THE CHAMBÉSY AGREEMENT: THE PATH TO ORTHODOX UNITY

INTRODUCTION

The World Federation of Orthodox and Apostolic Churches recognizes the Chambésy Agreements as canonically operative and central to our identity as Orthodox Christians. The agreements represent not merely a theological rapprochement but a return to the pre-schism faith and canonical norms of the united Orthodox Church. In an era of growing secularism and fragmentation, the only way forward is to restore the fullness of Orthodoxy by reaffirming the unity that existed before the divisions of AD 451 and 1054. This unity is not an innovation but the fulfillment of Christ’s commandment: “That they all may be one” (John 17:21).

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF DIVISION

The separation between the Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) and the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonian) Churches began with the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. While both communions remained deeply rooted in Apostolic Tradition, differing Christological terminologies—rather than actual heretical beliefs—led to centuries of mutual estrangement.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, following Chalcedon, articulated Christology with the formula of “two natures in one person” (Dyophysitism), while the Oriental Orthodox Church, holding to the language of St. Cyril of Alexandria, affirmed “one incarnate nature of God the Word” (Miaphysitism). Due to political, cultural, and linguistic factors, these expressions were misunderstood as mutually exclusive. This tragic misinterpretation resulted in mutual excommunications, setting a precedent for later schisms.

However, as historical and theological studies advanced, it became evident that these differences were not substantial but semantic. The Orthodox Church before the schism was never a monolithic entity speaking in only one philosophical language but a unified symphony of expressions—Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Armenian, Latin—each confessing the same One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The Chambésy Agreement has now affirmed that this original unity was never truly broken in doctrine, only in misunderstanding.

THE CHAMBÉSY THEOLOGICAL AGREEMENT

Between 1985 and 1993, official dialogues between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches were held in Chambésy, Switzerland, under the guidance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. These dialogues resulted in an authoritative Christological agreement, affirming that both families of the Church never fundamentally differed in faith but only in terminology.

KEY THEOLOGICAL AGREEMENTS

1. Mutual Recognition of Christological Orthodoxy
– Both families affirmed that they have always maintained the true Orthodox faith in Christ.
– The Oriental Orthodox reaffirmed their rejection of Eutychian Monophysitism, which falsely denies Christ’s full humanity.
– The Eastern Orthodox acknowledged that the Miaphysite formula does not imply a denial of Christ’s two natures but instead expresses the unity of His divinity and humanity.

2. Lifting of Anathemas and Restoring Communion
– The theological condemnations of the past were based on historical misunderstandings, not actual heresy.
– The agreements call for the removal of mutual excommunications, restoring the conciliar unity of the Orthodox Church that existed before the schism.

3. Recognition of Sacraments and Apostolic Succession
– The agreements affirmed that both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox share valid sacraments, a common priesthood, and the same Apostolic Faith.
– Inter-communion, rather than separation, should be the normal and natural state of the Orthodox Church.

4. Restoration of Pre-Schism Ecclesiology
– The Orthodox Church functioned as a single communion before these schisms, and the return to that original model is necessary for authentic Orthodox witness.

IMPLEMENTING THE CHAMBÉSY AGREEMENT: A CANONICAL NECESSITY

While some jurisdictions have hesitated to fully implement Chambésy, the World Federation of Orthodox and Apostolic Churches upholds these agreements as canonically binding. The theological work has been done; what remains is to enforce and embody these agreements in the life of the Church.

RESTORING COMMUNION AND CHURCH GOVERNANCE

The Orthodox Church before the schism was conciliar, not divided into separate, competing jurisdictions. We recognize that:

– Intercommunion must be restored as a matter of canonical obedience to the universal Orthodox faith.
– Mutual recognition of bishops must be implemented, ending the artificial divisions between the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian jurisdictions.
– Pan-Orthodox Synods must include all Orthodox bishops, whether from the Eastern or Oriental traditions, just as they did before AD 451.

A UNIFIED ORTHODOX WITNESS IN A POST-CHRISTIAN WORLD

The modern world has entered a post-Christian era, and a divided Orthodoxy weakens our ability to stand against secularism, relativism, and the erosion of traditional Christian values. A fragmented Orthodoxy cannot effectively evangelize or preserve its heritage.

