in great haste, made it difficult for the Western Church to understand the great speculative problems of the Eastern theologians and easier for it to side with the Westerners (17) - and this poses questions.) Repeated efforts to secure unity, the increasing ob­ jectivity of historical studies in the field of doctrine, as well as the tendency to adopt the distinction between the formal and the material, between the formulation of doctrine and its content, also encouraged a close study of the value of these formulas. Seen as simple philosophical concepts, they are the fruit of the development of human civilisation and have produced much confusion in Christian theology. It is true that doctrinal formulas are conditioned by history, since fallen man no longer talks with God in Eden (Genesis 3, 8ff); so he uses intellectual philosophical categories, being limited as he is by the Law, by authority, by N. CHITESCU 117 society and so on. Nevertheless we should not forget that our Saviour has said “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (Jn. 8, 32). Does this not refer to the possibility of making believers capable of seeing the truth behind the obscurity of the categories of a fallen world which hides it from their eyes (Acts 1, 9)? Should we not believe that Jesus came not to make History absolute, but to sanctify it and to liberate the believer from its determinism, everything being subjected to God, that He might be all in all (1 Cor. 15, 28)? We have here a dynamic process made necessary both by the inexhaustibility of the revealed truth and by the desire of the human spirit to penetrate as far as possible the mysteries on which his eternal happiness depends (Jn. 17,3). We can see this dynamic process at work in the period of the maturation of the truth, of which we spoke earlier, and in the course of which these philosophical terms acquired diverse meanings - and this shows that the holy fathers did not hesitate to give these terms a new meaning or new shades of meaning more adequate to the object of their enquiry, and whose importance increased in direct proportion to their profundity. H.U. von Balthasar has reminded us that Greek thought worked within the framework of nature - essence, and that it was Christianity which added the factor which polarised the two nations, namely, the concept of person (18). In the same context we note that the holy fathers christianised the Platonic notion of paradigms. This imposes certain obligations upon us too. We should no more allow ourselves to be reduced to the role of keepers of archives and museums than did our illustrious predecessors! We cannot encourage the petrification of the human element in the problem of the dogmatic formulas. We too are living bearers of the essential contents of the apostolic Tradition and this Tradition is renewed through us (19). “Yesterday you understood less,” wrote St. Augustine (In Ioann. Tract XIV). “Today you understand more. Tomorrow you shall know far more. The light of God Himself grows in you, just as God himself grows Who remains eternally perfect.” It was in this way that the Synod of Constantinople proceeded, when it left aside the expression “of the essence of the Father”. So too in the case of other Synods, for example, the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Synods. This was how IIS THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW the Synods completed and amplified the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas. This problem was raised and ably discussed at the 1st Orthodox Conference in Athens (eg. by Professor Kartasof) and later at Aarhus. Professor J. Meyendorff who has since been studying the problem, then affirmed, along with others, that “no human word and therefore no definition can claim to express (theTruth) in an exhaustive fashion”. Yet Professor Meyendorff made it clear, too, that “Synodal definitions cannot be revoked without the Church ceasing to be the Church of Christ. They can, however, be completed and reinterpreted, just as the 5th Synod completed and in­ terpreted the Synod of Chalcedon”. Professor Vitalie Borovoi declared that he was fully in agreement that the Orthodox Church can formulate its doctrine afresh. It is tied neither to the Tome of Leo, not to the 12 anathemaa of Cyril. Bishop Emilianos Timiadis (today Metropolitan) has expressed his agreement with Professor Borovoi, because ‘the Church is never the slave of terminology which causes wrong in­ terpretations and misunderstandings.’ Finally Professor John Kormiris suggested a ‘Formula of Concord’ between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonian on condition that the essence of the dogmas was not changed: “The Church, he said, is not obliged to remain rigid and to fight for words and propositions; it has the right to change them, and even to replace them by others, while leaving untouched, i.e. as it is, the essence of the orthodox dogmas, which in any case should remain eternally unchanged.” Summing up its discussion, the Declaration of Aarhus affirmed: “We note that the Synod of Chalcedon (451) can be understood only as reaffirming the decisions of Ephesus (431) and it is clearly understood in the light of the second Synod of Constantinople (553). We have recognised that all the Synods should be regarded as stages of an integral development and that no Synod or document should be studied in isolation” (20). 3. With this we have entered into the well-known chapter of Orthodox dogmatics on the development of dogmas, which becomes directive and normative in the present problem. Orthodox dogmaticians have found difficulty in steering between Scylla and Charybdis, between on the one hand the reality of the development of dogma and the idea of its reformulation, or of Roman Catholic dogmatic “in­ N. CIIITESCU 119 novations” on the other, which they have condemned. This explains why all Orthodox theologians have from the beginning proclaimed the fullness of the Revelation, usually quoting in this sense Vincent of Lerins’ Commonitorium: “Depositum custodi” (1 Tim. 6,20). “Quid est depositum? Id est quod tibi creditum est, non quod a te inventum; quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti; rem non ingenii sed doc- trina, non usurpationis privatae sed publicae traditionis; rem ad te perductam, non a te prolatam; in qua non aucto debes esse sed custos, non institutor, sed sectator, non ducens, sed sequens” (21). There is no need to insist on this invariable aspect of the problem. What seems to us more important is the opposition of these Orthodox dogmaticians to the way in which the development of dogmas is understood in Roman Catholic theology, i.e. as doctrinal innovations without basis in revelation. In this context it has also been denied that there is any dogmatic development whatsoever in Orthodox theology. In this connection reference is made to Nicanor, ar­ chbishop of Odessa, in the last century, who affirmed that the Orthodox Church wholly rejected the theory of dogmatic progress as conceived by the Roman Catholics (in his article “Are hereticalvformulas found in the Latin Church?” Studies.) We also come across this idea in “The statement of faith of the Synod of Constantinople of 1723” as well as in “The Reply of the Eastern Patriarchs to the Encyclical of Pius IX”, iri which it is shown that one of the innovating ideas of the Roman Catholic Church is that of dogmatic progress. In fact, in this Church, “new dogmas entirely unknown previously can appear”. In adopting a position against the doctrinal and canonical innovations of the Roman Catholic Church in his writing Antipapika, Diomede Kyriakos wrote in the same vein, in the last century: “The dogmas of our Church are the dogmas of the ancient Church. Our opponents themselves recognise that the Eastern Church has added nothing to and changed nothing of what was defined by the ancient Synods of the wise fathers...” (22). (There is no need to labour this point, we believe. We shall simply recall that the dogmatician Svetlof described as ‘Scholastics’ all those who are opposed to the idea of development, accusing them of being out of touch with the 120 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW realities of life). It can be stated that, with few exceptions, which do not disprove the general rule, Orthodox theology, Greek, Russian, Rumanian,etc., proclaims that this dogmatic development is a vital necessity for the Church. No Orthodox theologian has omitted this idea; it is im­ possible and it is unnecessary for us to recall them all; we did that twelve years ago in a study we made. We confine our­ selves to recalling a few more precise ideas of a few writers (23). Almost all modern Orthodox theologians set the problem in the context of Aristotelian categories of matter and form, i.e. of content and formulation. The content being the given revelation which does not change but receives a new form in the doctrinal formulation. Some theologians use the Roman Catholic terms dogma implicitum and dogma explicitum, but the sense in which they speak of dogmatic development is clear. It means the formulation of the given revelation in dogma and often, the continual amplification of the dogmatic formulas. Vladimir Soloviev declares that no formula can be ab­ solutely definitive and perfect in a way that requires no further improvement. He takes as his starting point for his thesis the notions of general dogmas and the ‘dogmata implicata’. In the ex­ pressions we shall recognise a perfect similarity with several affirmations made at Athens or at Aarhus; “Although every dogmatic formula is true”, he wrote, “nevertheless... it follows equally from the absolute character of the truths of divine revelation as from the limitation of the human word, which cannot express the infinite truth once and for all and fully in a single formula that no dogmatic formula can be absolutely definitive and complete in a way as to need no improvements, no development, no deepening of formulation and of more precise unveiling, in accord with the develop­ ment and the deepening of the religious conscience in the Church. Such a perfecttioning of dogmas is not their negation but, on the contrary, their affirmation by ultimately greater precision, greater exactitude. This is what has in fact always happened. The Church has always taken this way, remaining unchanged, faithful to itself and to the divine truth, and producing, for example, at the first Synod of Nicea, a for­ mula so simple and, we could say, so primitive: ‘we believe also in the Holy Spirit’. The Church gave this truth an ex­ N. CHITESCU 121 pression indisputedly true but very incomplete which was later completed by the Synod of Constantinople”. Elsewhere he adds: Consequently, if anyone does not like the doc­ trine of dogmatic development, let us speak of the multiple development of Christian truths by the dogmatic decisions of the Universal Church; if the foreign terms ‘Dogma ex- plicitum’ and ‘dogma implicitum’ are not acceptable, then let us avoid these Latin theological terms but let us not reject the distinction, indisputable from the historical standpoint, between dogmas accepted and defined by the whole Church and dogmas which have not yet received a precise ex­ planation from the Church. We shall not deny an ancient indisputable fact on account of new disputable terms” (24). Professor P. Svetlov says much the same thing: “In our time, the religious conscience of the Church has been raised to the level of hitherto unknown assumptions and questions raised by reason and by the Christian conscience. Today Christian thought is no longer satisfied with ancient formulas and definitions which have been outmoded by time, but demands new forms and new ways.” New problems have appeared as well as a number of questions arising not merely from the inner development of the religious conscience but also from objective experiences, from historical events and phenomena of cultural and social life, which £all for clarification or for an authoritative Christian explanation... The development of the Church is not yet over; its doctrine has not yet attained its end... In Vladimir Solovyev’s splendid words “the true dogma is the word of the Church which responds to the Word of God; and when such a response is demanded by the march of history and by the development of the Christian conscience of our time, new dogmas are necessary. A new Synod, an Ecumenical Synod, the 8th, is necessary. What we lack is the union of the Churches” (25). The Greek theologians have offered profound analyses of this process: Zicos Rossis, Mesoloras, Androutsos and Dyovouniotis have important contributions from this stand­ point. The same can also be said of the Roumanian theologians, Comorosan, Olariu and Michalcescu, to mention only those who have departed from among us. We shall content ourselves with citing a passage from Dyovouniotis which seems to me very convincing: The knowledge of faith, he writes, “can never exhaust the infinite 122 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW aspects of the content of the revelation; and yet the knowledge which faithful humanity has of the revealed truth can always grow. And when this knowledge is fully developed, the Church formulates the revealed truth in a more precise way. After the definition of the dogma, the generations of Christians who live by it themselves sub­ sequently deepen it: this is the normal and natural course of the Christian life and cannot be otherwise when there is a real spiritual and theological life” <26). It is unnecessary to add new proofs or new arguments. We merely state that from what we have just recalled we can draw the conclusion which we shall develop at the end, regarding not a change in definitions but their enlargement and amplification; according to the classical formula of Vincent of Lerins: “Sed forsitan dicit alius: “Nullus ne ergo in ecclesia Christi profectus habebitur religionis?” Habetur plane, et maximus. Nam quis ille est tam invidius hominibus, tam exosus Deo, qui istud prohibere, conetur? Sed ita tamen, ut vere profectus sit ille fidei, non permutatie... Crescat igitur oportet et multum vehementerque proficiat tam singulorum quam omnium tam unius hominis quam totius ecclesiae aetatum ac saeculorum gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapentia, sed in suo dumtaxat genere, in eodemque scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia” (27).

III. The Canon: 1. Doctrinal canons and juridical canons; their validity.

As we have recalled, the canons have a doctrinal aspect or a juridical aspect. The number and the extent of canons having a doctrinal aspect is very small, for we find them only in summary in the 1st canon of the 6th Ecumenical Synod and, passim, in the 7th Ecumenical Synod. In particular Synods the doctrinal aspect of canons is reduced to the pronunication of an anathema against the Pelagian heresy in canons 120 to 127 of Carthage. These are practically the only canons which come in the category of doctrinal formulas as described above. The other canons having a strictly juridical aspect have a quite different development from the doctrinal canons. Although the form in which they were issued by the Synods does not distinguish them from others, they are however, in a class apart from the others because they are N. CHITESCU 123 dependent on the tribulations and instability of our human life. But since the problem does not interest us here except from the general standpoint, we recall that some canons of the second category contain directives which are out of date, concerning circumstances outmoded by time (the ‘traditores’, the catechumens, the administrative divisions, ecclesiastical boundaries, etc.); there are others which in­ clude repetitions of previously fixed norms; and others which are substitutions for more ancient canons consequent on on the application of doctrine to life and according to the universally acknowledged juridical principles: “Cessante ratione legis, cessat lex ipsa” and “Lex posterior derogat priori” . In this respect it is significant that in the 9th century the Emperor Basil I published first a collection of ancient laws in 40 books, entitled Prochiron: then another containing 60 books, with the laws actually in force, under the title Ta Basilika (28). By giving the name ‘laws’ both to the horoi and to the kanones, the great Orthodox canonist Nicodemus Milas justified both their destination and their difference as follows, when he wrote: “One part of these laws refers to faith, while the other part refers to ecclesiastical discipline”. The former, called dogmas (dogmata) compound very precisely the truth discovered by them and condemn all heresies directed against this truth. These heresies had already resulted in the Church issuing these laws, well named in the Greek horoi (in the text ora) because the Church does not creat any new dogma, but simply gives fixed and written form to discovered truths by defining them. The dogmatic laws, consequently, are quite un­ changeable. The other laws, i.e. of discipline, or the ec­ clesiastical laws in the strict sense (ekklesiastikoi nomoi, thesmoi, Kanones etc.) give directives for the external life of the members of the Church, as well as for everything needed to maintain ecclesiastical order and to attain the end proposed by the Church. These disciplinary laws are in no sense fixed, but can be changed in accordance both with the needs of the Church and with changes indicated by the social condition of one period or another...” After having mentioned the fact that, in principle, the laws of the Church are obligatory and unchangeable, as canon 2 of the Synod of Trullo and canon 1 of the 7th Ecumenical Synod provided, the 124 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW said canonist goes on to explain as follows the distinction between them: “The obligatory power of ecclesiastical laws, both in respect of the sources and their inner character as well as in respect of the persons and places to which they refer, has different degrees. The laws of faith and morality are absolutely obligatory for all members of the Church at all places and in all times. The directives concerning the faith are based upon Holy Scripture; consequently they are un­ changeable and anyone daring to attack them is immediately excluded from the ecclesiastical community... But the norms concerning the external life of the Church can be changed and have been changed as the life itself of the Church has changed. The Holy Spirit who inspired the fathers when they issued laws in respect of the needs of the Church of a par­ ticular epoch, has not ceased and will not cease to inspire them and when they shall gather in another epoch in the name of Christ to change the existing laws, or to give them other new laws, matching the fresh needs of (he Church. The obligatory power of laws mentioned by the Synod of Trullo and by the 7th Ecumenical Synod, can be counted as con­ ditioned, i.e. as having permanence so long as a legislative body having the same competence to issue ecclesiastical laws as the said two Synods does not appear. Until then, these laws remain obligatory for those who wish to remain members of the Church” (29). As the corpus mysticum Christi the Church is infallible; the Ecumenical Synod is infalliable as a faithful part of this body and as its organ, having responsibility for the defence of the faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Orthodox canonists show that not all decisions of Ecumenical Synods enjoy the infallibility of the Church. Only the dogmatic decisions of the Ecumenical Synods are parts of the divine Tradition, which the Church’s conscience has received, guarded and interpreted, with or without the help of Synods. Only to the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods con­ cerning doctrine can be assigned the infallibility of the Church, and not those decisions with a juridical content concerning passing things, in the conditions of this earthly life. The latter are not part of the apostolic succession, or at least, if they are then only by the intermediary of certain principles more doctrinal than juridical in character. As such the juridical norms are subject to considerable changes since they do not flow from doctrinal truths (30). N. CHITESCU 125 The conclusion seems to me to be clear: Only a small part - that concerning doctrine and morality - comes into the category of doctrinal formulas; the other part, juridical in character, can be changed if need by by an authority equal to that which issued it. We shall complete and detail this con­ clusion in the following section. IV. Horos and Canon: 1. The importance of Ecumenical Synods for Orthodoxy 2. The difference between the ‘horos’ and the ‘canon’. 3. How the Synod of Chalcedon could be received.

1. What is the implication of the last paragraph for the doctrinal formula and the canon? First of all, that neither the horos nor the canon come within the category of eternal immobility, only verbum dei manet in aeternum. Yet we must respect this immobility. It seems to me that the general conclusion to which it forces us is that of a complete and general mobility both in respect of the un­ derstanding of revelation and in respect of the role of Ecumenical Synods and definitions of the faith. For example, in the approach represented by one distinguished theologian who thinks that the non-Chalcedonians will never accept the seven Ecumenical Synods, it has been suggested that the problem of Syrtods should be separated from the problem of definitions and moreover that these definitions themselves should be analysed by making a distinction between their meaning and their formulations, or, to use the Aristotelian categories, between their matter and their form. Examples of this have been offered (in relation to Chalcedon, the role of the 5th Ecumenical Synod and that of Leontiosof Byzantium have been recalled) - showing the freedom, i.e. the possibility and the duty of the Church to reform and to refashion the doctrines of the Ecumenical Synods, in a dynamic process in the direction of man’s transfiguration and not towards his condition of rational and cosmic servitude. Conseqently, the doctrinal formulas are, as has been said, formulas which need to be reinterpreted, in order to apply them to each new period. We should, it has been said, make a distinction between the Church’s message and the philosophical terminology in which it has been clothed and it has been especially emphasised that the Church cannot be confined within words and that it has never 126 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW absolutised any philosophy as such. All this is valid. In the context of these unofficial meetings, in which, in a common, sincere, and - for the most part because we have not had previous meetings - spontaneous effort, to attain the goal of these conversations, we have the opportunity of saying frankly all that we believe to be useful for that goal. At these levels, it is also permissible for us to review our work critically, with the same reciprocal and brotherly respect whose pattern is found in chapter 2 of the Epistle to the Galatians - at a different level of course. In a moment of inspiration Professor Skydsgaard said at Bristol that he believed a cataclysm was needed, an ear­ thquake for example, if the union of the Churches was to be achieved, in other words, something which would make us forget everything so that we might take up everything again from the beginning. During the floods in my country this year, the only thing left of certain buildings in flooded towns or villages was something very significant, a wall, a post. This sole sign was enough for the former inhabitants to begin feverishly to rebuild all that had disappeared; it was an irresistible reminder of the past. The Ecumenical Synods have been discussed; the initiators of the first and the last - the Emperor Constantine and the Empress Irene - were canonised by the Church for this service. The Ecumenical Synods are for the Church a symbol and an appeal. They are a symbol of the victory of the kingdom of heaven. The destructive floods of history have passed over the Christian Church. The Ecumenical Synods remain a symbol of a Christian world with its aspirations, its defeats and its victories. Conciliarity is one of the essential notes of Orthodoxy. Which of us taking part at the Central Committee meeting of the WCC at Canterbury did not understand the sense of Dr. Lukas Vischer’s appeal for conciliarity? It was the supreme tribute to the very spirit of Orthodoxy. Let us not minimise the synodality towards which Orthodoxy addresses itself piously as being towards the exceptional divine - human organ by which its infallibility is expressed, the symbol of unity in charity and saving truth. One of the most brilliant reports presented at Bristol showed the extent to which the last four Ecumenical Synods divide us; but the discussions showed that these Synods divide us very little compared with their contribution to N. CHITESCU 127 unity; that was the affirmation of a distinguished non- Chalcedonian and it can easily be verified from history. There is perhaps a contradiction in the proposal to leave aside the Synods and continue discussions on the dimensions of the doctrinal formula. It seems to help the continuation of our conversations with the desired success; but in acting thus we should abandon the Synod, the sign left permanently behind from the history of Tradition, in favour of a formula which, precisely because it could be changed, could fall into the category of transient things; in other words, it would seem to me that everything would be diminished by diminishing the organ of formulation. 2. We must now turn to the problem; In what sense is a doctrinal formula changeable? It is in this way that we shall understand the point of the words of the Saviour, perhaps applicable also to the destiny of the horos and of the canon or of the synod and of the definition: “It is these you should have practised, without neglecting the others” (Mt. 23, 23). Like the Ecumenical Synods, the doctrinal formulas enjoy the aura of the work of the Holy Spirit in the mystical body of the Lord, accomplished by the ‘envoys’ and by their suc­ cessors, the Bishops, in bearing witness and in preaching the Gospel in the unity of faith and divine life. The definitions of faith also share the paradoxicality of their source, which the ancients called motus immobilis. (We do not insist on the Palamitesense of this expression.) Everyone agrees that the definitions are changeable in one sense and unchangeable in another. It is also clear that our words do not in themselves express our ideas and that it is necessary to penetrate by the spirit into the spiritual ambiance and into the original vision, which gave these words a certain imprint. (In this consensus we could ask the question: Why was the word physis tran­ slated by the word person so that later dio physis could be translated by ‘two persons’? Or why it is that a theologian can speak of two natures in Christ, we can also speak of six natures (chemical, vegetal, animal, rational, angelic, divine) (31). Clearly it is better not to discuss the basis itself of these metaphysical categories, nor to put questions about the procedure, but at the same time we can express a preference, for example for Aristotle and Plato, because they were preferred by the fathers of the primitive period of the Church. 3. But the problem still remains very much before us: In 128 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW what sense can we change a dogmatic definition, i.e. in what sense can we expand it and develop it in this way? Here we should take into account on the one hand the fact that in the category of intensivity the nuances have an infinite value, and on the other hand, that in religion, as in art, it is im­ possible to make an absolute distinction between the form and the content. Once they are formulated, dogmas become fixed and unchangeable, despite the possibility of change in the sense of the words in which they have been formulated. Moreover, not even the outdated canons have been formally abrogated in the Church; still less therefore these ‘horoi’. We are in the Church, i.e. in the domain of the absolute and of the eternal. And yet the Lord himself repents and changes (as for example we read in the prologue to the Book of Judges), yet we always seem to hear his word: “Come no nearer; take off your sandals; the place where you are standing is holy ground” (Exod. 3,5). “Nunc in aeternum s ta t!” . The doxological reception of the Ecumenical Synods in our Church, in accordance with the conviction that the Holy Spirit was at work in them and made the holy fathers His harps to manifest the biblical and traditinal Wisdom, obliges us to reciprocal respect in the presence of these signs of the faith in the two families of our Churches. Professor J. Anastasiou, for example, has recalled in a learned article, the enthusiasm with which those who took part in the Ecumenical Synods are honoured in our Church and that these Synods are regarded by our faithful as the seven pillars of Wisdom and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (33). Yet we have all along emphasised the antinomic development of dogmas. In what sense? We are compelled to do this in the one hand by meditation and the Christian life and on the other hand by the heresies, or as at present by the trend of the whole Christian world towards unity. But this cannot be done by annulling the traditions, particular traditions or Ecumenical Synods. We are all convinced that we have the same faith, but we confess this faith in different concepts. We should try with all our strength to confess this faith in an enlarged formula accepted by all. This aspiration concerns in particular the Synod of Chalcedon and to some extent also, the 3rd'Synod of Constantinople. The others are generally accepted on both sides. N. CHITESCU 129 We must begin the great work ahead of us by maintaining the signs that the Holy Spirit has given us by the holy fathers of the two families of Churches the work namely of enlarging the doctrinal formula of Chalcedon (like that initiated by Leontiosof Byzantium and the 5th Ecumenical Synod or the 1st Synod of Constantinople with the 1st of Nicea) so that it could extend to new aspects of the same truths. These new varied nuances, being provoked sometimes by negative reactions to the past, will enrich the formula of Chalcedon due to the infinite depth of God and to our own never assuaged thirst for the truth. They will doubtless add an­ tinomies in relation to the Veritas recepta, by including within themselves a new contribution under the beneficient action of the Holy Spirit who renews all things. They will signify a step towards the vision of the perfection of the new earth and the new heaven, “the home of justice” (2 Pet. 3, 13) and will make a more adequate dwelling for the heavenly King. “Lift up your heads, you gates, that the king of glory may come in” (Ps. 24, 9). The strict definition of verbal differences on both sides will make possible the practical realisation of this Formula Concordiae of which the eminent Athenian professor, I. Karmiris, spoke about at Aarhus. In view of what we have said above, the problems which are canonicalMn kind, (i.e. juridical) cannot hinder im­ provements in the relations between the two families of our Churches, beginning with the removal of the anathemas, jurisdictional problems and so on through all the difficulties which will arise on the way. The Church has the power - not by abolition and annulment, but by simple replacement, by time limitation, and therefore by improvement - to give itself new juridical rules (32). With this we have answered the question posed in the title: the difference between the horos and the canon affects only in small measure the reception of the Synods of Chalcedon since the two possess the mobility which makes this reception possible - although essentially different. So far as procedure is concerned, several participants in our conversations are dealing with this matter (Verghese, Kormiris, Borovoi etc.), and it must be remembered that it has been laid down in detail by His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in his two Encyclical Letters of June 1965 and June 1966, on the one hand, and by the Addis 130 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Abbaba Assembly on the other. It is assumed that any approach to decisive action on the lines indicated will only be possible in an official framework, which should however be provided with all the necessary materials as well as an adequately prepared atmosphere.

Footnotes 1. For further study of the problem see Prof. K. E. Skyd- sgaard’s “The Hiddenness of God and the Unity of the Church,” in What Unity Implies, Six Essays After Uppsala, 1969 (no. 7, WCC Studies, G eneva). 2. St. Pseudo-Denis the Areopagite, “Theologia Mystica” ; Migne, P.G. Ill col. 997; apud Vladimir Lossky, Essai sur la Theologie Mystique... (Aubier-Paris, 1944) chapter on The Divine Shadows. 3. St. Basil the Great, Adversus Eunomium, I, 6; Migne, P.G. XXIX, col. 521-4, etc. 4. Gregory of Nyssa, De vi*a Moysis, Migne, P.G. XLIV, col. 377. 5. John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, I, 4; Migne, P.G. XCIV, col. 800; A, B. Cf. Rum anian translation by P r. D. Fecioru, Dogmatica, col. “Izvoarele Orthodoxiei” (The Sources of Orthodoxy) (Buc. 1938), p. 12. 6. Vladimir Lossky, op. cit., p. 40. 7. Nicolai Berdiaev, Spirit and Freedom (essai de Philosophie chretienne), (ed. “Je sers”, Paris 1933), p. 109. 8. Karl Barth, The Word of God and the Word of Man (ed. “Je sers”, Paris 1933), p. 196. }). Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I, 2 (La doctrine de la Parole de Dieu, Prolegomenes a la Dogmatique, t. II; traduction par Fernand Ryser, publiee sous la direction de Jacques de Senarclens, Geneve, 1954, p. 29, 30,39, 40). 10. See Canons 7 of the Synod of Ephesus, 331; the pream ble to the Synod of Chalcedon, 451; in this connection see J. Meyendorff, Historical Relativism and Authority in Christian Dogma, in Oecumenica, Annales de Recherche oecumenique, 1968 (D elachaux et Niestle, N euchatel), p. 231ss. 11. See can. 1 of second Ecumenical Synod; canon 2 of third Ecum enical Synod; can. 73, 80 of Synod of Trullo; can. 2 of Synod of Carthage etc. In Nicodem Milas, former Bishop of N. CHITESCU 131

Zara (Dalmatia), Dreptul Bisericesc Oriental (Eastern Church Law). Rumanian translation with the author’s ap­ proval from the 2nd German edition by I. Cornilescu and Vasile Radu, revised by I. Michalescu, Professor in the Theological Faculty (Bucharest 1915), p. 50 n. 9 etc. 12. See in Councils and the Ecumenical Movement, WCC Studies No. 5 (G eneva 1968: W erner Kuppers, Reception - prolegomena to a Systematic Study, p. 90; Junstinian Novels 131, and St. Gregory I (P ope), Synodal Letter of 591, in Migne, P.G. LXXVII, c. 474; cf. also John Anastasion, “What is the Meaning of the Word ‘Ecumenical’ in Relation to the Council?” , p. 33). 13. See John Meyendorff, Historical Relativism and Authority, op. cit. supra, p. 233. 14. The Report of Study Group, in Councils and the Ecumenical Movement, cit. supra, p. 14. 15. Reg. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Le sens commun, - La Philosophie de Petre et les formules dogmatiques, col. Bibliotheque francaise de Philosophie, ed IV-eme (Paris, 1936). 16. Karl Barth, Credo, (English translation) p. 183. 17. Gustave Bardy, “La Latinisation de l’Englise d’oc- cident”, reprinted from Irenikon vol. XIV, (Priory of Amay- on-Meuse, 1937), p. 39. 18. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Kosmische Liturgie, Maximus de Bekenner, Hohe U. Krise der griechischen Weltbildes (F reiburg in B reisgau, 1941) p. 199f. 19. See Professor I. Kartaschoff, Die Freiheit der theologisch-wissenschaftlichen Forschung und die Kir- chliche Autoritat in Proceedings of the First Orthodox Theological Conference, Athens, 1936 p. 183. 20. According to the Documents d’Aarhus, deposited in the archives of the Holy Synod, under the title, Unofficial Con­ sultation between Orthodox Churches (llth-15th August 1964), Pt. II, p. 12; Pt. I, p. 7, p. 33; Pt. II, p. 43. 21. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, PL. vol L. col. 667. 22. Nicanor, Archbishop of Odessa, “Are heretical formulas found in the Latin Church? - Studies”, in the Revue Tserkovna Vedomosti (Ecclesiastical Bulletin) Petersburg, 1888, no. 24, p. 639; in Aurelius P alm ieri, Theologia Dogmatica Orthodoxa Ecclesiae Graeco-Russicae ad lumen catholicae doctrinae examinata et discussa, Vol. 1, THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Prolegomena (Florence 1911), ch. 3, p. 68. The Reply of the Eastern Patriarchs is also found here, p. 71. Diomede Kiriakos, Antipapica (Athens 1893) p. 28, 46; ibid., p. 69. 23. For this part of the paper see my essay on the develop­ ment of dogmas in modern Orthodox theology in the revue Mitropolia Banatului, Metropolis of Banat) 1st anniversary number (Timisoara, 1958) pp. 259-295. 24. Vladimir Soloviev, Works Vol. IV (in R ussian) p. 299, cited from Prof. P. Svetlov, La doctrine chretienne clans un expose apologetique, tr. in French by Professors Serghie Bejan and C.N. Tomescu, Vol. 1 (Kisenev, 1935) p. 281-282, 283-284. 25. Svetlov, op. cit., transl. cited, p. 286-288. 26. ConstantineDyovouniotis,Ofeilonieny apantysis (Athens 1908) p. 154f. and in Frank Gavin, Some Aspects of Con­ tem porary Greek Thought, London 1936, p. 40. 27. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, Migne PL. vol. L col. 667. 28. Nikodem Milas, op. cit supra, p. 56-61, 105; C. Dron, Valoarea actuala a canoanelor (The present value of the canons), doctoral thesis, Bucarest 1928, p. 132-138. 29. Nicodem Milas, op. cit. p. 47-51. 3«. See in Councils and the Ecum enical Movement, p. 71-73, Liviu Stan, Concerning the Church’s Acceptance of the Decisions of Ecumenical Synods. 31. Terenig Poladian, Bishop. The Doctrinal Position of the Monophysite Church, in Ethiopia Observer, 1964, 3, pp. 257- 264, and in Professor Staniloaie, Posibilitatea reconcilierii dogmatice intre Biserica Ortodoxa si Vechile Biserici Orientale, in Ortodoxia, 1965, 1, p. 21 etc. 32. Stan, op. cit. 1. c. p. 74. 33. Prof. John Anastasiou, op. cit. supra 1. c. p. 33. Appendix V

