Anathema

[Xeno.of.athens]

During the sixteenth century in Western Europe there began a religious division that has come to be called both the Protestant Reformation (mainly by Protestants) and the Protestant Revolt (mainly by Catholics). There were, in the sixteenth century and subsequently, anathemas pronounced by each group against its perceived opponents. It is now the twenty-first century; a lot of time has passed since the reformation/revolt, theological perspectives have altered, and sensibilities about appropriate ways to resolve religious differences have changed. But do the anathemas still ring true. Do you want to keep them all, apply them, be divided by them?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

During the sixteenth century in Western Europe there began a religious division that has come to be called both the Protestant Reformation (mainly by Protestants) and the Protestant Revolt (mainly by Catholics). There were, in the sixteenth century and subsequently, anathemas pronounced by each group against its perceived opponents. It is not the twenty-first century; a lot of time has passed since the reformation/revolt, theological perspectives have altered, and sensibilities about appropriate ways to resolve religious differences have changed. But do the anathemas still ring true. Do you want to keep them all, apply them, be divided by them?

How are you defining anathema?

Definition of ANATHEMA

someone or something intensely disliked or loathed —usually used as a predicate nominative; one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority; a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[IoanC]

This sounds a bit like ecumenism. But I don't think a formal removal of anathemas is very likely. It would take a lot of effort. And it is kind of a boring subject.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

This sounds a bit like ecumenism. But I don't think a formal removal of anathemas is very likely. It would take a lot of effort. And it is kind of a boring subject.

Communion with one another does not seem boring to me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe that there can remain firm conviction with charity.

I will say, I feel like as a Lutheran, Lutherans stand in a unique position within this whole mix. On the one hand, we were the "first Protestants", but we aren't very Protestant. Our issues and positions have historically been specific. Our dis-communion with Rome is understood not as our leaving Rome, but Rome condemning us; and while we still rebuke Rome as being in error, our issues are not with the Church Catholic (as we understand our identity as "Lutherans" to be Catholic, with "Lutheran" being a term we were charged with by Rome, rather than our own self-identity as Evangelical Catholic Christians). As such, the lack of fellowship with our brothers and sisters in communion with Rome isn't considered a "triumph", but a tragedy of historical circumstance.

While we aren't going to change our mind about what we perceive to be the central errors of Rome, this does not mean that we cease to love and care about our brothers and sisters in communion with Rome--and that includes the bishops, including the man who sits on St. Peter's chair. Though we reject the institution, the position, and the power of the papacy as antichrist, this does not mean we believe that the man who sits in St. Peter's chair isn't a Christian, it is not a charge made against an individual person or their relationship with God. But with the formal and outward power that we see as a corruption and a corrupting influence on the Church.

Pope Francis is, then, our brother in Christ, and as the man who sits in St. Peter's chair rightfully the successor of St. Peter and pastor of the historical diocese of Rome. It is what we regard as the additional accrument of both ecclesiastical and temporal power by that position that is the problem. Much of which can be traced back to the medieval forgery known as the Donation of Constantine, and the death-blow made to the Conciliar Movement which seems to be rooted in a power struggled forged during the Western/Papal Schism. As such, our problems with Rome even from what we confess in our formal Confessions of faith (aka the Book of Concord) is understood to be issues of recent development (recent in the context of the 16th century).

We also took aim at what we saw as problematic developments of Western Scholasticism, with the fusing of philosophy with Christian faith, and turning philosophical conjectures as though they were dogmatic truths. I don't think it fair to condemn, blindly, men like Anselm or Thomas Aquinas; both contributed good things to the conversation of Western Christian thought; but there is arguably a move away from (for example) Augustine to Aristotle in the Scholastic Movement.

Which is why Luther regarded Augustine with the highest esteem. Augustine, then, seemed to be a middle voice between antiquity and later medieval period; and thus a correcting influence by drawing our attention back to the Gospel and the centrality of grace in Christian conversation. Away from systems of rigorism which placed our justification into the hands of us sinners by our attempts at achieving or accuring merit or benefiting from a "treasury" of merit left over by the saints; instead that our justification is truly and fully the good work and grace of God alone on the basis of Christ account alone.

