The Chambésy Statements and the Proposal to Lift the Anathemas

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. This file sets out what those texts actually say, quoting the load-bearing paragraphs, and then states the decisive fact: they were never received pan-Orthodoxly, no anathema has been lifted, and nothing has changed canonically. What follows is a report of documents, not a verdict on them.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

How the Dialogue Came About

Unofficial consultations between theologians of the two families began in the 1960s — at Aarhus (1964), Bristol (1967), Geneva (1970), and Addis Ababa (1971) — and concluded that the two traditions’ Christologies converged more closely than the historical record suggested. An official Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches was constituted in the 1980s, with meetings at Chambésy (Geneva) and elsewhere, co-chaired on the Orthodox side by Metropolitan Damaskinos (Papandreou) of Switzerland and on the Oriental Orthodox side by Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta (Ladouceur, “Orthodox Critiques of the Agreed Statements between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 60.3 [2016]: 333–368, on the dialogue’s history).

The First Agreed Statement (Anba Bishoy, 1989)

The First Agreed Statement was adopted at the Anba Bishoy Monastery, Wadi al-Natrun, Egypt, 20–24 June 1989.

Its method was to locate the common ground in Cyril. The statement declares that “throughout our discussions we have found our common ground in the formula of our common Father, St. Cyril of Alexandria: mia physis (hypostasis) tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē” — and the parenthesis is the point. By glossing physis with hypostasis, the text concedes at the outset the near-synonymy that lies at the heart of the fifth-century dispute (First Agreed Statement, Anba Bishoy Monastery, 20–24 June 1989).

It further states that the hypostasis of the Logos before the Incarnation is not composite, that the same hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos as distinct from nature is not composite either, and that “the unique theandric person (prosōpon) of Jesus Christ is one eternal hypostasis Who has assumed human nature by the Incarnation” (First Agreed Statement, 1989). Both families affirm in it that they condemn both Nestorianism and Eutychianism, and that the natures are distinguished “in contemplation” (theōria) only.

The Second Agreed Statement (Chambésy, 1990)

The Second Agreed Statement was adopted at the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at Chambésy, Geneva, 23–28 September 1990. It has ten numbered paragraphs and three recommendations.

Paragraphs 1–6 set out a shared confession: the rejection of the Eutychian heresy and the affirmation of Christ’s full divinity and full humanity with rational soul, body, and mind; the condemnation of Nestorianism; the union of the divine nature, with its will and energy, to the assumed human nature; the natures “united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation”; the willing and acting proceeding from the one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate; and the rejection of readings diverging from the Third Ecumenical Council.

Paragraph 7 records that the Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of “one nature of the incarnate Logos,” while both families’ respective formulations are acknowledged as justified.

Paragraph 8 is where the asymmetry becomes visible, and it should be read carefully. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils. As to the four later councils, the Orthodox affirm that the statement’s preceding paragraphs represent their teaching — and the text records that the Oriental Orthodox “consider this declaration of the Orthodox as their interpretation.” On the Seventh Council and the icons, the Oriental Orthodox agree that its teaching accords with their own ancient practice (Second Agreed Statement, Chambésy, 1990, §8). The Oriental Orthodox are not, in this paragraph, receiving the four councils; they are noting how the Orthodox read them.

Paragraph 9 is the statement’s central claim, and it is quoted here in full:

“In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.”
(Second Agreed Statement, Chambésy, 23–28 September 1990, §9)

Paragraph 10 draws the conclusion:

“Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.”
(Second Agreed Statement, Chambésy, 1990, §10)

The three Recommendations append the practical form: the Orthodox churches should lift the anathemas against the Oriental Orthodox councils and fathers previously condemned; the Oriental Orthodox should simultaneously lift theirs; and each church determines for itself the manner of doing so (Second Agreed Statement, Chambésy, 1990, Recommendations).

What the Statements Are Asking

It is worth setting out plainly what paragraph 10 entails, because it is the pivot of every subsequent argument.

The final clause — that the lifting will be “consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical” — means, on the Orthodox side, receiving as not heretical those whom Chalcedon deposed and whom the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned: above all Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch, who are venerated as saints in the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox Churches. It means, on the Oriental Orthodox side, ceasing to anathematize the Fourth Council, the Tome of Leo, and their teachers.