ECCLESIOLOGICAL ISSUES CONCERNING THE RELATION OF EASTERN ORTHODOX AND ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES Fr. Paul Verghese In a perceptive paper presented at the Bristol Con­ versations in July 1967, Professor Gerasimos Konidaris drew attention to the position of the Orthodox Churches in com­ munion with Constantinople on “The Inner Continuity and Coherence of Trinitarian and Christological dogma in the seven ecumenical councils”. What was most interesting in his treatment was the division of the Seven Councils into two parts. Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381) belong to the first part - the latter especially was a positive achievement of the “Greek- Christian” spirit in clarifying the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas. The symbol of the faith is now finalized; no further changes are to be effected. The five later councils including Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451) and the three subsequent ones, belong to a different class. They regard the symbol of the first two councils as unchangeable. Their task is to further elucidate it, not to reformulate the symbol as was finalized in the perfect Greek of St. Gregory of Nyssa in 381. This insight of Professor Konidaris is of central significance for the relation between our two churches. We can all agree that the formulations of Nicea and Con­ stantinople have a unique and final quality which it is safest not to tamper with. These documents were prepared by fathers who are common to our Churches. They were not all necessarily Greeks by ethnic origin or nationality. It is important to point this out. Most of these fathers came from the Churches of Africa and Asia, from what later became the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch. The chief among the fathers of the three councils, Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria and the Cappodocians came from Egypt or Asia Minor. There is no reason to claim that only the Greek church understood 133 134 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW them and their terminology. The literate peoples of Asia and Africa were at least as capable of using Greek terminology as Indians and Americans are capable of using English terminology today. But the more important point is the inviolable character of the formulation of faith of the first two ecumenical synods. Once this point is adequately grasped by the two sides, some of our ecclesiological differences become capable of resolution. Historically speaking the question then is what did the third Ecumenical Council, i.e. of Ephesus (431) do, and what did the Council of Chalcedon (451) do, in relation to the first two councils? In the case of the Third Council, there was a clear heresy against which the council proclaimed itself - that attributed to Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople. The Alexandrian Church led the attack against this heresy as in the case of the Arian heresy more than a century earlier. They condemned Nestorius and the heresy ascribed to him that in Christ there are two distinct prosopa, two distinct persons - one human and one divine. Whether Nestorius taught this or not, it is a heresy, and the Church still con­ demns this teaching. In this sense the decision of the Third Council is of high doctrinal value, and clarifies the creed of Nicea-Constantinople. The case of the Fourth Council seems to be different in several ways. In the first place, the heresy for which the Council of Chalcedon was held in order to combat is still unknown. If it was to condemn the doctrine of Eutychcs, wc neither know what Eutyches taught nor who followed him in his teaching. On the assumption, however, that there was a heretical teaching which held that the human nature of Christ was not consubstantial with ours, or that it was ab­ sorbed by his divine nature, those who accept Chalcedon and those who reject that council agree that Christ is con­ substantial with us in his humanity and that the human nature with all its properties and faculties remains distinct and unabsorbed in Christ. We also agree in condemning Eutyches on the assumption that he denied the double con- substantiality. It is clear that on the non-Chalcedonian side we do not do this on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. It is because our own tradition is authentic and true that we affirm the double consubstantiality and the united divine- FR. PAUL VERGHESE 135 human nature of Christ. We are happy that both those Or­ thodox churches in communion with Constantinople and even our Roman Catholic friends accept this double con- substantiality. In this respect all of us adhere to the one authentic tradition, even when some of us do not accept the council of Chalcedon. This means that for us Chalcedon is not an essential element of the authentic tradition, and as far as we are concerned, other churches can also reject Chalcedon and still be in the authentic tradition. This is not so with the Third Council. The Church of the East rejects the Third Council of Ephesus (431). As a result, Nestorius as well as Theodore and Diodore, whose teachings have been condemned by the authentic tradition, continue to be operative in the church of the East. If the Churches of our non-Chalcedonian family were now to seek communion with the Church of the East, the acceptance of the Third Council, or at least the major teachings of that council, would be a necessary condition. The Theotokos formula and the one prosopon formula would also have to be insisted upon. If these doctrines are accepted, we may not insist on their acceptance of the Third Council, but would find our unity on the basic of the Kerygma of Nicea and Constantinople sup­ plemented by a formal repudiation of the two-prosopa doc­ trine and by the affirmation of the Theotokos formula as well as a Christology of the hypostatic union. This basic difference between the nature of Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451 needs to be further discussed among our churches. The reason why we have not included the Church of the East in these meetings - the only oriental church to be so kept out of our conversations - is simply that there are real Christological differences between both, while among our­ selves we find basic agreement about our Christological positions. It is not inconceivable that extended theological conversations with the Church of the East will reveal that they too affirm the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ, and thereby do in fact affirm the single proposopon, and that Mary was truly the bearer of the God-Man. If this were to be the case, then the Third Council as such need not be an obstacle, though condemnation of those heresies condemned by Ephesus 431 may still be necessary to restore communion between us. It is because some of us have now become convinced that in affirming the two natures of Christ, the Chalcedonian 136 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Orthodox Churches also affirm the hypostatic union and all the “four adverbs”, that we are no longer afraid of pursuing further the possibility of restoring communion between our two families of Churches. Professor Tsonievsky of the Bulgarian church was basically right in referring to “the non-Chalcedonian fear”... “that the Orthodox (i.e. Chalcedonian) Church has departed somewhat from the decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council against Nestorius and that it has introduced certain Nestorian elements into the faith’ll).This fearwas actually there and is only now being dispelled; just as is the fear also on the Chalcedonian side that we who stand firmly on the Three ecumenical councils, in rejecting the council of Chalcedon, were affirming something less than the full human nature in Christ. It is now possible for us to do what Professor Tsonievsky asked us to do, namely that we “must stop accusing the Council of Chalcedon of Nestorianism”, especially if we take Chalcedon as corrected by the Fifth Council and its in­ terpretation of Chalcedon. We can also agree that even the Chalcedonian churches should not separate the Fourth Council from the Fifth. We are not able to say, however, that the Sixth and Seventh Councils of the Chalcedonians are organically or integrally related either to the Fourth and Fifth or to the first three. It was the Fifth Council that could dispel our doubts about the Fourth. For in first refusing to condemn the teachings of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, the Roman church at least among the Chalcedonians gave ground to our suspicion that Chalcedon actually did have some Nestorian implications. It took quite a bit of time for Pope Vigilius to accept the Fifth council. If the Decretal epistle of Vigilius (2) is genuine, the Pope admits he was wrong in defending the Three Chapters. It is such kind of defence of the Three Chapters and of teachers like Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas by a large sec­ tion of those supporting Chalcedon, that made Chalcedon itself suspect. It is also a historical fact that despite the retractions of Pope Vigilius (554/ 555) and the confirmation by his successor Pelagius I of the Acts of the Fifth Council, that council was bitterly opposed in the whole of Northern Italy, in England, France and Spain, and also in parts of Africa and Asia. Milan was in schism until 571 when the Henoticon was published. In Istria the schism continued for a century and a half (3). Even today opinions crop up in FR. PAUL VERGHESE 137 western theological manuals which give rise to fears that Nestorianism is still not quite dead among the western Chalcedonians. The Third Council of Constantinople, called the sixth Ecumenical (680-681), enumerated in its decree and “piously gave its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods”. This decree also specifies the particular heresy or heretic against which each council is convened: Chalcedon was against “Eutyches and Dioscurus, hated of God”, while the Fifth Council was against “Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistile... by Ibas”. We were not there, the non-Chalcedonians. If we were, we would probably have liked to find out what was the heresy of “Dioscurus, hated of God”. Until we find out, there can be no question of our accepting the sixth council as being in any sense in the right tradition. The condemnation of Didymus and Evagrius must be for their Origenism. That is a question which we need to examine further. There is a whole series of people condemned by the sixth council for their supposedly Monothelete views - Theodorus of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Pope Honorius, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch and Stephen. They are accused of affirming “one will and operation in the two natures of Christ our true God”. I am not sure which is the true heresy to which these men adhered - that of “ two natures” or of “one will and operation”. Their heresy is regarded as being “similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus and Themistius”. Putting Apollinaris and Severus in the same bracket shows how little their thought was understood by the sixth synod. Themistius of Alexandria on the other hand so strongly affirmed the humanity of Christ as to at­ tribute ignorance of certain matters to the human soul of Christ. If acceptance of the Sixth council thus means our agreeing to condemn Dioscurus and Severus, who are true teachers of the Authentic tradition, then we must choose the two fathers mentioned in preference to the Sixth council which appears to us badly muddled, not to say in grievous error. Its horos or dogmatic definition we find interesting. The first part of this horos reads: “Our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be very God and very man, one of the holy and 138 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human body subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages according to his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation made man of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the same Christ our Lord, the only- begotten Son, of two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly to be recognized, the peculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each nature being preserved, concurring in one Person and in one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, according as the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath instructed and the creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us.” This we find basically acceptable, though not as a formula of confession like or instead of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan pistis. The second part is of a different kind, and needs separate examination. “We likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations, indivisibly, in- convertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father w'hich sent m e! ” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: ‘His will (i.e. the Saviour’s) is FR. PAUL VERGHESE 139 not contrary to God but altogether deified.’ “We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, im­ mutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: “For each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh. “For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.” Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is ex­ pressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome “the pillar of the right faith”. You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion bet­ ween us. But we can not in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as “the pillar of the right faith” or accept a council which made such a declaration. The council approves ex­ plicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo “Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh” (4). If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument in the horos of this Sixth council is basically unacceptable to us. The reason it gives for not admitting one natural operation in Christ which is both divine and human, proceeding from the divine and human natures of the same hypostasis, is that they would “not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor... bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature”. One can understand the first part of this objection, though not the conclusion drawn from it. The creature is not to participate in the divine ousia, but only in the uncreated energeia of the Divine essence. But in Jesus Christ, man the 140 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW creature is united to the divine person or hypostasis. If we deny that, we are not Christians. The operation of the in­ carnate Logos is a divine-human energeia and we cannot say that it was only the flesh or the human nature that was crucified. They crucified the Lord of Glory. What is the point of saying: “We will not bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature”, unless the Sixth council wanted to deny the incarnation itself? It seems to us that the Sixth council was much more based on the Tome of Leo than on the writings of St. Cyril. Where it is based on Cyrilline teaching, it is acceptable, as for example, where it says both the miracles and the sufferings were performed by one entity, Christ our true God who became man. We are unable to say what this council says when it affirms “two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him”. We are not sure that “each nature wills and does the things proper to it”, for we believe that it is the hypostasis of Christ who wills and operates through his divine-human nature. The natures have no subsistence of their own apart from the hypostasis who operates in both natures. We would thus prefer to speak of the one incarnate natureof the Logos, both divine and human natures united in the one hypostasis of the Logos,with a divine-human will and operation. * * * To sum m arise: Acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon. The following are the chief reasons: a) Quite apart from the fact that our own fathers were not present at this council, we observe that this council explicitly and unjustifiedly condemns our fathers Dioscurus and Severus, and calls the former “hated of God”, and the doc­ trine of the latter “mad and wicked” (5). b) We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, at­ tributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and un­ confused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord. c) We find that this Sixth council exalts as its standard mainly the teaching of Leo and Agatho, popes of Rome, paying only lip-service to the teachings of the Blessed Cyril. We regard Leo as a heretic for his teaching that the will and FR. PAUL VERGHESE 141 operation of Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ rather than to the one hypostasis. The human nature is as “natural” to Christ the incarnate Word as is the divine. It is one hypostasis who now is both divine and human, and all the activities come from the one hypostasis. We therefore insist on the one theandric nature, will and energy of Christ the Incarnate Lord, and condemn the teachings of Leo. We cannot therefore accept the horos of the Sixth council based on the teachings of Leo. This subject of course deserves further and more detailed study.

CONCLUSION

This paper has been written subject to correction by my learned brethren on the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian sides. Its implications are quite serious. If the restoration of communion between our two families of Churches were to be dependent on our acceptance of the four councils now rejected by the non-Chalcedonian family, then we have little reason at present to hope that this condition can be fulfilled. If this is the conditio sine qua non in the minds of theologians on the non-Chalcedonian side, we would like to be told so, in order that we may communicate this to the holy synods of our churches and await further instruction from them as to whether we continue our bi-lateral conversations. My own view would be that we should so continue, because despite our basic disagreement on this point of the four councils, we do still have so much in common, and we have a significant contribution to make together as Eastern Orthodox Churches to the world-wide ecumenical discussion. On the other hand, if we take seriously the valuable in­ sight of Professor Konidaris, that the formulations of the First and Second Councils are of a decisive character, and later councils are to be seen only as exegetical to the meaning of the faith of Nicea and Constantinople, then it is possible for us to recommend to our parent churches to begin formal conversations with a view to restoring communion between our two families. The following is prof erred as a basis or starting point for such conversations: 1. In a substantially common statement, to be formally declared by the Holy Episcopal Synods of all the auto­ cephalous churches, with any necessary changes to suit the condition of each Church, we should state clearly that we 142 T1IE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW share, between our two families, substantially the same authentic tradition of the undivided Christian church in relation to our understanding of and teaching on the Blessed and Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the procession and activity of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Church and the place of the blessed Virgin Mary, the saints and all the faithful departed in it, the nature of the ministry and sacraments in the Church, and our expectation of the world to come with the advent in glory of our Lord and the resurrection of the dead. 2. This common statement would also include a page on our common Christology, emphasizing mainly those things which we have in common, but also speaking of our different formulations in regard to nature, will and energy in our Lord Jesus Christ. It would be stated that variety in forms of worship, language and culture, and in formulations of faith can within certain prescribed limits serve to enrich rather than impoverish the common tradition of the church. 3. The statement would also make clear that while it is not possible for the Chalcedonian Churches to repudiate or reject any of the seven councils, it is equally difficult for the non- Chalcedonians now to formally accept the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh councils recognized by the Chalcedonian family. It could be made clear that the non-Chalcedonians would refrain from formally condemning either the council of Chalcedon or Pope Leo. The statement will also make clear that the Chalcedonian churches would refrain from con­ demning Dioscurus and Severus as heretics. It could also be made clear that our two families agree in condemning the teachings of both Nestorius and Eutyches as heretical. 4. The statement would also say that at least for the time being, the jurisdictions would remain distinct on the basis of the different liturgical traditions, e.g. the two Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, as well as of Constantinople could continue with their different jurisdictions. The hope should be expressed in the statement that as mutual confidence grows between the various liturgical traditions a reorganization of the jurisdictions would become possible. Clear assurances can be given to certain churches that en­ tering into communion with another church will not violate its administrative or jurisdictional integrity. * * * FR. PAUL VERGHESE 143 The next immediate step is the appointment of a Joint Commission by the two families, who will meet officially and work out the statement along the suggested lines. The standing committee of the Oriental Orthodox Churches has already been so authorized to act on behalf of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. As soon as similar action is announced by the churches of the Chalcedonian family, we could proceed to the convening of a joint meeting of the two com­ missions. One of our jobs here at the present meeting would be to prepare an agenda for the joint meeting, and to nominate a small group of people who will be prepared to assist in the organization of the joint meeting. I even venture to suggest that the first meeting of the Joint Commission should be held in January 1971 in Addis Ababa.

F ootnotes 1. Bristol Report p. 179 2. Patrologia Latina (Migne) Tome LXIX Col. 122 sqq. 3. See note in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume XIV, p. 323. 4.“agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est; Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et carne exequente quod carnis est.” 5. Severus is'also called “God-hated” in the letter of the Sixth Council to the Pope Agatho. Appendix VI

ECCLESIOLOGICAL ISSUES INHERENT IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN EASTERN CHALCEDONIAN AND ORIENTAL NON-CHALCEDONIAN CHURCHES

J. D. Zizioulas I

The previous two unofficial consultations between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Theologians (Aarhus, 1964 and Bristol, 1967) have shown that considerable progress has been made towards a better understanding of the theological problems which have divided the Eastern Chalcedonian and the Oriental non-Chalcedonian Churches for so many cen­ turies. This progress is noteworthy especially insofar as it concerns fundamental Christological issues on the basis of which the separation of the two Churches has taken place and has been sustained for centuries. When one reads the minutes of the discussions at Aarhus, one is struck by the growing and unreserved enthusiasm of the participants in these discussions, as they discover that many of the basic dif­ ferences in Christology, traditionally known as the reasons for separation, must be attributed to misunderstandings and that a remarkable measure of agreement has been discovered. This agreement is confirmed and clarified further at the Bristol meeting which discussed not only the fifth and sixth century Christological issues but also those aspects of Christology which have been underlined by the controversies concerning the two wills of Christ, and on which essential agreement was also discovered and proclaimed at this meeting (l). At the same meeting it was also felt that not only in Christology but also in matters which have not been studied particularly but were simply discussed in passing, such as anthropology, spirituality, liturgical life and the concept of the Church, the same measure of agreement seemed to exist (2). With this discovery of theological agreement in mind the participants in the Bristol meeting felt that “it is a first priority for our Churches to explore with a great sense of 144 J.D. ZIZIOULAS 145 urgency adequate steps to restore the full communion bet­ ween our Churches, which has been sadly interrupted for centuries” (3). The basis of such a restoration of full com­ munion would be “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” (4). Such a formula would not have the status of a confession of faith or of a creed and should be approved officially by the Churches (5). It is undoubtedly right to seek the restoration of full communion between divided Christians on the basis of agreement on fundamental theological issues especially as these issues affect our salvation. But while this is true, this agreement should not be conceived in isolation from the entire life of the Church as it is expressed not only theoretically by the theologians but practically by the actual congregations, above all in their eucharistic life. The development and spread of confessionalism in the last centuries has led even the Orthodox to regard the differences between divided Christians as being mainly matters of theological or strictly speaking doctrinal disagreement, and to think of re-union as the automatic result of an agreement on these issues. This confessionalistic approach to the problem of healing existing schisms is basically in­ compatible with 'Orthodoxy. Genuine Orthodox tradition never allowed an understanding of the Church in confessional terms. Confession of faith in any form, written or oral, through creeds or through teaching and preaching, is only part of the reality of the Church, and receives its full and proper meaning only if it is placed in the contest of the living Church. In this context confession of faith becomes Homologia not just in the sense of a theological formulation of faith but of martyria which involves the Church’s life at its best, as it is expressed in the Holy Eucharist (6). This ecclesiological principle affects the methodology of healing schisms in a fundamental way. Achievement of re­ union is not to be sought primarily through dialogue and negotiations of a confessional character. Sometimes such a dialogue may not bear fruit at all, and yet understanding and growth towards unity may develop through other channels of Church life. And even when such confessional dialogue does prove to be fruitful, unity should not and cannot be based simply on the results of such a dialogue. Schism and division 146 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW do not affect only the Church’s teaching. Even if a schism begins with confessional disturbance, it always affects much more deeply and widely the reality of the Church. The necessity, therefore, of looking into the broader reality of the Church in order to see in what way it has been essentially affected by division, is inescapable in every at­ tempt at healing a schism on the basis of Orthodox ec- clesiology. We should bear in mind that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches have not simply been in disagreement on matters of Orthodox faith but in a state of schism. This is a very harsh reality, much harsher than any disagreement on issues of doctrine. The roots of this reality are deep and complicated and call for a very careful and delicate treatment of the problem. In the lines that follow an attempt will be made to point out some of these complicated issues which are rooted in our schismatic situation. These issues will be placed in the light of Orthodox ecclesiology and tradition to see in what way they should be treated in order to bring us nearer to the healing of schism. Many, if not all, of these issues have already been mentioned at the Bristol Consultation as problems to be dealt with mainly on the practical level (7). The present paper is based on the assumption that these issues are far from being minor matters of practical arrangements, which should simply follow the great achievement of a common formula of faith. They represent real ecclesiological issues the discussion of which may prove to be so difficult at points as to lead to an impasse. We must, I think, be prepared to face such an impasse wherever it oc­ curs and not try to heal a schism disregarding the ec­ clesiological implications of the measures we take.

II Schism takes effect between two Churches when a break occurs in communio in sacris. Such a break, however, does not refer simply to the act of taking Holy Communion from the same Altar. This particular act of taking Holy Com­ munion is only a detail, essential of course and of the highest importance, yet not the whole thing that makes up the reality of Eucharistic communion. Eucharistic communion is not simply an act, and the Body of Christ in which we partake through this communion is not simply an objective thing J.D. ZIZIOULAS 147 lying on the Holy Altar. The meaning of this communion as expressed by St. Paul calls our attention to a reality broader than this objectified Holy Sacrament: “The cup of blessing which we bless is it not a communion (koinonia) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not a communion of the Body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (I Cor. 10,16-17). Eucharistic communion, placed in this perspective of St. Paul, is not only communio in sacris but also and at the same time communio sanctorum. The Early Church was from the beginning deeply conscious of this fact which decisively influenced her whole life and structure (8). Every schism affects in one way or another this com­ munio sanctorum. This was dramatically indicated in the Early Church by the practice of the crossing out from the Diptychs of the Liturgy, which took place whenever a schism occurred, and of the restoration in the same Diptychs of the names crossed out, after the schism was healed. The schism between Rome and the Eastern Patriarchates which took place in the early years of the fifth century because of the well-known events in the life of Chrysostom started with the crossing out of Chrysostom’s name from the Diptychs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. The first act of healing this schism took place in Antioch when its Patriarch Alexander restored again the name of Chrysostom in the Diptychs in A.D. 413, i.e. even while Chrysostom was no longer alive. The importance which was attached to this act by the Early Church in connection with schism was so great that during the Acacian schism the Pope included in the well- known “Formula Horsmidae” anathemas not only against Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Acacius, etc. but also against the successors of Acacius (Fravitas, Euphemius and Macedonius) not because of heresy but for the reason that they had kept Acacius’ name in the Diptychs of Con­ stantinople. The schism would be healed only when there was full identity between the Diptychs of Rome and those of Constantinople. The meaning of the Diptychs cannot be understood outside the context of ecclesiology. Membership in the Church is in the last analysis communion not only with Christ but also with the “saints”, i.e. with the community of the Church as a whole (9), including those “saints” that have already departed from this life. This communion is expressed in the 148 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Eucharist with the commemoration of the heads of the various communities in the Anaphora right after the con­ secration when the celebrating bishop’s name is “in the first place” mentioned aloud. The earliest form of such a com­ memoration in the ancient liturgies, namely the expression: “Remember, oh Lord, in the first place every Orthodox bishop” (10), indicates that all local communities are taking part in each Eucharist with all the saints, living and departed. The Eucharist is thus a real synodos of the Church of God (11) gathered together “from the ends of the earth”, as the Didache saw it from early times (12). An oclusion from this company of the saints by means of crossing out certain names from the Diptychs is thus to be understood ec- clesiologically and not as a mere disciplinary act. The gravity which the ancient Church attached to anathema lies precisely in the view that in each Eucharistic celebration the entire communion of the saints participates in God’s Kingdom and an exclusion from this communion means a break of deep ecclesiological, soteriological and even eschatological significance (13). This ecclesiological view to which, I am sure, both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox firmly adhere, shows that full communion in the Eucharist cannot be conceived without a complete identity in the communion of the “saints”. The “saints” in the Orthodox tradition are not to be understood independently of their participation in the communio sanc­ torum. The original New Testament notion of the “saints” (plutal) should not be lost when one thinks of a particular “saint” (in the singular). The notion of “saint” is basically ecclesiological. There is no “canonization” of an individual on the basis of personal merits. The idea of “m erit” is foreign to Orthodox tradition, and so is the practice of “canonization”. A saint is with the guidance of the Holy Spirit recognized as such by the Church’s consciousness and is singled out from the “saints” not in order to become ob­ jectively something in himself, but to serve as a point of reference to the communio sanctorum and through and in that to God in Christ for each member of the Church as he struggles in this fallen world to find and maintain his relationship with God. In this way the particular saints become signs of and for the glory of God in this world not in their individual capacity but in the context of the communio sanctorum in which all the participants in the eucharistic J.D. ZIZIOULAS 149 communion become “saints”, thanks to their communion with the “One holy, one Lord, Jesus Christ”, as the Church sings before Communion. The problem, therefore, in every schismatic situation is not whether a certain person recognised by the one and not by the other of the separated parties as a saint really is a saint taken individually in himself. It is of no relevance in such a situation to examine whether, for example, Dioscorus or Francis of Assisi or Bernard of Clervaux, are really “saints”. In a schismatic situation, such as that of the Eastern Orthodox with the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, these persons are not actually called “saints” by the Eastern Orthodox, not because they lack “sanctity” as individuals (this, I repeat, is not the understanding of a saint by the Orthodox tradition in any case) but simply because - and this proves, I think, the point I have been trying to make here about the definition of “saint” - these “saints” do not form part of the communio sanctorum in which the Eastern Orthodox participate eucharistically. A “saint” is in this view a relational term; it ceases to exist as soon as the relationwhip is broken. If we express this view about the “saints” in more practical terms taken from the concrete situation which exists between the Eastern and the Oriental Churches, the ecclesiological issue behind this situation becomes clear. The separation of the two Churches took place at a time when the Church, having found herself in the turmoil caused by heretical teachings, singled out from among her members doctors of the Church whom she proclaimed saints, because of the decisive guidance they offered to the Church at that critical time. But precisely because the criterion of Or­ thodoxy was the prevailing one, each party which was produced by divisions on issues of Orthodoxy tended to declare as saints those people anathematised by the opposite party on grounds of what was taken to be heresy. Thus the issue passed from the doctrinal to the eucharistic and ec­ clesiological level. Dioscorus who was anthematised by the Chalcedonian side was considered to be a saint by those who rejected Chalcedon and Leo of Rome who was anathematised by the anti-Chalcedonian party became a saint for the Chalcedonians. As a consequence of that the members of the communities of each side communicate eucharistically and ecclesiologically with saints excluded and anathematised by 150 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW the other side. How can they communicate at the same Altar in such a situation? In the Early Church this problem did not present special complications. This was due to the fact that schisms did not usually last so long as to produce the problem of “saints” in the form we are facing it now. Moreover, the usual way of healing a schism was at that time through repentence: those who repented were obliged to renounce their party entirely and this would implicitly include at least those who had been anathematised by their opponents. In later times when, for example, Oriental Orthodox joined the Roman Catholic Church in the form of Uniatism the same principle was more or less applied: Persons regarded among the Orientals as saints who happened to be anathematised by the Roman Catholic Church had to be renounced and excluded from the list of saints of the Uniate Churches. But the way of repentance was not the only way of healing schisms in the Early Church. Some times negotiations and discussions would lead to clarifications and to final agreement between two parties, as we see, for example, in the case of the Melitian schism in the fourth century. In such a case there would be no particular dificulty in restoring full communion, as the persons involved in the division, both living or departed, who were once thought to be heretics, were no longer regarded as such. The passing from the status of heretic to that of merely schismatic, or rather the un­ derstanding that heresy did not really exist, as happened in the case of the Melitian schism, is certainly different from cases which require repentance. With this rather generalised and simplified distinction in the background, which was nevertheless firmly grounded in the tradition of the Early Church, the following categories of people involved in con­ demnations and needing in one way or another rehabilitation by both parties in the communio sanctorum before full communion might be restored could be distinguished in the history of the Early Church: (a) Persons not officially condemned or anathematised but nevertheless not easily acceptable in the consciousness of the Church of the one party, mainly for psychological reasons. Such is the case, for example, of Theophilus of Alexandria who is revered as saint in the Oriental Churches but regarded and described in the Eastern Orthodox Synaxaria as a very bad person connected with and even J.D. ZIZIOULAS 151 responsible for persecutions against persons recognised as saints in these Synaxaria (14). (b) Persons who are found to belong to the party con­ demned but who are as individuals nevertheless acceptable or even recognised as saints by the opposite party. Such is the case of deeply revered in the Oriental Churches especially among the Copts, “St. Shenouda” : “who was the successor of St. Pachomius in Thebais. One could assume that the reason he was not recognised as saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church was that he happened to die after the Council of Chalcedon. A case, on the other hand, of a person recognised even as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Churches (although he probably belonged to a party officially condemned, namely that of the Nestorians) is notably that of St. Isaac the Syrian, bishop of Ninive in the late seventh century. One may argue, of course, that we do not know enough to judge this case with certainty, but there is good reason to believe that this great spiritual father, so deeply revered in the Eastern Orthodox monastic tradition, was living in an area com­ pletely Nestorian where no possibility for his belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church seems to have existed and was elevated to the episcopate by a Nestorian Patriarch (15). (c) Persons revered as saints by one party but condemned by the other not for reasons of heresy. Anathematisation for reasons other than heresy was not unknown in the Early Church. Schism itself, regardless of the orthodoxy of doc­ trine, was considered to be equal to or perhaps more serious than heresy, and to justify the highest punishment, as we observe throughout the Novatianist and the Donatist con­ troversies. In the case of the Oriental Churches this could apply to Dioscorus who - there is good historical reason to believe - was not condemned for heresy but for different reasons. Dioscorus is regarded as saint in the Oriental Churches. Finally, (d) persons condemned by one of the parties for reasons of heresy but regarded by the opposite party as saints. The most typical examples of this case in the relations between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches are those of Leo I or Rome, who is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church but condemned in the Oriental Churches, and Severus of Antioch who was condemned for heresy by the Councils recognised by the Chalcedonian Churches and revered as a great saint in the Oriental Churches. 152 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW What can be said about these categories in the light of the ecclesiological principles, common both to the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox? It is fairly clear to me that of these categories (a) and (b) do not present unsurmountable dif­ ficulties. In the case of (a) the new psychological climate, which will have to be allowed to develop between the two parties after a common agreement on faith is announced to the people will lead to a positive re-consideration of these persons who could be regarded as local saints. Saints are in most of the cases in the Orthodox Church persons connected with a particular local community and revered especially by this community. Of course, each local community should be understood only in full unity with the rest of the communities in the world, and in this sense all saints belong to the one Catholic Church regardless of their particular association with a local community. This unity can be maintained without an expressed recognition of the saints of each community by the rest. It is enough for this unity to be maintained, if there are no serious reasons for one com­ munity to reject the saints of another. The same principles can be applied also with regard to persons under category (b ) above. The case is, of course, much more difficult with regard to categories (c) and (d). The difficulty arises from the fact that these persons have been explicitly anathematised by one of the two parties and nothing can be done unless these anathemas are lifted by the party which has imposed them or admitted also by the opposite party. The primary question, therefore, in a case like this is: If the one party is not willing to admit the anathemas imposed on it by the other party, on what grounds could these anathemas be lifted? The broader question which lies behind this is un­ doubtedly that of the authority of Tradition. It is true that respect for tradition is deeply rooted in the consciousness of the Orthodox. On the other hand a careful study of the history of the Church shows that a distinction between Tradition and traditions (23) has always been maintained and applied so that the ultimate question in our case would be to what extent the anathemas with which we shall have to deal are tied up with the Tradition of the Church. It is not possible in this brief paper to enter into a detailed discussion of each case. This will have to be done by a Commission at some time when the negotiations between the J.D. ZIZIOULAS 153 two parties reach the official level. Our purpose here is to point out the issues and try to underline their ecclesiological dimensions. In so doing we may make the following general observations: In the first place a clear distinction must be made bet­ ween the facts of the anathemas and the intention of the Councils which imposed them. If in the consultations so far it has been possible to distinguish the juridical and “factual” aspects of Chalcedon from the faith which it indented to proclaim and if in fact the entire progress of the discussions has been based on this distinction, could one not apply the same principle to the question of these anathemas? If per­ sons have been anathematised on the basis of a misun­ derstanding of each other’s doctrine could they not be restored when the real intention of the Council is recovered and agreement is reached upon it? This principle of distinction should be studied in close connection with that of the distinction between the “Horos” and the “Canons” of a Council. Other members of this con­ sultation have undertaken to tell us about the extent and significance of such a distinction in Orthodox Tradition. Their views can help us here clarify the question: To what extent can the Church in dealing with past anathemas treat in a special way (a) anathemas imposed for reasons other than heresy (canonical?) and (b) anathemas imposed for doctrinal views which are no longer considered to have been held by these persons? In dealing with this question, however, we should not forget again that our very concept of Tradition is at stake. This becomes evident in a dramatic way when we consider, for example, the case of a person like Severus of Antioch. The treatment which Severus has received in Eastern Orthodox tradition goes far deeper into this tradition than his original anathematisation seems to indicate. The sixth Ecumenical Council puts him side by side with Apollinaris and calls him “impious” (a very strong expression which was linked not with behaviour but with orthodox faith). If we manage to free Severus from heretical accusations - a matter not so easy to agree upon at first sight - how can he be accepted to our common communion without clear implication on the part of the Eastern Orthodox that the sixth Ecumenical Council to which they adhere so firmly has in fact been in blunt error with regard to Severus? And if we manage to agree that 154 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Dioscorus has been condemned not for heresy but for reasons of behaviour - a matter much easier to agree upon - how can we free him from his anathemas without implying that the same sixth Ecumenical Council by calling him “hated of God” and putting him next to Eutyches, has in fact been in erro r? Such kind of difficulties coming up in dealing with anathemas and saints reveal the importance which our concept of Tradition bears in this whole matter. The real issue which is behind all this and which seems to have im­ portant ecclesiological implications is one which we might initially call the problem of traditional minimalism. Could we accept the possibility that what constitutes our Tradition can be reduced to a minimum and if so, what are the limitations of this? Is it enough to say that we accept only part of what constitutes the Tradition of a Church in order to have communion with this Church? Or does our refusal to accept the other part of this Tradition (e.g. the sixth Ecumenical Council) mean in fact that we refuse to enter into full communion with those who accept it? Nothing illustrates the ecclesiological importance of this question so much as the problems raised by the anathemas and the saints in our particular case here. All this shows that the difficulties with which we are confronted on the ecclesiological level have to do to a great extent with the authority of Tradition in our Churches. This authority seems to precede the issue of canonical authority, i.e. the question of defining w ho or what organ in the Church is entitled to decide on such matters. For even if we find such an organ in, for example, what is regarded by some to be the highest authority in Orthodoxy, namely the Ecumenical Council, would our concept of Tradition allow us to expect from such a Council a repudiation or even correction of a previous Ecumenical Council? And if not, is it not perhaps of primary importance to decide first on what we mean by Tradition? Orthodoxy is by nature traditional. Yet it is an open question as to what extent this devotion to Tradition precludes adaptation of this Tradition to the particular needs and demands of historical change.

