Français

Conference in Saint Petersburg 16-21 June 2001

by Christine Chaillot, Founder and Secretary

The First Cycle of Cross-cultural and Inter-religious Discussions on Ontology of Dialogue as the Main Value of Cultural and Religious Experience
(Arranged by the Saint Petersburg Branch of the Russian Institute for Cultural Research, of the Russian Federation Ministry of Culture and Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Philosophical and Cultural Research Center « Eidos » of the Saint Petersburg Association of Scientists and Scholars, under the Auspices of UNESCO as Chair on Comparative Studies of spiritual traditions, their specific cultures and inter-religious Dialogue), International Readings on Theory, History and Philosophy of Culture, no 12, published by Liubava Moreva, EIDOS, Saint Petersburg (2002)

The Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
by Christine Chaillot

Dialogue. There are different kinds of Dialogue: Cultural Dialogue, Inter-religious Dialogue, Inter-Christian Dialogue. In the latter there are several levels of Ecumenical Dialogue that take place, such as between Catholics and Protestants, between Orthodox and Catholics, etc.. Our subject and interest here is the Dialogue between the Christians of the East: that is between, the better known, Orthodox, also called Eastern Orthodox, such as Russians, Greeks, Rumanians, Serbs, etc; and the ancient Oriental Churches (nowadays also called Oriental Orthodox) such as Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians and Syrian Orthodox in the Middle East and India. For centuries, following the schism of Chalcedon (451), they were and still are nicknamed 'monophysites' by some (1). But the Oriental Orthodox refuse absolutely to be seen as monophysites.

As a result of a terminology problem at Chalcedon, a one-word misunderstanding (‘physis’), a separation of 16 centuries between two Christian families occurred. These Christian families have in common all the ethos/ontology of the early Churches and are very close in their beliefs, customs, and liturgical/spiritual life.

To be dead or alive was/is not an abstract/philosophical question but a reality across many centuries for Christian communities in the Middle East. They had to face death many times in history, such as: the Roman persecutions during the first centuries of Christianity; since the rise of Islam in the 7th century; the 1915 genocide against the Armenians, Syrian Orthodox and other Christians; and even most recently the massacre of 25 Copts in the south Egyptian village of Al Kosheh in January 2000. All these difficulties had as a consequence the wounding of many of these Christians in their bodies and souls.
Confrontations also took place between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Christians following the schism of 451, but solidarity often took place among them as well. Today the future of the Christian communities in the Middle East is uncertain.

The survival of these ancient Christian communities until today is a miracle, as well as the fact that they have kept their traditions and cultures and, above all, their faith intact for so long, in spite of so many adversities.
 Specialists explain that the schism of Chalcedon was not only based on theological arguments, but was also politically and economically motivated.

What do we know of the Copts meaning 'Egyptian' Christians; of the Semitic and African background of the Ethiopians; of the Syrian Orthodox whose language is close to Aramaic which was spoken by Christ? What can we learn from these ancient Churches so often neglected and forgotten by other Christian communities, and in History in general, but whose faithful are still very alive, not only in the Middle East but also in the Diaspora/world (2).

Here I shall concentrate on the difficulties of expressing one's faith adequately in order to be understood correctly, and, at least, not to be misunderstood. That is the complexity of using and translating words, with, sometimes, the catastrophic result of division for centuries among people of the same basic religion and knowledge.

So what happened in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, which provoked this terrible schism between the Christians of the Middle East?
The first great schism among Christians was with the Church of the East, after the Council of Ephesus in 431.
The second great schism occurred after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, during which the divinity and humanity in Christ was referred to by speaking of two 'physeis', ‘physis’ being a Greek word of which one translation can be 'nature'.