– The secular West and the militant atheist East seek to divide and neutralize Christian strength.
– Only a united Orthodox Church can effectively counter the false gospels of modernism, moral relativism, and doctrinal compromise.
– The Orthodox Church before the schism conquered empires, converted nations, and preserved the Apostolic faith—so must we today.

OVERCOMING RESISTANCE

Some within the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches hesitate, citing jurisdictional politics, historical grievances, or ethnonationalist pride. However, these human obstacles must not outweigh the command of Christ, who calls us to be one as He and the Father are one (John 17:22). Orthodoxy is not a museum of past divisions but the living Body of Christ.

To delay implementation of the Chambésy Agreement is not merely a failure of administration—it is a failure of obedience to the Gospel.

CONCLUSION: A RETURN TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE AGES

The World Federation of Orthodox and Apostolic Churches stands for the full, unconditional, and immediate implementation of the Chambésy Agreements. We do not seek unity as an ecumenical experiment, but as a return to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that existed before the schisms.

– We reject all factionalism, jurisdictional rivalry, and ethnophyletism that hinders Orthodox unity.
– We call upon all Orthodox Churches to restore full communion and recognize the binding authority of these agreements.
– We affirm that Orthodox strength and cohesion in the 21st century depends on a unified, conciliar Church, faithful to its pre-schism doctrine and canonical structure.

The only way forward is back to the fullness of the undivided Orthodox Church—the Church of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Saints. Anything less is disobedience to Christ’s command for unity and a betrayal of our Orthodox mission in a world that desperately needs the fullness of the Gospel.

“That they all may be one, that the world may believe” (John 17:21).

ON A ZOGBIAN DEFINITION OF SCHISM

Introduction:

The book “We Are All Schismatics” by Metropolitan Archbishop Elias Zhogby offers a profound theological and historical analysis of the East-West Schism, challenging the prevailing definitions of what constitutes “the One, True Church” and critiquing the way both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have handled the schism. Zhogby’s argument asserts that both sides of the division, having once been in communion, have created doctrinal and theological developments that have only served to deepen the rift between them, leading to theological arrogance, political intrigue, and self-interest. He suggests that true healing of the Church can only come through the abandonment of such divisive theological positions and a return to the original unity and understanding that the Church held in the early centuries.

1. Zhogby’s Thesis: The Historical and Theological Roots of Schism

Historical Context of Schism:

Zhogby’s central claim is that the East-West Schism, which formalized in 1054 AD, was not just a result of theological disagreements but was also significantly shaped by political, social, and ecclesiastical factors. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church made developments to their doctrines and liturgical practices that, over time, deepened the division. He emphasizes that the term “schism” refers to a division within the body of the Church that arose out of political, ecclesiastical, and theological controversies. He suggests that both sides have maintained and propagated this schism, using ecclesial authority to justify their own superiority over the other. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes, “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Church, 6). This illustrates the foundational patristic understanding that schism – whether political, doctrinal, or cultural – ultimately divides the faithful from the true communion of the Church.

2. Zhogby’s Critique of “One, True Church” Definitions

Zhogby criticizes the modern use of the term “One, True Church” by both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. He argues that both have become so attached to these definitions that they no longer represent the historical reality of the undivided Church. In his view, the “One, True Church” of the early Christians – before the East-West schism – was one Church, encompassing all believers, and not two warring ecclesiastical entities vying for supremacy.

Theological and Doctrinal Development as the Root of Schism:

Zhogby identifies several key doctrinal developments post-Schism that entrenched each side in its position, reinforcing the idea of exclusive truth, and thus division. These include the Filioque controversy, the nature of the papacy, and the difference in the understanding of original sin, to name a few. By focusing on their own superiority, each side turned inward and refused to acknowledge the other as a legitimate part of the historical Church. St. John Chrysostom writes, “The unity of the Church is like the unity of the body. If one member suffers, the whole body suffers with it.” (Homily on Ephesians 4:1-3). Zhogby underscores this patristic notion to emphasize that the continued division between East and West is a serious ecclesiological problem, one that harms the whole body of Christ.