As such, the Evangelical fathers by insisting on faith alone were not doing so claiming that we earn righteousness by our belief alone, as though faith is about believing just the right things and God rewarding us, regardless of whether we live a repentant life or an impenitent life. Rather, by arguing for faith alone were insisting that our entire life is received from God out of His own grace and goodness, achieved for us by Christ, and that we are at the receiving end of all these things; and for this reason our entire lives are to be directed and oriented from the grace we have received, that now being the benefactors of God's grace to take up our cross, follow Christ, and live our lives, our life which is from God by the Holy Spirit in union with Jesus Christ our Lord. We have received everything from God, and in that to live as Christians through repentance and good works done in love. The good works not being our justification from God, but an out-flow of God's grace toward us justifying us.

So that in everything we can boast in nothing except Jesus Christ and the grace of God.

So important to us is this, that Luther himself once said that if the Pope confessed this then he would personally kiss his ring and swear fealty to him. Justification is of chief importance, as it is the fountainhead of all Christian faith and life. Everything else that could be taken issue with was, at best, only of secondary or tertiary importance compared to this.

The Gospel, above all, is what is important. For the Gospel we live and breath. For the Gospel we live and die.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

Which is why Luther regarded Augustine with the highest esteem. Augustine, then, seemed to be a middle voice between antiquity and later medieval period;

Firstly, I really appreciate the irenic tone of your post, which represents how I feel we should really relate to each other as Christians.

I wanted to observe that St. Augustine represents in a sense a bridge between Patristic and Western Scholastic theology. However, I myself have grown tired of Scholastic theology, especially of Anselm of Canterbury, but even St. Thomas Aquinas is of less use in my opinion than say, St. John Damascene.

I wish Martin Luther had pursued a pure-Patristic model and had tried to reach the Eastern churches to communicate with them and align with them doctrinally. Later Lutherans tried this and were shocked that Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople did not agree with them, but had Martin Luther pursued the course I outlined, there would have been complete concord and the result would have been the East-West schism would have healed then rather than just starting to heal now.

Specifically, I wish Martin Luther had studied St. John Cassian and prioritized his approach to repudiating Pelagianism over that of St. Augustine. But that said Martin Luther was an Augustinian friar, so it makes sense that he would have a deep knowledge of St. Augustine’s teaching.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How are you defining anathema?

Definition of ANATHEMA

someone or something intensely disliked or loathed —usually used as a predicate nominative; one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority; a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I was thinking of the various condemnations that are found in various Protestant Confessions of faith and in the canons of the council of Trent. There are also the individual anathemas penned by scholars and senior churchmen from both Protestant and Catholic, these latter anathemas are not as authoritative as the first group that I mentioned.

 

[The Liturgist]

I was thinking of the various condemnations that are found in various Protestant Confessions of faith and in the canons of the council of Trent. There are also the individual anathemas penned by scholars and senior churchmen from both Protestant and Catholic, these latter anathemas are not as authoritative as the first group that I mentioned.

The most important anathemas are in the canons of the first three ecumenical councils, especially the first two, and the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea (except for the reference to Chalcedon). Also important are the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils. Chalcedon itself is acceptable provided one denotes that the Oriental Orthodox are not monophysites, and their faith does not contradict that of Chalcedon, since the tenets for both churches in describing the relationship between the divinity and humanity of Christ are that there is no confusion, no commingling, no separation and no division.*

*For this reason, as I believe my friends @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko would agree, I think Pope Dioscorus was unfairly deposed. Also the Oriental Orthodox anathematize Eutyches, who lied to Pope Dioscorus and was the founder of the true Monophysites, who by the time of their most well known philosopher John Philoponus in the 6th century, had descended into tritheism.

And of course it goes without saying that the main tritheist heretical sect today is Mormonism. I have heard reports from Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian clergy and laity that Mormon missionaries have really tried hard to prey upon the members of their churches. In the case of the Assyrian Church of the East I once caught two ethnic Assyrians who had been sent to attend tne divine liturgy or mass, called raza, meaning mystery, by the Assyrians.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

During the sixteenth century in Western Europe there began a religious division that has come to be called both the Protestant Reformation (mainly by Protestants) and the Protestant Revolt (mainly by Catholics). There were, in the sixteenth century and subsequently, anathemas pronounced by each group against its perceived opponents. It is now the twenty-first century; a lot of time has passed since the reformation/revolt, theological perspectives have altered, and sensibilities about appropriate ways to resolve religious differences have changed. But do the anathemas still ring true. Do you want to keep them all, apply them, be divided by them?