Ill

Another area of Church life which is affected by schism is J.D. ZIZIOULAS 155 that known by the term jurisdiction. This term is loaded with juridical meaning, and when one thinks of jurisdiction it is this juridical meaning which comes immediately to mind. In fact, however, this aspect of the Church’s life should not be understood apart from ecclesiology. The principles which determine jurisdiction in the Orthodox Church are to be found in ecclesiology. The simplest overall principle in that case is that within a certain geographical area - originally the city and sub­ sequently the diocese - the people of God should form a unity, represented by the original one eucharistic assembly under the one bishop surrounded by the presbyters. This bishop would be assisted by the deacons and “the whole Church” (Rom. 16, 23) of that area would be included. This principle was so deeply rooted in the consciousness of the primitive Church that in sources such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch it is this principle which leads to the application of the term “Catholic Church” to the local community (16). This understanding of the local Church as the “Catholic Church” continues well into the fourth century as the existing sources clearly indicate (17). The meaning of this principle is indeed most profound. The basic idea behind it is that the Church of God in her historical existence cannot ignore the realities created by the differences of culture or even nature (climatic conditions etc.) and there she cannot be conceived in abstracto but rather as a local Church bearing the characteristic marks of that particular geographical area. The Church on the other hand, in accepting these historical conditions, does so only in order to in fact transcend them in the unity that is inherent in herself, by bringing all these natural and cultural par­ ticularities up to God in the unity of the one Body of His Son, of the one people of God, just as she does in each eucharistic celebration. The uniqueness of the Eucharist as an ex­ pression of the Church’s unity lies precisely in the fact that it takes on the one hand all the realities of historical existence, without ignoring or rejecting them in a pietistic manner, while on the other hand it transcends them in such a way as to prevent them from being what they are in historical existence, namely elements of division. The geographical or territorial principle, which prevailed therefore in the life of the Early Church is one of the profoundest aspects of ec­ clesiology. 156 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW The practical expression of this principle was to be found in the Early Church as stated in the following facts : (a) There should be no more than one eucharistic assembly in each local community. This assembly was originally presided over by the bishop or “by whomsoever he would appoint” (18). When this became impossible to maintain later on due to practical reasons (mainly the in­ crease of the number of Christians) and the parishes ap­ peared as eucharistic gatherings headed by presbyters, care was taken in many highly significant ways (Fermentum, Antimension etc.) so that this unity of the one Eucharist in each local community of which St. Ignatius speaks be respected and maintained. Important aspects of this ec­ clesiological principle were also indicated by the fact that the Eucharist would never be celebrated in the Early Church by individuals (cf. the medieval and modern practice of the “private Mass” in the West) or for groups of people on the basis of their age, profession etc. (No special Eucharists for “children” or “students”, for example!). The eucharistic assembly was regarded as the catholic act par excellence of the Catholic Church in each territory. (b) There should not be more than one bishop in each city or diocese. This is explicitly stated by the eighth canon of I Nicaea, but its roots go deeply into the ecclesiological con­ sciousness of the Early Church. The function of the bishop was precisely to unite in himself the various elements inherent in the local community’s historical existence so that these elements might be transcended and become one in the Body of Christ, just as happens in the Eucharist of which he was the natural president. It was for this reason that not only the existence of a second bishop in the same area was regarded as a sign of schism (19) and therefore unacceptable in the Early Church, but it was also taken that each bishop was inevitably related to a particular territory by his very ordination (20) and never to a special group of people (students, armed forces, etc.) or to a special function (social service etc.) The concern behind this was deeply ec­ clesiological: the catholicity of the Church in each area takes into account and yet transcends the differences created by historical existence. If this is the case in an ecclesiologically normal situation, how should the Church face the abnormalities created by schisms? What, in other words, could the Church do in trying J.D. ZIZIOULAS 157 to heal a schism which has affected this jurisdictional principle? The problem was one of the most frequent in the Early Church and we may consider some examples from that time. The strictest way of facing the problem was never to admit at all a schismatic bishop into the ministry of the Church even if he had repented and returned. The creation and perpetuation of schism was considered to be one of the gravest offences and, as was common in all such offences repentance would allow one to communicate in the Church as a layman but not as an ordained minister. We have abundant evidence of the application of this strict discipline, for example, at the time St. Cyprian (21). This rule, however, was not without exceptions. From this same time of St. Cyprian we know for example that one of the promoters of the Novationist schism was accepted in the Church with the status of presbyter which he had had before. A condition of this, of course, was that he repented and that his acceptance was decided by a council (22). But whether the schism was healed through repentance of the one party or through common agreement following negotiations - the latter was also known in the Early Church as we have already indicated - the principle which was maintained with a striking persistence was that after the restoration of unity there should be not more than one bishop in the same city or diocese. An example of application of this principle in case of reunion through repentance is provided by the history of Donatism. When the Council of 313 met in Rome under Miltiades to deal with Donatism outside Africa it was faced with the question of the status of those Donatist bishops which were acquitted. The decision was remarkably lenient as it provided that all Donatist bishops - except Donatus and his ten colleagues who were ordered not to return to Africa - would retain their status as bishops. When, however, this would produce two bishops in the same diocese, only he who had seniority in episcopal ordination should keep the see; for the other alia plebs (diocese) regenda should be found (23). I Nicaea in dealing with the Novationists was somewhat stricter, but when it came to the question of two bishops in the same diocese this was solved by allowing the ex-Novationist bishops to act as “chorepiscopoi” so that there would not be two bishops in the same city” (Canon 8). Another example of maintaining this principle with the same 158 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW strictness, is provided by the case of the Melitian schism which had to be dealt with by I Nicaea with particular reference to the problem of the status of the Melitian clergy. The Synodical letter which is preserved by Socrates (24) provides that the Melitian bishops should keep their episcopal status but not exercise it until the see became vacant. Only after such a vacancy occurred could they be considered as the natural candidates for succession to that see. These examples can be multiplied, but the point has become by now quite clear: Full communion for the Early Church meant also the integrity and oneness of what is now called “jurisdiction”. If this practice of the Early Church had the deep ecclesiological significance which was mentioned here earlier, it is obvious that it represents something more than a mere historical situation. The ecclesiological principle behind this comes up naturally every time the question arises of a reunion of families sharing basically the same Orthodox ecclesiology. But while this is undoubtedly an ecclesiological principle rooted deeply in Orthodox Tradition, and in that of the Early Church, our present day situation in Orthodoxy is far from being faithful to this principle. The co-existence of so many jurisdictions in the same area is, for reasons which cannot be discussed here, the prevailing practice among the Eastern Orthodox. What use is there, then, of talking about this ec­ clesiological principle in the dealings of the Eastern Or­ thodox with the Oriental Orthodox Church? The first reasons for so doing is that the Orthodox must never cease to remind themselves of the abnormality of their situation. The more importance one attaches to this view of ecclesiology the more one feels compelled to state it vis-a-vis our realities. Another reason for mentioning this principle here is that this ecclesiological principle should not be neglected so easily in our attempts at re-establishing full communion. If full communion means what our common ecclesiology implies care must be taken so that this com­ munion will do justice to our common vision of the Church. There may be ways to at least gradually achieve full com­ munion without violating this vision perhaps through a mutual growing together, first on the local level. This would be the first method to be tried. On the other hand, the from this point of view abnormal J.D. ZIZIOULAS 159 situation in which the Orthodox Churches live today does not allow much rigidity on the matter. This abnormality may even help us to find a provisional way of dealing with the difficult ecclesiological issue which confronts us without perhaps scandalising our people. But, in view of what has been said here, any solution of this kind can be only provisional and accompanied by the expressed desire and intention to lead soon to an ecclesiologically normal situation.

IV

What has been said so far does not cover all the ec­ clesiological issues inherent in the relations between the non- Chalcedonian and the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. A more thorough examination of the various ecclesiological problems arising from these relations is undoubtedly necessary. It would perhaps be necessary to examine the very notion of Church unity with special reference to the problem of diversity of rite and mentality due to geographical or cultural reasons. The extent to which this diversity is permissible must be examined with special reference to the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Another problem which was left out of consideration here is the recognition of the validity of sacramental life in each of the two sides. Both these problems could perhaps form the object of special examination, but do not in my view con­ stitute real problems in this particular case. What we have aimed at in this brief paper has been mainly an indication of some basic ecclesiological principles common to both the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox Churches and an examination of some of the most difficult and thorny issues confronting us today in the light of these principles. In trying to establish these principles we have limited ourselves to what constitutes our common ec­ clesiological tradition going back to the time before our separation. This, I think, is a methodological principle on which we must insist, since during the long interval between our separation and the present time many important changes have taken place in our understanding of the Church. In the light of this common ecclesiology the problems we have examined here appear to be more than mere “prac­ 160 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW tical” matters to be arranged in some way or other. Neither the question of the saints nor that of jurisdiction can be isolated from our understanding of the Church. The dif­ ficulties which come up in connection with these problems cannot be overcome by some spirit of “arrangement”. It is even questionable whether one could apply the practice of “Economy” to these matters. “Economy” cannot create ecclesiological realities ex nihilo, neither can it contradict fundamental ecclesiological principles by putting into danger the right vision of the Church. In the same way the establishment of a certain common view of canonical authority as an instrument of judging these issues and finally overcoming them cannot be taken in itself as the right approach to the solution of these problems. Canonical authority needs proper ecclesiological justification in order to be accepted and to function in the Orthodox Church, and it cannot act and decide arbitrarily. In connection with this, the whole problem of Tradition emerges in the discussion as perhaps the ecclesiological issue par excellence. One could say that the difficulties we are here facing on the ecclesiological level are precisely due to the fact that both sides in our dialogue take Tradition seriously, and neither side is willing to sacrifice anything from what constitutes Tradition in their eyes. Do we not need a clarification of this issue? To what extent are we prepared to re-receive our Tradition in the context of our present day situation? Without such a re-reception the ecclesiological issues we are facing will remain unsurmountable. If we in­ tend to unite different Traditions we shall have an artificial unity. True unity of the Church requires one common Tradition as its basis. * * * Both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox share basically the same ecclesiology based on the vision of the Church at the time before separation. This vision was intrinsically related to a sacramental theology expressed especially in the Eucharist. It is in the light of this kind of early ecclesiology that we have tried to approach the relations of the two Churches in this paper. Other factors which have only later on in the course of history influenced the idea and structure of the Church have not been taken into consideration and should not become the decisive criteria in our efforts to restore communion. J.D. ZIZIOULAS 161

Footnotes 1. “The Bristol Consultation” in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 13 (1968) 134. 2. Ibid. pp. 193ff. 3. Ibid. p. 134. 4. Ibid. p. 134 5. Ibid. pp. 134f. 6. Cf. the connection between m artyrdom and E ucharist in St. Ignatius, Rom. 4, 1-2. The relationship between martyria and homologia in the consciousness of the Early Church is very instructive on this point. E.g. Matt. 10, 32;-Luke 12, 8; I Tim. 6, 13 etc. 7. “The Bristol Consultation”, Ibid., pp. 317ff. 8. Cf. the remarkable study of W. ELERT, Abendmahl und Kirchengemeinschaft in der alten Kirche hauptsachlicli des Ostens, 1954. J). In the New Testament the term “saint” has precisely the meaning of membership in the community of the Church (Phil. 1,1; Col. 1,2; Rom. 15, 25; II Cor. 13,12etc.). 10. This seems to have been originally the form used in every episcopal liturgy. Today’s practice of commemorating the head of the autocephalous Church to which the celebrating bishop happens to belong is an early replacement of this form which is now used only by the heads of the autocephalous Churches. 11. It is interesting that in sources like St. John Chrysostom’s writings the term “synodos” is used for the Eucharistic gathering (De Proph. obsc. 2, 5; Migne P.G. 56, 182). 12. Didache 9, 4. Cf. 10, 5. 13. I Cor. 5-6. 14. See e.g. Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum (Novem­ ber), ed. by H. Delehaye, Brussels, 1902, col. 812. 15. See L. PETIT, “Isaac de Ninive” in Dictionaire de Theologie catholique, VIII, lOf. 16. Ignatius, Smyr. 8; E ph.5,1; Philad. 4; Magn. 3,1-2. 17. For a detailed mention of these sources cf. my “The Eucharistic Community and the Catholicity of the Church” in One in Christ, 1970, p. 322f. 18. Ignatius, Philad. 4. 19. E.g. Cyrpian, Ep. 43 (40), 5. Cf. Deunit. Hand 17. 20. Even today the very prayer of ordination of a bishop THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW mentions explicitly the territory to which he is assigned through his ordination. 21. For example the case of Basilides and others in Cyprian, Ep. 55,11; 67. Cf. Canon 2 of St. Peter of Alexandria. 22. Cyprian, Ep. 49. 23. Augustine, Ep. 43, 16. 24. H.E. I, 9. Appendix VII

THE CANONICAL TRADITIONS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE ORIENTAL CHURCHES

Pierre de Chersonese We can propose as an assumption thoroughly verified in historical experience that canon law faithfully reflects in its general spirit and basic attitudes current ecclesiological concepts. This is why changes in ecclesiological concepts take so long to be translated into modifications in canon law. This fact should be borne in mind in approaching our subject. The confessional differences within the Christian East have complex causes and we must guard against fatal simplifications; for example, the idea that they were ex­ clusively doctrinal, or, conversely, their reduction to political and social factors. Careful historical study shows that these different elements were intermingled. It is a fact that the christological controversies which began in the second quarter of the 5th century unfolded in a strained at­ mosphere due to the conflicts and rivalries between the main primatial centres in the East: Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople (the “new Rome”). We should not overlook the fact that, in that period, the Churches situated beyond the Imperial frontiers tended, because of their political setting, to disassociate their positions from that of the “Imperial Church”. From the second half of the 4th century, in the reign of King Pap, the Church of Armenia broke its bonds of jurisdictional allegiance to the bishop of Caesarea, the Exarch of Pontus. Even prior to this, the Church of Armenia enjoyed a large measure of autonomy and legislated by means of synods; the first national council had been held in 365 at Achritat. The Church of Persia on the other hand kept its jurisdictional links with its mother church of Antioch much longer, but equally within a largely autonomous framework. But such links posed serious practical problems because of the frequent wars between Persia and the Roman Byzantine Empire and, in 424, the council of Markabta proclaimed the complete independence of the catholicate of Ctesiphon. The Churches of Persia and Armenia did not want to be considered to be merely extensions of the Roman 163 HI4 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Byzantine Imperial Church. It will be observed that these breaks took place before the outburst of the Christological controversies. Yet we must not exaggerate the importance of these events by importing a modern standpoint and by speaking of them as “schisms” ; in fact, with the exception of Egypt which had a strongly centralized hierarchical structure headed by the archbishop of Alexandria, the broader ecclesiastical districts in the East down to the middle of the 5th century were not rigidly fixed and the primatial privileges, unlike those of the metropolites, were not precisely defined. Disputes could arise, as, for example, when the bishops of Cyprus took advantage of the situation which had arisen to persuade the fathers of the Council of Ephesus in 431 to forbid the bishop of Antioch to interfere in the ecclesiastical affairs of their island. In this the Cypriot autocephality which has continued down to the present day came to be recognized. As the canonist Theodore Balsamon ( c. 1195) observed in his commentary on canon 2 of the Council of Constantinople (381), at the time of this council each metropolitan province was autocephalous. It was with the Council of Chalcedon (451) that the process of centralisation began to accelerate and we can speak of patriarchates, although official terminology reserving the title of “patriarch” to the holders of the sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem appears only with the legislation of Justinian (527-565). The Council of Chalcedon had made important decisions about ecclesiastical organization by recognizing a supra-metropolitan jurisdiction of the Bishop of Jerusalem over the three Palestinian provinces and, above all, by condirming de jure the prerogatives of the archbishop of Constantinople in the diocese of Thrace, Pontus and Asia, thus defining the boundaries which were to constitute the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As you know, this decision met with sturdy opposition from Pope St. Leo who regarded the ecclesiastical ruling of canon 6 of Nicea as final. The archbishops of Alexandria were just as displeased as the Roman pontiffs at the growth of the jurisdictional power of the bishop of the new Imperial capital. The affair of Maximus the Cynic, the intrigue mounted against St. John Chrysostom, the attitude of Dioscorus to Flavian in 449 all demonstrated this hostility. There was a whole ground prepared and ready to poison the christological controversies. Acceptance or rejection of the dogmatic decree promulgated by the fathers PIERRE de CHERSONESE 165 of the Council of Chalcedon determined the line of cleavage in the Christian East which has persisted down to our own day. Despite the de facto change in the situation, the Byzantine canonical tradition would maintain unaltered the principle of the “Pentarchy”, i.e. the principle that supreme authority in the universal Church belongs to the holders of the primatial sees of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. During the whole of the Byzantine period and even longer, the position taken was that this structure was inviolable even although in practice it was to some extent quite artificial. The vast majority of Christians in Egypt refused to accept the authority of the Patriarch of Chalcedon imposed and upheld by the Imperial power. The Church of Antioch was deeply divided. Moreover, this partition into five major districts took no real account of the Christians situated beyond the frontiers of the Empire. These Christian com­ munities certainly did not regard themselves simply as extensions of the Imperial Church outside the Empire. After a confused period marked by vain attempts of the civil authorities to impose dogmatic compromises, parallel hierarchies were established in Egypt and in Syria. Despite the vigilence of the Imperial administration Jacques Baradai ( 577) reconstituted in these two countries an episcopate numerous in membership and opposed to the dogma of Chalcedon. The Church of Armenia had adopted a position hostile to the definition of Chalcedon during a council held in 491 at Vagarshapat. This action was not dictated by an at­ titude hostile to Byzantium in principle, since the Emperor Zeno had just issued his H enotikon making monophysitism the official doctrine of the Empire. In the 7th century, the attempted union on the basis of the monothelite doctrine created for a time the illusion of an effective pacification, but this attempt was doomed to failure because it was based on deliberately ambiguous formulas imposed for reasons which were not specifically religious. Soon afterwards the entire situation in the Christian East was to be completely altered by an event of incalculable consequence. The Arab conquest would in a few years remove from the Byzantine jurisdiction the regions where most of the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon lived. These Eastern Christian Communities were then able to consolidate their organisation. The Orthodox Christians in Egypt and Syria felt the attraction of Byzan­ tium at every level, including that of ecclesiastical lfifi THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW discipline; it is for this reason that Muslims and non- Chalcedonian Christians treated them as “Melkites”, i.e. “imperialists” as partisans of the Emperor at Con­ stantinople. Thus, towards the middle of the 7th century the process of confessional separation in the Christian East was completed. In 791/ 92, the Council in Trullo (c. 95) defined the procedure for receiving monphysites back into the Orthodox Church: an abjuration was required, but there was no question of chrismal anointing, which was from an ec­ clesiological standpoint a recognition of the validity of sacraments administered by the non-Chalcedonian Oriental clergy. The controversies which shook the Christian East from the 5th century to the 7th were concerned solely with the interpretation of christology. There were no serious dif­ ferences on any other points. In particular, ecclesiology was identical on both sides and nothing has happened since to modify that basic fact, especially considering that adherence to the ecclesiastical tradition of the first centuries was also regarded as essential on both sides. The long duration of the state of separation has not altered the identity of the ec­ clesiological positions of the churches of the East. In this respect, the identity of view is much closer than that between them and the Roman Catholic Church. We can even note the paradoxical fact that while Rome and Byzantium were still in full communion, canon law on each side contained greater fundamental and formal differences than those existing in the East between the Orthodox Church and the non- Chalcedonian Churches. But we must look at this in more detail. The decisive period for the formation of the ius scriptum in the East wras the 4th century. It is the canons issued in this period by a series of councils which really form the basis of the canon law of the East. These synodal canons were soon collected together in a single book and numbered consecutively. This “liber canonum” was widely known and established itself. The proof of this is that reference was made to it during the 12th and 18th sessions of the Council of Chalcedon without any challenge (E. Schwarz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II, 1, pp. 407a and 459). Although this collection has not been preserved in its original Greek version, it has not been dif­ ficult to reconstruct it, thanks to the Syriac translation made at Hierapolis at the beginning of the 6th century. This “liber PIERRE de CHERSONESE 167 canonum” contained 166 canons taken from disciplinary decisions attributed to the following councils: Nicea, Ancyra, NeoCaesarea, Gangres, Antioch, Laodicea, Constantinople. To these the Orthodox added the 27 canons of the Council of Chalcedon. These canons, moreover, dealing with points of ec­ clesiastical discipline, did not give rise to controversy. This was not so in the case of the proposal concerning the prerogatives of the archbishop of Constantinople, voted on October 29th. It was, moreover, not until much later, towards the end of the 6th century, with the appearance of the syn­ tagma in 14 titles, that this text was added to the disciplinary decrees of Chalcedon as “canon 28”; but, by that time the opponents of this Council had already constituted their own hierarchical organisation. We should note that the 27 Chalcedonian canons appear in certain Coptic and Syrian monophysite collections, but the 28th canon is missing. This question of the position of Constantinople, having no prac­ tical importance after the rupture was completed, was never the subject of overt controversy, but it is noticeable that sometimes Constantinople is not even mentioned among the patriarchal sees - thus for example in the 14th century the Coptic writer Jean Ibn Sabba names only four patriarchal sees: Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus and Antioch (La perle precieuse, P.O. vol. XVI, p. 664); sometimes Constantinople is mentioned but after Alexandria (v. Riedel, Die Kir- chenrechtsquellen des Patriarchates Alexandrien, Leipzig, 1900, pp. 295f.). We must not, of course, exaggerate the im­ portance of this. These are simply the distant echoes of an­ cient rivalries. We should recall that during the 2nd Council of Ephesus, labelled by Pope Leo the “Robber Council”, the last place among the titularies of the major sees had been attributed to Flavian of Constantinople, while Dioscorus of Alexandria, who had presided, was referred to by Bishop Olympios, one of his suffragants, as “Very Holy Father and Ecumenical Archbishop” (Mansi, VI, 855). This divergence in the order of the primatial sees has purely historical im­ portance and does not imply any fundamental disagreement, for non-Chalcedonian Easterners and Orthodox are fully agreed on the principle of the independence of each autocephalous Church within the framework of an identity of faith attested by sacramental unity. The canonical heritage shared by the Oriental Churches 168 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW and the Orthodox Church is not confined simply to the ante- Chalcedonian ius scriptum. First we should mention later borrowings. We have already mentioned the case of the 27 Chalcedonian canons. The Eastern borrowings from Byzantine collections were mediated by the Melkite com­ munities in Egypt and Syria. This shows that mutual relations were not always strained. We even come across in the Eastern collections extracts from the Byzantine civil legislation, for example, from the Procheiron of the Emperor Basil 1st, the Macedonian (867-886). In fact, the Christian communities in the Islamic world had to have their own civil and religious law and it is only natural that they should have borrowed from the legislation of the great Christian State of the period. In some cases, direct mutual influence is not certain, and it is a case of parallel developments, as for example in the case of canons derived from the writings of the fathers. The Byzantine law, from the end of the 6th century, received certain Egyptian canons attributed to pre- Chalcedonian Alexandrian bishops, namely, Denis, Peter, Athanasius, Timothy, Theophilus and Cyril. This borrowing took place at a period when painful memories of the past, and in particular the attitude of Theophilus to St. John Chrysostom, had faded. Whereas the Byzantine borrowings were strictly confined to sources prior to the split, the Easterners drew from later Byzantine sources, without however closing their dogmatic options. They were fully aware of what they were doing. Thus the great Syrian canonist of the 13th century, Abou’l-Farad, better known as Bar-Ebhroyo (Bar Hebraeus), in the preface to his work on canon law entitled “The Book of Standards” (Kethobho dehuddoye), informs his readers explicitly that he makes use of the canonical texts of councils rejected by his Church, as for example Chalcedon. There is a historical explanation for this. Despite the split which took place in the 6th century, Byzantium was still regarded by Eastern Christians as the undisputed religious and cultural centre. Moreover, there existed at an even deeper level of con­ sciousness - and this is still true today - an implicit agreement in the understanding of canon law. Although much more complex, the Byzantine canon law remained very close in spirit to that of the Oriental Churches. For on both sides there was a basic acceptance of the principle expressed in the ancient tag: “Non ex regula ius sumatur, PIERRE de CHERSONESE 1(5!) sed ex iure quod est, regula fiat” (Dig. L, XVII, I). It is significant in this respect that in the disciplinary texts of the Christian East down to the middle of the 4th century, for example in the Nicene regulations, the Greek term does not necessarily mean a written legal rule but, more often than not, the traditional ecclesiastical norm. Moreover, during the whole of the pre-Constantinian period, the law of the Church was essentially consuetudinary. The canonical collections of this period had no official standing. It was only from the 4th century onwards that a written law in the strict sense first made its appearance in the East; the earliest collection of this type was made up of the collected canons of the diocesan councils of Pontus. But these canons never claimed to replace the tradition by a new legislation. They simply recalled or gave greater precision to the accepted norm. Although the ius scripum gradually assumed a dominant place in Orthodoxy and the canons were sorted into their various subjects, this process never went as far as a genuine codification which would have led to deriving the law from the rule instead of the rule from the law. In many respects the law of the Oriental Churches has remained at an archaic phase, and therefore one which is close to the primitive Graeco-Byzantine law. It was when parallel hierarchies appeared in the East that Byzantine law developed in a more juridical direction so far as its form was concerned. From the reign of Justinian (527-565) Imperial legislation in religious affairs assumed considerable importance. Under his successor Justinus II (565-578) the first “Nomocanon” was drawn up, i.e. a compilation in which ecclesiastical canons and Imperial laws concerning religion were classified according to subject matter. This work was divided into 50 chapters. Some time later, between 629 and 640, the first revision of the Nomocanon was issued with 14 chapters; several further revisions of this would be published. It constitutes the legislative compilation of the Orthodox Church. The law of the Oriental Churches, compared with that of Orthodoxy, does not display the same complexity and its boundaries are much less clearly defined. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, the Orthodox Church had for a long period, i.e. up to the 15th century, a religious and cultural centre in Constantinople. From the 5th century it was at 170 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Constantinople that the law of the “Imperial Church” was formed. It also won recognition among the Christian com­ munities which were the fruit of the missionary labour not only of the Byzantine Church in the Balkans and in Russia but also among the Melkite Patriarchates and in Georgia. Particular laws only appeared at a more recent time and even these are only considered legitimate, at least in theory, insofar as their prescriptions do not contradict the universal Orthodox law. But the Oriental communities never had a centre which could have exercised a role analogous to that of Constantinople. This is reflected in the liturgical tradition and in canon law. Moreover, the particularities are ancient, anterior to the great split which divided the East over the dogma of Chalcedon. The Church of Armenia, independent since 374, nevertheless remained in close contact with the Greek and Syrian world. Under the leadership of the Catholicos Sahak (390-439) and Mesrop ( 440), a tremendous work of translation was carried out. It was then that the Church of Armenia found itself in possession of the ancient collection, already mentioned above, of the canons of the 4th century, which was the basis of its legislation as it was for all the other Churches of the East. The particular Armenian law was made up of decisions of local councils and others at­ tributed to the fathers, notably to St. Gregory the Illuminator, but which are in fact of a later date. The prac­ tices and customs of the Armenian Church gave rise to certain disagreements with the Byzantine Church and the Council in Trullo, which tried to make the Constantinopolitan rite the universal standard, took exception to certain features of the Arm enian discipline (cc. 32, 33, 56, 99). These in fact concerned minor differences involving no fun­ damental divergence. Moreover in spite of the disagreement there was no break in contacts and we find the Armenian Church accepting the canons of the 7th ecumenical Council held at Nicea in 787 into its collection of canons. As the main source of its law, the Syrian Church has preserved the ancient Antiochene law, the same which formed the basis of the Byzantine law. We have already referred to the work of Bar-Ebhroyo on the canons and we mentioned that he borrowed from the later Byzantine law. “The Book of Standards” is still to this day the major treatise on canon law in this Church. The kernel of the law of the Coptic Church is also con­ PIERRE de CHERSONESE 171 stituted by the canons of the ancient general and local councils accepted by the entire East. Its particular law is mainly made up of decisions promulgated at various periods by the Patriarchs of Alexandria. The “Nomocanon” of the Coptic Church was written in Arabic by Ibn-al-Assal during the first half of the 13th century. This author is very eclectic in matters concerning the civil law; he borrowed not only from Imperial Byzantine law but even from Muslim law manuels. This Nomocanon, translated into Ethiopic in the 16th century, came into widespread use in the Ethiopian Church, which until quite recent years was dependent on the Coptic Patriarchate. One special feature of the law of the Oriental Churches, and more particularly of the Coptic Church, is the importance accorded to apostolic pseudepigrapha; whereas these liturgico - canonical documents were not admitted to the official collections of the Byzantine Church, with the exception of the 85 “canons of holy apostles” found in an appendix to the 8th Book of the “Apostolic Constitutions” which were explicitly rejected by the council fathers at the in Trullo Council (c. 2).