Some Christian theologians of Antioch and Alexandria refused the terminology of Chalcedon (two 'natures'), thinking that it implied a separation between the divinity and the humanity of Christ. They preferred to remain faithful to the expression of Cyril of Alexandria, a Church Father who had emphasized the unity of Christ by writing: 'one physis of God the Word Incarnate' (‘mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene’), formula which expresses Christ's divinity (‘God the Word’) and humanity (‘Incarnate’), but also emphasizes their unity ('one physis'). The theologians who refused the terminology of Chalcedon were accused of being « monophysite », or believers only in one 'nature' (‘mia physis’) of Christ by the Chalcedonian Christians, who were mostly Byzantine followers.

In fact, the non Chalcedonians feared that the expressions used in Chalcedon speaking of the two « physeis », translated as (two) 'natures' of Christ, would imply a separation of the divinity and the humanity of Christ (3).

After the 5th century, several different attempts were made to reconcile these families, unsuccessfully. For example, in the 12th century, Nerses Shnorhali, the famous Catholicos of the Armenian Church, wrote in 1165 a Profession of Faith (4)
to answer and refute point by point the accusations and criticisms made by the Byzantines. Nerses even used the expression 'two natures'.
« His divine uncircumscribed nature, taking to Himself a part of the blood of the most pure Virgin,  made of the mass of Adam, He united it with His Divinity by an inscrutable and ineffable blending. He then became of two perfect natures, divine and human, one perfect Person immutable and (essentially) indivisible... We confess, therefore, Christ as God and Man, but we do not mean division by this, God forbid! »
His very positive contacts with the Byzantine Patriarchate of Constantinople remained without effective fruits.

It was only in the second part of the 20th century that the theological Dialogue began between all the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, first unofficially from 1964, and then officially from 1985. The studies of the Official Dialogue claim that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox christological faith, but have expressed it in different words. As well the unbroken continuity of the Apostolic tradition is recognized in both families (Second Agreed Statement, Chambésy 1990).
There are questions that remain to be answered, such as the lifting of anathemas against local Patriarchs and saints, and the full recognition of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, although its content was already accepted in the Second Common Declaration in 1990 (paragraphs 1-7). Specialists think that competent synodal authorities can overcome these obstacles.
Pastoral and liturgical problems also remain to be discussed (5).

While the Dialogue is somewhat solved at the theological level among some theologian scholars, the daily reality is more complex. While some groups have accepted the results of the theological Dialogue, others feel that there are still huge differences. Why?
One can understand that if, for centuries, the Oriental Orthodox were called 'monophysites', it is difficult to change minds immediately, in a moment. It is also understandable among people who have been misinformed or miseducated. However, even among educated theologians/people, there are some that remain completely closed and negative to this Dialogue, without any attempt to discover the reality of the others.
This is the case in different countries.

One way to open the Dialogue is through personal encounters with people, including hierarchs, theologians and common believers, by visiting communities, preferably in their own ancestral environment. This was done, for instance, by Bishop Porfiriy Uspensy, a Russian Bishop, the founder of the Russian Orthodox mission in Jerusalem, and the author of works on the Christians of the East, who had lenghthy discussions with Oriental Orthodox (clergy and people) during stays in the Middle East (Palestine, Syria, Egypt), for a number of years, between 1843 and 1860. He studied the history, liturgy, patristics and canon law of these Churches (Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian) (6), and the peculiarities of their doctrine. He came to the conclusion that their faith was similar to that of the Russians.
He thought that these Oriental Orthodox were not heretics and that they should not be called 'monophysites', « in the sense of the coalescence or change in the two natures of Christ into one, [such as the heretic Eutyches did], because they not only reject, but anathematised the coalescence and... sincerely confess the union of the two 'natures' and the formation from them of the one hypostasis without any change in their properties ».

Uspensky was the first to state and prove in print in Russia that the Copts and Armenians are not heretics. His book Doctrine, Divine Service, Order of Service, and Rules of Ecclesiastical Decorum of Egyptian Christians (Copts), (Saint Petersburg 1856) (7) was approved by the Holy Synod. He considered that the main aim of publishing his work was, for instance, « to widen the horizon of our knowledge, to show the continuous aspects of Church life of the Copts and of ours » (8).
Presenting another study on Ethiopia, apparently the first in the Russian language, entitled « The ecclesiastical and political Condition of Abyssinia since Ancient Times » (9) Archimandrite Porfiriy wrote to the Rector of the Kiev Theological Academy: « I want only one thing: to widen our knowledge of the Christian East in which Abyssinia holds a prominent place, and prepare our union with it, which sooner or later will take place ».
A possible union with the Armenians was also discussed when Archimandrite Porfiriy was Rector of the Theological Seminary in Odessa and he met the future Armenian Catholicos Nerses (1843-57).