The most important anathemas are in the canons of the first three ecumenical councils, especially the first two, and the canons of the Second Council of Nicaea (except for the reference to Chalcedon). Also important are the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils. Chalcedon itself is acceptable provided one denotes that the Oriental Orthodox are not monophysites, and their faith does not contradict that of Chalcedon, since the tenets for both churches in describing the relationship between the divinity and humanity of Christ are that there is no confusion, no commingling, no separation and no division.*

*For this reason, as I believe my friends @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko would agree, I think Pope Dioscorus was unfairly deposed. Also the Oriental Orthodox anathematize Eutyches, who lied to Pope Dioscorus and was the founder of the true Monophysites, who by the time of their most well known philosopher John Philoponus in the 6th century, had descended into tritheism.

And of course it goes without saying that the main tritheist heretical sect today is Mormonism. I have heard reports from Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian clergy and laity that Mormon missionaries have really tried hard to prey upon the members of their churches. In the case of the Assyrian Church of the East I once caught two ethnic Assyrians who had been sent to attend tne divine liturgy or mass, called raza, meaning mystery, by the Assyrians.

I had the anathemas of the 16th and later centuries in the west in mind for the thread.

 

[concretecamper]

I think they still apply.

For example, Trent clearly spells out that we are saved by His Grace and that we cannot have the faith that pleases Him without His Grace. We are utterly dependent upon Him

You have many protestants saying that you need to believe first before you receive God's Grace. Trent's canons on Justification righty address this heresy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think they still apply.

For example, Trent clearly spells out that we are saved by His Grace and that we cannot have the faith that pleases Him without His Grace. We are utterly dependent upon Him

You have many protestants saying that you need to believe first before you receive God's Grace. Trent's canons on Justification righty address this heresy.

I think it can be beneficial to make a distinction between Paleo-Protestants and Neo-Protestants. That is, between those ecclesiastical communions and traditions which trace themselves back to the Magisterial Reformation of the 16th century; and those which instead can largely be traced to religious movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, most particularly of the Revivalist tradition. As the idea that faith is something we bring to God which God then responds to with grace is an idea chiefly of the [American] Revivalist tradition, representative of the teachings which came from people like Charles Finney or Billy Sunday.

As Paleo-Protestant groups almost universally speak of the per-eminence of grace, and faith coming from grace; rather than grace as a response to faith. The latter I'd consider the exact kind of "works salvation" which the Apostle condemns in Ephesians 2:8-9.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[concretecamper]

I think it can be beneficial to make a distinction between Paleo-Protestants and Neo-Protestants. That is, between those ecclesiastical communions and traditions which trace themselves back to the Magisterial Reformation of the 16th century; and those which instead can largely be traced to religious movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, most particularly of the Revivalist tradition

Agreed

 

[RileyG]

No. I do not use the term "Anathema," only God can judge someone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In recent posts on a thread called "Religious shunning" one poster has raised the topic of anathemas and especially those pronounced against Protestants of that time by the Council of Trent. This thread seems appropriate for offering a definition of the word from Wikipedia
Anathema:

In the dogmatic canons of all the ecumenical councils recognized by the Catholic Church, the word "anathema" signifies exclusion from the society of the faithful because of heresy.[22][23] Documents of the 9th and 12th centuries distinguish anathema from excommunication, a distinction later clarified by using the term "major excommunication" for exclusion from the society of the faithful, and "minor excommunication" for ordinary excommunication or exclusion from reception of the sacraments.[22]​

​

Although in the canons of ecumenical councils the word "anathema" continued to be used to mean exclusion for heresy from the society of the faithful, the word was also used to signify a major excommunication inflicted with particular solemnity. Anathema, in this sense, was a major excommunication pronounced with the ceremonies described in the article bell, book, and candle, which were reserved for the gravest crimes.[22]​

