09 — The Modern Question

This is the one section of this collection governed by METHODOLOGY §4.2. Between 1985 and 1993 an official Joint Commission of the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches produced two Agreed Statements and a set of proposals for lifting the mutual anathemas. Those texts were never received pan-Orthodoxly. Nothing has changed canonically: the anathemas stand, the councils stand, and there is no communion. What is disputed — and what this section reports without adjudicating — is the assessment of that initiative among Orthodox theologians and hierarchs.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

Contents

File Description
the-chambesy-statements-and-the-proposal-to-lift-anathemas.md The dialogue’s history from the unofficial consultations of the 1960s; the First Agreed Statement (Anba Bishoy, 1989) and the Second (Chambésy, 1990) with their load-bearing paragraphs quoted; the 1993 Proposals for Lifting the Anathemas; the Antiochian statement of 1991 and precisely what it did and did not permit; and the decisive fact of non-reception
the-divided-orthodox-reception.md The two Orthodox assessments set out in their strongest form and left unadjudicated: the case that the statements are theologically sound (the Joint Commission, Romanides, Martzelos and others) against the critical response (the Sacred Community of Mount Athos, 27 May 1995; Jean-Claude Larchet’s book-length study; the Russian Church’s reservations of 1997), with a dated “as of” note on where the matter stands

What Is and Is Not at Issue

Not at issue in this section: the dogma. The Definition of Chalcedon is the faith of the Church, and Section 04 confesses it. Nothing in this section revisits that, and no position reported here proposes to.

At issue: the assessment of a modern initiative the Church has not adopted. Whether the Agreed Statements accurately describe the two traditions’ faith, whether an anathema imposed by an Ecumenical Council may be lifted and by what authority, and what would be required for reunion — these are questions on which Orthodox bishops and theologians of good standing have publicly disagreed, and on which no pan-Orthodox judgment has been rendered. That is exactly the scope §4.2 defines, and it is why this section reports both sides and does not decide between them.

See Also