* * * In the light of all this we can now try to answer the questions with which this consultation is concerned. 1. Basically, we can assert that there is a very great similarity between the canonical traditions of the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Churches. In fact, despite the development of particular traditions independent of the Ius Scriptum from the 6th century onwards, the common basis was still broadly the same and, still more important, em­ braced most of the areas of canon law. Later developments on each side did not aggravate confessional disagreements for they were for the most part along similar lines, which, as we have seen, is why the Oriental canonists did not hesitate to borrow elements from Byzantine law subsequent to Chalcedon. The marked similarities binding these different bodies of canon law together wee not due simply to extrinsic factors but are to be explained by an identical approach to and understanding of canon law. On both sides we find the same respect for the disciplinary tradition of the ancient Church as expressed in the conciliar and patristic texts of the first centuries. 2. The few differences on secondary points of ritual 172 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW discipline are in no sense an obstacle to union. The only point which seems to have dogmatic implications concerns the addition to the threefold Sanctus which the 81st canon of the Council in Trullo condemned. But we now know that this was a misunderstanding. In the Byzantine liturgical tradition, the threefold Sanctus is addressed to the Holy Trinity, which means that the addition here gives it a theopaschite sound, whereas in the Oriental traditions the threefold Sanctus is addressed to Christ. 3. The canonical traditions peculiar to the Oriental Churches and to the Orthodox Church, respectively, contain nothing which would stand in the way of their union. On the contrary, we find implicitly assumed or explicitly stated on both sides, the same positions in respect of ecclesiology: namely, the idea of “apostolic succession” with its im­ plications for the nature and function of the ministry, the constitution of the Church and the understanding of its unity. We can also take into account an identity of view on sacramental theology and on the importance of monarchism. It should be noted that in fact there has never been any controversy on these points between Chalcedonians and Non- Chalcedonians in the East. Appendix VIII

A HISTORICO-THEOLOGICAL REVIEW OF THE ANATHEMATA OF THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL BY THE ARMENIAN CHURCH D. Papandreou The 4th Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which was to put an end to the various christological controversies whiph had even affected Armenia, met at a period when Armenia was facing terrible national and religious persecution from the Persians, who were trying to impose their national religion by force. During the year of the Council, the Ar­ menian army under Vardan Mamikonian suffered a crushing defeat, while Leontius, a disciple of Maschtotz who in­ carnated the religious spirit of the Armenian resistance, was defeated after putting up a brave fight. He was taken with the other bishops and presbyters to Reven (Vrkanien) where they were all martyred in the year 454 (1). In honour of this band of martyrs, known as the Leontians, the Armenian Church has set aside a feast-day (2). Before being invited to attend the council, the Armenians, under pressure from the Persians, sought help from the Byzantines, who un­ fortunately did not respond to their appeal (3). As a result of the tragic circumstances, it was only natural that Persian Armenia should not be represented at the Council. From Roman Armenia the signatory of the acts of the Council is “Manasses, bishop of Theodosioupolis in Greater Armenia” (4); from Lesser Armenia, wrenched from the whole in 385, is, among others, Constantine of Melitene (5). But on account of the break-up of relations between the Armenians and the Byzantines, which even in peace-time had looked suspicious to the Persians (witness the case of the Catholicos Giut, who, upon being denounced by the Persian king Peroz for having relations with the Byzantines, was compelled to put forward the excuse, that he had been educated at Byzantium (6) ), for a whole fifty years after the 4th Oecumenical Council it was impossible to obtain information concerning its decisions; thus it was out of the question that the Armenian Church could take part in contemporary christological con- 173 174 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW troversies. These could not possibly have attracted her at­ tention at a time when Armenia was passing through an internal crisis. Even at the time of the 3rd Oecumenical Council (7), the Armenians had no knowledge of these controversies, until the exchange of correspondence between Isaac and Archbishop Proclus, on the one hand, and Acacius of Melitene on the other (c. 435) (8). Nestorianism was fairly well known though the letters of Proclus and Acacius, as Catholicos Isaac allows one to infer from his replies to them. In these he firstly condemns the teaching of “two Sons or two Lords in Christ” ({)), without naming Nestorius, then begs Proclus and Acacius to correct him should “anything incorrect” have slipped, in their opinion, into his letters “through ignorance” (10). The christology of the Armenian Church remains stationary during this period; it has nothing new to offer towards solving the christological question. The new ter­ minology evolved during the controversy, which Proclus of Constantinople had made known in writing, does not appear to have interested Catholicos Isaac, who, in his replies to him and to Acacius, makes no attempt to familiarize himself with this terminology, which he never uses (11). After this a translation of the letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius (430) (12), with the 12 Anathemata, must have been cir­ culated in Armenia (13). On the strength of the above, one could contend that Ar­ menian pre-Chalcedonian christology swayed between Nestorianism - which allowed for only a moral contact bet­ ween the two natures in Christ, which they otherwise defined in sharp separation, to the detriment of the person - and Eutychianism - which recognised the unity of the person, but to the detriment of the human nature, and so confused the two natures that it saw the human as swallowed up by the divine, and taught the existence in Jesus Christ of two natures in one person. They showed strong leanings towards the later misinterpreted theology of Cyril of Alexandria, thereby foreshadowing post-Chalcedonian developments traceable from the year 506 onwards, as we shall see. At Chalcedon the Church of Alexandria, on which the Church of Armenia depended theologically, expressed itself in op­ position to its traditional rival, the Church of Constantinople, which had summoned the Council (14). D. PAPANDREOU 175 As we have seen, the Armenian Church was struggling desperately at that time against Nestorian doctrine, and was ready to adopt christological trends towards Eutychianism. It was then that it heard of the doctrinal decision of the 4th Oecumenical Council; not through official channels, but from the news brought by Syrian Monophysites (15); chiefly Symeon Beth-Arsam, Abdiso and Timothy Aelurus, who, through malevolent reports, were out to present the Council as leaning towards Nestorianism. Many Councils in the East were doing this, so as to throw the doctrine of Chalcedon into disrepute. The most important Councils were (16): the Council convened in Alexandria in 457 by Timothy Aelurus (17); that at Ephesus in 477 by the Asian bishops (18); at Antioch, 477, by Peter Gnapheus (19); at Alexandria, 477, by Timothy Aelurus (20); at Alexandria, 482, by Peter Mongus (21); at Antioch, 485, by Peter Gnapheus (22); at Constantinople, 496, by the Emperor Anastasius Dicurus (23-25), and at Con­ stantinople, 512, by Timothy called Colon or Litrobulus (26). The reason for the misunderstanding concerning the unconfused, unchanged, indivisible and inseparable union in Christ of the two natures in the one person of the Divine Word, as taught by the 4th Oecumenical Council, must be sought in the near - identification of the terms “nature” (physis) and “person” (prosopon), as reported by the Monophysite Abdiso (27). According to him, the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, being Nestorians, taught along with Pope Leo that there were two natures and two persons in Christ, after union; linked to the doctrine of two persons was that of two Sons, so that a fourth person was brought into the Trinity (28). “He who teaches two natures or two persons (Dems) and forms (Kerparans) in Christ after the indivisible union, in this manner introducing the number four into the Trinity, let him be anathema” (29). 2.

The basic notions making up a straightforward anti- Chalcedonian theology are reiterated by the Armenian apologists of the following century, including the Catholicoi Komitas (30) and John (31). Of particular interest in Ar­ menian post-Chalcedonian theology is the repercussion of the teaching of Timothy Aelurus (32), according to whom 176 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Theodoret of Cyr (33), as an active Nestorian, not only took part in but even directed the Council of Chalcedon, while Pope Leo was nothing but a “new Nestorius ” (34), who along with the Council construed the Virgin Mary as Mother of Man (anthropotokos) and not as Mother of God (Theotokos) (35). The views of Timothy Aelurus, as set out in the Armenian translation (36), found their full expression in the work composed around 600 on “the pretexts of the 4th Council of the Duophysites” (37). According to its anonymous author, the Council of Chalcedon was the cause of worse evils than the Nestorian heresy, inasmuch as “the impious Nestorius refused to have the Virgin described as Theotokos, whereas they (the Fathers of Chalcedon) were confessing her thus”, thereby capable of leading astray officially and not surreptitiously, as Nestorius had done, “many people in­ capable of construing Holy Scripture” (38). In the case of the Armenian version of the doctrine laid down by Chalcedon, in the aforementioned On the pretexts of the Fourth Council of the Dyophysites, the term amigos (unmingled) is used instead of asynchytos (unconfused) in the sentence “one and the same Christ... of two natures unmingled...”, and thereby substitutes “ancharneli” for “ansphotheli” (39). The term “nouthium” denotes sometimes “nature”, sometimes “hypostasis” (40); while the term “denis”, usually meaning “person”, in the writings of M. Chorenatzi also bears the meaning of “hypostasis” (41). The confusion of terms and their misinterpretation is clear in the work “On the pretexts of the 4th Council of the Duophysites”. “At times,” it says, “they describe the same Christ as unique and unique-personalized, as Son of God and the only-begotten Lord. At other moments, however, they assert that he is made up of two natures unmingled (“an­ charneli” instead of “ansphotheli”), and we anathematize those who accept two natures in Christ - the whole of humanity together with his divinity - as commingled. But if two natures are unmingled and unchanged... then one believes in the number four (in the Trinity)” (42). This is contrary to the creed of the Fathers of Nicaea (43), who speak only of one Lord Jesus Christ and never of two natures. This faith must remain “untainted”, without adjunctions and far from any form of adulteration which might creep in through the introduction of new definitions (44). Although the D.PAPANDREOU 177 writer knows how to distinguish the existing difference between the two natures in the spirit of Chalcedon, he nevertheless over-exalts at every turn the divine nature in Christ: “for it is a great insult to think of God in human terms, as if he (could) not be present in any other place than the one in which he happens to be. On the contrary, this is the true faith: He who descended from heaven and dwelt in the womb of the holy Virgin, did not withdraw himself from his Father’s bosom. He who consorted with men upon earth, is worshipped by the angels in heaven and was stretched out upon the Cross, was not separated from the Father...” (45). The influence of Julian of Halicarnassus shows through clearly, when the same writer takes up a position against the question of the corruptibility of Jesus’ Body. “And those who dare to describe Him (the Lord of glory) as corruptible, fall under the excommunication of the holy Fathers, who delcare in this manner: Whosoever calls the life-giving death of the Lord and the saving Passion corruptible, as if they were those of an ordinary man, and does not confess that (Christ) was passionless in His Passion and deathless in His Death, being God for Whom all things are possible, let him be ex­ cluded...” (4(>). 3.

Thus stated, this reinforced the Armenian opposition to the 4th Oecumenical Council. Hence the so-called “Three Chapters” (47) escaped condemnation (48); these being the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the letter of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, to Maris the Persian, and all that Theodoret of Cyr wrote “against the true faith and the twelve chapters of the holy father Cyril, and the 1st Oecumenical Council of Ephesus” (49). Hence also the failure of the policy of union in favour of the Monophysites practised by the Emperors Basiliscus, Zeno and Anastasius Dicurus (50). Let us take the example of Basiliscus. In 476 he published the notorious “Encyclical” against the 4th Oecumenical Council, which, signed by 50 bishops, aimed at refuting the definition of Chalcedon and at undermining the authority of the Council (51). Then Zeno, in connivance with the Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, published in 482 (52) the Act of Union, or Henotikon (53), by which the Monophysite quarrels were to be suppressed, and the clergy and laity of Alexan­ 178 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW dria, Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, for whom the Act was originally intended (54), were all to be united. In other words, the Monophysites were to be reconciled with the Chalcedonians. The Henotikon was to overrule and supplant the authority of the 4th Oecumenical Council (55). So on the one hand it condemned Nestorianism and Eutychianism, and recognised the Twelve Anathemata of Cyril while on the other it purposefully and skillfully avoided using such phrases as “one” or “two natures”, and dismissed the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (56). This two-faced policy of Zeno’s could not possibly please the Orthodox, although it could appease the advocates of Monophysitism. On the contrary, it fostered anti- Chalcedonian tendencies in Egypt, and fanned the flames of discontent among the Monophysite monks (57). It is noteworthy that, outside the official and conservative in­ terpretation of the Henotikon, there formed another, favoured in the Cyrillian environment, which became known in Armenia during the catholicate of Babgen (502/ 3-507/ 8) (58). The Henotikon, as it reads in the Armenian translation, may be found in the “Book of Letters” (59), in addition to the doctored correspondence between Acacius of Constantinople (seven letters) and Peter Mongus (nine letters) ((JO), as well as “the letter composed by the Emperor Anastasius against all the schismatics” ((>1) (Anastasius being the successor of Zeno who tried in every way possible to enforce the Henotikon and spread Monophysitism) (62). During his reign (491-518), and for the duration of the Acacian schism, before the culminating “have mercy upon us” in the Trisagion Hymn, the theopaschite formula of Peter Gnapheus of An­ tioch, “0 thou crucified for us, have mercy upon us” (63) was introduced. This was brought to Armenia roughly during the middle of the 6th century (64), and the writer of On the pretexts of the 4th Council had it before his very eyes as he wrote, in the year 600, “It has also enjoined upon us the ad­ junct to the Trisagion, ‘O thou crucified for us”, to be chanted with the rest without fail..., yet there are many people living in the Holy City (Jerusalem, where Monophysitism had not prevailed) who do no follow the definition of Nicaea, and reject the marvellous blend and the inexpressible union and all-saving crucifixion... These people persuade the uninitiated that the hymnal verse ‘0 thou crucified for us’ contains the professed belief that the Holy Trinity was D. PAPANDIIEOU 179 crucified, which is quite preposterous. Moreover, as the economy concerns one person, that being the Son so it is with the Crucifixion. And granting that the crucified is truly God, one must on the contrary confess before the recalcitrant: ‘0 Powerful and Immortal God, crucified for us, have mercy upon us...’ ” (65). Most contemporary historians, Greek or otherwise, who have dealt with the Armenian Church on the basis of very likely spurious Armenian texts (66) and who are not aware of the new sources which have come to light since 1901, speak erroneously of a national council at Balarsapat (67), which, in the presence of Armenian, Albanian and Georgian bishops (68) condemned the decisions of the 4th Oecumenical Council (69) and decried Zeno’s Henotikon (70). No Council took place in Balarsapat during the catholicate of Babgen in the year 791 or 492. It is not the historians prior to 1901 who are responsible for spreading this false account, but the then known sources. John Catholicos, for example, speaks of a similar Council (71) and exaggerates the events of the post-Cahlcedonian period, as if the Armenians at that time had no ecclesiastical questions other than Chalcedon to consider. The Council during the catholicate of Babgen did not take place in 491, but - as contained in the genuine letter of that Council “to the Orthodox (monophysites) in Persia”, published in 1898 by Ter-Mekerttschian (72) and included in the “Book of Letters” published by Ismireantz in Tiflis, 1901 (73) - the Council was convened in “the eighteenth year of the reign of Kawadh” (488-531), that is, between 505 and 506, in Twin (or Drin). It was chiefly concerned with internal questions (74), and not at all with the official attitude of the Armenian Church towards the Council of Chalcedon or the Henotikon of Zeno (75). Before the Council, the Armenians had little knowledge of the Monophysite controversy, as is shown by the absence of any mention of the 3rd and 4th Oecumenical Councils in the aforementioned conciliar letter (76). This remarkable and valuable letter certainly gives a lively picture of the situation in Armenia at the beginning of the 6th Century (77), it sets the stage for anti-Chalcedonian developments and the writing of other letters, which, throwing into relief the vigorous personalities living in Ar­ menia during the first half of the 6th century, shed a fair amount of light on the study of Armenian church history of 180 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW the period, which was rendered wel nigh impossible before 1901 by the lack of known sources (78). According to the text of this Armenian letter to the Per­ sian Monophysites, before the Council presided by the Catholicos Babgen and consisting “of all the bishops, monks and chieftains gathered together in Dwin in the province of Ararat”, there appeared some Syrians from Persia. Among them was a certain Symeon Beth-Arsam. They came to tell the council that the unadulterated orthodox faith, that is Monophysitism, had prevailed in their country up to the year 484. Then, “the leaven of evil reappeared, hidden away in impure men, who began (to sully) the pure faith in the true Trinity (and to set up) councils in various places... com­ bining their tenets and blasphemies with those of Nestorius &79), Diodorus and Theodoretus”, and thereby setting in store for themselves and the remaining orthodox in Persia “no small things and dangers in the face of the chieftains and the cadis”. These men naturally maintained “that the Byzantines, the Armenians and the Albanians have the same faith and the same canons as they have”. So, before laun­ ching their attack on the Nestorians, the Monophysites from Persia appeared before the Council of the Armenians with a view to obtaining a statement of doctrine in letter form, making clear that they held the same faith. They made bold to do this on the grounds that they had a royal writ according them the right to hold the same faith as the Romans, the Armenians, the Georgians and the Albanians, “that the confession of those who believe in Christ be not counterfeited by verbiage and specious interpretations”. To this end they set out the Nestorian teaching in detail and finally managed to obtain the required response from the Armenians con­ demning the heretical teaching of Nestorius. “Since, however, you wish to be informed by us concerning these things, we declare to you, that the Greeks and we the Armenians, the Georgians and the Albanians have never accepted or will accept that blasphemy, nor are we in communion with them, nor do we share their faith, but on the contrary anathematize the ministers and teachers of such things. As the Apostle Paul writes:‘If any man preach any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed’ (Gal. 1:9), and likewise repeats: ‘But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which D.PAPANDREOU 181 we have preached unto you, let him be accursed’ (Gal. 1:8). So did the 318 blessed bishops maintain, who, full of divine grace, met at Nicaea. The same rule was followed by the 180 Orthodox bishops who met to discuss the same matter at Constantinople, whence, following their example, we condemn the antagonists of the true faith and the perfect canon given by God” (80). Consequently the Armenian Church, through this con­ ciliar letter, takes up a position against Nestorianism and nowhere mentions the 4th Oecumenical Council. The Armenian Church first showed itself hostile to the Council in the second letter, written during the catholicate of Babgen, after the year 506, and heavily infludenced by Symeon Beth-Arsam (81). In it, the Armenians attacked the decisions of the 4th Oecumenical Council and spoke favourably of the Henotikon of Zeno (82), “When your kin­ sman Symeon, who toils unceasingly and irrepressibly on behalf of the true faith, visited us for the second time, he told us about the new Nestorian struggles. They, instead of ac­ cepting the documents on the true faith despatched to you by all the orthodox, including ourselves, and thus obtaining salvation, did even more to rock the foundations of the Holy Church and to shake the faith of the orthodox in our country. To this he added that they are supported by the Council of Chalcedon” (83). Bent on carrying out his plan, Symeon Beth-Arsam paid a second visit to the Armenians, to inform them of the most recent developments, of Zeno’s Henotikon and the representatives of “Orthodoxy” (Monophysitism), and to place at their disposal Monophysite documents maliciously rendered by him into Armenian; having suc­ ceeded in winning their confidence, he provoked the writing of the second anti-Chalcedonian letter to the orthodox of Persia (84). “We detach ourselves from the lie of Nestorius at Chalcedon ... We live according to the faith received from the 318 bishops and ratified by the 150 bishops. Thus we believe the 318 bishops of Nicaea defenders of orthodoxy, and those of Ephesus, as was handed down to us by the Holy Fathers. We anathematize Nestorius, Arius, Theodorus, Diodurus, Theodoretus, Eutyches, Paul of Samosata, Ivan, Akak, Barthsume (Barsauma), Babe...” (85). Certainly the hostile attitude of the Armenian Church towards the Council of Chalcedon, as expressed in the second letter of Catholicos Bagben, cannot be construed as an 182 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW uninfluenced reply of the Armenians, based on direct knowledge of the Acts of Chalcedon, but rather as a manifestation instigated by Symeon Beth-Arsam via Monophysite writings and the Henotikon (86). In this manner the way was paved in Armenia for the arrival, after 50 years, of the man destined to carry on the work of Symeon Beth- Arsam: the Syrian Monophysite Abdiso. Brandishing the letter “from the orthodox of Syria” (87), he arrived in Ar­ menia with his suite, intent on obtaining from the Armenian Church a doctrinal letter similar to the one which his predecessor, Symeon Beth-Arsam, had taken back to Persia, along with his episcopal consecration. The text of the letter of the self-termed “orthodox” Syrians to the Armenians, runs briefly as follow: “We live among heretics who persecute us. Give us a shepherd. Our faith is the same as yours. We anathematize the heretics as you do. We are sending you a committee to present to you the sober-minded priest Abdiso from the monastery of Sareby, for you to consecrate as bishop” (88). The Armenian reply (89) contains a confession “of the true and real incarnation of Christ, on the basis of the teaching of the prophets, the Apostles and the three Coun­ cils” ; and it also calls the “holy Virgin Mary” Theotokos, “because through her the Divine Word became a true man (literally flesh)... one real man, who received from the Virgin one real body and soul and mind”. He “suffered, was crucified and died for us, as he himself wished, truly and not speciously, and no corruption took place in him. For the Body which he had teken from us was not subject to corruption but was glorified in union with him. And in the same body he rose again and was seated on the right hand of the Father. And for this we give him praise. Holy God! Holy and powerful! Holy and immortal crucified for us, have mercy upon us! (90). We anathematize the impious Nestorius, Theodore (of Mop- suestia)... and Theodoret (of Cyr), the Council of Chalcedon, the Constitution of Leo, Apollinerius, Eutyches and Severus” (91). In this way the Armenians produced a creed agreeing entirely with that of the Syrians as expressed in their letter, and informed the Syrians of Abdiso’s consecration as bishop. While Nerses II was still Catholicos, a Council was con­ vened in Twin, not in the year 551/ 2 as some historians believe, but in 554, as Ter-Minassiantz has proved (92) on the basis of the Armenian historical sources to hand since 1901 D.PAPANDREOU 183 (93). This shed quite a lot of light on the Council of Twin (94), as we ourselves have seen thanks to the unknown writer of the “Account”. For, while citing the “Catalogue of Catholicoi of Greater Armenia”, he mentions the Council thus: “Ner­ ses, former bishop of Astarax, year IX. In those days a council was initiated in the city of Tivin by the Syrian Jacobite Abdiso. Although those present deviated from the traditions of St. Gregory and the other Fathers, yet they had no misgivings about the faith and the Council of Chalcedon, and the two natures in Christ our God, until after 53 years from the Council of Chalcedon, to the council of Tivin (95). Then they disengaged themselves from the communion of Rome, and anathematized Jerusalem and the council of Chalcedon, confessing one nature of godhead and humanity in Christ; they added the verse ‘0 thou crucified’ to the Trisagion Hymn, the ‘Holy ‘Holy God’ with oath and cursing; and together they put down in their own handwriting that they would never depart from this creed. They then con­ secrated as bishops the Jacobite Eutyches and two com­ panions, one a Julianite and the other another heretic, and sent them forth into Mesopotamia” (96). The aim of this brief historico-theological survey of the Armenian Church’s condemnation of the 4th Oecumenical Council is simply to clarify the factors, mainly non- theological, which'led up to the condemnation. If this is the true situation, then the question arises, what is the relationship of the anathemas of the 4th Oecumenical Council to the present-day life of the Church? Are the condemnation and the anathemas so rooted today in the consciousness of the Church as to preclude any touching upon them? At a time when the air is being cleared and non-theological factors are at a discount - factors such as those which contributed to the condemnation - is it possible to lift the anathemata? In historical conditions not weighted by extraneous elements, would substantial recognition of the Council of Chalcedon be feasible? Reception of Oecumenical Councils does not imply that the process in completed. There is always consciously or unconsciously a new reception of Councils. Recognition of the Council of Chalcedon does not mean in this case submission and the setting up of a dry, arbitrary, collegial apparatus within the Church, but an agreement concerning the in­ strument whereby the truth is expressed: the Truth, and nothing but the truth, common to all concerned. 184 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Footnotes 1. See LAZAR of PHARPI, A History of Armenia, crit. ed. by G. TERMEKERT - TSCHIAN and St. MALCHASIAN, Tiflis 1904 (in Armenian), pp. 45, 58, 70, 71-72, 75-79, 81-82, 85, 97, 99, 101, 103-104. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Die Bezichungen des Patriarchen Proklos von Constantinopel und des Bischofs Akakios von Melitene zu Armenien, in: Oriens Chr. 41, 1957, p. 44; H. PASDERMADJIAN, Histoire de L’Armenie, 118- 120; A. ARVANITIS, Armenia - Armenian Church (in Greek), in: Theol. &. Moral Encyclopaedia, Athens 1963, vol. 3, col. 173. 2. See V. INGLISIAN, Beziehungen, p. 44, note 33. 3. Cf. F. TOURNEBIZE, Histoire politique et religieuse de PArmenie depuis les origines des Armeniens jusqu’a la mort de leur dernier roi (Pan 1393), Paris s.d. (Rev. Or. Chret. - 1908), p. 87, P. PSOMAIDIS, The Armenian Church form an Orthodox viewpoint (in Greek), Constantinople 1911, p. 173. According to M. ORMANIAN, L’Eglise Armenienne, Paris 1901, London 1955, one can easily infer the attitude of the Armenian Church towards the 4th Ecumenical Council’s decisions, taking into consideration among other things, that it was the work of Marcian, who had refused the Armenian plea for help against the Persian persecution. 4. E. SCHWARTZ, Acta Conciliorium Oecumenicorum (Berolini - Lipsiae 1914/ 1950), II, 1, 3, pg. 94 note 21-22 (title 181); idem. Ueber die Bischofslisten der Synoden von Chalkedon, Nicaea und Konstantinopel, in: Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Ohils.-hist. Abteilung NF 13 (muenchen 1937), 38 Anm. 1, 54. 5. Ibid., op. cit., II, I, 1, pg. 56 note 41(27), pg. 85 n. 32 (27)ff. See II, 6, pg. 41. 6. As a result of this, he had also made friends with fellow students. 7. There were no delegates from Armenia present at the 3rd Oecumenical Council, for reasons unknown. See ISMIGREANTZ, Girq Thghthotz, Tiflis 1901, 296. The first mention of the 3rd Oecumenical Council in Armenian writings is by the 5th century Armenian Historian KORIUN, ed. by AKINIAN, 16, 4, according to whom the students Leontius and Koriun, sent from Constantinople, brought back with them “proper codices of the God-given Scriptures” and the traditions of the Church Fathers “with the canons of D. PAPANDREOU 185 Nicaea and Ephesus”. V. INGLESIAN, p. 366, note 20. See also the specialised study of I. RUCKER, Ephesinische Konzilsakten in armenischer - georgischer Uberlieferung, in: Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Munchen, Philos. - hist. Abteilung (Munchen 1930), fasc. 3. 8. Cf. V. INGLESIAN, Chalkedon und die armenische Kirche, in: GRILLMEIER - BACHT, Das Konzil von Chalkedon II, Wurzburg 1953, p. 362. 9. See Girq Thghtohotz, 17 and pg. 11. Cf. V. INGLESIAN, Chalkedon..., 363. 10. Girq Thghthotz, 13, 18. 11. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 391-393. 12. Letter XVII of Cyril to Nestorius, P.G. 77, 105. Girq Thghthotz, 396-406. The fact that the translation was made at that time, shows “das klassisch - armenische Sprach - gewand dieser “Ubersetzung”. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 363. 13. Girq Thghthotz, 396-406 cf. 358-72. 14. ORMANIAN 24-29. For the differences in church ad­ ministration between Alexandria and Constantinople, see G. Kondaris, A General Church History (in Greek), Athens 1957, p. 303ff. 15. Cf. J. KARMIRIS, The Ancient Anti-Chalcedonian Churches of the East and the basis of reunion with the Or­ thodox Catholic Church (in Greek), Athens 1966, p. 12. 16. Ibid. 17. MANSI VII, 909/ 910. 18. MANSI VII, 1013/ 1014, HEFELE, Konziliengeschichte, 2. Bd., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1875, pg. 601. 19. MANSI VII, 1017/ 1018. 20. MANSI VII, 1017/ 1018, HEFELE, p. 602. 21. MANSI VII, 1023/ 1024, HEFELE, p. 605. 22. MANSI VII, 1165/ 1166. 23. MANSI VIII, 185/ 186. 24. MANSI VIII, 371/ 374, HEFELE, p. 666. 25. MANSI VIII, 373/ 374, HEFELE, p. 666. 26. MANSI VIII, 375/ 376, HEFELE, p. 666. 27. See ABDISO, Of the Accursed Nestorians and other Heretics (in Armenian), in: Girq Thghthotz, 68, and ed. TER- MEKERTTSCHIAN, The Seal of Faith (in Armenian), 369/ 70. Abdiso’s Monophysitism was of the Julian brand. Cf. Girq Thghthotz, 66-67. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 393-4. 186 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 28. ABDISO, Girq Thghthotz, p. 66/ 67. 29. ABDISO, Girq Thghthotz, p. 68. Cf. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 394. 30. See Girq Thghthotz, 216. 31. See Girq Thghthotz, p. 83. 32. See TIMOTHY AELURUS, A Refutation, ed. TER- MERKERTTSCHIAN and TER-MINASSIANTZ, The Seal of Faith (in A rm enian), 102, 110, 130, 200, 201. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 394. 33. Theodoret of Cyr corresponded with Armenian ec­ clesiastics, as is shown by his two letters of memoranda sent to Persian Armenia, one to Bishop Eulabius, who took part in the Armenian Council of Aschtishat in the year 449 (Letter 77, P.G. 83,1245 ff), and the other to a bishop or presbyter named Eusebius (Letter 78, P.G. 83, 1251 ff). For Timothy Aelurus’ accusations against him, see A Refutation (in Armenian), pp. 36, 54, 200-201. 34. TIMOTHY AELURUS, supra, pp. 102, 110, 130. 35. On the Council of Chalcedon, see TIMOTHY AELURUS, p. 163-164. 36. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 395. 37. On this work, see D. PAPANDREOU, The Foundation & Organisation of the Armenian Church up to the 4th Oecumenical Council (in G reek), Athens 1966, p. 45-46. 38. Girq Thghthotz, 119-127. 39. Girq Thghthotz, 116, 122, cf. V. INGLISIAN, p. 395, note 20. Timothy Aelurus, instead of using the phrase “of two natures...”, writes “in two natures”, see TER- MEKERTTSCHIAN and TER-MINASSIANTZ, Timotheus Aelurus’ des Patriarchen von Alexandrien Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalcedon festgesetzen Lehre, Leipzig 1908 (in A rm enian), 199. 40. Cf. P. TEKEYAN, Controverses christologiques en Armeno - Cilicie dans la seconde moitie du Xlle siecle (1165- 1198), Rome 1939, 115. “II est curieux de constater que les Armeniens n’ont aucune des expressions de leurs voisins, Grecs, et Syriens, pour designer l’union hypostatique... Si l’on examine cependant les explications donnees sur l’union hypostatique, on voit bien que leur pensee est orthodoxe”. Compare J. KARMIRIS, p. 12 note 1, with A. ARVANITIS, Armenian Church (in: Theol. & Moral Encyclopedia, vol. 3 (in Greek), Athens 1963), col. 174. 41. Thus, for example, M. CHORENATZI, in a tract bearing D. PAPANDREOU 187 his name and against all who consider impossible the union of two natures, insists: “It is said (in the Scriptures) ‘He who was in the form of God took the form of a Servant! You see, it says form and form; which form is then absorbed in the mixture according to their confession? For (if they think that the union of the whole results in confusion) then they have to understand the same for the persons. Indeed, their sayings are ridiculous... because, as in the legendary tales, they create one head and two tails!” Girq Thghthotz, 24-25. See the observation of KAREKIN SARKISSIAN, The person of Christ in the Armenian Church, in: The Greek Orthodox Theological R ev iew , vol. X (1964-1965) 2, p. 110. 42. Girq Thghthotz, 116, 122. 43. The Armenians who refused to recognise the 4th Oecumenical Council made a point of appealing to the authority of the Council of Nicaea, as did also the supporters of Chalcedon. See Girq Thghthotz, supra. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 396-397. 44. Girq Thghthotz, 116-122. 45. Ibid. 46. GirqThghthotz, ibid. 47. On the “Three Chapters”, see V. INGLISIAN, Armenien im Fahrwasser des angehenden Drei - Kapitel - Streites, in: Handes Amsorya 66 (1952), 349-371 (in Armenian. Cf. ID., Chalkedon..., p. 363, note 11. For the condemnation of the Three Chapters by the 5th Oecumenical Council, See Mansi IX, 384-388; cf. col. 368 and consult Confession of Faith of Justinian, Emperor of Constantinople, against the Three Chapters, Mansi IX, 537-538. 48. This took place at the 5th Oecumenical Council, the 4th not having considered the matter at all, being content to oblige Theodoret and Ivan to excommunicate Nestorius and signal their agreement with the definition of Chalcedon” - J. KARMIRIS, The Ancient Anti-Chalcedonian Churches..., p. 12. 49. On Cyril, see the specialised studies mede by CHRYSOSTOMOS PAPADOPOULOS, St. Cyril of Alexan­ dria, Alexandria 1933, and ANDREAS THEODOROU, The Christological Terminology and Doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyr, Athens 1955 (both works in Greek ). 50. See KONIDARIS, op. cit., p. 441 ff. 51. The “Encyclical” is included in EVAGRIUS, Ec­ 188 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW clesiastical History 3, 4, P.G. 86/ 2, 2600-2604. Cf. NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS, Eccles. Hist., 16, 3, P.G. 147,121 ff. Consult CHRYS. PAPADOPOULOS, History of the Church of Alexandria, Alexandria 1935, p. 431-432; KYRILLOS E. ANTONIS, Cyrus of Alexandria and the Copts during the Arab conquest of Egypt, Salonica 1959, p. 10 (both works in Greek). 52. See PHIL. VAPHEIDIS, Church History, Constantinople 1884, Vol. I, p. 244. 53. For the text, see EVAGRIUS, Eccles. Hist., 3, 14, P.G. 862, 2620-2625, NICEPHORUS CALLISTUS, Eccles. Hist. 16, 12, P.G. 147, 136 ff. Cf. opinions of CHRYS. PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p. 434-435, KYRILLOS E. AN­ TONIS, op. cit., p. 12. For the significance of the Henotikon after 482, see KONIDARIS, op. cit., p. 441 ff. 54. CHRYS. PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p. 434. 55. Ibid. 56. Cf. PHIL. VAPHEIDIS, op. cit., p. 244; CHRYS. PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p. 436; B. STEPHANIDIS, Church History, Athens 1959, p. 227-228; J. KARMIRIS, op. cit., p. 46. 57. CHRYS. PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., p. 436, 439. Most historians, in their judgment of the Henotikon, agree on one basic point: the separation brought about by it, and the dangers inherent in it (J. KIRSCH, Kirchengeschichte, I. Bd., Freiburg 1930, p. 634-635; K. MULLER, Kirchen geschichte, I. Bd., Tubingen 1941 (3), p. 666). 58. This may be inferred from the contemporary second “Letter of the Armenians to the Orthodox of Persia”, Girq Thghthotz, 48-51, in which the Henotikon is dealt with for the first time in Armenian writings. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., 368-369. 59. Girq Thghthotz, 269-71. Cf. ZACHARIAS Rh., H. Eccl. 5, 8, ed. Ahrens-Kruger 75(18) - 78 (5). Cf. TER- MEKERTTSCHIAN, The Seal of Faith, 127. On the editions of the Henotikon, see V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 368-369. 60. Girq Thghthotz, 243-76; cf. V. INGLISIAN, op. cit., p. 369, note 32. 61. Girq Thghthotz, 277-78. In this work, unknown to us (see V. INGLISIAN, p. 369) one can read the following sentence, among others: “We disapprove of the Council of Chalcedon and, with it, Leo and his document and those who accept two Christs and two Sons”. See Girq Thghthotz, 277. From a D.PAPANDREOU 189 marginal remark V. INGLISIAN was able to deduce that this supposed work of Anastasius was translated in 506. Like the Henotikon, so the doctored correspondence and the work of Anastasius are in the same linguistic style as the first letter of Babgen (506), in the writing of which Symeon Beth-Arsam played a part. This conviction led Inglisian to the doubtful conclusion, “dass der Vermittler dieser teilweise unechten, aber samtlich im monophysitischen Sinne abgefassten Schriftstucke kein anderer sein kann als nur Simeon von Beth-Arsam. Die Armenier, die stets - selbst unter presisicher Herrschaft - in den byzantinischen Kaisern die eifrigen Schutzer der Orthodoxie erblickten (see Girq Thghthotz, 12-13,17), liessen sich durch das Henotikon gegen das Konzil von Chalkedon einnehmen.” 62. A. ZOTOS, Armenia Church (in Greek), Theol. & Moral Encycl., vol. 5, p. 593. Cf. KONIDARIS, p. 443, CHRYS. PAPADOPOULOS, op. cit., pp. 432-433, 438. 63. This event provoked turmoil in Constantinople (twice, in 511 and 512). Anastasius had no choice but to parlay with Pope Hormisdas in the hope of ending the schism, but came up against excessive damands on the part of the Pope, exacting the underwriting of a special pamphlet containing the phrase “we follow in all things the Apostolic Throne and preach all its constitutions” (MANSI VIII, 407, KONIDARIS, 443-444. Formula Hormisdae, “Sequentes in omnibus apostolicam Sedem et praedicantes eius omnia constituta.”). For the adjunct, see Girq Thghthotz, Book of Letters, ed. ISMIREANTZ, Tiflis 1901, 121-124. Cf. KONIDARIS, 443, V. INGLISIAN, 397. 64. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, 371-372, which deals with the Ar­ menian influence of the Syrian Monophysite Abdiso. 65. Girq Thghthotz, 121-124. 66. Probably the faulty information of the historian Catholicos John. See KATHOLIKOS JOHANNES, Geschichte Armeniens, Jerusalem 1867, chapter 16, p. 80ff. Cf. the relevant observations of TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 31, and V. INGLISIAN, p. 366, note 21. 67. See int. al. DYOBOUNIOTES, 8, ZOTOS, op. cit., 593, ARVANITIS, 173-174, VAILHE, 208, TOURNEBIZE, 90-91, FLICHE-MARTIN, Histoire de l’Eglise, t. 4, p. 511-512, P. GOUBERT SJ, Evolution politique et religieuse de la Georgie a la fin du Vie siecle. In: Memorial L. Petit, Archives de l’Orient Chretien, Bukarest 1948, 1, 113-127. 190 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 68. See FLICHE-MARTIN, t. IV, 511-512. 69. DYOBOUNIOTES, p. 8. Cf. BYZANTIOS, 22, PSOMIADIS, p. 399. The information given by the historians in question concerning the Council of Valarsapat is based on untrue accounts, as aforementioned. 70. Another mistaken opinion of the same historians (TOURNEBIZE 90-91, VAILHE 208, DYOBOUNIOTES 8), confusing the so-called Council of Valarsapat with that of Tovin (505/ 506), which did not, however, adopt an attitude hostile to the Henotikon. 71. See KATHOLIKOS JOHANNES, Geschichte Armeniens (in A rm enian), Jerusalem 1867, ch. 16. Cf. TER- MINASSIANTZ, p. 30-31. Die Armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den Syrischen Kirchen bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts (Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 26, Heft 4), 71. See KATHOLIKOS JOHANNES, Geschichte Armeniens (in A rm enian), Jerusalem 1867, ch. 16. Cf. TER- MINASSIANTZ, p. 30-31. Die Armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den Syrischen Kirchen bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts (Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 26, Heft 4), Leipzig 1904. 72. KARAPET TER-MEKERTTSCHIAN, “ A rarat” 1898, p. 383-386. Cf. TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 31ff. 73. J. ISMIREANTZ, Girq Thghthotz, Tiflis 1901. 74. This is only a tentative guess, because from the letter we cannot get a clear picture of why the Council was convened. See Appendix I and V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 365: “Vielmehr lasst such daraus nur die Tatsache dieser Lan- dessynode der Armenier mit der unter ihrer Jurisdiktion stehenden Georgiern und Albaniern erheben. Uber den Grund dieser Zusammenkunft erfahren wir nichts, werden aber nicht irregehen, wenn wir rein innere Angelegenheiten dieses Jursidiktionsbereiches als Motiv annehmen. Jene monophysitischen Syrer werden wohl unerwarteterweise vor dieser Synode erschienen sein, um ihre Beschwerden vor- zutragen. Man nahme sich ihrer Angelegenheit an. Das Ergebnis war das erwahnte Schreiben in armenischer und perischer Sprache.” 75. See the text of the letter in J. ISMIREANTZ, Girq Thghthotz, Tiflis 1901, 41-47. Cf. the relevant disagreem ent of V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., 365, with TER-MINASSIANTZ, 33-36, who gives as a likely reason for the convention of the Council the settling of internal church questions and the D.PAPANDREOU 191 approval of the Henotikon, p. 33. 76. See Appendix I and V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., 365-366. 77. Cf. TER-MINASSIANZ, p. 35. 78. See TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 32. 79. For Nestorian teachings, see also G. Bebis, Contributions to the study of Nestorius (from an Orthodox standpoint), Athens 1964, p. 90-160 (in Greek). 80. See D. PAPANDREOU, op. cit., Appendix I. 81. The text of the letter is in J. ISMIREANTZ, Girq Thghthotz, Tiflis 1901, p. 48-51ff. Cf. V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 366-367. 82. See the text in ISMIREANTZ and cf. TER- MINASSIANTZ, 38. 83. Girq Thghthotz, 48-51, V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 367. 84. Cf. TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 38; V. INGLISIAN, ibid. 85. Girq Thghthotz, p. 49/ 51. The letter also names: “Great Ampeghis, bishop of the city of Cherson..., the pious presbyter Anatolis from Constantinople”. By Ampeghis, also known as Ampegh, is most probably meant (see V. INGLISIAN, 367-368) Amphilochios of Sidon, who in his letter to the Emperor Leo showed a hostile attitude to the 4th Ecumenical Council. Cf. AHRENS-KRUGER, K.G. des Zacharias Rh., 22, 31; R. JANIN, Amphiloque (II), in: Diet. Hist. Geogr., 2 (1914) 1348. 86. See V. INGLISIAN, Chalkedon..., p. 370. 87. See the letter of the orthodox Syrians to the Armenians, “To the Catholicos of Armenia, Nerses and Mersapuh bishop of Taron and the Mamikonians and to the other bishops and Princes”. Girq Thghthotz, 52-54, trans. into German by TER- MINASSIANTZ, p. 197-261. 88. See Girq Thghthotz, p. 52-54. Cf. G. GARITTE, Les ecrits anti-armeniens dits du Catholicos Isaac, in: Revue Hist. Eccl. 45, Rome 1950, p. 136, TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 42-43. 89. See “From Nerses, Catholicos of the Armenians, and Marsapuh, bishop of the Mamikonians, a reply to the letter of the Syrians”. Girq Thghthotz, 55-58, German trans. by TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 162-164. Nerses became Catholicos in 548/ 9. 90. On the theopaschite formula generally, see MANSI VII, 1041, 556/ 7,1136. “An Account...”, ed. GARITTE, p. 31-34. Cf. ibid., p. 113-115. 91. Girq Thghthotz, p. 55-56. „Cf. p. 53. 192 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 92. TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 42, note 1 contradicts the opinion of GELZER, Armenien, in: Real.-Encycl. fur protestant. Theol. und Kirche, Bd. 2. 93. Mainly on the basis of the Book of Letters, Girq Thghthotz, p. 72-73. 94. See (a ) “Letter of greetings from ABDISO, bishop of the Syrians, to Ter-Nerses, Catholicos of the Armenians”, Girq Thghthotz, p. 59-61, German trans. by TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 164-166. Cf. observations, p. 44-45. (b ) “Letter of ABDISO, bishop of the Syrians, to Nerses, Catholicos of the Armenians and to various other brother bishops, concerning the anathematized Nestorian heretics”. Girq Thghthotz, p. 62-65. Cf. TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 46. (c ) Abdiso, “On the anathematized Nestorians and all the heretics”, Girq Thghthotz, p. 66-67. (d) ABDISO, “Excommunication of all the heretics, who are against the Orthodox”, Girq Thghthotz, p. 68-69. (e) “Letter of Denunciation from TER-NERSES, Catholicos of the Armenians, to the bishops”, Girq Thghthotz, p. 70-71. (f) “A Promise of the union of the Land of the Armenians, given by Nerses, Catholicos of the Ar­ menians, Mersapuh, bishop of the Mamikonians, Peter, bishop of Siwneac and other bishops and all of the people”, Girq Thghthotz, p. 72-75. See also TER-MINASSIANTZ, p. 46, AKINIAN, Peter, bishop of Siwneac (in Armenian), Handes Amsorya, 17, 1903, p. 245-257. On Bishop Peter, see con­ tinuation, 18 (1904) 18-22, 77-83, 105-113. (g) “Anathema of the Nestorians by the Holy Church, a letter of Nerses, Catholicos of the Armenians, Mersapuh, bishop of the Manikonians, Peter, bishop of Siwneac, to Gregory the bishop of Mard- petakan (region of Naxcavan) and to Gregory the bishop of the Arcrunians” , Girq Thghthotz, p. 76-77. 95. According to this information, the Council must have been convened in the year 554 ( 451 ciii). 96. See “An Historical Account from the days of St. Gregory up to the present day, about his successors in line, that is, to his throne, and about the rulers during the days of the Romans and the Persians; and about recognising how far they adhered to the true faith which they received from St. Gregory and the Council of Nicaea, and when it was that they were led astray and by whom, and how they conducted themselves, and what questions arose concerning the faith, and how they remained in error up to the present day”, ed. by GARITTE, p. 404-405, cf. pg. 69-76 and ibid., p. 35-36. Appendix IX THE FIRST THREE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE ARMENIAN CHURCH