​

The 1917 Roman Code of Canon Law abandoned the distinction between major and minor excommunication (which continues in use among the Eastern Catholic Churches)[24] and abolished all penalties of whatever kind envisaged in previous canonical legislation but not included in the Code.[25] It defined excommunication as exclusion from the communion of the faithful and said that excommunication "is also called anathema, especially if inflicted with the solemnities described in the Pontificale Romanum."[26]​

​

The 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is now in force, does not contain the word "anathema",[27] and the Pontificale Romanum, as revised after the Second Vatican Council, no longer mentions any particular solemnities associated with the infliction of excommunication.​

 

[The Liturgist]

Does Rome still honor the canonical legislation of the early ecumenical councils, and if not*, how is it that Rome is able to discount and replace the canons agreed upon with what are now the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches at most of the early ecumenical councils (except for Trullo, the Quinisext Council, which Rome never agreed to)?

*That this is in fact not the case is perhaps illustrated by non-compliance with Canon XX of Nicaea which appears to preclude any prostration on any Sunday during the year. This would not impact the Kneeling Vespers in the Byzantine Rite, whether Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Catholic, since Vespers is the first service of the liturgical day, which, like in ancient Judaism and indeed ancient Rome, begins at sunset (or more precisely, the liturgical day ends at sunset, which is when Vespers was historically served, opposite Matins at dawn, for these two services allowed the Christians to gather in the martyries and catacomb churches of Rome and other Imperial cities during low light conditions and worship with an increased margin of safety from interference by Pagan authorities). Thus Kneeling Vespers (served after the Divine Liturgy on Pentecost Sunday) is in fact a separate service and represents the start of Pentecost Monday.

It should be stressed however in defense of the Roman church that the anathemas pronounced against Protestantism did follow a normal canonical form, and indeed some Eastern Orthodox bishops fired off similar anathemas at the local synod convened by Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem at the consecration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in the 17th century to respond to the rumored embrace of Calvinism by the late Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lukaris, who had been assasinated at the orders of the Sultan.

These ancient anathemas do not represent the kind of highly personal religious shunning that we would associate with dangerous cults like Scientology (and its vicious family-destroying practice of disconnection), the FLDS still loyal to Warren Jeffs, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (whose doctrines are anathema, according to the Council of Nicaea, for they are a neo-Arian cult that denies the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation and the deity of Christ, who is according to the Nicene Creed “Very God of Very God, begotten not made, begotten of the Father before all ages” which is to say uncreated).

 

[The Liturgist]

This sounds a bit like ecumenism. But I don't think a formal removal of anathemas is very likely. It would take a lot of effort. And it is kind of a boring subject.

The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox stopped anathematizing each other some time ago, and indeed the Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox churches even have limited intercommunion as part of their ecumenical agreement in 1991, which also precludes persons of one Orthodox church in Antioch joining the other; married couples can use either church. A slightly less expansive but still impressive arrangement exists between the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and its Coptic Orthodox counterpart.

Lastly, no ecumenical council has ever anathematized ecumenism or declared it heretical; indeed among the canonical Orthodox churches only some of the Athonite monasteries, some parts of the Church of Georgia, and some bishops such as the much venerated Metropolitan Philaret who was the First Hierarch of ROCOR in the 1980s and whose Sorrowful Epistles concerning ecumenism are well known, albeit written at a time when ROCOR was in communion with some Old Calendarists and not in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate or the other canonical Orthodox jurisdictions (although ROCOR was undoubtably canonical, in that it can be articulated that it was organized in obedience to the instructions of Patriarch St. Tikhon of Moscow in anticipation of his arrest by the Bolsheviks).

 

[The Liturgist]

I think it can be beneficial to make a distinction between Paleo-Protestants and Neo-Protestants. That is, between those ecclesiastical communions and traditions which trace themselves back to the Magisterial Reformation of the 16th century; and those which instead can largely be traced to religious movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, most particularly of the Revivalist tradition. As the idea that faith is something we bring to God which God then responds to with grace is an idea chiefly of the [American] Revivalist tradition, representative of the teachings which came from people like Charles Finney or Billy Sunday.

