(SVOTS) - Prolific author and scholar Christine Chaillot visited St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (SVOTS) on Thursday, February 22, giving a stirring presentation to the student body in the Metropolitan Philip Auditorium, titled “The Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.”
The Very Rev. Dr Chad Hatfield gave the introduction, noting Chaillot’s abiding commitment to studying and writing about reconciliation between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and applauding her for “going right to the top” in bringing the issue to the leading hierarchs of our day. Fr Chad endorsed Chaillot’s many contributions to the study of this millennia-old division and mentioned plans for a conference to be held at St Vladimir’s Seminary in 2025, intended to further the dialogue between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.
Christine Chaillot opened her presentation by summarizing the current relations between the various Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. She then posed the question, “What does Church unity really mean?” and shared thoughts inspired by a 2022 article by SVOTS Professor Emeritus and former dean, the Very Rev. Dr John Erickson, “From Division to Dialogue and Beyond: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity.” Chaillot summarized various approaches to interpreting the conclusions of the 4th Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451) and the main points presented by those who oppose dialogue and reconciliation between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, including the question of how to deal with varying liturgical practices, and how to recognize saints canonized after the Council of Chalcedon.
In concluding her talk, Chaillot urged her listeners, and all those not well informed or against dialogue, to take the time to read the writings produced by others in the “family of churches” to gain an understanding of their Christological and spiritual kinship. “By reading the liturgical books of the Oriental Orthodox,” said Chaillot, “we can understand that their Christology, Mariology, and faith in general are Orthodox.”
Chaillot placed a special emphasis on the importance of practical dialogue, informed by love and humility, to be experienced as a “living reality,” not only by theologians and specialists but also by clergy and faithful from the two families of churches, especially by seminarians who will become clergy in the future. Her final question to the audience was, “If we understand the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches actually have the same Christology, is it proper to reject the possibility of unity any longer?”
The lecture was attended by a large group of students, spanning multiple Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and was followed by a Q&A session. Watch the recording of the talk by Christine Chaillot by clicking the button below.
It is about time that we saw the light and seek to work out a way of unifying and to keep fostering separation. How meaningful were the root causes, and how many were due to poor translations and be misinterpretations
ReplyDeleteNone is the correct answer. The idea that the people of that time could not read or correctly translate the languages they used every day was an invention of 20th century scholars in academia that smacks no small amount of hubris. Too many orthodox took up the idea uncritically
DeleteWhatever one makes of these doctrinal differences, they are honest and real differences, not mere mistakes...
I disagree. One only has to read the letters exchanged between St. Cyril and Theodoret of Cyrus to see that they were having a difficult time understanding one another's terminology and the root of their objections. The precise meaning of theological terms in these debates evolved significantly from the first council through the fifth and beyond. The fathers as individuals lacked the extensive access to the works of their peers and predecessors, in original and translation, that theologians and historians have access to today.
Delete"...The precise meaning of theological terms in these debates evolved significantly from the first council through the fifth and beyond. The fathers as individuals lacked the extensive access to the works of their peers and predecessors..."
DeleteThis supports the understanding that that the theology itself was the difference - the process (of theo-ology - the working out of "God knowledge" and the words more or less precise to express it), rather than this late modern idea that it was a difference of translation and "One Big Misunderstanding"....soo I disagree with your disagreement ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI did not watch the video but I read this summary. Always always this emphasis on "dialogue". To a certain kind of modern person, whether they are orthodox or not, " dialogue" has become this thing unto itself as if it's mere presence is an act of God himself. It's almost as if the lesson of the power and place of "dialogue" in Genesis is completely forgotten.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, even if we share the same christology it's almost beside the point. We do not even know what our own unity means, with our jurisdictionalism, if ethnonationalism, and not having had a real council and 1300 years. This concern with oriental orthodoxy is a distraction from more significant problems...
As believing Christians should we not try to embrace them and try to seek healing,,,,,it could be a model to help us see the light in overcoming our own ethnocentricitirs. I sent no reason for the negativity.
DeleteGod bless all her good work.
ReplyDeleteI think we should look to the Oriental as a model for what unity could look like. They have different liturgies, different sets of cannon law, even different cannon of Scripture. They generally don't fight over territory. Yet, the Orientals are all united. What unites them? It is there faith. Faith, not externals or expressions, unites them. We have a lot to learn from the Orientals.
ReplyDeleteAmen!
Delete