Mesrob K. Krikorian

My intention in the present study is to examine thoroughly the first three Ecumenical Councils historically, theologically, canonically and from the point of view of liturgical tradition. Further I shall furthermore expose their significance for the Armenian Church and finally will en­ deavour to shed new light on the complicated problem of Ecumenical Councils.

1. The Council of Nicaea In the fourth century Arius of Alexandria, a learned priest, was involved in the discussions concerning the person of Christ. He believed and taught that “the Son is neither unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten, nor is he derived from any substance; but by his own will and counsel he existed before all times fully God, only-begotten, un­ changeable. And before he was begotten, created, appointed or established, he dis not exist; for he was not begotten... The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning (1). In 325 the Emperor Constantine invited the bishops or represen­ tatives of all Churches to Nicaea to examine the teaching of Arius which was spreading daily throughout the Christian world. The Council condemned Arius and his “blasphemous sayings and expressions” (2), and formulated a creed of the Christian faith in which Jesus Christ was confessed as “begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the sub­ stance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the F ather” (3). More than 300 bishops gathered at the Synod of Nicaea from different parts of the world. One of them was Aristakes, the son of the patriarch Gregory the Illuminator, who represented the Church of “Greater Armenia”. His name is corrupted in the acts of the Council as Aristarchos or Arit- 193 194 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW sekios or Arsaphios, but these variations undoubtedly signify the same bishop of Armenia (4). Moses Chorenensis (Movses Chorenatsi), a fifth century historian, in his History of Ar­ menia has devoted two chapters to the Council of Nicaea (BookII, chapts. 89 & 90). He relates: “At that time the edict of the Emperor Constantine arrived to our King Tiridates, that he should take with him the saint Gregory and go to the Synod; but he did not undertake... Nor did Saint Gregory agree to go... But they sent Aristakes as their representative with two letters of the true faith” (5). In Nicaea the 318 fathers anathematized and ex­ communicated the Arians (6). “Then Aristakes returned with truly believing words (i.e. the Creed) and twenty-one canonical chapters of the Synod, coming to meet his father and the King in the city of Valarshapat. Thereupon St. Gregory became joyful and added for himself some chapters on the canons of the Council for more caution regarding his dioscese” (7). Another history of the fourth and fifth centuries, known under the title Agathangelos, has also recorded the par­ ticipation of the Armenian Church in the Council of Nicaea (8). It reports the following: “Then the Great Emperor Constantine Augustan commended all bishops to gather in the town of Nicaea. At that time the great King Tiridates and the holy Catholicos Gregory prepared and sent Aristakes, who went to the magnificent Synod of Nicaea together with all the other bishops. There the acceptable traditional faith, illuminant orders, regulative canons, and the God-given power of the will of God of immeasurable heights were set up for the whole world” (9). As Moses Chorenensis and Agathangelos attest, the Nicene Creed and canons were brought to Armenia by bishop Aristakes. Later the Nicene (-Constantinopolitan) Creed was re-compiled on the so-called Athanasian verstion (10). It is therefore correct to call the creed of the Armenian Church as Nicene-Athanasian (11). Since this is the basis of the Ar­ menian faith and dogma, I would like to quote herewith a translation: “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God the Father, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten and not made. Himself of the nature of the Father by whom all things MESROB K. KRIKORIAN 195 were made in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible; “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate, was made man, was born per­ fectly of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. “By whom he took body, soul and mind and everything that is in man, (except sin (12) ), truly and not by sup­ position. “He suffered and was crucified and was buried and rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven with the same body and sat at the right hand of the Father. “He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father to judge the quick and the dead; of whose Kingdom there is no end. “We believe also in the Holy Spirit, the increate and the perfect, who spake in the law and in the prophets and in the G ospels; “Who came down upon the Jordan, preached to the Apostols and dwelt in the saints. “We believe also in only one universal and apostolic C hurch; “In one baptism, in repentance for the remission and forgiveness of sins; “In the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgment of souls and bodies, in the Kingdom of heaven and in the eternal life.” An anathema (13), similar to that of the Nicene (14), follows the Creed. Then comes a doxology which, although attributed to Gregory the Illuminator, in fact originates between the fifth and sixth centuries (15): “But we glorify him who was before all time, worshipping the Holy Trinity and the one Godhead, the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit, now and for always. Amen” (16). The canons of the Synod of Nicaea are incorporated in twenty chapters in the Book of Canons (Corpus juris canonici) of the Armenian Church (17), and enjoy an im­ portance and authority of the first rank. The Council of Nicaea is celebrated on a Saturday in September, usually three or four weeks after the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, or the Saturday after the remembrance of discovery of the girdle of the Virgin Mary.

2. The Council of Constantinople 196 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW The Council of Constantinople was assembled in 381 to examine and combat the teaching of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople (from 342 to 346 and from the end of 351 to 27th January 360) who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In the Book of Letters the false doctrine of Macedonius is described thus: “Macedonius the God-fighter said the Holy Spirit is less than the Father and the Son, and he did not believe that the Holy Spirit, as according to the Scriptures, is consubstantial with the Father and the Son and equal in glory and majesty” (18). At the Council of Constantinople Macedonius and his heresy were condemned and the Holy Spirit was acknowledged as increate, eternal and almighty God and as the consubstantial third person of the Holy Trinity. During the same Synod the Bishop of New Rome was given the primacy of honour after the Bishop of (Old) Rome. Ac­ cording to an old and widely spread tradition, the Armenian Catholicos Nerses the Parthian personally took part in the Council. Moses Chorenensis in his History records the following: “Theodosius freed all those holy fathers who because of their orthodox faith were captured in exile; among them he brought also Nerses the Great to Con­ stantinople and kept him in great honours until the true faith in connection with the blasphemies of the wicked Macedonius was ascertained. Macedonius did not confess the Holy Spirit as Lord, adorable and praiseworthy with the Father and the Son, but as distinct from the Godhead’s nature, receiver, servant and official and as a certain spirit, but not substance in person. And the one hundred and fifty holy fathers gathering at the imperial city of Constantinople, including Damasus of Rome, Nectarius of Constantinople, Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gelasius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium, and other bishops, rejected and anathematized Macedonius and all those who questioned the Holy Spirit” (19). The tenth century historian Yovhannes of Drasxanakert, following Moses Chorenensis, informs us that Catholicos Nerses the Parthian took an active part in the Synod of Constantinople: “And then Theodosius released and sent home those who were captured in exile by Valentianus. From there he kept with him Nerses the Great, until through him he could turn the impious blasphemy of Macedonius into the true MESROB K. KRIKORIAN 197 faith. And then he called a council of one hundred and fifty bishops in Constantinople, who rejected the anathematized Macedonius and all those who questioned the Holy Spirit” (20). However, authenticity of this tradition is very much called into question by recent philological research. Ac­ cording to reliable accounts (21), the Catholicos Nerses died in 373 and so he could not participate in the Council of Con­ stantinople (381). In 381 the Catholicos Zeven passed away and was succeeded by Aspurakes of Manazhert. Most probably the acts of the Synod were brought or sent to Ar­ menia in the days of Aspurakes and since “there was no problem of disagreement and separation among the sees”, they were accepted without any hesitation by the head and bishops of the Armenian Church (22). The Council of Constantinople is remembered and celebrated by the Armenians usually in February, on the Saturday immediately following the feast of Vardananq which always falls on a Thursday.

3.The Council of Ephesus

In the fifth century the christological controversy was already beginning. The theological school of Antioch tended to emphasize the humanity in Jesus Christ, whereas the School of Alexandria stressed more the full divinity of the Son of God. The Armenians, due to their education and mentality, followed the Alexandrian theologians. Theodore bishop of Mopsuestia (392-428), and in addition his pupil Nestorius bishop of Constantinople (428-431), preached two separate natures and persons in Christ. Theodore elucidated the union of the manhood and Godhead by the example of husband and wife who through marriage become “one body”, but still remain two separate persons. Nestorius went so far as to deny the quality of the Virgin Mary as Theotokos (God- bearer). He taught that the one form from the virgin was the man only ; the Godhead (Diety) came and dwelt in him af­ terwards: “The wicked Nestorius blasphemed and said that Mary did not bear God, but a human being, as one of the prophets; and that he was thus greater than the prophets because he became the temple of the Word of God” (23). In 431 the third Ecumenical Council assembled at Ephesus. Two hundred bishop^ from all parts of the Christian 198 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW world took part in the Synod. Nestorius was anathematized and deposed from his throne, and Maximian succeeded him as patriarch of Constantinople (431-434). Moses Chorensis who is a contemporary author, relates the events of the Council as follows: “At that time the impious Nestorius reigned unworthily on the episcopal see of Constantinople, and following Jewish opinions blasphemed against the most holy Virgin (M ary), saying that she was anthropotokos and not theotokos. His reason for this was the one born of her taking his origin by grace from (the Virgin) Mary was dif­ ferent, and that the Son was different from the Father before all eternity. Thus theTrinity became a union of four. Because of this the holy fathers having written mandates, gathered in Asia at Ephesus which overlooks the sea; among two hun­ dred in all were Celestine of Rome, Cyril of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, John of Antioch, Memnon of Ephesus, Paul of Emesa and Theodotus of Ancyra. The anathematized Nestorius, confessed our Lord Jesus Christ as the one Son of God, and the most holy Virgin Mary as theotokos” (24). The Armenian Church did not directly take part in the Synod of Ephesus either. But coincidentally since c. 425 several Armenian vardapets (archimandrites) were studying in Constantinople: Yovseph, Eznik, Koriwn, Levond, Yovhan and Artzan “whom Maximian, the bishop of Byzantium, entertained superbly” (25). The now patriarch gave copies of the acts of the Council to the Armenian monks. At the same time Cyril of Alexandria (26), Proclus of Con­ stantinople (27) and Acacius of Melitene (28) wrote letters to the Catholicos Sahak and to the vardapet Mesrop Mashtots, warning them of the heretical teachings of Theodore and Nestorius (29). Ormanean (30) suggests that these letters were written in 434/ 435 when Proclus succeeded to Maximina, but if we are to believe Chorensis (31) they were issued straight after the Synod of Ephesus and were brought to Armenia by the translator-vardapets, i.e. in about 432: “Afterwards, our Translators... coming (home) found Sahak and Mesrop in Ashtishat of Taron and submitted the letters, and the six canons of Ephesus (32) regulated canonically, and an accurate copy of the Scriptures” (33). Sahak and Mesrop, respecting the decisions of the Ecumenical Council and adhering to their traditional or­ thodox faith, rejected the Nestorian heresy and ordered the heretics to be expelled from Armenia (34). MESROB K. KRIKORIAN 199 In the Armenian Church the Council of Ephesus is usually celebrated on a Saturday in August, one day before the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.

4. The Second Council of Ephesus

The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus could not end the christological controversies, neither did it succeed in sup­ pressing the Nestorian heresy which survived throughout the centuries. Even today some scattered Nestorian com­ munities exist in the Near East and the United States of Am erica. Between the fourth and fifth centuries Eutyches (c. 378- 453?) a well-known and influential personality in the monastic life of Byzantium, was involved in the christological controversies. Head of a large monastery on an island (“Kuki”) near Constantinople, where more than three hundred monks were engaged in theological studies and research, he quarreled and struggled zealously against the Nestorian heresy, but his immoderate enthusiasm led him to theological exaggerations. According to his critics he started to preach that after the Incarnation Christ had one nature and was not consubstantial with us! Consequently he was tried at the tribunal by Flavian, bishop of Constantinople (22nd Nov. 448). Here I quote some words of Eutyches which he professed during his trial: (a) “Please observe that I have not said that the body of a man became the body of God, but that the body was human, and that the Lord was incarnate of the Virgin. If you wish me to add that his body is consubstantial with ours, I will do so; but I take the word consubstantial in such a way as not to deny that he is the son of God...” (b) “... I admit that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union one nature... I follow the doc­ trine of the blessed Cyril and the holy fathers and the holy Athanasius. They speak of two natures before the union, but after the union and Incarnation they speak of one nature, not two” (35). As Eutyches refused to admit clearly and openly two natures in the Incarnate Word, he was deprived from his priestly rank and excommunicated from the Church (36). But the excommunication had no effect; he sought rehabilitation through those rwho stressed the unity of two 200 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW natures in God the Word. In 449 the Emperor Theodosius II (1st May 408-28th July 450) called a council in Ephesus (“Latrocinum Ephesinum”, Leo, Ep. 45) under the presidency of Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria (444-451), in which about one hundred and thirty bishops participated. Eutyches again declared “Two natures before the union, one only afterwards” ! The Synod approved this formula and re­ established him in his dignities as priest and archimandrite. Pope Leo of Rome (440-461) had sent to the Council certain letters; one particularly famous among them was the Tome addressed to Flavian. But Dioscurus did not provide an opportunity for the Roman legates to express themselves freely; he directed the Synod with great authority, and all the decisions were ratified by the Emperor. Bishop Flavian as the champion of two natures, was deposed and assigned to exile, but he died while being escorted on his journey (:J7). The second Synod of Ephesus, called “Robber Council” by adversaries, is not officially accepted by the Armenian Church, but there are quite a few sympathetic references to it in theological literature. Here I quote some of them. (a) “As for Dioscorus, because of whom you often insult us by arguing, I ask you, who is this Dioscorus; is he not in fact your patriarch, head and leader of the second Council in Ephesus? Our country of Armenia possesses neither the document of confession nor the definition of the faith or any other tradition of this Synod. We have only heard that he did not join the followers of the cursed Nestorius - that is to say Flavian, John of Antioch and the followers of Theodoret; consequently (the Emperor) Marcian and the Council (of Chalcedon) deposed and exiled him. For that reason we do not anathematize him, but accept him because we see no evil in him ” (38). (b) “And then enmity arose between Flavian and the head of the monastery in the city (of Constantinople), Eutyches, that the latter should likewise confess two natures in Christ. Eutyches himself did not acknowledge the right doctrine, because he confessed the body of the word of God to be in appearance only and not truly... For this reason the second Council of Ephesus was called by the Emperor Theodosius under the guidance of the great Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, and as is well known, both sides were con­ demned” (39). It is important to notice that the Armenians have MESROB K. KRIKORIAN 201 somehow acquired an erroneous idea about the second Synod of Ephesus; they believe that Eutyches was equally anathematized together with bishop Flavian. This is also stated by Michael the Syrian at the same synod. “Eutyches regretted formally and not truly; for that reason he was not accepted, but anathematized, because he said the humanity of our Lord was in appearance only” (40). Certainly later developments and events echo this information. 5. The Council of Chalcedon

On the 28th July 450 the Emperor Theodosius II died suddenly as the result of an accident on horseback. This unexpected event completely changed the destiny of christological controversies. The Empress Pulcheria seized power, married the senator Marcian and proclaimed him Emperor. Apparently she was convinced in the doctrine of two natures, and so supported by Marcian, she rehabilitated all those who were disgraced at Ephesus II. On the other hand the Grand Chamberlain Chrysaphius was executed and Eutyches was confined in the suburbs of Constantinople. In October 451 by order of Marcian, a Council was assembled at Chalcedon to revise the decisions of Ephesus II and to settle the dispute concerning the natures of the Word Incarnate. The Synod was presided over by the Patrician Anatolius and other high functionaries, as well as by the Roman legates, bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, bishop M aximus of Antioch etc. The Council condemned both Eutyches and Dioscorus, accepted the Tome of Leo, and formulated a definition on the Two N atures of Christ: “Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a rational soul and body... As regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, in the last days, for us men and for our salvation, of the Virgin M ary, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in TWO NATURES, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way an- nulated by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one 202 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW person and subsistance (hypostasis)” etc. (41). The Council of Chalcedon caused a long and unfortunate struggle concerning the question of the Natures of Christ. On September 4, 454, Dioscorus died at Gengra (Paphlagonia) following three years of exile. His supporters in Alexandria, clergymen and people alike, were so deeply moved and angered that on 28th March 457 they burned the new patriarch Proterius to death. Timothy Aelurus succeeded him (March 457-January 460, 475-31st July 477), but his reign was not without difficulty. His book, Refutation of the Definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, became a classical source through the centuries for those who combated the definitions and decisions of Chalcedon. However, Alexandria was not alone in its contest against the Chalcedonian dogma; the Syrians too strongly rejected it. In 451, while Byzantium was in dispute over the Natures of Christ, the Armenians were fighting hard for their life and faith. Under Yazdgard II (438-457) Iran endeavoured to suppress the Armenian Church in order to put an end to the cultural and political self-existence of Armenia. The Ar­ menians lost the battle at Avarayr, but continued their resistance until 484/ 85 when Persia recognized the religious - cultural self-determination of Armenia. Some time between 451 and 508 the A rm enians were informed about the Council of Chalcedon, but they did not accept its definition. In 508, at the second session of the national Council of Dowin, during the reign of catholicos Babgen I from Othmus, they rejected and anathematized the Chalcedonian doctrine as a sort of Nestorianism (42). Since then the christological position of the Armenian Church has not undergone any fundamental or official change (43).