As Paleo-Protestant groups almost universally speak of the per-eminence of grace, and faith coming from grace; rather than grace as a response to faith. The latter I'd consider the exact kind of "works salvation" which the Apostle condemns in Ephesians 2:8-9.

-CryptoLutheran

Agreed

Indeed we are of one accord on this together with our friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Shane R who have oft made the same point.

Now here is a question for you, which our Calvinist friends @bbbbbbb and @hedrick and @tampasteve might also want to comment on, and that is, could the distinction between paleo-Protestantism and neo-Protestantism be correlated with the emergence of “Neo-Orthodoxy” based on the systematic theology of Karl Barth as presented in his Church Dogmatics? I am inclined to say yes, given Barth’s relative disinterest in Church Tradition and the consensus patrum compared to earlier Calvinist theologians and also Luther, Cranmer and the other Magisterial Reformers.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox stopped anathematizing each other some time ago, and indeed the Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox churches even have limited intercommunion as part of their ecumenical agreement in 1991, which also precludes persons of one Orthodox church in Antioch joining the other; married couples can use either church. A slightly less expansive but still impressive arrangement exists between the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and its Coptic Orthodox counterpart.

Morning,
Do you have a link or information to what that agreement is? I know about it but have never seen documentation of what it entails and I'm curious.
Thanks!

 

[hedrick]

I accept that Barth is important for the mainline Christian tradition, but I have found his incredible verbosity and vagueness sufficiently hard to deal with that I’m not directly influenced by him. I tend to read Biblical scholarship and more recent theology. For a question like this I’d look at PCUSA theologians, particularly Gerrish and Ottati.

Both of them look like paleo-Protestant in your sense. Their works start by reviewing the tradition. To respond to this question I reviewed Gerrish’s book “Saving and Secular Faith.” He reviews Luther, Aquinas and Calvin on the nature of faith, and adopts a somewhat modified version of Calvin’s definition. He sees faith as resulting from the impact of the Gospel, which for him is the way grace functions. Ottati’s works follow a similar approach of starting with a review of the tradition. He is more explicitly an advocate of the primacy of grace. He sees himself as part of the Augustinian tradition, through Calvin.

----

On Barth: I think the modern mainline tradition is part of a historical development of Protestant thought going back to Luther and Calvin through people such as Schiermacher and Ritschl. Barth explicitly divorced himself, not from church tradition as a whole, but from the liberal tradition. I suspect this was because he blamed liberal Protestants in Germany for giving in to Hitler, and took that to be due a problem with the liberal tradition as a whole. That cut him off from a large part of 19th and 20th Cent Protestant history. I don't know whether his judgement was right in Germany, but in the US, liberal Protestantism has generally been quite willing to criticize the culture and government actions. But Rauschenbusch and others critical of the culture were influential in the US, but possibly not in Germany.

 

[The Liturgist]

Morning,
Do you have a link or information to what that agreement is? I know about it but have never seen documentation of what it entails and I'm curious.
Thanks!

Certainly. The link on Syriac Orthodox Resources is broken, like much of their website, which relies on a nasty Java backend, like a great many Indian websites built around its time period (think Java Application Servers and the pure terror they inflict upon Linux sysadmins - fortunately I am not a Linux sysadmin and I have never had to install or run application servers, which are the most enterprisey of bloated enterprise code, indeed one could argue the entire application server architecture is fundamentally broken, but that is an argument for another thread needless to say); fortunately, however, we benefit from Internet Archive and with it the Wayback Machine, which is useful for more than my nostalgic visits to the website of my favorite airline, the late, great and lamented TWA.

Thus we can delight in the knowledge that the two Patriarchs of Alexandria, His Holiness Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas and His Beatitude Ignatius IV both issued the following joint encyclical:

A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter.

To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch:

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obey, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavor and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.

Having recognized the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christianity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.

Thus, the following decisions were taken:

1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.
2. The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.
3. Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.
4. Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arises.
5. Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.).
6. If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom's Church will preside.
7. The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.
8. What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.
9. In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divine Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.
10. If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.
11. If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.
12. Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.
13. Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.
14. Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.
    We ask God's help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.

Damascus
12 November 1991

Patriarch Ignatios IV
of the Greek Antiochian Church

Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas
of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch