From the blog Pater Noster, a post entitled "10 Lessons the Orthodox Church can learn from their rapprochement with the Miaphysites."
If the Orthodox Church can heal a 1500 year schism, they are indeed an ecumenical Church–but the Chalcedonian exclusivist ecclesiology must go.
Since 1964 and before, the near-longest division in the history of the Church—between the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Miaphysites, dated from c. 500—has begun to be overcome (click here for the timeline). This is indeed a historic moment and must be celebrated by all of Christendom, as no doubt the tears of our Blessed Mother have moved us to repentance and understanding. A number of lessons can be drawn by this rapprochement, however, specifically for the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church.
1. Protestants can have a good influence on Orthodoxy
First, it should be admitted that the Ecumenical movement of the Protestants had a significant role to play in encouraging and fostering the dialogues that have effected the virtually complete reconciliation of the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Orthodox Churches. It is true that the vision of Patriarch Joachim III in 1902 and the epocal Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 1920 began a new era for the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Struggle. These, however, would largely apropos western Protestant ecumenical movements and questions. The Orthodox accepted the invitation from the Protestants in 1920 when they wanted to plan for an international Ecumenical organization. This was the beginning of the Faith and Order movement which culminated in Orthodox-Protestant participation in the ‘World Conference of Faith and Order’ in 1927.
This later grew into the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1948, of which significant portions of the Orthodox Church—including the Ecumenical Patriarchate—were founding members. Later, all the Orthodox churches joined the WCC—including the Miaphysites. As Yossa relates, “the ongoing participation of the Orthodox churches in the WCC provided a climate and a platform to initiate serious discussion of common causes.” It was within the WCC that two visionaries from each church met and began to collaborate—Nikos Nissiotis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Paul Verghese of the Malankara Indian Orthodox Church (later Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of Delhi). This work with the WCC helped galvanize the Orthodox to meet together at Rhodes in 1961—and also invite the Miaphysites. In 1963, when the WCC Faith & Order Commission met, Swiss Reformed Protestant Lukas Vischer began working closely with Nissiotis and Verghese to eventually organize the first formal Orthodox-Miaphysite consultation in 1964, in which the bulk of the division was overcome in matter of days...
Since 1964 and before, the near-longest division in the history of the Church—between the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Miaphysites, dated from c. 500—has begun to be overcome (click here for the timeline). This is indeed a historic moment and must be celebrated by all of Christendom, as no doubt the tears of our Blessed Mother have moved us to repentance and understanding. A number of lessons can be drawn by this rapprochement, however, specifically for the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church.
1. Protestants can have a good influence on Orthodoxy
First, it should be admitted that the Ecumenical movement of the Protestants had a significant role to play in encouraging and fostering the dialogues that have effected the virtually complete reconciliation of the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Orthodox Churches. It is true that the vision of Patriarch Joachim III in 1902 and the epocal Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate 1920 began a new era for the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Struggle. These, however, would largely apropos western Protestant ecumenical movements and questions. The Orthodox accepted the invitation from the Protestants in 1920 when they wanted to plan for an international Ecumenical organization. This was the beginning of the Faith and Order movement which culminated in Orthodox-Protestant participation in the ‘World Conference of Faith and Order’ in 1927.
This later grew into the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1948, of which significant portions of the Orthodox Church—including the Ecumenical Patriarchate—were founding members. Later, all the Orthodox churches joined the WCC—including the Miaphysites. As Yossa relates, “the ongoing participation of the Orthodox churches in the WCC provided a climate and a platform to initiate serious discussion of common causes.” It was within the WCC that two visionaries from each church met and began to collaborate—Nikos Nissiotis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Paul Verghese of the Malankara Indian Orthodox Church (later Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of Delhi). This work with the WCC helped galvanize the Orthodox to meet together at Rhodes in 1961—and also invite the Miaphysites. In 1963, when the WCC Faith & Order Commission met, Swiss Reformed Protestant Lukas Vischer began working closely with Nissiotis and Verghese to eventually organize the first formal Orthodox-Miaphysite consultation in 1964, in which the bulk of the division was overcome in matter of days...
Complete post available here.
Posts
If the monks of Mt Athos refused to accept a supposed reunion...I would follow them. I am guessing that the Russians would also be with the Athonites. Reconciliation with Rome (if ever possible) is far far away. Furthermore, all Orthodox Church should withdraw from the WCC.
ReplyDeleteI think this piece gives a pretty outdated and wildly sanguine view of things..... Over the past twenty or so years, the theological momentum with the Oriental Orthodox has been to realize that the theological differences with them are perhaps more real than was thought(and not only limited to Christology), even as personal, political, and cultural sympathy continues to grow.
ReplyDeleteI take your point. If you read what many Oriental Orthodox authors have to say about their side of things many of the things we call "nuanced" language difference are to them very real and divisive. I am, however, a proponent of the "lock them in a room together and make them figure it out" method. I have also proposed it for the Assembly of Bishops.
DeleteAll well and good but lauding the work of the WCC ain't gonna make me take any of your points seriously. I'm no scholar so I don't see the minute details of theology here, but what I see is a practical difficulty in OO accepting or EO chucking 3 whole Ecumenlcal Councils. How do you do that without invalidating the spirit and identity of our respective faiths? That's like marrying into a family and utterly cutting off everything and everyone you came from to adopt a new identity.
ReplyDeleteWhat the WCC did and the larger ecumenical efforts largely spurred by the Anglicans did was to open a pathway and establish a medium for communication between church bodies. That is has been co-opted by people with agendas loathsome to Orthodox is a separate - and equally valid - point of discussion.
DeleteBeyond ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteWe do not have a deeper, more correct understanding of Orthodoxy than our Fathers.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the Copts and other non-Chalcedonians are not Eutychians, but they do in fact adhere to the “moderate” Monophysitism of Severus of Antioch.
Being Severan Monophysites, the non-Chalcedonians are also almost necessarily adherents of Monothelitism and Monoenergism, the heresies condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. (This is confirmed in Chapter 10 of the late Pope Shenouda’s The Nature of Christ, entitled “The One Will and the One Act.”)
St. Maximus the Confessor was well aware of the teaching of the Severans (“Miaphysites” in modern, ecumenically correct parlance), and rejected it as heretical. He said that their bishops were “false bishops” (see Louth, Maximus the Confessor, p. 195). He had hope that they might be converted to “Zion,” i.e. Holy Orthodoxy, which clearly means that he believed they were outside of the Church. St. John Damascene likewise considered them to be “separated from the Orthodox Church” by reason of their heresy (On Heresies, § 83).
I share the hope that they will return to Orthodoxy, and if (at least some) modern Copts and Jacobites are closer to Orthodox belief than their predecessors, closer to fully accepting the Ecumenical Councils that they have previously rejected, I find that all the more encouraging. Their steadfastness in the face of persecution is admirable, even inspiring. But we should not imagine that modern academic, “professional” theologians have a better grasp of these matters than did St. Maximos the Confessor or St. John Damascene. Real unity will not come by brushing differences under the rug, even using clever phrases like “differentiated consensus.”
Father Deacon, Your reply is thought out and educated. Thank you for your refreshing candor.I would like to draw your attention to Fr V.C. Samuels' book on the Subject.
Deletein Christ, Germaine+