3. Zhogby’s Call for Theological Purification and Return to Unity

Zhogby’s most radical and controversial proposal is that the Church must abandon all the later doctrinal developments that have reinforced the schism. He proposes that in order to heal the rift between East and West, the Church must return to the theological and cultural positions held by the early Church before political and doctrinal disputes led to division. This involves:

1. Jettisoning Doctrinal Innovations: Zhogby calls for the abandonment of theological formulations such as the Filioque, papal supremacy, and the imposition of new dogmas that arose after the schism. The only way together is to go back to the positions in Christian history where there was unity. Continuous development of doctrine is the primary source of disunity between Churches.
2. Re-establishing a Shared Ecclesiology: He suggests a return to an ecclesiology where the Church is a single body, not divided by modern ecclesial politics, and wherein the authority of the bishops and patriarchs is recognized within a larger framework of unity.
3. Theological and Cultural Renewal: He calls for an embrace of the liturgical, theological, and cultural unity that existed in the early centuries of the Church. This includes a renewed focus on the Fathers of the Church and a deeper commitment to the Scriptures as the foundation of faith, rather than later doctrinal accretions.

Scriptural Quote:

In 1 Corinthians 1:10, St. Paul exhorts: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” This call to unity in the early Christian community speaks directly to Zhogby’s call for a restoration of the same mind and judgment in the Church, abandoning the divisions that have been built up over centuries.

4. Reception and Debate of Zhogby’s Thesis:

Zhogby’s proposal has sparked a wide range of reactions across the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox worlds.

Roman Catholic Response:

The Roman Catholic Church has historically viewed the Filioque clause as a definitive marker of its theological uniqueness, and thus the idea of removing such a doctrine is seen as a direct challenge to the Church’s claim of doctrinal purity and authority. The Vatican has, however, engaged in some dialogue regarding a shared ecclesiology, yet many Roman Catholic scholars remain resistant to fully accept Zhogby’s call for doctrinal revision.

Pope John Paul II addressed the need for unity between East and West in “Ut Unum Sint” (1995), emphasizing the need for mutual respect but upholding certain key doctrinal developments that differ from the Orthodox. Thus, Zhogby’s call for the rejection of such developments was met with resistance, as many within the Roman Catholic Church feel that the acceptance of Zhogby’s thesis would diminish their unique theological identity.

Eastern Orthodox Response:

Many within the Eastern Orthodox Church have welcomed Zhogby’s critique of the doctrinal accretions that occurred after the East-West Schism. Some Orthodox theologians see Zhogby’s proposal as an opportunity for reconciliation, but others view it with suspicion, particularly with regards to the issue of papal supremacy. The Orthodox Church has historically resisted any revision to its traditional stance on papal primacy, and some Orthodox theologians argue that the papacy is non-negotiable.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and other prominent Orthodox theologians have expressed support for greater dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church but have also cautioned that doctrinal differences must be addressed with respect to tradition and the conciliar nature of the Church.

Oriental Orthodox Response:

Zhogby’s thesis has resonated more strongly with the Oriental Orthodox, who have long been skeptical of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, especially after the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the Christological disputes. The Oriental Orthodox Church shares Zhogby’s critique of doctrinal developments as a source of division, and his call for a return to the unity of the early Church has found more fertile ground here.

The Coptic Orthodox Church and other members of the Oriental Orthodox communion have expressed support for a renewed focus on the ancient ecclesial and theological unity of the early Church, recognizing the importance of healing historical divisions that have persisted since the 5th century.

5. Rebuttals and Counterarguments:

Some rebuttals to Zhogby’s thesis focus on the practicality of rejecting later theological developments that have come to define the identity of the respective churches. Key counterarguments include:

Doctrinal Integrity: The Roman Catholic Church and many in the Eastern Orthodox Church argue that the theological developments they have embraced are essential for the preservation of the faith and for the clarity of the Church’s teachings. For them, jettisoning doctrines such as the Filioque or papal supremacy would undermine centuries of theological reflection and tradition.

Ecclesial Authority: Some argue that Zhogby’s call for ecclesial reformation might lead to a dilution of authority, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church, where the papacy is seen as the guarantor of doctrinal purity and unity, the sole point of convergence between conservative and liberal factions, which would otherwise splinter into separate churches.

Final Conclusion:

Metropolitan Zhogby’s work offers a challenging, provocative vision for healing the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches. His thesis calls for a return to a pre-schism ecclesiology, where theological developments that have entrenched divisions are reconsidered. The response from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox worlds has been mixed, with some seeing hope for reconciliation and others raising significant concerns about the preservation of doctrinal integrity. In the end, Zhogby’s call serves as a reminder of the urgency for a deeper ecclesiological and theological reconciliation that moves beyond political and cultural divides to the foundational unity of the early Church.