skip to main |
skip to sidebar
 |
(ROC) - From February 18 to 22, 2019, the Second Session of the Commission for Bilateral Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church took place in the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Residence in Atchaneh, Lebanon.
The Moscow Patriarchate membership in the Commission includes Bishop Flavian of Cherepovets and Belozersk (Co-chairman); Hegumen Arseny (Sokolov), representative of the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East; Hieromonk Stefan (Igumnov), secretary for inter-Christian affairs, Department for External Church Relations of Moscow Patriarchate (DECR); Mr. Sergey Alferov and Mr. Evgeny Bakhtin, DECR Staff members.
The Syriac Orthodox Church was represented by Archbishop Mor Chrysostomos Mikhael Chamoun, Patriarchal vicar and director of the Patriarchal Benevolent Institutions in Atchaneh (acting co-chairman of the Commission); Archimandrite Raban Jack Yakoub, director of the patriarchal youth department; Archimandrite Raban Roger-Youssef Akhrass, director of the department of Syriac studies; Deacon Imad Syryany, staff member of the patriarchal secretariat; and Mr. Shadi Sarweh, executive director of St. Ephrem Patriarchal Development Committee.
In the beginning of the meeting, Archbishop Chrysostomos asked Bishop Flavian to convey congratulations to Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia from Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II on the recently celebrated 10th anniversary of his Primatial ministry.
The sides summed up the implementation of the agreements concluded at the First Session of the Committee and determined the further program of cooperation to be approved by the Church Authorities.
The Commission’s work to coordinate interaction in implementing projects for aid to suffering Christians in Syria, among whom is thousands-strong flock of the Syriac Orthodox Church, remains the priority for it. It was stated with satisfaction that a number of projects were successfully realized in 2018. Among them, the trip of a delegation of the Working Group for Aid to People in Syria of Russia’s Presidential Council for Cooperation with Religious Organizations to Syria and Lebanon and the distribution of a large food supply there last February; the initiative of the Russian Orthodox Church to launch a medical rehabilitation program for disabled children – victims of the hostilities in Syria; and the conference of heads and high representatives of religious communities in Syria and Russia held during the visit to Damascus of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations, with the participation of Patriarch Mar Ignatius Aphrem II. The conference considered plans for continuation of the cooperation in this area, also with the participation of the St. Ephrem Patriarchal Development Committee, which supervises humanitarian projects of the Syriac Orthodox Church.
Another topical area of joint work is the development of relations in the academic sphere. It was noted as important the participation of a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, Hegumen Arseny (Sokolov), in the symposium organized by the Department of Syriac Studies on the personality of Severus of Antioch (Atchaneh, May 25, 2018). This year, delegates from Syria are expected to attend academic theological conferences to be organized by the Moscow Patriarchate higher educational institutions. Concrete agreements were reached on the beginning of a students’ exchange program. It is planned to develop in the future the direct cooperation between theological schools, in particular, between those of the Russian Orthodox Church and the St. Ephrem Theological Seminary in Seidaya and the Syrian Antioch University, which was opened in November 2018 in Damascus as the first university of the Syriac Orthodox Church to train not only clergy but also laity for work in humanities, and natural science and technology disciplines.
The Commission considered it topical to promote the establishment of contacts between respective structures responsible for developing youth service through exchange of delegations and joint participation in issue activities including in the diaspora dioceses.
The sides also discussed prospects for interaction between monastics and development of pilgrimage programs, pointing to the positive experience of trips organized by the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations for pilgrim groups from the Syriac Orthodox Church to come to Russia in January and July 2018.
The Commission deemed it necessary to maintain the present level of cooperation in the media sphere, including giving mutual informational support in face of pressing challenges faced today by the Moscow Patriarchate and the Syriac Orthodox Church. The Syrian side gave a high value to the initiative of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to hold a consultation with Primates of Churches in East and West to adopt a joint statement during the aggravation of the situation in Syria in April 2018. Among other significant manifestations of this interaction was the concurrent wide distribution by the DECR Communication Service of the Joint Statement of His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East, His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem II and His Beatitude Melkite Patriarch Jousseff Absi.
The participants pointed out the importance of the activation of contacts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the community of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Iraq, which took place in 2018. Archbishop Mor Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf of Mosul, Kirkuk, Kurdistan and Environs visited Moscow in November 2018, as a member of the Council of Iraq Christian Leaders. Earlier, in March of the same year, Hieromonk Stefan (Igumnov), at the instruction of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, visited Baghdad and Erbil, where he held working meetings with heads and representatives of local Syriac Orthodox communities.