6. After Chalcedon

In 482 the Emperor Zeno (474-491) tried to heal the schism of the Church by publishing his renowned Henotikon (Edict of Reunion) which was intended to reconcile the Chalcedonians and the anti-Chalcedonians. He proposed the following: “We confess that Christ, having come down and been made in­ carnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary the God- bearer, is one, not two; for we assert that both his miracles and also the sufferings which he of his own will endured in the flesh, belong to one single person; we under no circumstance MESROB K. KRIKORIAN 203 admit those that make division or confusion, or bring in a phantom; seeing that his truly sinless Incarnation from the God-bearer did not bring about the addition of a son, for the Holy Trinity existed as a Trinity even when one member, God the Word, became incarnate... And we anathematize any one who has held or holds any other opinion, either now or at any other time, whether at Chalcedon or at any other Synod; and in particular do we anathematize the aforementioned Nestorius and Eutyches and all who upheld their teaching” (44). The non-Chalcedonians were in some measure satisfied with Henotikon, but in the West, Pope Simplicius excommuni cated the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople, in addition to the Emperor. In 543 the Emperor Justinian, through the influence of his wife, Theodora, condemned by edict the works of three Nestorian theologians, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrus, and Ibas of Edessa which, summarized under the title of “Three Chapters”, were of­ ficially anathematized in 553 at the second Council of Con­ stantinople (Fifth Ecumenical Council). In the seventh century, the Emperor Heraclius (610-641) made a new attempt to settle the christological disputes through the monothelite definition (Greek: monos - “only, alone” and thelema - “will”) definition. The Emperor’s aim was to find a solution and regain hold of (at least ec­ clesiastically) Africa, Syria and Armenia which were suf­ fering under the Persian attacks. The monothelite doctrine which was proposed by the patriarch Sergius of Con­ stantinople (610-638), confessed “Two Natures, but only one godly-human operation and will”. This formula had a certain success in Egypt and Armenia, and was even confirmed by Pope Honorius (625-640) and published by the Emperor Heraclius in his Ecthesis in 638. But the controversies con­ tinued, and when, as a result of Arab invasions Syria, Egypt, and Armenia were lost for Byzantium, the Chalcedonian theologians refused to surrender the definition or decisions of the Council in any way. Thus politics once again had a critical influence on theological problems. From 7th Nov. 680 to 16th September 681 the third Council of Constantinople (or Sixth Ecumenical Council) was assembled in Trullo. Under the presidency of the Emperor Constantine IV it condemned Pope Honorius and all followers of the Monothelite doctrine, re-affirmed the Chalcedonian doctrine 204 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW and confessed as follows: “We also preach two natural wills in Christ and two natural operations, without division, without change, without separation, without partition, without confusion” (45). Consequently all hopes and efforts to find a peaceful and reconciling solution for the christological controversies were in vain and finally (Chalcedon triumphed, but over ruins!) (46). The seventh Ecumenical Council was held in 787 at Nicaea in connection with the iconoclastic question; it justified and recommended painted images of all kinds in mosaic or on walls, in pictures or on vessels and vestments, of the Saviour Jesus Christ, of the Virgin Mary, or of the angels and saints (47). The Church of Armenia also makes use of pictures, mosaics and wall-paintings in churches, but properly speaking does not have icons, fights exaggerations and rejects statues and statuettes.

7. The Ecumenical Councils in the Liturgical Tradition of the Armenian Church

The first three Ecumenical Councils are commemorated ceremonially in the Armenian Church. On the feast-day of the Councils the same canon of Hymns which in fact is devoted to the Fathers of the Church is sung (48). In the first part of the canon a general hymn praises the gathering of churchfathers who established the ground of the faith on the basisof the prophets and apostles, refuting false teachings of the heretics (49). A few stanzas are directed against Arius (50);herel quoteone of them:“I saw in the Council word emanating from the Father, confessing (Christ) as born and yet not being a creature, ever consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost. And (the fathers) refuting the heresy with luminous words, anathematized Arius and his blasphemous sect” (51). Another verse glorifies the “wonderful Forefathers” who assembling at Nicaea cleansed “the corrupting darnel and defined canonical letters for all nations” (52). In one par­ ticular hymn the participation of Bishop Aristakes, son of Gregory the Illuminator, in the Council of Nicaea is remembered: “0 saint Aristakes, through you the confession of faith of the holy fathers concerning God (the Word) shone as a universal light for Armenians; cease not to intercede for MESROB K. KRIKORIAN 205 US” (53). As to the second Ecumenical Council, in the hymns of the Armenian Church the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son: “0 Spirit of God, uncreated essence, thou art of perfect personality and creator of all things, united by nature with the Father and the Son; thou art blessed Lord of our Fathers” (54). In two particular stanzas the heresy of Macedonius is strongly refuted: “And when the Council assembled, they refuted the evil heresies and confessed the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, consubstantial with the Son, the giver of life to all peoples. They anathematized Macedonius the blasphemous tongue” (55). It is interesting to note that even the tradition within which the catholicos Nerses the Parthian participated in the Council of Constantinople (381) echo in the Hymnal: “Saint Nerses was glorified with highest honours by the Council of holy chosen fathers of blessed memory, while he professed the Spirit as true God like the Father and the Son” (56). Jesus Christ, the Son of God came into the world at the propitious time and from the Virgin Mary “he took body, soul and mind and everything that is (in) man” (Nicene Creed). In the fifth century when Nestorius denied that the one born from the Virgin was God, the Council of Ephesus (431) proclaimed her to be really Theotokos (God-bearer). Throughout the Hymnal the word astowadzadzin (God- bearer) is repeated in many beautiful songs: “0 Theotokos, thou art column of light shadowing cloud, thou art temple of the Word who shepherded Israel by word; intercede with him for us” (57). Nestorius too is anathematized in the same hymns devoted to the Fathers of the Church (58). Likewise in the Ritual of ordination the first three Ecumenical Councils are acknowledged and Eutyches and many other heretics in addition to Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius and the Pope Leo are condemned (59).

8. Conclusion

The first three Ecumenical Councils are deeply rooted in the theological literature, canons and liturgical tradition of the Armenian Church (60). Therefore a complete and literal acceptance of any later historical Council would not make 206 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW sense to our people. It seems that the corner-stone of the differences and controversies is still the Council of Chalcedon. In my humble opinion, after reaching a mutual agreement concerning the substance of the Chalcedonian doctrine, it should not be difficult to come to terms on the substance of the definitions of the fifth Ecumenical Council since the Oriental Orthodox Churches are also firmly and strongly against Eutychianism and Nestorianism. As to the seventh Council, there cannot be any problem, since the Oriental Churches also make use of pictures, provided that each Church enjoys her freedom to interpret and act ac­ cording to her taste, character and traditions. The substance of the decisions of these Councils can be made acceptable. The difficulty may be with the acceptance of the Councils as such.

Footnotes 1. Documents of the Christian Church, selected and edited by Henry Bettenson, London - New York - Toronto, second edition, Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 56. 2. Ibid., p. 57-58. 3. Ibid., p. 35. 4. M. Ormanean, Azgapatum (History of the Armenian Nation), vol. 1 (Istanbul, 1912), p. 112. 5. Moses Chorenensis, History of Armenia, Tiflis, 1913, pp. 239-40. 6. Ibid., p. 240. 7. Ibid., pp. 240-41. S. Agathangelos, History of Armenia, Tiflis, 1909, chapt. 127, sections 884 & 885. 9. Ibid., p. 465. 10. Yovseph Gatherdjean, Hanganak hawatoy (The Creed of the Armenian Church), Vienna, 1891, pp. 37-38; Orm anean, Azgapatum (History of the Armenian Nation), l,p. 113. 11. Ibid., p. 37. An English translation of the Creed of the Armenian Church can be seen in Divine Liturgy of the Ar­ menian Apostolic Church (translated by archbp. Tiran N ersoyan), New York, 1950, pp. 47 & 49. 12. This expression, “except sin”, does not occur in the usual Creed of the Armenian Church, but it is preserved in the text of Nerses of Lampron Xllth century; see his Xorhr- dadzuthiwn srbazan pataragi (Commentary of Divine MESROB K. KRIKORIAN 207 Liturgy), Jerusalem, 1842, p. 56. 13. Nersoyan, p. 49. 14. Bettenson, p. 36. 15. H anganak hawatoy, pp. 38-39. 1(5. Nersoyan, p. 49. 17. Kanonagirq Hayots (Canon-book of the Armenian Church), edited by V. Yacobean, E revan, I, 1964, pp. 114-50. 18. Girq thghthots (Book of letters), Tiflis, 1901, p. 416. This letter is probably written by Sahak III Catholicos (677-703). 19. M. Chorenensis, History of Armenia, pp. 297-98; cf. Patmuthiwn srboyn Nersisi Parthcwi (History of St. Nerses the Parthian), Venice, 1853, pp. 61-62, and Book of letters, pp. 220, 295 etc. 20. Patmuthiwn Yovhannu Katholikosi (History of the Catholicos John) Jerusalem , 1867, p. 65; cf. En- dhanrakan thughthq srbyon Nersisi Shnorhalwoy (General letter of St. Nerses the Gracious), Jerusalem , 1871, p. 182. 21. Ormanean, Azgapatum (History of the Armenian N ation), I, 219. 22. Ibid., p. 246. Three chapters of canons of the Synod of Constantinople are incorporated in the Armenian Canon- book, see Yacobean, op. cit., pp. 273-276. 23. Book of letters, p. 67; cf. pp. 192 and 328. 24. Moses Chorenensis, p. 342. 25. Ibid., p. 341. 26. The letter of Cyril of Alexandria is not preserved. 27. See the letter of Proclus in the Book of letters, pp. 1-8, also A. Vardanean, Dasakan mahr bnagirner (Classical short texts), Vienna 1923, pp. 1-19 study, pp. 19-40 the text (or Handes Amsoreay, 1921). The reply of St. Sahak and Mesrop Mashtots to Proclus is to be found in the Book of letters, pp. 9- 13. 28. See the letter of Acacius to Sahak Catholicos in the Book of letters, pp. 14-15. There is another letter of Acacius ad­ dressed to the Armenian naxarars (satrap), Book of letters, pp. 19-21. The reply of St. Sahak can be found ibid, pp. 16-18. 29. Moses Chorenensis, pp. 342-43; Koriwn, Varq Mashtotsi (The life of M ashtots), E revan, 1941, p. 86, and L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church (English translation by C. Jenkins), London, III (reprinted 1960), pp. 268-70. 30. M. Ormanean, Azgapatum (History of the Armenian N ation), I, p. 312. 31. Moses Chorenensis, p. 342-43: cf. Pere M. Tallon, Livre 208 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW des lettres (in Melanges de l’Universite St. Joseph), tome XXXII (1955), fasc. i, pp. 22-23. 32. See these six canons in Kanonagirq Hayots (Canon-book of the Armenian Church), I, pp. 277-281. 33. Chorenensis, p. 343; cf. Koriwn, Varq M ashtotsi (The life of M ashtots), pp. 74 and 76. 34. Varq srboyn Mesropay (The life of St. Mesrop), the shorter version, Venice, 1854, p. 27. 35. Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, p. 69. 36. Mansi, Concilia, VI, p. 747; Duchesne, ibid., pp. 280-291. 37. Duchesne, ibid., pp. 283-95. 38. Book of letters, p. 308. 39. A.G. Abrahamean, Yovhannes Imastaseri matenagruthiwne (The literary works of John the Philosopher), Erevan, 1956, p. 146, cf. ibid., p. 138. 40. Michael Patriarch of Syrians, Chronicle (in Armenian), Jerusalem , 1871, p. 168. 41. Bettenson, op. cit., p. 73; Duchesne, ibid., p. 307. 42. Book of letters, pp. 48-51, and Ormanean, Azgapatum (History of the Armenian Nation) I, pp. 509-511. 43. Concerning the position of the Armenian Church regarding the Council of Chalcedon see K. Sarkissian, The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, London (SPCK), 1965; Pater Vahan Inglisian, Chalkedon und die armenischeKirchein: Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. II, pp. 361-416, and Damaskinos Papandreou, The origin and organisation of the Armenian Church from the beginning to the4th Ecum enical Council (in G reek), Athens, 1966, pp. 154- 77. 44. Bettenson, p. 125. 45. Mansi, XI 635ff, and Bettenson, 128. 46. H. Gregoire, “The Byzantine Church” in: Byzantium, ed. by N.H. Baynes and H. St. L.B. Moss (Oxford, 1961), p. 104. 47. Bettenson, pp. 129-30. 48. Tzaynqagh sharakan (H ym nal), Istanbul, 1838, pp. 433- 37. 49. Ibid., p. 433. 50. Ibid., pp. 433 and 437. 51. Ibid., p. 437. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid., 337. 54. Ibid., 317, cf. pp. 304-305 etc. 55. Ibid., 301. THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 209 56. Ibid., 437. 57. Ibid., 337. 58. Ibid., 10. 59. Ibid., 437. 60. See M.K. Krikorian, “Christology in the Liturgical Tradition of the Armenian Church,” in: The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. XIII, No. 2 (1968), Brookline, Mass., pp. 212-223. B. The Fourth Consultation in Addis Ababa

(22-23 January 1971)

210 ADDIS ABABA CONSULTATION

January 22 and 23,1971

1. Summary of Conclusions

The following conclusions and questions have arisen out of our informal discussions in Addis Ababa about the lifting of anathemas and the recognition of Saints: 1. We agree that the lifting of the anathemas pronounced by one side against those regarded as saints and teachers by the other side seems to be an indispensable step on the way to unity between our two traditions. 2. We are also agreed that the lifting of the anathemas would be with a view to restoring communion between our two traditions, and therefore that it presupposes essential unity in the faith between our two traditions. The official announcement by both sides that there is in fact such essential unity in faith, a basis for which is already provided by the reports of our earlier conversations at Aarhus, Bristol and Geneva, would thus appear to be essential for the lifting of anathem as. 3. We agree further that once the anathemas against certain persons cease to be effective, there is no need to require their recognition as saints by those who previously anathematized them. Different autocephalous churches have differing liturgical calendars and lists of Saints. There is no need to impose uniformity in this matter. The place of these persons in the future united church can be discussed and decided after the union. 4. Should there be a formal declaration or ceremony in which the anathemas are lifted? Many of us felt that it is much simpler gradually to drop these anathemas in a quiet way as some churches have already begun to do. Each church should choose the way most suited to its situation. The fact that these anathemas have been lifted can then be for­ mally announced at the time of union. 5. Who has the authority to lift these anathemas? We are agreed that the Church has been given authority by her Lord both to bind and to loose. The Church which imposed the anathemas for pastoral or other reasons of that time, has 211 212 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW also the power to lift them for the same pastoral or other reasons of our time. This is part of the Stewardship or Oikonomia of the Church. 6. Does the lifting of an Anathema imposed by an ecumenical council call in question the infallibility of the Church? Are we by such actions implying that a Council was essentially mistaken and therefore fallible? What are the specific limits within which the infallibility of the Church with her divine-human nature operates? We are agreed that the lifting of the anathemas is fully within the authority of the Church and does not compromise her infallibility in essential matters of the faith. There was some question as to whether only another ecumenical council could lift the anathema imposed by an ecumenical council. There was general agreement that a Council is but one of the principal elements expressing the authority of the Church, and that the Church has always the authority to clarify the decisions of a Council, in accordance with its true intention. No decision of a Council can be separated from the total tradition of the Church. Each council brings forth or emphasizes some special aspect of the one Truth, and should therefore be seen as stages on the way to a fuller articulation of the truth. The dogmatic definitions of each council are to be understood and made more explicit in terms of subsequent conciliar decisions and definitions. 7. The lifting of anathemas should be prepared for by careful study of the teaching of these men, the accusations levelled against them, the circumstances under which they were anathematized, and the true intention of their teaching. Such study should be sympathetic and motivated by the desire to understand and therefore to overlook minor errors. An accurate and complete list of the persons on both sides to be so studied should also be prepared. The study should also make a survey of how anathemas have been lifted in the past. It would appear that in many instances in the past anathemas have been lifted without any formal action beyond the mere reception of each other by the estranged parties on the basis of their common faith. Such a study would bring out the variety of ways in which anathemas were imposed and lifted. 8. There has also to be a process of education in the churches both before and after the lifting of the anathemas, especially where anathemas and condemnations are written into the liturgical texts and hymnody of the church. The SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 213 worshipping people have to be prepared to accept the revised texts and hymns purged of the condemnations. Each church should make use of its ecclesiastical journals and other media for the pastoral preparation of the people. 9. Another important element of such education is the rewriting of Church history, text-books, theological manuals and catechetical materials. Especially in Church history, there has been a temptation on both sides to interpret the sources on a partisan basis. Common study of the sources with fresh objectivity and an eirenic attitude can produce common texts for use in both our families. Since this is a difficult and time-consuming project, we need not await its completion for the lifting of anathemas or even for the restoration of Communion. 10. The editing of liturgical texts and hymns to eliminate the condemnations is but part of the task of liturgical renewal. We need also to make use of the infinite variety and richness of our liturgical traditions, so that each church can be enriched by the heritage of others. 11. There seems to exist some need for a deeper study of the question: “Who is a Saint?” Neither the criteria for sainthood nor the processes for declaring a person as a Saint are the same in the Eastern and Western traditions. A study of the distinctions between universal, national and local saints, as well as of the processes by which they came to be acknowledged as such, could be undertaken by Church historians and theologians. The lifting of anathemas need not await the results of such a study, but may merely provide the occasion for a nccessary clarification of the tradition in relation to the concept of sainthood. 12. Perhaps we should conclude this Statement with the observation that this is now the fourth of these unofficial Conversations in a period of seven years. It is our hope that the work done at an informal level can soon be taken up of­ ficially by the churches, so that the work of the Spirit in bringing us together can now find full ecclesiastical response. In that hope we submit this fourth report to the churches. 2. Minutes

Participants

EASTERN ORTHODOX ORIENTAL ORTHODOX

Metropolitan Parthenions of Carthage Bishop Samuel (Patriarchate of Alexandria) (Coptic Orthodox Church) Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad Bishop Karekin Sarkissian (Moscow Patriarchate) (Armenian Apostolic Church) Metropolitan Nikodim of Attica Fr. Paul Verghese (Church of Greece) (Syrian Orthodox Church of India) Metropolitan Methodios of Axum Dr. V.C. Sam uel (Patriarchate of Alexandria) (Syrian Orthodox Church of India) Archpriest Liverii Voronov Like Seltanat Habte Mariam Workineh (Moscow Patriarchate) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Professor Sabas Agourides Professor Mikre Selassie Gebre (Church of Greece) Ammanuel (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Professor Nikos Nissiotis Archimandrite Nerses Bozabalian (Church of Greece) (Armenian Apostolic Church) Professor Todor Sabev Archimandrite Shnork Kasparian (Church of Bulgaria) (Armenian Apostolic Church) Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy Dr. K. M. Simon (Russian Orthodox Church) (Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate) Professor Panayotis Fouyas Ato. Abebaw Yigzaw (Church of Greece) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Dr. Andreas Mitsides Ato. Adamu Amare (Church of Cyprus) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Fr. Sergii Hackel Ato. Aberra Bekele (Russian Orthodox Church) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Fr. Nicolas Osolin Ato. Wolde Selassie (Russian Orthodox Church) (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Ato. Ayele Gulte (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Archpriest Memher Ketsela (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Melake Berhanat Tesfa of Borana (Ethiopian Orthodox Church)

CONSULTANT

Dr. Lukas Vischer (representing Faith and Order Secretariat)

MINUTES SECRETARY

The Rev. Philip Cousins

The following persons were also present: Dejazmatch Amha Aberra (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Fr. Nessibu Taffesse (Ethiopian Orthodox Church) Fr. Gebre Ighziabher Degou (Ethiopian Orthodox Church)

214 FIRST SESSION

1. The Consultation was opened with prayer by Bishop Sarkissian at 9:15 a.m. on 22nd January. 2. Professor Nissiotis then welcomed the participants in the name of the Continuation Committee. Recalling the previous consultations at Aarhus, Bristol and Geneva, he emphasised how grateful they all were to have this further opportunity of meeting. It was significant that, profiting from the Central Committee meetings of the World Council of Churches, they were able to meet for the first time on African soil and on the territory of an Oriental Orthodox Church. He mentioned that both Emperor Haile Sellasie and Acting Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Abuna Theophilus) had expressed great interest in the consultation and that therefore they began their work with the best possible presuppositions. He also expressed gratitude to Dr. Lukas Vischer of the Faith and Order Secretariat of the World Council of Churches for his great interest and en­ couragement. He reminded the participants that, like its three predecessors, this consultation would also be unof­ ficial: it was a meeting of theologians coming together to exchange views and promote understanding. However, it was all done in faithful service to their respective Churches in the hope that it would be useful in official negotiations later on. He concluded by inviting the meeting to elect a chairman. 3. It was proposed by Metropolitan Parthenios and seconded by Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad that Prof. Nissiotes and Fr. Paul Verghese act as co-chairmen. This was unanimously agreed. 4. Each participant then briefly introduced himself. 5. Prof. Nissiotis, commenting from the chair on the in­ troductions, said how happy he was that the Oriental Or­ thodox were in the majority for the first time at such a meeting. He then explained the agenda. This meeting would not be quite like its predecessors as it had to be arranged rather late but he expressed gratitude to those who had been willing to participate at such short notice and in particular to the two scholars who had agreed to present papers. The topic for the consultation would be “The Recognition of Saints and 215 216 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW the Problem of Anathemas”. This was a matter of practical ecclesiological debate which was appropriate for con­ sideration now that substantial agreement on the matter of Christological dogma had already been reached. It was agreed that the morning should be devoted to Dr. Samuel’s paper with discussion and the afternoon to Fr. Borovoy’s paper with discussion. The usual custom of having an Oriental Orthodox chairman when an Eastern Orthodox was presenting a paper and vice versa would be followed. Remaining in the chair therefore, Prof. Nissiotis invited Dr. Samuel to present his paper. 6. The Rev. Dr. V.C. Samuel then presented his paper entitled Some Thoughts on Condemnation of Teachers and Acclamation of Saints in Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches (see Appendix I ). Discussion of Dr. Samuel’s paper then commenced. Mikre Selassie: The Oriental Orthodox say that the Council of Chalcedon, by declaring the Tome of Leo to be ‘of faith’ violated something. What exactly did it violate? Dr. Samuel: This is a crucial question. Dioscorus at the Council itself and Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenos of Mabbug and Severus of Antioch later on, all say that the Council deviated from the established faith of the Church. In their view the faith of the Church consisted of the Creed of Nicaea as interpreted by the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus. It was this position that the Council of 449 had af­ firmed. Behind the charge that the Council of Chalcedon deviated from the established faith of the Church there lay these arguments: (a) The basic point of the Tome of Leo is that Jesus Christ is One Person existing in Two Natures. This phrase ‘in Two Natures’ was considered bythese men as being equivalent to the phrase ‘Two Natures after Union’ of the Antiochene theologians like Theodoret of Cyrrus and Ibas of Edessa. Cyril of Alexandria had always rejected the latter phrase as Nestorian. (b) In the Tome which the Council of Chalcedon declared a document of the faith there are passages where Jesus Christ is viewed at certain times acting as man and at other times as God. (c) The Tome of Leo cannot be accommodated with the anathemas of Cyril, in particular the fourth anathema. The anathemas of Cyril, for these men as for both the Eastern MINUTES 217 and Oriental Orthodox Churches, had already been recognized as authoritative. Bishop Sarkissian: There are three passages in the Tome clearly indicated in the Acts of the Council. Each time they appeared Theodoret brought in affinities from the works of Cyril to show that there was no difference. For example ‘one acted according to its nature’ does not mean that duality is an ascription of properties to one nature or the other. This suggested Nestorianism. Dr. Simon: In the commentaries of the Syriac Fathers physis was rendered as ‘Person’ possibly because of politics or mis­ translation. Not knowing this was a mis-interpretation, might they unwittingly have suggested a disguised Nestorianism or the conversion of the Trinity into a Quaternity? Prof. Nissiotis: This was covered at Aarhus and the Cyrilline formula was accepted by both sides. Ato. Aberra: The anathema in the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith against ‘those who imagine two natures of the Lord before the union but fashion anew one nature after the union’ surely presupposes that there is a union. Dr. Samuel: This clause in the Chalcedonian Definition was intended to give expression to the position of Eutyches. It says ek duo physeon as before the Incarnation, not as referring to the state of Incarnation. Ato. Abebaw: In that anathema what is ‘one nature after the union’? Dr. Samuel: The fact is that we do not have sufficient evidence to say that even Eutyches held the position of ‘Two Natures before’ and ‘One Nature after the Union’, although our Churches thought that he held it. But the phrase ‘One Incarnate Nature of God the Word’ is different. The issue was discussed at Aarhus and it was shown there what the Oriental Orthodox mean by the phrase. From the 6th century this phrase became a common formula for all, not only the Orientals. Even Western theologians have come to recognise this now. It is to be admitted also that the position referred to in the anathema above mentioned is rejected by all. Ato. Wolde: What was the ‘insubordination and disobedience’ of which Dioscorus was accused? Dr. Samuel: The reason stated in the verdict against Dioscorus is ‘insubordination and disobedience’. The meeting which deposed Dioscorus was not in my opinion a 218 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW session of the Council. See my article in the October 1970 number of the Ecumenical Review. The charge was one of contumacy as shown in the words ‘you did not respond to the three summonses of this holy Council’. 7. Bishop Sarkissian: It would be more beneficial if we raise the question “what is the distinction between official and non-official condemnation of a person?” This distinction is implied in Dr. Samuel’s paper. For example, the Armenian Church condemns others besides Leo of Rome, that is, people like Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrus and Ibas of Edessa. What then is the criterion for condemnation? Is it because an Oecumenical Council has condemned a person or is it because that person’s name has been incorporated into an anathema in a liturgical text? Will our Eastern brethren tell us if Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas are considered Or­ thodox Fathers in their liturgical texts? Dr. Samuel: I have looked at the Ethiopian tradition and may also be presumed to know something of the Syrian. In both of these Churches those three you have mentioned are con­ demned together with Diodore. They were condemned even before 451 on the ground that they were Nestorians. But we should now reconsider our judgments. We have condemned the Nestorian schism too strongly. However, this is not the issue now. After 451 Ephraim of Antioch, a persecutor of our Church, as also Paul referred to as the Jew, were considered heretics. But with special reference to Chalcedon, it is the Council itself and Leo of Rome that are constantly con­ demned. 8. Fr. Paul Verghese then introduced the following dignitaries of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church who had en­ tered the room during the foregoing discussion: Abuna Lukas, Archbishop of Arussi Abuna Markos, Archbishop of Gojjam Abuna Merkorios, Archbishop of Bale Abuna Querlos, Archbishop of Wollega Memher Ketsela, Chief Priest of St. Gabriel’s, Addis Ababa Two of the Archbishops then made brief speeches to the meeting. Abuna Lukas said that they were beyond all limits happy that after hearing news of the consultations from afar they were now at last able to see the theologians of the two sides in person. ‘Ethiopia rejoices to have you on her soil,’ he said and he wished the meeting success. He reminded the MINUTES 219 participants of Our Lord’s promise in the Gospel ‘where two or three are gathered together there am I in the midst of them’. He added that if they were ten in number, Christ would be the 11th and so on. Whatever their numbers, He would be with them as one more. Abuna Yakob said that in the Creed we declare our belief in one Church and that Creed was itself the decision of a Council. ‘Today we are experiencing new dimensions of that unity here,’ he added. ‘As the Twelve Apostles, themselves of one race, gathered together people of many races into the Church, so may we find our unity in Christ.’ He thanked the participants for their special efforts to reverse this par­ ticular breach in the Church’s unity. 9. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

SECOND SESSION

1. The meeting was resumed after coffee break at 11:30 a.m . 2. Discussion of Dr. Samuel’s paper continued.

Met. Nikodim of Attica: What exactly is the formula of 22nd October, 451 referred to in the paper? Dr. Samuel: The imperial commissioners had proposed the drawing up of a definition of the faith at the end of the first session of the Council and pressed the point at the second session. But almost the whole Council opposed it. Questions about the Tome of Leo were raised at the same time. The second session of the Council then ended. Afterwards, on 22nd October 451, the Eastern delegation came to the Council with their own draft definition of the faith which contained ek dyo physeon and not en dyo physesin. Dioscorus said he would accept ek dyo physeon so the vast majority of those who fought for this definition agreed with Dioscorus and not with the Tome. Prof. Agourides: I would like to make two comments on Dr. Samuel’s important and lucid paper. (1) What is essential and what is temporary in an Oecumenical Council? Not much work has been done on this problem in the Eastern Churches, yet it seems to me to be the basic theological problem underlying the paper we have heard. In the 4th Oecumenical Council temporary factors 220 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW played a larger part than theological ones. In this Dr. Samuel implied that Chalcedon was different from previous Coun­ cils. (2) Under certain historical circumstances misun­ derstanding is a very common human factor. What is the underlying unity between these two series of misun­ derstandings? Dr. Samuel: I did not in fact use the expression ‘more ttemporary than theological factors’. There was a very important theological issue at the Council of Chalcedon and that was how to settle the conflict between the Alexandrine and Antiochene schools. The leading men of the Council had a point to assert in addition to finding a solution to the problem. It should be noted that the affirmation that the two Natures of Christ continue dynamically in the one Person was not disputed by either side. If therefore the contribution of the Council of Chalcedon was only this affirmation, it was not anything new. In the Alexandrine emphasis of the Nicene Creed as interpreted by Ephesus in 431 it was already there. So the essential question to ask is ‘what was the faith of the Church in the 5th Century?’ That is what may be called a permanent factor. Met. Parthenios: It seems to me that if we reach agreement we would have to appoint a commission to eliminate all texts of condemnation, when that is done to appoint another commission to prepare for the restoring of communion and when that is done to appoint yet another commission to arrange final union. I would like to take a short cut and ask the Oriental Orthodox now: can you accept formally the Council of Chalcedon? Dr. Samuel: In my paper I was not speaking as a Church leaker but simply as a Christian committed to the cause of unity. The important thing is that we theologians agree on the essence of the faith after our three previous meetings. We should try to make that official. Then the question of anathemas and restoration of communion can come in. Fr. Paul Verghese: If we restore communion, there is no way of predicting which way the Chalcedon issue would go in the resulting united Church. Prof. Nissiotis: We cannot put formal recognition of Chalcedon as a pre-condition of union. Prof. Agourides: I would like to ask Dr. Samuel if he finds any positive element in the 4th Council and if so, what is it? MINUTES 221 Dr. Samuel: Any positive element that is to be ascribed to the Council of Chalcedon was already there. The Council provided nothing new. Prof. Agourides: But every Oecumenical Council confirmed the established faith, so that is not an accusation. Fr. Paul Verghese: The Council of Chalcedon was a high point for the Eastern Orthodox in the clarification of Christological dogma, therefore we must examine it and see where the Oriental Orthodox have difficulties. Bishop Sarkissian: I would like to add one point on that. Many Fathers of the Armenian Church have spoken favourably of some parts of the Council of Chalcedon, while being critical of the Tome of Leo. We are in fact more at home with the definitions of the Council than with the Tome. Fr. Borovoy: As a historian, I would like to ask Dr. Samuel four questions for clarification. (1) I agree that the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon and the sources of our general knowledge of the Council were written by pro-Chalcedonians who were not therefore favourable to the Oriental Orthodox point of view. But would you agree that the sources of your information on Chalcedon were composed by anti-Chalcedonians and were not therefore favourable to the Eastern Orthodox point of view? Dr. Samuel: Both sides mis-represented each other. In fact I relied more onx Mansi and Schwartz than on the Syriac writers. I used only those sources acceptable to Chalcedonians. Fr. Borovoy: (2) Would you agree that Dioscorus, theoretically, was justly condemned, at least on canonical and disciplinary grounds? Maybe some action of his could have led to canonical and disciplinary condemnation, as in the case of John Chrysostom, Cyril and others. After all, he could err. Dr. Samuel: Yes, it is possible. As I said in my article in the October 1970 Ecumenical Review, all were responsible for the division in some degree. Everybody is open to accusation, including Leo. No Western scholar has ever accused Leo, yet we thank he was more responsible for the division than Dioscorus. However, Dioscorus was not without flaw. Fr. Borovoy: (3) I agree that there was very big political influence in operation at Chalcedon, but it was no bigger than at the previous three Councils. Of the four, Nicaea was surely the most influenced by politics. Therefore all the 222 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Oecumenical Councils were influenced by non-theological factors. Why not say so here? Dr. Samuel: I agree that Constantine played a great part at Nicaea and may even have suggested the words homoousion to Patri. I am not sure about Constantinople. At the Council of Ephesus the Emperor was on the side of Nestorius. In the Council of 449 the Emperor also played a definite part. But no Council of the Church had ever had 18 high-ranking imperial officials as presidents in the way that Chalcedon did. I blame Paschasinus for taking advantage of this opportunity to express Rome’s displeasure against Dioscorus. So I maintain that the presence of the imperial commissioners was a cause of contradiction. Fr. Borovoy: All right, so there is a second problem, namely the degree of political influence. I say that all Councils were influenced by non-theological factors. (4) Regarding the Antiochene and Alexandrine schools, I suggest that not everything we received from the Alexan­ drine school was rightly expressed. Would you say it was also a victim of extremism? Dr. Samuel: Severus and the 6th Century Oriental Orthodox theologians were really more in the line of a synthesis of the Alexandrine and Antiochene schools than the Scythian monks. For instance, Severus admitted a distinction between the pre-incarnate and the incarnate Son. Mary was the mother of the incarnate Son. Here one can see the concern of Nestorius in criticizing the term ‘Theotokos’ expressed in a sound way. There is a real depth of theological insight in Severus showing the best of both schools. Fr. Paul Verghese: Would it be useful to have a more detailed study of the degree of imperial influence in every Council? Prof. Nissiotis: Yes. This mentioned at Aarhus? Prof. Agourides: Do we exclude some or any Councils from this dialectic? Dr. Samuel: My point of view is not to exclude any Council. Let us formalise our agreement in the faith first, then the question of Chalcedon and the later Councils can be attended to in the united Church later on. I think we should pave the way for the lifting of the anathemas first of all. Met. Nikodim of Attica: I should like to ask our Oriental brethren two questions in this regard. (1) Was there any political influence in your rejection of MINUTES 223 the Council of Chalcedon? (2) If you lift the anathemas, does that mean that you automatically accept the Council? Dr. Samuel: No. There are two steps in the process. The first is to clear away the negative factors, that of the con­ demnations. The second is to settle the positive matter of acclaiming the men as saints. This will not be easy because there will be strong feelings in the Churches even over the lifting of the anathemas. Prof. Nissiotis: Lifting the anathemas does not imply positive recognition. Bishop Sarkissian: Are there in fact any heretics? If the Council of Chalcedon condemned those who held the five beliefs anathematized in the Definition and it can be shown that Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenos and Severus did not hold those beliefs, then surely this has a very con­ siderable bearing on our understanding of the problem? Dr. Samuel: This is what my paper said. Bishop Sarkissian: Is there then a general consensus that those condemnations are not valid? Fr. Paul Verghese: Greater study of Dioscorus, Severus and the others is needed before that can be said. Dr. Samuel: A number of Roman Catholic books such as Lebon on Severus say that those anathematized were or­ thodox. Lebon’s essay in Das Konzil von Chalcedon makes the same point with reference to Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenos of Mabbug and Severus. Andre du Halleux in his monograph on Philoxenos admits that the man’s theology was orthodox. Mikre Selassie: These condemnations are embodied in all our theological and liturgical books. If we try to delete them, we would have to alter all the books in all our churches and monasteries. How are we to communicate to our ordinary clergy and laity the reasons for this action? Since we have at our previous three meetings reached this important Christological agreement, should we not restore communion on that basis and then have a commission to attend to mat­ ters like lifting anathemas and altering liturgical texts? Prof. Nissiotis: That is a methodological problem best discussed tomorrow. Fr. Voronov: May I mention three thoughts? (1) We must realise clearly that the way to unity is seen by the Eastern Orthodox as through acceptance of the Seven 224 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Oecumenical Councils and by the Oriental Orthodox as through acceptance of the Three Councils, and the suc­ ceeding development in theological thought. (2) I was happy when Dr. Samuel said that Severus and the 6th Century theologians were near to a synthesis. The faith was the same, but a development in understanding took place in both traditions. If so, it is wrong to say that Chalcedon added nothing to an understanding of the faith. Dr. Samuel did not express himself rightly when he said that the Orientals have only to reject their traditional con­ demnation and I do not think the last two sentences of his paper were quite careful enough. (3) Evolution in Oriental Orthodox thought is very useful for the Eastern Orthodox and similarly evolution in Eastern Orthodox thought is very useful for the Oriental Orthodox. So far we have been defenders of our own point of view. We must now change roles and become apologists for the other side. Easterns must try to understand Oriental suspicion of the later Councils and Orientals must likewise become apologists for all the Councils accepted by the Easterns. It is difficult but this is the only way to reach a common agreement. Dr. Samuel: Regarding those last two sentences of my paper, Michael the Syrian would have commended Eastern Or­ thodox development in the 6th Century. This in itself is no new discovery. But it happened without direct reference to the other side. If our kind of consultation could have hap­ pened in the 6th Century greater agreement would have been reached. Fr. Paul Verghese: More preparatory work is needed on both sides. Dioscorus did not leave many writings to study but Severus, Philoxenos and Timothy did. Easterns must study these and say what they object to. Orientals must do the same with Leo. We tend to say ‘his theology is poor’ but we must try to see how we can cease to condemn him, by in­ terpreting him in an Orthodox sense. Met. Nikodim of Leningrad: The question of Saints is very important in the consciousness of the people of God and is really quite simple to decide. Every saint was a human being. His holiness was a result of the atmosphere of the Kingdom of God in him and the most important factor in the definition of holiness is the fact that the saint belongs to the faith of Christ and the Apostles and the ancient and undivided Church. Nevertheless the human element is also revealed in MINUTES 225 him strongly. Therefore a saint is made out of a combination of faith and life. Paul once criticized Peter for teaching one way and living another way. Take the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. Juvenal of Jerusalem was not irreproachable in all his actions. In a human being, the human side and the divine side express themselves at different times. This ap­ plies to Dioscorus, as Fr. Borovoy implied. Being human, he too could have been inadequate. The main reason for his condemnation was that he did not share the convictions of the majority of the Council Fathers and they saw this. Although it is not easy, historians must study this scientifically from both sides. If it can be shown that Dioscorus was truly or­ thodox, then his recognition as a Saint becomes so much easier. Ato. Abebaw: Of the thirty Canons of the Council of Chalcedon which are of dogmatic validity? Prof. Nissiotis: It was agreed at our last meeting that the Oros and the Canons are not on the same level. 3. The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12:45 p.m.

