The whole quarrel may have been about words.
In 1990 the joint commission of the two Orthodox families signed a statement at Chambesy saying both had always held the same christological faith in different vocabularies. Bishops on both sides signed. Monasteries on both sides declined to act on it, and no communion has followed.
The dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches produced agreed statements in 1989 and 1990 concluding that both families confess the same christological faith in different terms. The bishops signed; reception stalled. On the Chalcedonian side, monasteries on Mount Athos objected that lifting anathemas on Severus and Dioscorus would overturn an ecumenical council. On the Coptic side, the memory of imperial persecution after 451 is not merely academic. Nothing follows from an agreement no one implements, and the two families still do not share communion.
The Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of one nature of the incarnate Logos.
Second Agreed Statement of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Chambesy, Geneva, 23-28 September 1990, point 7Published by the Department of Syriac Studies of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.