In conclusion of the session, a joint Memorandum was adopted.
During their stay in Lebanon, the Moscow Patriarchate delegation visited the Monastery of the Dormition in Balamand, which belong to the Orthodox Church of Antioch, and the Theological Institute located in its territory, in which the delegation, with the blessing of Patriarch John X, was received by Metropolitan Ephraim of Tripoli. Bishop Flavian asked them to convey cordial greetings to Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Patriarch John X of All the East and told them about the progress made in the dialogue with the Syriac Orthodox Church. On his part, Metropolitan Ephraim noted that the Balamand monastery is still cherishes the memory of the visit made by the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Patriarch of Antioch in November 2011. An exchange of opinions took place on pressing problems of bilateral and inter-Orthodox cooperation.
The program of the Commission session included visits to holy places and historical and cultural sites in Lebanon, including the St. George Cathedral of the Metropolis of Beirut of the Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Saydet el Nourieh and the St. Elias Orthodox monasteries, as well as the city of Byblos.
The next session of the Commission is to take place in summer 2020 in Russia.
Posts
Nail Culture
ReplyDeleteNail Art
Nail Forum
Nail Tutorial
Nail Arts online
I'm always confused by the vitriol poured on Catholics and Protestants when they are dogmatically closer to the Orthodox than the Oriental Orthodox are. The Syriacs are also out of communion with the Non-Chalcedonians; they don't even accept Ephesus. "Looking like Orthodox" and being weak shouldn't be required for real ecumenism where we can agree we have been arguing past each other due to differing emphases and concerns.
ReplyDeleteIt's one of the few times self-identified traditionalists listen to scholars. That tragic irony should not be lost on so many.
ReplyDeleteThe Syriacs are non chalcedonians;the Assyrians are Nestorians.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, my apologies. The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (the English name adopted in 2000) accepts four of the seven Ecumenical Councils, not three. It is different than the eastern branch of Syriac Christianity, the Syriac-speaking Assyrian Church of the East.
DeleteThe Oriental Orthodox are much closer in both faith and practice to the Eastern Orthodox than protestants or catholics. Formal recognition, or non-recognition, of this or that council should not be confused with theological substance.
ReplyDeleteSee my second comment above. How else should the fact that "faith and practice" being "closer" is more important than the dogma of the Ecumenical Councils?
DeleteWell, they've certainly not added anything novel to the faith (and simply never had to wrestle with iconoclasm). You go into their churches and everything immediately makes sense in a way that's not usually true of Catholic and Protestant worship. In the Middle East, they've existed side-by-side with the Orthodox, with very blurry divisions, for a millennium and a half. It makes sense that people who are otherwise averse to ecumenism feel differently in this case. And it's simply human that shared practice and everyday living out of the faith trumps an abstract enumeration of councils accepted or not.
DeleteThe faith of the ecumenical councils was held by the church before those councils were convened; it stands to reason then that the dogmas are not inextricably bound up in this or that numbering of councils. The controversy over Chalcedon is complex and it is easy to see how a faithful orthodox Christian could accept or reject it depending on what angle he was considering it from. When ROCOR was in dialogue with the Jacobites in India, from the 1930's to the 1950's, their bishops concluded that there was no dogmatic disagreement between them. Unfortunately the ROCOR bishops still insisted on a formal acceptance of the seven councils and a promising dialogue froze there.
DeleteBut ROCOR did receive a group of Nestorians with a bishop from Iraq or Iran, I believe. Their bishop reposed at Novo Diveyevo convent in New York in 1960.
DeleteRight, Orthodoxy is more a feeling, practice and mutual recognition more than a set of Orthodox beliefs. Orthodoxy is what feels Orthodox to the Orthodox. Its phronema not dogma. Another way to say it is that Orthodoxy is a tribal religion or a national church, with or without states. The problem is when it also pretends to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is no salvation when its actions speak more loudly.
ReplyDeleteHuh? My point is simply that it's obviously easier to start talking with people when you immediately recognize yourself in their practice and experience. That's probably a human universal and not much of a commentary on Orthodoxy as such. I would personally also say that dogma is meaningless when it's not translated into practice, so common practice is as much an indication of room for discovering shared faith as an abstract list of shared propositions, which can be very deceptive when they wind up being interpreted and, yes, practiced in divergent ways.