THIRD SESSION 1. The meeting resumed at 4:00 p.m. with Fr. Paul Verghese in the chair. The chairman invited Fr. Borovoy to present his paper. 2. Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy then presented his paper entitled “Recognition of Saints and Problems of Anathemas” (see Appendix II).

Fr. Paul Verghese: Fr. Borovoy’s profound and well- documented paper has given us a fresh way of thinking. If I may attempt to summarize what he said, the Church has a divine-human nature and therefore contains within itself a tendency to schism. But this is not a sickness unto death. Schisms on the whole are not healed by compromise for­ mulae: accepting each other as we are is a better way. Real unity was lost when we could no longer hold unity in sub­ stance and one cultural norm was imposed upon all. At the present moment we can only proceed to the lifting of anathemas, not yet to the recognition of Saints. Among other things we must do is the re-writing of Church history as a common endeavour and the sharing of our liturgical treasures. 226 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Fr. Borovoy: Yes, the lifting of the anathemas can be done now but the recognition of saints can only come after the re­ writing of history and the liturgical renewal. Prof. Agourides: I thought that the human element in church history (which is very strong) was well stressed in the paper. However, I think Fr. Borovoy was a little weak on the side of the divine or eternally true element. There is too much relativisation. Prof. Sabev: It is true that the divine and the human are two elements that play a part in church history and that the human element is the one that brings with it certain weaknesses and negative repercussions. Fr. Borovoy showed this very well in its historical context. I do not think that the problem of removing anathemas is so difficult as that of recognising Saints. For example, we do not have the same calendars of Saints, the same commemorations. Actually I think the third of Fr. Borovoy’s practical proposals is the most important - the education of the faithful, expecially by means of the religious press. The faithful, admittedly, are not so interested in the recognition of Saints as the theologians are. Fr. Paul Verghese: This raises a new problem: who is a Saint of the Church and how is he made a Saint? What is our calendar, both local and universal? Bishop Sarkissian: Although I appreciate Fr. Borovoy’s paper, I am not too happy with this distinction between recognition of Saints and lifting of anathemas. We must grow in the life of our Church so as to prepare ourselves for ac­ cepting a Saint. Mikre Selassie: While also appreciating the paper, I disagree in some points. It is not only because of the defects of various formulae that reunion attempts like that of Zeno failed. Polemical literature on both sides was a far greater hin­ drance to unity. Therefore I support the proposal to re-write church history. History, based on misunderstanding, has led to so many difficulties. Ato. Abebaw: As Fr. Borovoy showed with historical examples, those condemned could become Saints again. Will not the Holy Spirit, in today’s complicated world, lead us to lift anathemas in a similar way ? For example, Dioscorus did not add to, or subtract from, the faith of the Fathers. Cannot we therefore just forget his condemnation? I must remind you that one of the Anaphoras in the Ethiopian Liturgy is ‘of MINUTES 227 St. Dioscorus’. In that case, can our Eastern brethren receive Communion with us before they have first received ‘St.’ D ioscorus? Met. Parthenios of Carthage: Dr. Samuel said in his paper that the question of acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon can be settled later. I don’t agree. Neither do I agree that the question of recognition of Saints can be left until later. Met. Nikodim of Attica: I should like to stress two points. (1) We must reckon with our long history of separation. As we now are, we are two separate Churches. (2) The lifting of an anathema procptinced by a Council is very difficult. In our funeral service, we have a prayer for lifting any anathema imposed on the dead person by a bishop. But that is easy compared with the problem of lifting an anathema imposed by a Council. Who has the right to lift such an anathema? Like Seltanat Habte Mariam: As well as the problem of lifting anathemas, there is the second problem of different saints revered in one, but not all, Churches of the same family. For example, some local Ethiopian Saints are not accepted by the other Oriental Orthodox Churches. Met. Nikodim of Leningrad: The recognition of Saints is at one and the same time both a central and a peripheral question. Once we have unity of faith we can proceed to the lifting of anathemas, although we don’t as yet know by what method. Unity in faith obviously transcends all anathemas. No new Henoticon of Symbol of Faith is required either, because mutual explanations have shown that our one Or­ thodox faith is one and the same. When anathemas are lifted, the Saints of each side will be beyond the reach of any negative pronouncements. I also agree with the speaker about local Saints. There are Russian Saints who are not in the Greek calendar and vice versa. But this does not disturb our full unity. Within the Russian Church there are some Saints who are venerated only in certain areas. There are even people venerated in some parts who have never been formally canonized. So this is not a difficult question. Fr. Voronov: An anathema is not always the same thing as a condemnation. Fr. Borovoy explained clearly this point, which is also well seen in the relevant work of St. John Chrysostom. Often in church history an anathema was wrongly understood, due for example to a unilateral ten­ dency in teaching, and at other times the Church did not look 228 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW at anathemas too seriously. For example, at the Council of Nicaea, both the Creed and the anathemas were signed by the majority of those present. Two Arian bishops signed neither and were condemned. Some, like Eusebius, signed only the Creed and not the anathemas, yet Eusebius had Arian tendencies. The lifting of the anathemas will happen, not because both Churches have sinned but because a long historical process has culminated in a wish to understand each other. The two families of Churches will come to the conviction that both are in fact confessing one faith. Fr. Bozabalian: The lifting of anathemas is more important than the recognition of Saints, because by lifting anathemas we recognize each other. However, it does not mean ac­ ceptance of all the Saints revered by the other side. It may be that there are too many Saints: notice how the Roman Catholics are now reducing their numbers. I would really like to suggest that we need new Saints who are going to'unite us in the future. Mikre Selassie: The lifting of these anathemas is a great problem because both sides repeat them every year, in the Greek Church for example on Orthodoxy Sunday, the First in Lent. If they are now to be lifted, this will affect very greatly people’s belief in the infallibility of the Councils, a point on which the Greeks are very strict. How do we get round the fact that an Oecumenical Council solemnly imposed these anathem as? Fr. Paul Verghese: We are now faced with two major questions. (1) An anathema against a person is fairly easy to lift, but an anathema against a Council is not. Who has the authority to lift the latter? (2) A common statement of our common faith plus a lifting of anathemas is now envisaged. Is that enough to restore Communion between us? Bishop Sarkissian: Is acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon a precondition? This would not be the same as lifting the anathem as. Fr. Boroboy: I have been very pleased with this discussion and only disagree with one remark - that of Prof. Agourides on truth and the fault is mine. I never intended to relativise truth because I believe that the Church possess truth and is infallible. The danger comes in this specific problem of the anathemas. I cannot as a historian explain why the MINUTES 229 anathemas arose but I can be objective on the question of how they were dealt with. If the practice of the ancient Church was so easy, we must ask what this means. But to show that ancient practice was so easy does not mean an indifference to truth. My paper is in fact quite clear on in­ fallibility and truth. I agree with Prof. Sabev that the proposal to educate the faithful is the most important. The question ‘who is a Saint?’ and the procedure of canonization does not seem to me to be so important, because there are local and regional differences in this. As to the problem of our liturgical material, I would suggest that we cease to con­ demn, not only in our theology, but also in our spirituality and liturgical life. It is not necessary deliberately to introduce Leo into the Armenian Liturgy as a Saint, for example, but merely to remove his condemnation. I agree with Prof. Mikre about the sad influence of polemical literature and the need to re-write history. As regards At. Abebaw’s remaks, it is not enough just to forget Dioscorus’ condemnation: it will be necessary to change the liturgical texts as well. I agree with the Metropolitan of Leningrad that the question of Saints is basically quite simple. There are the two steps: firstly, to cease to condemn and secondly, to overhaul all liturgical material and spirituality. In some ways it is easier to reach doctrinal agreement than to persuade the ordinary people to accept a change in the Liturgy. I agree with everything Fr. Voronov said. I agree with Fr. Bozabalian that anathemas must be removed first. I believe with him that there are thousands of saints alive now. As to the annual anathemas, they are a good reminder that there were once heretics, but the system itself is not a rigid one. Some anathematized names are already dropped by some bishops or the anathemas are not read at all. Met. Nikodim of Leningrad: For many years the anathemas have not been read in the Russian Church. Fr. Borovoy: I would also like to add that what Fr. Paul said about the different types of anathema is very important. For me, Dioscorus was not condemned by Chalcedon as a heretic. Severus was condemned many times although only by local Councils in the first instance. 4. Fr. Paul Verghese, from the chair, then called for suggestions as to topics which could usefully be discussed the next day. Prof. Agourides suggested the relationship bet­ ween the raising of the anathemas and the infallibility of the 2:50 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Councils; Bishop Samuel the sequence of work to be un­ dertaken following an agreement between the two sides (education of the faithful, etc.) and Like Seltanat Habte Marian the reactions registered by the leaders of the two Churches to the threeprevious consultations. It was agreed to make available to participants the next day (a) a summary of the decisions taken at the Geneva consultation (which, unlike those of Aarhus and Bristol, have not yet appeared in print) and (b) a draft document based on issues raised that day. It was agreed, on the suggestion of Prof. Nissiotis, that the drafting committee should consist of himself, Fr. Paul Verghese, Fr. Vitaly Borovoy and Bishop Sarkissian. 5. Before the meeting closed, two of the Ethiopian priests present addressed the participants. (1)Fr. Melaka Kerhanat Tesfa,Abbot of Debre Tsighe in Wollo (who had attended that afternoon) said he thanked God that members of both families of Churches were together that day in one spirit in Christ. He recalled Our Lord’s Parable of the Seeds and said that the good seed grew in the first three Oecumenical Councils but that the enemy then sowed seeds of dissension at the Council of Chalcedon which led to the separation between them. “If the anathema against Dioscorus was not for doctrinal reasons, why did we worry so much about it? If we are one in faith, the anathemas will not be a major problem.” (2) Member Ketsela also thanked God for this bringing together and spoke in support of his colleague. Fr. Borovoy was right to show' that Dioscorus was not condemned for an error of faith and doctrine. If the Eastern Orthodox now say that it was only a disciplinary condemnation, the problem then becomes a very small one. “If we have identity of faith, the recognition of one another’s Saints will not be difficult.” He thought that Prof. Mikre had pointed out something of great importance in connection with the annual liturgical reading of the anathemas. “If we wait for unity of faith before we remove this practice, we shall go on condemning each other every year and this would not be good. Even this, however, will not be a major problem, so long as the discussions go on between us. As Our Lord said, for those who believe, all things are possible. The same will be true for us, once we have unity in the faith”. It is true that the Emperors supervised the first three Councils and punished those in error, but if there had been a truly objective judge at the MINUTES 231 Council of Chalcedon, the controversy might never have happened. 6. The day’s proceedings closed with the joint recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at 6:40 p.m.

FOURTH SESSION

1. The consultation resumed on Saturday, 23rd January at 9:00 a.m . 2. The opening prayers were offered by Metropolitan Parthenios. 3. Prof. Nissiotis took the chair and asked Fr. Paul Verghese to read first the decisions of the Third Unofficial Consultation at Geneva and then a summary of the previous day’s proceedings. Discussion would follow paragraph by paragraph. 4. The decisions of the Geneva Consultation, August 1970, were then read out. 5. Fr. Paul Verghese then read out his own draft of the tentative conclusions reached the day before. After a time of discussion the final text was approved (see page 211).

FIFTH SESSION

1. The meeting resumed after coffee break at 11:30 a.m. 2. Fr. Paul Verghese took the chair for this final session. 3. The Chairman asked the meeting to comment on the nine proposals made by the Geneva Consultation and read out at the previous session. He reminded them to be practical and to avoid if possible “the common Orthodox habit of commissioning huge projects to be undertaken by a small committee with no office and no funds”. Prof. Agourides spoke first and on the subject of exchanging visits between heads of Churches he praised the successful visit of the Ar­ chbishop of Athens to Ethiopia in 1970. On the related topic of exchange of students, he informed the meeting that the Holy Synod in Athens had decided to send two Greek theological students to Addis Ababa in 1972. He then m ade the suggestion, which was well received by the meeting, that, as distances are so great and travel so expensive, they, as theological teachers, should communicate their itineraries to 232 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW one another as they moved around so as to be able to visit one another’s institutions, give lectures en route and generally make the best use of their time and opportunities for con­ tacts. Prof. Nissiotis offered to have a summary of the proceedings of the first three consultations made by one of the post­ graduate students at Bossey in fulfillment of proposal (b). Prof. Agourides then raised the matter of the recent decision by the youth organization ‘Syndesmos’ in Athens to admit Oriental Orthodox members but Fr. Verghese criticized this as a unilateral act which should have been preceded by greater study and discussion. Bishop Samuel described the ‘exchange’ situation in Egypt, reporting that they had a Rumanian student at that moment in a Coptic seminary, Coptic students often go to Greece for study and that for many years they have had a Cypriot Professor of Liturgiology in their seminary. Discussion then returned to proposal (b) i.e. the summary of the three previous consultations. It was felt that, in the form of a booklet of 40-50 pages, this should be drawn up and sent to member Churches at the earliest opportunity. It was agreed that Dr. Samuel should draft this booklet in the first instance, then send it to Prof. Nissiotis and afterwards to other par­ ticipants. It might then be published by one of the member Churches without being a financial burden to the Con­ tinuation Committee. It was felt that, in addition to this summary of the previous consultations, a popular booklet for the general Church public, not in academic language, should also be prepared but that this would be best done by each local Church in its own language. Fr. Voronov raised proposal (f) i.e. the making available of original sources and said that a good critical edition of the works of Severus ought to be made available in a major European language. Fr. Samuel offered to attempt this if he could get away for a year to concentrate on it but he agreed to make at least a bibliography of the works of Severus even if the complete edition had to be postponed for some time. Prof. Agourides spoke of the assortment of doctoral theses that his faculty had to examine every year and suggested that the co-chairmen of the committee draw up a list of subjects recommended for treatment by Eastern and Oriental theologians, that the results be communicated to all faculties and students be encouraged on the basis of this to MINUTES 233 choose really worthwhile theses. This idea was received with enthusiasm. Discussion then moved to proposal (c) i.e. the production of a handbook of reliable information on all member Churches. Prof. Sabev was in favour of each Church producing a book on its own history and present situation, as the Church of Ethiopia had done for the W.C.C. Central Committee. Prof. Agourides gave a warning lest such books become simply eulogies of one’s own Church and Fr. Borovoy stressed the need for simple, basic, factual information, e.g. lists of theological professors, where and what they teach. As a first step, Fr. Borovoy agreed to bring up to date the bibliography on the two families of Churches published after the Aarhus consultation. Proposal (d) i.e. the Association of Theological Schools, was reckoned to be a little premature in the absence of special funds or staff. Proposal (e) i.e. the publication of a special new periodical was also found to be impracticable for the same reason, but Dr. Samuel agreed to ask Metropolitan Methodios if the journal of the Association for Ethio-Hellenic Studies Anba Salama might be used for this purpose. Proposal (g) i.e. mutual consultations on the ecumenical movement and contemporary problems in general, was felt to be important but difficult to implement. Dr. Samuel stressed that dialogue with men of other faiths (a major topic at the recent W.C.C. Central Committee meetings) and the social responsibilities of the Christian were among such subjects. Fr. Borovoy said that it would be good for the two families of Churches to meet at every ecumenical meeting but that they should try to avoid creating the impression of an ‘Eastern bloc’. However, it was important for them to consult whenever possible. Prof. Agourides advanced the claims of the Ecumenical Academy in Crete and of the new Inter- Orthodox study centre soon to open near Athens. Metropolitan Nikodim invited member Churches to hold such a meeting in Leningrad. However it was agreed that a geographical centre was not so important as a person to co­ ordinate research and Prof. Agourides consented to accept this responsibility. Proposal (h) i.e. the common research centre, was post­ poned. Proposal (i) i.e. the production of educational materials, 234 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW brought the discussions to a close. Fr. Verghese mentioned that the curriculum committee of the Oriental Orthodox was aiming to produce instructional literature to cover thirteen years (ages 6-17) and that the two families of Churches might look into this and use whatever they find useful in it. Bishop Samuel mentioned the cooperation already received from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch in producing catechetical materials. Ato. Abebaw asked about censorship of such material and Fr. Verghese said each Church must be responsible for its own final version of the materials.

(N.B. after mutual explanation between Metropolitan Methodios and the co-chairmen it was decided that the review Anba Salama would be used for the publication of material concerning the dialogue between the two Chur­ ches.)

4. The Chairman then summed up the consultation. Although it had been a brief meeting, arranged at short notice on a limited subject, he felt that it had done good work. He expressed warm thanks to the Ethiopian local committee which had arranged the meeting and to Dr. Samuel and Fr. Boroboy for their valuable papers. He said how grateful they all were for the strong participation of the Ethiopian Or­ thodox Church and for the encouragement given by the presence of Ethiopian bishops and scholars in the room during the consultation. All the participants appreciated deeply the hospitality, faith and witness of the host Church. Adding that the W.C.C. Central Committee meetings themselves had been a great stimulus towards mutual un­ derstanding, he expressed particular gratitude to Dr. Lukas Vischer of the W.C.C. Faith and Order Secretariat for his personal encouragement. The Rev. Philip Cousins was thanked for his work as Recording Secretary. Fr. Verghese ended by thanking all the Ethiopian friends who had shown interest in the work, in particular Lejazmatch Amha Aberra who had been present at most of the sessions. 5. Bishop Sarkissian then proposed a vote of thanks to the co-chairmen, Prof. Nissiotis and Fr. Verghese, for the way in which they had brought the participants together and guided the discussions. Through them, the Bishop wished to express thanks to all members of the Continuation Com­ m ittee. MINUTES 235 6. Finally, after thanking all participants, Fr. Paul Verghese brought the consultation to a close with prayer at 12:40 p.m.

NOTE

The participants in the consultation were received by His Beatitude Abuna Theophilus, Acting Patriarch, at the Ethiopian Orthodox Church Patriarchate at 4:00 p.m. During the reception, Prof. Nissiotis gave a report on the two days of discussions and His Beatitude spoke in appreciation of what had been accomplished. Appendix I

CONDEMNATION OF TEACHERS AND ACCLAMATION OF SAINTS IN THE EASTERN AND ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES

Prof.V. C. Samuel

The unofficial consultations between theologians of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches so far held have shown that, in spite of verbal differences in theological formulations, the two families of the Church maintain essentially the same doctrinal position. This discovery should lead the churches to seek ways and means of restoring their lost visible unity. In order to help the churches in this task there are a few things which have to be done, and the Geneva meeting of August 1970 specified three areas in this respect. One of them referred to the question of con­ demnation of certain men by one family whom the other family acclaims as saints.

Condemnation on Both Sides

The Oriental Orthodox Churches condemn officially the Council of Chalcedon and Leo of Rome (l). But the Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the Council of Chalcedon as the fourth ecumenical Council and even invest it with a kind of pre-eminent authority. Leo of Rome is commemorated by these churches as a saint and a teacher of Orthodoxy. The present writer is not sure of the full list of men recognized as saints and Orthodox theologians by the Oriental Orthodox Churches whom the Eastern Orthodox Churches condemn as heretics. Since Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria, Philoxenos of Mabbog and Severus of Antioch had played a leading part in the fifth and sixth centuries in opposing the Council of Chalcedon, they may be noted as representatives of the Oriental Orthodox theologians officially condemned as heretics by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 236 V.C. SAMUEL 237

What the Condemnations Really Imply

The condemnation of men acclaimed as saints by the Oriental Orthodox Churches which the Eastern Orthodox Churches continue to uphold implies that they are guilty of maintaining one or more of the positions mentioned as heretical in the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith. The Definition, for instance, says that the Council anathematizes (2): (a) “those who... rend the mystery of the Incarnation into a duality of Sons” ; (b) “those who dare to say that the Godhead of the Only begotten is passible” ; (c) “those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the natures of Christ”; (d) “those who fancy the form of the servant taken by Him from us is of a heavenly or different nature” ; and (e) “those who imagine two natures of the Lord before the union, but fashion anew one nature after the union”. The assumption that theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches have held one or more of these positions is indeed contrary to available evidence. It is a fact admitted im­ plicitly even by the Council of Chalcedon that Patriarch Dioscorus was not guilty of holding any one of them. As to the other men, it has to be insisted that they have been anathematized by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, without ever showing on the strength of evidence that they fell in one or more of these heresies. As a matter of fact these men have not only excluded all these heresies but have even con­ demned them categorically. The only conclusion, therefore, is that the condemnation of men like Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenos and Severus - and possibly several others who agreed with them in theology and refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon - by the Chalcedonian ec­ clesiastical tradition, if it implies the assumption that they did not exclude the heresies which Chalcedon had renounced, is not valid. Not one of them has ever held any one of these heresies condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon. Of the four men noted above, Dioscorus deserves special mention here. It is well known that he was deposed at Chalcedon. But the way in which the action was taken against 238 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW him is indeed important. Our major source of information regarding this incident consists in the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon. Edited and published by scholars of a clearly pro-Chalcedonian persuasion, these minutes cannot be ex­ pected to favour the Patriarch. They show most clearly that the sentence against him was passed by a gathering of about one half of the delegates to the Council of Chalcedon then present in the city. Led by Paschasinus, the leader of the Roman legates, this meeting was held without the imperial commissioners (3) who presided over every session of the Council. In fact, the meeting could not establish any crime against Dioscorus in order to justify any punishment being meted out to him. In the end the meeting had to be satisfied by saying that he was deposed because of insubordination and disobedience. Is it not strange that none other than the Patriarch of Alexandria was punished by a party gathering at Chalcedon comprising men who did not know definitely why he was so treated (4)? The allegation that Dioscorus was guilty of in­ subordination and disobedience does itself need some probing, although that cannot be undertaken in this paper. Suffice it to say that an investigation of available evidence in his case will lead only to the conclusion that there was a party of men at the Council who were personally opposed to him. As they enjoyed the favour of the court, they had a prominence at the Council. This they used in order to express their enmity and hatred towards the Alexandrine Patriarch. The facts noted in the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon bearing on Dioscorus on the one hand and the verdict of the meeting in his case on the other contain no reference even to a specific charge that was made out against him. What happened, therefore, was that the men opposed to him got together with all those whom they could influence, and passed the sentence of deposition, which the Council was made to accept later in an uneasy way. This being the case with reference to Patriarch Dioscorus, even apart from a concern for the reunion of the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Chalcedonian tradition should long ago have withdrawn its condemnation of the man, as it is unworthy of the Church of Jesus Christ to perpetuate its memory. What, then, about the condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon and Leo of Rome by the Oriental Orthodox Churches? This question also can be answered more or less V.C. SAMUEL 239 in a similar way. One of the implications of this con­ demnation is that neither the Council nor the Pope excluded Nestorianism. It is even stated clearly that an alliance which the Pope succeeded in bringing about between himself and the imperial authority in Constantinople used the Council of Chalcedon to force on the Church a theological position which was essentially the same as the teaching of Nestorius (5). The basis of this allegation cannot be discussed here. Whatever that is, it is a recognizable fact that both Leo of Rome and the Council of Chalcedon had expressly con­ demned Nestorius and the theology of dividing the one Christ into two centres of being. This means that whatever their theological language be, they maintained a point of view which they did not want to be confused with Nestorianism. It is, therefore, clear that the stated reason for the con­ demnations on both sides have been questioned by those concerned. This itself should have led the churches to a dialogue in order to see where exactly they disagreed.

The Real Issue Between the Two Sides in a Nutshell

Dioscorus of Alexandria and the other men of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in refusing to accept the Council of Chalcedon, raised three points against the Council. In the first place, they argued that the theology of the Tome of Leo as it dealt with the unity of Christ’s Person was heretical. But the Council declared it a document of the faith, whereby violating the already established norm of (5) Orthodoxy. Secondly, they insisted that the phrase “in two natures” which the Council was made to adopt in its formula, in fulfillment of the agreement reached between Pope Leo and the imperial authority in Constantinople even before its convocation, meant only the “tw'o (united) natures after the union” of the Nestorian school, and that therefore the Council was ill-advised to endorse it, as it was not adequate to affirm the unity of our Lord’s Person. Thirdly, they maintained that the Council’s treatment of Dioscorus was in no way justifiable, and that the exoneration of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, who had condemned the Council of Ephesus in 431 and denounced the theology of Cyril of Alexandria as Apollinarianism constituted a clear violation of the accepted faith of the Church. In fact, on these grounds 240 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW they argued that, in spite of their verbal rejection of the “Nestorian” division of the one Christ, the Pope and the Council had not in fact excluded the heresy. There is a similar insistence behind the comdemnation of Oriental Orthodox theologians by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Here the argument is that, although men like Dioscorus and others have anathematized monophysitism in words, their formulation of the faith was not sufficient to keep out the heresy. An examination of the three points raised against the Council of Chalcedon by theologians of the Oriental Orthodox Churches cannot be undertaken within the scope of this paper. It needs only to be noted here that the Chalcedonian tradition tried in the sixth century to incorporate into its theological position the essential emphases underlying these points in a subtle way. The theological development in the Eastern Orthodox Church in the sixth century was decidly Cyrilline. This led to the Council of 553, which implicitly admitted that Chalcedon’s exoneration of Theodoret and Ibas was a hasty action. Oriental Orthodox theologians also interpreted their theological tradition, showing that it excluded monophysitism with the same force as the Eastern Orthodox side had done. Taking the theological development on the Chalcedonian side in the sixth century and the defence of their tradition by the opponents of the Council, one can say that the real issue between them was not one of Orthodoxy versus heresy; it was rather one of asking for an amendment by either side to the positive affirmation of the faith given by the other. Patriarch Dioscorus, for instance, and the other men were unable to accomodate the theology of the Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon with their insistence on the phrase “in two natures”. Against the background of the Cyrilline theology in which they had been brought up, this phrase could mean only that Christ existed in two centres of being at least for these men. The party of men who controlled the Council of Chalcedon had a similar difficulty with the phrases “of two natures” and “one incarnate nature of God the Word”. They may well have seen in them only the emphasis of a confusion of the natures. This inability led them to suspect each other of heresy, which was the real cause of the division. V.C. SAMUEL 241 What We Can Do in Our Times

It is indeed gratifying that the unofficial consultations of theologians belonging to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have covered a new ground in their dialogue. In fact the agreement reached between them, namely that essentially the two families of the Church hold the same doctrinal position, is most significant. For what it implies is that the two families of the Church agree, not merely in excluding heresy, but also in holding essentially the same dogma; the difference between them is only terminological. This is not, in fact, anything new. It was there from the very beginning. At Chalcedon itself, this agreement was clearly expressed between Patriarch Dioscorus and the Eastern delegates who fought for the acceptance of their draft definition as the Council’s formula on 22nd October 451 (6). But the actual agreement which existed between the two sides came to be buried in the inordinate passion engendered by personal jealousies and mutual rivalries. If we are able, in our times, to transcend these human factors, we shall see that there exists real agreement between the two families of the Church. The unofficial consultations which we have had so far indicate this possibility. The agreement reached by theologians is indeed a significant lahdmark in the relationship between the two families of the Church. It is now time that we urge our Churches to nominate members to constitute an official commission, which would meet and formalize the agreement that we have had. Following this, there are a few steps to be taken by the Churches officially. In this respect three actions should be mentioned. In the first place, we should pave the way for the lifting of the condemnations by both sides. As this is a delicate step, it would be necessary for the churches to undertake a gradual process of eliminating them by deleting from the liturgical and theological texts the actual words of condemnation. Secondly, the churches should take up of­ ficially for deliberation the question of restoring communion with each other. Here also it would be necessary to move with caution and prudence. But the aim should be there in our minds, and we should work for it. Thirdly, the churches should have an official commission which would take up other matters connected with the restoration of unity bet­ ween them. 242 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW The adoption of these steps by both sides with reference to each other will not require of the Oriental Orthodox Churches to accept the Council of Chalcedon and the three successive Councils in a formal sense. It will require of them only the giving up of their hitherto held tradition of condemning these Councils. The restoration of unity will lead the two families of the Church to grow together into one body in the real sense of the word. The question of the Councils will settle itself within the united Church.