For Uspensky, if the decisions of Chalcedon had been translated well, for instance from Greek into Armenian, there would have been no division; « however, what was divided by reason or passion must be united by love (10).
He also had the opinion that what was needed for reconciliation was « first of all, zeal for this sacred cause; secondly reaffirmation of the ban of the Russian Synod (1841) on printing in our ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastcial books expressions bitter to the [Armenians]...: thirdly, the most detailed exposition of the Orthodox doctrine and its submission to the council of Armenian bishops..., defining in it in the simplest words the Person of Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect Man; fourthly, Church marriages between Armenians and Russians should be sanctioned and baptisms be administered to children in the Armenian or our Church according to the mutual consent of the parents (11).

It seemed to Bishop Uspensky extremely important that no difference in cultural, historical and national traditions should affect the rapprochement of these Churches. This rapprochement should not affect the preservation of the rites and hierarchy of each Church.

Bishop Uspensky anticipated what the theological agreements state more than a century later (1991-93).
.
So, one could ask: why is it so difficult to accept today what was already understood a century and a half ago?
Some consider that the texts proposed by the present Official Dialogue were not satisfactory.
For instance the Russian Church judged, by decisions of the Holy Synod, December 1994 and February 1997, that the Second Agreement (1990) could not be considered as a definite/final text «as it contains ambiguities in some Christological formulations.» But, it was also said, in a positive way, that the Joint Commission of the Dialogue should continue its work, and prepare a more detailed study. Also the Holy Synod and some Church Departments should be entrusted, among other things, to develop a plan of scholarly conferences and symposiums, to publish theological, historical and other information, which would help introduce clergy and faithful of the Russian Church to the problems and the development of the Theological Dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches (12).

It remains to all those who remain critical of this Dialogue or of its formulations to find and propose better ones, and which will satisfy all.

The question remains on how to convince the critics, especially the well informed people who do not wish to change their minds because of an old idea or an 'idée reçue'. How to solve a terminological misunderstanding is the key question.

It requires a deep returning, or metanoia to take back the Gospel word, not only at the theological level (since theological arguments have been clarified), but also at the historical, sociological, and even individual/psychological levels. All these aspects require humility.

About 'simple words', I would now ask the question: how to put/use words in a question?/ or 'what about the art of asking questions?'/or « de l'art de poser des questions».

I have sometimes heard Eastern Orthodox meeting Oriental Orthodox and stating abruptly: 'You are monophysite'. The Oriental Orthodox will answer: 'No, I am not', etc. This is a dead-end exchange. It is as if one person would state again and again: 'Your name is X'; and another person would keep answering: 'no, my name is Y'.
One of the main difficulties is an impossibility for some people just to listen to the other person, and so, not to allow, at least at a minimum, a beginning of a dialogue.
From my experience the question asked by the Eastern Orthodox to the Oriental Orthodox should not be: 'Do you believe in the two 'natures' of Christ', because it can still be misunderstood and thus continue the misunderstanding, or, even worse, create new ones. A similar question could be asked more simply (without possible misunderstanding): 'Do you believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully Man in one?’, with the addition of the theological term ‘Person’ if people can understand it.
Then all Oriental Orthodox would claim 'yes', without hesitation. The way the question is asked, in a correct and simple way is so important. People have to work on phrasing, adapting theological complicated terms in a way that they can be understood and accepted by all, theologians or not. This has always been a great challenge for theologians of all times, and continues to today, especially for those who stick to ancient Greek terminology, like in the Orthodox tradition, as the Ecumenical Councils were held and reported in Greek, as well as many Patristic works of Eastern Christian traditions.

This terminology challenge is tremendous and yet I believe it is a necessity for the future of the Orthodox theology. But it is a very difficult challenge as in all Orthodox theology the Truth of the Tradition must be kept in each word and sentence and it should never deviate from the original Truth.

In conclusion: Christianity is grounded mostly in these ancient Oriental Churches but their traditions should not be seen as archeological remains of Christianity.
The theological misunderstanding has to now be explained in a simple way to both the clergy and faithful. Theological debates alone cannot solve the problem of separation.
It remains that the people of both Christian Families have to acknowledge the existence of the other, learn to discover their specific cultures, history and religious spirituality.  By personal meetings the comprehension of the tradition and culture of the others can be gained so that, hopefully, all will be enriched.

In order to promote a spirit of an open and informed dialogue among Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, wherever they live, in their ancestral places or in the Diaspora, I founded an Association called 'Inter-Orthodox Dialogue' in December 2000 in Paris. The President is Father Boris Bobrinskoy, dean of  Saint Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Below are some of his thoughts on cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue.

« The cross cultural and inter-religious dialogue requires reflection on the limitations themselves of what we call ‘cultural diversity’, as the cultures confronted or affronted come from the same primitive core or matrix. Morover, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to dissociate cultural identity from religious identity, considering that their identitary becoming was realised together and at the same time. It would be important to specify the constitutive elements of both cultural and religious identities in order to concretely reflect upon their relationships.

As Orthodox we also have the task to delimit the following points: first what belongs to the religious field transcending the national and ethnic cultures; secondly the embodiment of the transcendent Revelation in the cultures. These two points are important since the dissociation of religion and culture is always problematic. In fact, we need to reach a level of consciousness that is sometimes difficult to realize: that of the primacy of what is spiritual. Through its nature itself what is spiritual comes from the sovereign action of the Holy Spirit on human life under all components such as personal, familial, social, national and even political.  More over the action of the Spirit penetrates this multiform human existence, and it orients it all towards the human vocation of cultivating the ‘Earth’, and of allowing him to carry fruits which will remain until the ‘Kingdom.’

We need to clarify that when a Christian refers to the Holy Spirit this implies the experience of a spiritual reality that, on one hand, transcends our human existence and, on the other hand, penetrates it, illumines it and gives meaning to it. I want to say by that, that human existence is not neutral or indifferent in its ontology, as it springs from the hands of God who is good, and it is indelebly marked with the divine resemblance, and even with eternity. More over, in speaking of the Kingdom, a Christian affirms that human existence does not end with the physical death of the body, but that humans are called to an afterlife, and only religious faith can give glimpses of what that life will consist of.

Therefore the Orthodox Christian has a profound awareness of the light of God that penetrates and illumines every human being coming in the world, because man, from his birth, contains in the deepest of himself a presence of God, which the Orthodox Christians call the ‘image’ of God. This image of God creates in man a dynamism, a surge to reach towards a greater fullness so that he may be drawn towards resembling the perfection, that of God. This quest is a journey towards God, towards the Absolute.  

Furthermore, the presence of this image of God in every human implies for the Christian- and in reality and truth for every human being- the necessity to discover that image hidden in each other human being. Thus we enter into the deep process of brotherly communion that we call love and compassion with all living beings.

For me, as an Orthodox theologian, the presupposition of the inter-religious dialogue is before all the awareness that the Christian, and any believer, holds within him/herself the whole world in his/her prayer, in his/her most personal sanctification and in his/her moral responsibility. From this is woven a mysterious chain of solidarity and interdependence that links together mankind. By the fact that man himself grows in love and rises towards the light, he/she attracts other beings with him/her towards that same light and life, towards a transcendence of perfection.

In regards to the Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox with the Oriental Orthodox it is certainly an inter-Christian Dialogue, which has found answers at the theological level, and which has a real possibility to develop into a tangible, practical and visible unity. I feel that the Eastern Orthodox Churches must make this Dialogue a priority by their efforts, their prayers and in their theological discussions. All this in order that this Dialogue will be fruitful, in the respect of our respective identities and of our common faith in the mystery of Christ.

Keeping all this in mind I am pleased to support, as President, the Association «Inter Orthodox Dialogue’, in its work to promote contacts and brotherly relationships between believers of these two great and ancient Christian families by organising meetings at different levels, by learning to know one another, by discovering our respective traditions, cultures and spiritualities ».

Notes:

1) After the schism the non Chalcedonians had to organise their own separate Patriarchates in Alexandria and Antioch.
2) The School of the Orientalism in Saint Petersburg, which was flourishing since the middle of the 19th century, became more and more interested in the Christian Orient. First of all, it became famous in the fields of the Armenian and Georgian studies, which was rather natural for the Russian Empire. But in the late 19th and especially in the early 20th centuries there were many achievements in other fields, including Coptic studies (O. von Lemm, B. Turaev), Ethiopian Studies (B. Turaev), Christian Arabic (P.Mednikov, A. Vasiliev, Young I. Krachkovsky). In 1912 three great Russian scholars, N. Marr, N. Beneshevich, and B. Turaev established a new periodical published by the Russian Academy of Sciences named "Xristianskij Vostok" ("Christian Orient") whose last issue was published in 1922. Since 1999 this periodical was renewed as an international and multilingual journal published jointly by the Russian Academy of Sciences and State Hermitage Museum, with Prof. B. Piotrovsky (Director of Hermitage) as its editor-in-chief. See also: "Istorija otechestvennogo vostokovedenija s seredine XI vekado 1917 goda" (= History of Russian Orientalism in the Middle of the 19th Century until 1917 ), p. 474-477 (published by the Academy of the Sciences), Moscow (1997).
3) In fact, it is better to always explain the different possible translations of the Greek word 'physis' because it is its different translation and interpretation which caused all these centuries of misunderstandings.
4) Edited by T. Poladian, The Profession of Faith of the Armenian Church by Saint Nerses Shnorhali, 1941.
5) The results of these meetings have been published in English in Towards Unity. The Theological Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, chief editor C. Chaillot, Geneva (1998); and translated into Russian, Saint Andrews Institute, Moscow, (2001).
6) The Ethiopians were under the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria until 1959.
7) All the references given here about Metropolitan P. Uspensky can be found in an article printed by the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 2 (1986), pp. 57-68.
8) Materials for the Biography of Bishop P. Uspensky, (1910) vol II, p.3-4.
9) In The Transactions of the Kiev Theological Academy, (1866), no 3, pp. 305-344; no 4 pp. 556-604; no 5 pp. 3-32; no 6 pp. 142-167.
10) The Diary and Autobiographical Notes of Bishop P.Uspensky, St Petersburg vol. 1, (1894) p. 606.
11) This fourth point was discussed in dialogues between the Syrian Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches of Antioch, in Damascus in 1991; and afterwards between the Coptic and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria in Egypt (2001).
12) Since 2000 the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate has also begun to establish a bi-lateral Dialogue with some Oriental Orthodox Churches. In March 2001 the first meetings of the Commitee of the Theological Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Prechalcedonian Oriental Churches took place in the Monastery of Saint Daniel in Moscow, first with the Church in Armenia, then with the Oriental Orthodox in the Middle East: Coptic Patriarchate in Cairo, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Damascus and Armenian Catholicossate of Antelias in Beirut. (Service Orthodoxe de Presse 259, Paris 2001, p.15, and Moscow Patriarchate website).

Four books printed by Bishop P. Uspensky in Russian are : Pervoe putechestvie v Sinaiskij monstyr' v 1845 godu ; Vtoroe putechestvie v Sinaiskij monstyr' v 1850 godu ; Pervoe putechestvie v Afonskie monstyri i skity ; Putechestvie po Egiptu i v monastyri svjatogo Antonija Velikogo i prepodobnogo

Pavla Fivejskogo..