DeleteOf course. The “anti-ecumenists” on here will instantly rush to take the most hysterical and extreme positions against whomever that they do not like but when the Ecumenical Councils are relativized in the comments section of this very blog, these same people can’t be bothered to defend the Orthodox faith.
ReplyDeleteIf recognizing that the same dogma can be expressed (imperfectly) in different language equals "relativizing," than so does having both St. Cyril and St. Leo on the calendar of saints.
DeleteBut the Ecumenical Councils were called to address real and substantial theological problems. Likewise, the various reunification attempts that occurred over the centuries subsequent to the 4th Ecumenical Council did also not take place because the Orthodox and the Monophysites misunderstood that each side was expressing the same faith differently. The Ecumenical Councils were the work of the Holy Spirit, not of human misunderstanding.
DeleteThat the Holy Spirit worked in the councils does not mean that everything done by them was perforce correct. Getting a bunch of bishops into a room together does not grant them a charism of infallibility. Chalcedon declared the letter of Ibas orthodox; the 2nd council of Constantinople declared it heretical. They can't both be right. So while the dogmatic teaching of these councils is orthodox, it is possible that many mistakes occurred which led to misunderstanding. The ROCOR bishops in dialogue with the Indian Orthodox concluded that, on matters of dogma, there was full agreement. Tragically, they nonetheless insisted on formal recognition of the seven Byzantine councils. This is tantamount to elevating Byzantinism into an article of faith.
DeleteEvery Orthodox Christian should be able to agree with the first half of what you wrote but I don’t know anyone who would refer to the Ecumenical Councils in the way that you do. Even Professor Georgios Martselos who participated in the dialogues and speaks of the “ideological orthodoxy” of the non-Chalcedonians believes that their opposition to the dogmatic definition of the 4th EC, the Tome of Leo and the subsequent ECs is an error.
DeleteWishing you a good and bless and Lent.
When St. Cyril of Alexandria re-established communion with John of Antioch in 433, he did so on the basis of a common declaration of faith. He did not ask John to recognize the council of Ephesus. The councils were made for man, not man for the councils, and if we elevate them as articles of faith, above their dogmatic content, we have made them into fetishes. There is no "ideological orthodoxy". The theological position taken by the Oriental Orthodox is on the basis of their own tradition and history- it is not some abstraction they arrived at in the 20th century. The idea that their orthodoxy is merely theoretical is an insult and brings the expectation that they must trample on their own history and become Byzantines to be "real" orthodox. The problem with many EO's is that they are unable to conceive the possibility that orthodoxy might have developed along a historical road that diverged from Byzantium, albeit parallel in the essentials.
DeleteI agree with Metropolitan Hilarion's suggestion here: https://www.scribd.com/document/61746234/The-Reception-of-the-Ecumenical-Councils-in-the-Early-Church
Delete"We think that while the Oriental Orthodox could continue to use their own dogmatic terminology and consider ours unsatisfactory, they nevertheless must accept that the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils mentioned do not contradict their own teaching. Only such theological agreement can provide a genuine basis for reunion. This agreement does not mean that the Oriental Orthodox must accept all seven Ecumenical Councils absolutely and unconditionally. The Oriental Orthodox are not prepared to sign the dogmatic formulations of the later four Ecumenical Councils, as their theological terminology remains alien to them. We must not demand that the Oriental Orthodox accept the fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils absolutely and unconditionally because they did not take part in those Councils and thus the problems discussed were alien to them. For example, it is not reasonable to expect that the Oriental Orthodox will use the seventh Ecumenical Council in their theology of icons, as they did not experience in their midst the heresy of iconoclasm and had no need to develop theological arguments for the veneration of icons. The Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches parted because they did not find agreement in the reception of the Council of Chalcedon. Thus theological dialogue between the two families must be centered on this Council alone. We must not demand that the Oriental Orthodox accept this Council as their own. But they must be invited to accept that the Christological formulae ofthat Council do not contradict the teaching of the ancient undivided Church. On the other hand, the Orthodox need to accept that Oriental Orthodox Christological terminology can also be maintained, as it reflects the terminology of the third Ecumenical Council. Such an agreement would represent the bare minimum that would permit (according to St Basils principle) the reinstitution of eucharistic communion. Only in this case would it be possible to say that the theological dialogue has been completed. From that point, the Churches may turn to the questions of history, ecclesiology and procedure (e.g., the lifting of anathemas, veneration of saints, etc.)"