A Word in Conclusion

It is a fact that between the Trinitarian controversy of the fourth century and the Christological controversy of the fifth and subsequent centuries there was one important dif­ ference. In the first the issue was more or less exclusively theologically oriented. Many of the Eastern critics of the Creed of Nicea found the phrase homoousion to Patri misleading and unacceptable. In the face of this problem there developed a theological movement in the East which expounded the phrase to the satisfaction of the critics. This led to a settlement of the issue at least so far as the Church in the East was concerned. Persons like Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers as well as the Cappadocian fathers entered into a dialogue with the critics and helped to bring about the settlement. The Christological controversy, on the other hand, was one in which the rivalry between the major Sees - between Rome and Alexandria on the one hand and between Con­ stantinople and Alexandria on the other - was a dynamic factor behind the surface. Rome, for instance, took the controversy as an occasion for asserting its theory of papal supremacy over the universal Church as an established fact; and Constantinople, led by the imperial authority, en­ deavoured to bring into being an ecclesiastical polity for the East under its aegis. These forces which played their significant role in the minds of men who represented the See of Rome and the See of Constantinople respectively at the Council of Chalcedon are not really relevant to the theological question at issue before the Council. But these men took advantage of the Council to assert their respective points of view. Any evaluation of the Council should, therefore, take into account the non- V.C. SAMUEL 243 Christological factors which played their part in it. There was a clear theological development in the Church with reference to the interpretation of the Person of Jesus Christ, almost from the beginning. From the time of the Council of Nicea this development was indeed very distinct. The Creed of the Council of 325 came to be expounded in a heretical way by Apollinarius of Laodicea. The heresy of the Laodicean bishop was ably combated by Theodore of Mop- suestia and the Antiochene school. However, their teaching was defective on the question of Christ’s personal unity. It was the fathers of the Alexandrine theological tradition that rectified the inadequacy of the Antiochene school. The Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith was intended to get over the possible misinterpretation of the Alexandrine Christology. But the Definition of Chalcedon was only a statement incorporating emphases from different traditions without properly integrating them. Both Leo of Rome and the imperial authority in Constantinople had other plans to be carried out through the Council, in addition to offering a solution to the theological controversy of the time. The critics of the Council saw in the Council’s doctrinal decisions a number of loose ends and they refused to accept the Council. In the sixth century, faced with bitter opposition from leaders of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Eastern Or­ thodox theologians endeavoured to correct the inadequacies pointed out against the Council. But it was a unilateral development, which the Oriental Orthodox side did not ac­ cept as a basis for union.

Footnotes 1. According to records traceable back to the sixth century, the lists of heretics condemned officially by the non- Chalcedonian side with special reference to the Council of Chalcedon include only the Council itself and Leo of Rome. For a number of these sixth century lists, see Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 17. 2. For the Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith, see T.H. Bindley: Oecumenical Documents Of The Faith, Methuen. 3. What is implied here is not that the imperial com­ missioners should have been present at this meeting or at any of the Council’s sessions. Our point is only that as presiding officers they were present at every session of the 244 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Council, but were absent at this meeting. 4. It is a well known fact that the Patriarch of Alexandria enjoyed as distinguished and exalted a place in the Church as Pope Leo himself, if not more. 5. The argument of Severus of Antioch is that both the Tome and the “in two natures” of the Chalcedonian Definition can accomodate only the affirmation of “two united natures”, that therefore the natures must be united in the realm of prosopon, and that this is the position held by Nestorius which the Council of Ephesus had condemned as heretical. 6. For this incident, see Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, II, i, pp. 319-321: paras 2-28. Appendix II

RECOGNITION OF SAINTS AND PROBLEMS OF ANATHEMAS

A summary of the views of N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov and A.V. Kartashev

Archpriest Vitaly Borovoy

The question of discontinuing the efficacy of anathemas and mutual condemnations, and the recognition of saints, appears extremely complicated, very delicate and indeed the most difficult problem in the whole complex of ‘rap­ prochement’ between the Orthodox Churches which accept the Council of Chalcedon and those Eastern Churches which do not accept the Council. This question is far more difficult than the reaching of agreement about the foundations of a unified understanding by both sides of Christological formulae and about the correct interpretation of the dogmatic definition of the Council of Chalcedon. Of course agreement in the field of doctrine and the reception of the definition is fundamental and decisive and must precede any agreement about the lifting of anathemas and the recognition of saints. However, the first is a great deal easier to achieve than the second. As I have already said, the subject of the present paper is unusually difficult, delicate and complicated. For this very reason it does not claim to be an attempt to resolve the question but merely an attempt to approach the question, to advance some thoughts which may be useful with regard to the further discussion of this subject in our Churches and to mark out some common lines for our future discussion. Besides, I consider it my moral duty to state that the theses, thoughts and arguments of this paper are not anything new, specifically worked out by me for the present theme, or selected from a previously conceived point of view. The paper is written according to the materials of Russian theological thought on the theme of Christian unity and 245 246 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW reflects the ideas and convictions of her outstanding representatives: Professor A.V. Kartashev, Archpriest S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev and others. Thus in this paper of mine there appears merely my own attitude towards the ideas set forth, that is, that I fully share these opinions of Russian theological science and am prepared to defend them with all the arguments from Church history at my disposal. The teaching about the holiness of the Church, about the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, as the Com­ munion of Saints - this is a dogmatic question and, as such, appears as a part of Divine Revelation, but the disclosure of this holiness, its refraction in the historical process of the Church’s earthly existence, in the personal life of Christians and in the life of the Christian society - and this means also the question of anathemas and of the proclamation and veneration of individual Church teachers or workers as saints by one part of the Christian society and their censure by another part of the society under the influence of an embittered conflict of opinions or of the historical interests of individual groups of Christians in the heat of passions and at the height of polemics - this is a historical and pastoral question. “The most important thing to be aware of is that the Church is a divine - human process, an interaction of divinity and humanity” says the prominent Russian theologian and philosopher N. Berdyaev in this connection (“Universality and Confessionalism” in the collection Christian Reunion, Paris 1933). “In the history of the Church not only God is at work, but man too. And man brings into the life of the Church both his positive, creative activity and an activity which is negative and distorting. Man has left his imprint on the history of all Churches and of all confessions and he is always inclined to mistake his own imprint for God’s. Behind Tradition (Paradosis) human activity is always lurking. And this human activity not only developed what had been laid down like a seed in Divine Revelation, but often even replaced Divine Revelation with itself. Thus over and over again in the history of the Church the Gospel has been screened and crushed by human tradition. Too often a new human creativity has been countered not by Divine Revelation itself but by the already ossified results of an old human creativity. The human creativity and activity of the V. BOROVOY 247 past sometimes prove to have been inertia which hampers the human creativity and activity of the present. We see this constantly in the history of Christianity. The claim that we are guarding the tradition of our fathers and forefathers, who in their time were creators of something new. A living tradition is not only preserved but is created further. It is impossible to understand anything in religious life unless one remembers all the time that Revelation is two-sided and presupposes not only God Who reveals but also Man who perceives the Revelation. Man, in his perception of Revelation, cannot be like a stone or a piece of wood - he is active. Consequently, the element of the divine and the element of the human in the life of the Church, in Christian history, are so intermingled that it is very difficult to distinguish or separate them.” In his article “Reunion of the Churches in the light of history” Prof. A. Kartashev, another prominent Russian theologian, historian of the early Church and pupil of V. Bolotov, wrote: “the consciousness of the Church is like the mysterious consciousness of the God-Man. If in Christ divine omniscience does not violate human ignorance, then this is all the more so in the Church. The Spirit of God “guiding the Church into all truth” does not violate her natural, human consciousness. Being human, it remains, even in its catholicity, by nature limited, passionate, subject to temp­ tations and falls. “The very separation of the Churches” is, in accord with their human nature, proof of their fallibility. Is not this, after all, the grandiose, alluring crime - the separation of the Churches? “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1, xiii). If this were a cutting off of “alien, unchristian” elements like Gnostics, Manichaeans... but here indeed Romans, Greeks, Ar­ menians, Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians separated - Churches w'hich have one Holy Writ, one Apostolic Tradition and sacred origin, the same sacraments and, in essence, the same dogmas; Churches, in essence, of a single faith, a single piety and a single way of salvation! Is this not a temptation of “the gates of hell?” Is this not the manifest sin of the Churches, due to their human weakness, due to en­ slavement by predilections for their national identity, due to enslavement by the flesh and blood of their own private, local history, due to forgetfulness of the apostolic reproach “is Christ divided?” Then where indeed is unity, holiness, in­ 248 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW fallibility? In the divine nature of the Church: in the single and indivisible Head of the Body Ecclesiastical, in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the one, Life-giving Spirit. In the divine nature of the Church is the guarantee that the gates of hell will not prevail against her, a guarantee of her holiness, her infallibility. In historical actuality of course these divine attributes of the Church on earth are only an exalted task which she does not always succeed in embodying in all its fullness. In her dual nature the Church is always a co­ participant with her divine attributes, even though she may slide down into the morass of human infirmities. She always remains unconquered, even though being conquered by divisions. Whenever we hear the liturgical “the holy for the holy” then each time we are confirmed in faith in the divinity of the Church, despite all her historical “inanitions.” The historical “kenosis” of the Church must not shake our faith in her invisible, non-human powers. Like the sickness of Lazarus, these sicknesses of the Church are “not unto death, but for the glory of God” (John 11, iv). We daringly assert our faith in precisely this infallibility of the Church... but we receive it actually under the sign of an ultimate “in­ vincibility” regardless of partial lapses by the Church, seeming defeats, regardless indeed of the whole Kenosis of the Church. If there are these “inanitions” exhaustions, lapses and transgressions of the Churches, of which the chief one is this - precisely their separation - then, by this very thing, the way to their unity is being shown. It is the way of repudiating transgressions, the way of eradicating them, the way of repentance. This is the fundamental condition of entry into the Kingdom of God. This is also the fundamental condition for the attainment of the concrete unity of the Church. This original repentance of the Churches - at times unilateral, at times bilateral - was actually practised on occasions of genuine reunifications of Churches in the ecumenical age (Kartashev, op. cit. pp. 89-93). But in the majority of cases the reconciling parts of the Church negotiate with one another on the ground of equality of rights, on the basis of mutual claims and concessions, with the admission of guilt on both sides, each part remaining (apart from the points of the quarrel now settled) what it was before reconciliation - two parts of the Church re-establish peace between them­ selves without losing face. The whole history of the early V. BOROVOY 249 Church is full of such examples. In the middle of the 3rd. Century there was the con­ troversy over the baptism of heretics. Pope Stephen broke off communion with the Churches of Africa and Asia Minor. But the leader of the Asia Minor Church - Firmilian, Bishop of Caesaraea in Cappadocia - in his turn called the Pope “an apostate from the unity of the Church.” The dispute lasted a year in all, from 256 to 257, and ended without formalities on the death of Stephen. Under his successor, Sixtus II, the peace of the Churches was re-established “de facto” although the divergence of opinions and practice was not removed immediately, being finally got rid of only after a whole century. The transitoriness of the rupture does not alter its essence, nor likewise the essence of the reunion. Here there are parts of a single catholic Church parting company and each part not only acknowledges itself to be such but also the part opposed to itself. They quarrel as equals and they make peace and re-unite again without any formalities. Both sides mutually recognise behind each other the dignity and fullness of the life of grace of the True Church. In the Arian period the Eastern episcopate under the leadership of the Antiochenes fell away from Nicene or­ thodoxy which had been strongly conserved by the Western Churches under the leadership of Rome. The reconciliation experiment of the Council of Sardica (343) only led to a formal separation of the Churches “which imposed mutual excommunications on nine leading bishops from each side. “After this Council,” in the words of the historian Sozomen, “the Easterners and the Westerners no longer mixed with one another and did not have communion as fellow- believers.” The rift lasted throughout four decades. As late as 378, at a Council in Rome, the Antiochenes were abused for being Arians from the lips of Peter of Alexandria! Only in 379 did Rome recognize Meletios of Antioch, and the group of 146 Eastern bishops around him, as Orthodox, although many of them had received consecration from Arians. In response to this, the Council of Antioch in 379 bore witness from its side to the reconciliation of the Churches which was then - in 381 - solemnly affirmed at the Council of Constantinople, later recognized as ecumenical. In the face of this reunification of Churches living separately, they simply did not recall the mutual excommunications of the Council of Sardica in 343. 250 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Both sides reciprocally declined to suspect one another of opposing heresies. Both approached one another in mutual understanding, each preserving its own shade of theology. The Easterners signed afresh the Nicene “con- substantiality”. The Westerners accepted the Eastern for­ mula “three hypostaseis” and did not reject the Arian or­ dinations of the Easterners. Nobody “annexed”- anybody else to himself. Both halves of the Church united afresh. All that had been experienced in the time of separation was not reckoned as empty or deprived of grace. The sacraments, the heroic exploits, the salvation of Christian souls during this period were obviously regarded as having been real. Into nobody’s head did there come the blasphemous thought that, for example, the liturgies celebrated by St. Basil the Great - a formal “homoousianist” and thus, for the Westerners in the three hundred and sixties, a heretic - were pseudo-liturgies. Two parts of the Church, each living by grace, outwardly and visibly came together again. It was simply a re-established peace of the catholic Churches - “pax ecclesiastica.” And in succeeding ages such a real “pax ecclesiastica”, such a real reunion of Churches separated by disputes and quarrels, was repeated over and over again. A new split between the Churches took place at the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus (431) with the Alexandrine and Roman Churches on the one side and the Antiochene on the other. And there was a new reconciliation in 433. St. Cyril gave up his 12 anathemas and signed a text that was typically An­ tiochene. A normal reconciliation came about. It was a reunification with mutual ignoring of the harsh anathemas pronounced by one side and the other two years before. The bishops who had anathematized each other agreed to leave general excommunication on the head of only one person - Nestorius. By this it was tacitly acknowledged that all other bishops, reciprocally excommunicated from the Church in the course of the past two years, had not been objectively deprived of the grace of priesthood and had not been per­ forming the sacraments in vain, also that their congregations, both in Alexandria and in Antioch, had not been deprived of the gifts of grace in their churches and so continued to save their souls, in spite of the subjective con­ viction of their bishops that their theological antagonists in the other Church were already expelled from the priesthood and were accordingly without grace. Both sides were real V. BOROVOY 251 and possessed of grace, both were genuine catholic Chur­ ches, only from a conditional, formal, disciplinary and outward point of view they had separated. The next example - it lasted from 484 to 519 - was the 35- year canonical breach between Rome and the East as a result of the “Henoticon” of the Emperor Zeno. When in 519 reconciliation took place, under pressure from the state power, Rome, in anathematizing Acacius, did not deny the grace of priesthood in the bishops and clergy installed by him - which, according to strict logic, they should have done. The life of grace of the Byzantine Church during the 35 years of the separation between the Churches, was accepted by Rome, without any dishonour, as having been really redeeming. Here was no “annexation” (Unia) of the East by Rome, but simply a re-establishment of ecclesiastical peace. Also the Ecumenical Council of 680 put an end to 40 years of virtual schism between the Roman and Constantinopolitan Churches. It reaffirmed the anathemas on the Patriarchs Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter and added to these new ones against Cyrus of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch and others. But it did not occur to anybody to put forward doubts as to the reality of their priestly activity in the past. The Churches came together again without the offensive idea that the hierarchs anathematized by the Lateran Council of 649 had from that time been performing sham ordinations or that the priesthood of the Eastern Church was corrupt and in need of some renewal or correction. Quite simply, the Churches, in the persons of their chief men, had erred and strayed and had sinned dogmatically but, after that, they confessed to each other, expelled the guilty parties and made peace. The Roman Church in this situation sacrificed its erring Pope Honorius. This is ecclesiastical peace, ac­ companied by courageous acknowledgment that the leaders of the Church - and the clergy and congregations that follow them - can temporarily err and, of course, must correct themselves with bitter penitence, sacrificing their self­ esteem and reputations. The saving grace of the Church’s sacraments does not forsake the quarrelling parts of the Church at these periods of disintegration. Each of them nourishes its congregations spiritually and opens the way to salvation and holiness. Thus Pope Martin, persecuted by the Emperor and betrayed by the Church of Constantinople, was recognised by the same Church as a Saint after the establish­ 252 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW ment of peace. The Church of Constantinople also recognized as Saints St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, although a Council of this Church had consigned them to anathematization along with Pope Martin. The delusion of the Churches reaches the point of blind­ ness when at times it could not distinguish who is a saint and who a sinner. But with the passage of time the blindness of passing passions falls away and a consciousness of the Church shines out again. Let us take the examples of reunification and recon­ ciliation of the Churches at the time of the iconoclastic controversies. From 729 the Church of Constantinople was in schism with Rome and the East. She even went as far as her “heretical” ecumenical council of 754 at which the worship of icons was synodically repudiated. When, however, in the reign of the Empress Irene it was decided to put a stop to the sway of heresy, the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787 then became an act of penitence by Constantinople towards her Eastern and Western brethren. The Council only imposed an anathema on a few former Patriarchs and bishops who had been iconoclasts but cast no further shadow on the ec­ clesiastical life of Byzantium as a whole. On the return of the iconoclastic disease in Constantinople in the course of a further thirty years (813-843) - with a fresh iconoclastic council in 815 - other Orthodox Churches, while breaking with Byzantium “de facto” did not formally impose upon her any new anathemas. Famous confessors and martyrs of Or­ thodoxy within the Constantinopolitan Church maintained hope among themselves of a swift reform of the fallen Church, which indeed came to pass with the triumph of Orthodoxy under Theodore in 843. The peace of the Churches came into force again without any formalities, so to speak automatically. The succeeding half-century gives us a clear illustration of how the unity of the Church, in ecclesiastico-political hands, can be the object of criminal sport and misused by those holding power. The advancement to the throne of Constantinople of rival figures - now Photios, now Ignatius - combined with first obeisances towards Rome and then anathemas upon her, the crude interference and despotism of Pope Nicholas I and succeeding Popes, finally puts in doubt the seriousness, reality and canonical force of these acts. A crude artillery battle with the heavy shells of mutual V. BOROVOY 253 anathemas from East and West and so-called “ecumenical” councils cancelling each other out - all this produces a depressing effect on the believing historian and serves as good ammunition for the malicious joy of the unbelieving. However sad this page of Church history may be - with its political sport in the rifts and reunions of the Churches - at least it is to be explained from the single dogmatic premise that the clashing Churches conceived of themselves as parts of one Catholic Church.... After terrible and, to us, amazing anathemas communion was restored with what is to us an equally amazing ease. The same indeed can be said of the history of attempts at reunion with the Byzantine Church on the part of those national Churches of the East separated from her - those which do not accept the Council of Chalcedon and con­ sequently from a canonical point of view have repudiated an Ecumenical Council, which hold to their own dogmatic formulas and which revere as Fathers and Teachers, as their own great saints and martyrs for the truth, persons con­ demned by an Ecumenical Council. The experiences of such reunions are especially in­ structive, as they directly concern all of us who are par­ ticipants in the present consultation. These experiences were set up by the will of emperors of the 6th and 7th Centuries, especially Heraclius. Only secondary cases among these attempts can be considered as “annexation” (Unia) to the Byzantine Church. All the remaining cases of reunification - even a forced one, like for example the reunification under Emperor Justin II in 567 of Constantinople with the Asia Minor “Monophysites” (if we adhere to the historic terminology) - were based on an agreement with them, on a tacit passing over of the Council of Chalcedon and on the signing of an ambiguous, pre-Chalcedonian formula of faith, in a word, on the ground of the theological and hierarchical equality of the negotiating sides. This premise of a compromise agreement, which was therefore not long-lasting and for that reason was even false, but all the same was one of equal rights, carried away the Emperor Heraclius and the Patriarch Sergius onto the path of Monothelitism, as is well known. On the basis of this Monothelite scheme, Heraclius carried out a series of ecclesiastical unifications with a section of those national Churches of the East which had fallen away from Byzantium. 254 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW In 632 a union with the Byzantine part of Armenia was renewed, in the person of the Catholicos Ezra, on a com­ promise formula. In the same year Heraclius reached agreement with the “Monophysite” Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch on the formula of “Monoenergism.” In 633, through Cyrus of Alexandria, Heraclius reached agreement with a section of those not accepting the Council of Chalcedon in Egypt. All these reunifications of Churches proved to be historically unstable. But nevertheless these were reunifications on the premise of equality. Neither side repented of anything, nor disavowed anything. The one and the other were convinced that they had clashed in the end as a result of misunderstandings. Accusations of heresy were not even levelled in connection with the past period of mutual separation. Two parts of a single Catholic Church, as it were, affirmed anew that unity between them which had only outwardly and formally been broken by past dissensions. Such was the dogmatic optimism of antiquity. A feeling of the universal Church’s unity prevailed over outward divisions. In the face of all this wre do not in any sense discern in the Early Church an indifferent union of Orthodoxy with heresies, a dogmatic compromise of truth with falsehood, a denial of the infallibility of the Church. Definitely not! Rather the reverse: the Early Church always proceeded from a belief in the absolute veracity both of the Church’s dogmatic teaching and of the genuiness of her life of grace. Without a belief in the infallibility of the Church, in her teaching as in her powers of grace, there is indeed no Church. Only in the Early Church did the feeling of unity prevail over divisions. The flesh and blood of the different races and clutures were w'orked creatively into a diversity which did not destroy the underlying unity. Human principles and national limitations had not yet at that time prevailed - as happens now - over the divine depth of the Church’s unity. Only with the decline of this feeling of unity did it begin falsely to identify itself with the concrete appearance of a given, private Church in dependence upon the tendency of a particular theologian. “Universal” began to get confused with whatever was imperialistic and dominant in the culture. “Roman” or “Hellenic” began to lay claim to what was uniquely normative in the Church. There returned to the scene the Old Testament temptation of proud Israel with its circumcision. The sway of the ab­ V. BOIIOVOY 255 solute in the Church, in ecclesiastical consciousness, widens exaggeratedly and takes over nearly everything that is relative, historical or human. This awareness of the absolute is carried over also into everything that is secondary in the Church, even into her everyday life which is created by sinful human hands. But the sober history of the Church speaks clearly to every ignoramus of how it is essential to have reciprocal admission, by the Churches, of their mistakes and failings - all of which in no way damages the infallible and absolutely true essence of the Church. To be sure, the Churches do admit their mistakes, within and for them­ selves, in their divided state. Whole Councils, sometimes in form irreproachably ecumenical, are annulled by sub­ sequent decisions of the Church, as having been mistaken. Such “Ecumenical” Councils are, for example: Arimino- Seleucia in 359, Constantinople in 754, Constantinople in 869 and Florence in 1439. Such happened also with the revocation of the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Constantinople in 1345 by the Councils of 1351 and 1368. Or in the Russian Church it happened with the revocation by the Council of Moscow in 1667 of the enactm ents of the so-called Stoglav Council of 15551 as “having been written in simplicity and ignorance.” In a word, it is evident that the infallible principle of the Church rests, not on the surface of her historical life and practice, but on the depths; it refers, not to the bark and branches of the ecclesiastical tree, these being subject to decay and fallings away, but to the hidden roots. Thus the boundary between absolute and relative in the Church is marked out, there is found the key to the resolution of the antinomy between absolute ecclesiastical truth and the admission of historical ecclesiastical errors. A synthesis of polarities is found, in the sense of their compatibility and juxtaposition, not in the sense of an absurd synthesis of truth with falsehood, Orthodoxy with heresy. And the Universal Church bears witness to this belief of hers, not doctrinally, but in her paradoxical canonical practice. When one hierarchical Church receives into its communion a member of another such Church, or her clergy or her bishops, or reunites with part or the whole of another Church, hitherto separated from her, condemned by her or even anathematized by her as a hierarchical Church - then all the sacraments of the uniting Church are recognised as real. A 256 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW bishop of the one Church becomes a bishop of the other and continues to dispense the grace of priesthood on the clergy of the other. Grace, drawn from the fountain of his own Church, he transmits to the other and the other receives it as her own, for it is the same grace of priesthood and the same gift of the same Holy Spirit. Of course, this remarkable practice bequeathed to us by ecclesiastical antiquity readically contradicts the opinion which says that all sacraments become efficacious, revive out of nothing, fill with the con­ tents of grace only at the moment of annexation to, or reunification with, the True Church. According to this, at the moment when, for example, a heretical bishop, having recanted his heresy, is received into the Catholic Church - suddenly all the sacraments which he received formerly in his separated Church (chrismation, communion, priesthood) - are made real. The ecclesiastical ceremony of reception from heresies, coming down by tradition from the Early Church, gives no support to this view. In it there are no formulas or words about the re-establishment, for the person being received, of whatever sacraments may have been performed over him formerly in his heretical days. Tacitly and self-evidently it is understood that the given person really was baptised and chrismated, received communion and was ordained, etc. and consequently there is no need whatsoever for repetitions and corrections, whether verbal or ritual. The assumption that in the past all these sacraments performed over the person being received into the Catholic Church were done in vain, without real grace, so to speak “in a comic way” or “quasi- sacramentally”, but that now, at the moment of his ceremonial reception, all former ceremonial acts in another Church, even in the distant past, somehow fill up automatically with all the gifts of grace - all this is com­ pletely alien to the conception of the Early Church and is not far from blasphemy. According to the views of the Early Church, not only baptism but also all other sacraments are recognised as real right from the very moment of their correct performance, even though in heretical Churches - and not merely from the moment of their reception into the Catholic Church. Then what meaning do mutual anathemas and ex- communications of Churches one from another possess in such a case? First of all, they possess a disciplinary and V. BOROVOY 257 pastoral meaning, a canonical and educational meaning. They are like frontier barriers between separate states, like walls of dwellings dividing us, like separate domestic unions. Anarchy is intolerable even in the manifestations of the Spirit. St. Paul regulated the outpourings of prophets in Church meetings. St. Ignatius the God-bearer, horrified at the Gnostic chaos, anxiously appealed to the whole Church: “all gather around your one bishop, all submit yourselves to the threefold hierarchy!” Genuine manifestations of the powers of grace are effected in all churches. But they are given to each Church according to the measure of the merits of her piety. Churches, like human societies, cannot help being restricted by canonical limits. And these limits are not only subjective. To the Church has been given the power “to bind and to loose” and whatever is bound or loosed here below is also bound and loosed in heaven. Anathemas and excommunications of Churches are not only formal but also real. However, their power is none the less relative. It is real for the Churches, but not for God. To think that an ec­ clesiastical binding in heaven “is a binding of Christ Himself and the Holy Ghost means falling into the darkness of pagan magic” (A. Kartashev, op. cit. p. 111). It is erroneous to understand even dogmatic anathematizing, let alone canonical, as a spiritual death sentence, a complete separation from the Church. Pope Nicholas III and Patriarch Michael Cerularius in their time shared reciprocally in such a terrible act, but now quite recently we have seen Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras remove this dogmatic anathema. In fact the examples from the life and practice of Church reunification and ecclesiastical reconciliation in the Early Church collected in the above-mentioned work of Prof. A. Kartashev and adduced in the present paper can and must serve as guidance in the resolution of the question of anathemas, when the fullness of Eastern Orthodoxy together with the fullness of Oriental Orthodoxy come to decide this question through their competent synodical organs of canonical government, when the time of our reunion will have come. As far as the question of the recognition of Saints is con­ cerned, it entirely depends upon the reaching of agreement about the unity of the faith by both historical branches of Eastern Christianity and upon the removal of anathemas, i.e. (speaking more simply) upon the progress of the re­ 258 THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW establishment of Eucharistic communion. Sooner than that, this question simply cannot be resolved. Fifteen centuries of separation, of mutual polemics and alienation have penetrated deeply into all the pores of liturgical life, into the devotion and religious and social psychology of the separated Churches - and so they cannot be taken away either quickly or painlessly, not even by decree of the synods of both sides. Before any approach - not only canonical, but even simply theological - can be made to the treatment of this theme, it is essential that both sides put into operation a large programme of instructional and educational preparation. First of all, it is necessary to examine afresh and, it would seem, write afresh, the history of the Church in the age of the Ecumenical Councils. This does not mean that we have to conceal or shift all the negative phenomena or facts of the age of the great Christological controversies. It is essential to write a history which is not “Romo- (or Romano-) centric “but which is a genuine history, in which the Churches of the East are not going to be relegated to the peripheral role of mere political, cultural or ecclesiastico-theological “provinces of the Roman oikoumene” - but will occupy a place appropriate to them on the basis of their sources, their historical witness to themselves and on the basis of all that they have achieved and all that they have represented themselves to have been for their peoples, their cultures and their areas and not only insofar as “roman” affairs have reflected on them and they have reacted to these latter. This is a difficult and responsible, but in the highest degree an essential and noble task. It demands from us good personnel with superb scholarship and skills in all the related fields of orientalism. However, it is essential that this be ac­ complished. And these same new textbooks of Church history must be made standard textbooks in our theological schools, “in all places of education and learning.” Secondly, we must begin, by synodical arrangement, our Pan-Orthodox (from both sides) liturgical renewal and in the course of such renewal re-examine attentively all our inexhaustible wealth of liturgical texts, so amazing in its depth, and to weigh up all polemical passages and judgments from the point of view of our present relations and our present understanding of the beliefs of our brethren. All that reflects our glorious historic past (from both sides) must be carefully and lovingly preserved, but in such form and ex­ V. BOROVOY 259 pressions as will now reflect our reverence and admiration for, our Fathers, refracting the expression of our loyalty to the Tradition of the Fathers through the prism of the present- day ecumenical consciousness of a Holy Church, united in the Eucharistic anamnesis around one single Holy Cup. Thirdly, it is essential to carry through a great in­ structional and explanatory task amongst our faithful, acquainting them (and at the same time let it be said unashamedly and in all honesty - acquainting ourselves) with the past of our brethren (from both sides) during the time of separation, acquainting them with their history, their wit­ ness and sufferings for Christ, their abundance of holiness, of theological leadership, of spiritual gifts, of heroic exploits of piety, acquainting them also with their present condition (again, from both sides). All this must be done, in order that both we and our believing people may be filled with love, respect and admiration before the power of God and before the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Who in the course of fifteen centuries of separation has not been acting in vain in our Churches on either side. All this must be done also in order that here and everywhere we may be steeped through and through in the belief that “God is wonderful in His Saints.” And then only will come the time for our Churches mutually to recognize their Saints. Translated from the Russian and edited by Philip C ousins.