This is not a marginal implication read into the text by hostile critics; it is what the paragraph says, and the 1993 proposals make it explicit.

The 1993 Proposals for Lifting the Anathemas

The Joint Commission met again at the Orthodox Centre at Chambésy, 1–6 November 1993, and produced “Proposals for Lifting the Anathemas.” Its provisions: that both families affirm that the councils and fathers previously anathematized are Orthodox in their teaching; that “the lifting of the anathemas should be made unanimously and simultaneously by the Heads of all the Churches of both sides, through the signing of an appropriate ecclesiastical Act”; that this would entail the restoration of full communion, the nullification of past condemnations, and agreed liturgical diptychs; and a set of practical steps concerning pastoral work, catechetical materials, a liturgical sub-committee, and jurisdictional questions (Proposals for Lifting the Anathemas, Chambésy, 1–6 November 1993).

The requirement of unanimity and simultaneity is important in two directions. It acknowledges that no single local church may act alone in a matter of this kind. It also means that the whole proposal is conditional on a unanimity that has not occurred.

What Actually Happened Afterwards

The Patriarchate of Antioch and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate concluded a bilateral pastoral agreement, signed by Patriarch Ignatius IV (Hazim) and Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas on 12 November 1991, providing for a considerable measure of pastoral cooperation between the two churches in Syria and Lebanon — mutual pastoral care where one church’s clergy are absent, provisions for mixed marriages and funerals, and cooperation in various services. Its terms are frequently overstated. The agreement explicitly excluded concelebration in the Divine Liturgy: its seventh provision states that the arrangements it makes are “not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy,” and a further provision forbade receiving members of one church into the other (Statement of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch on relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church, 12 November 1991). It is a pastoral accommodation between two churches in the same region, not a restoration of eucharistic communion, and it was not a pan-Orthodox act.

The Russian Orthodox Church examined the dialogue formally. In December 1997 the Bishops’ Council received and approved a report of the Synodal Theological Commission presented by Metropolitan Filaret (Vakhromeyev) of Minsk. The Russian position welcomed the dialogue and affirmed a particular historical interest in its success, while holding that the Second Agreed Statement should not be regarded as a final document sufficient for the restoration of full communion, because it contains ambiguities in some Christological formulations, and that these should be clarified in the course of further study rather than resolved by lifting the anathemas (Decisions of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, December 1997, on the dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches).

And the Sacred Community of Mount Athos, on 27 May 1995, issued a memorandum opposing the proposals — treated in The Divided Orthodox Reception.

The Decisive Fact

No anathema has been lifted. No council has been revisited. No communion has been restored.

The Agreed Statements are the work of a theological commission. A commission’s statement acquires ecclesial force only through synodal reception, and the reception the 1993 proposals themselves required — unanimous and simultaneous action by the heads of all the churches on both sides — has not taken place. No pan-Orthodox synodal act has received the statements; the Holy and Great Council held in Crete in 2016 did not act on them. On the Oriental Orthodox side the reception was likewise incomplete, with the Ethiopian Church among those raising objections.

The canonical situation is therefore exactly what it was in 1988. The Council of Chalcedon is the Fourth Ecumenical Council; the condemnations of Dioscorus and Severus stand; the two families are not in communion; and the Agreed Statements are documents of a dialogue, not acts of the Church.

This is not a partisan characterization. It is the position that both the supporters and the critics of the statements agree upon as a matter of fact; they disagree about whether it ought to be changed, and that disagreement is the subject of the next file.

References

First Agreed Statement of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, 20–24 June 1989.
Second Agreed Statement of the Joint Commission. Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Chambésy, Geneva, 23–28 September 1990. (Paragraphs 9 and 10 quoted in full above.)
Proposals for Lifting the Anathemas. Joint Commission, Chambésy, Geneva, 1–6 November 1993.
Statement of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch on the relations between the Eastern Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox Churches, 12 November 1991 (Patriarchs Ignatius IV Hazim and Ignatius Zakka I Iwas).
Decisions of the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, December 1997, approving the report of the Synodal Theological Commission on the dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Ladouceur, Paul. “Orthodox Critiques of the Agreed Statements between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 60.3 (2016): 333–368.