Orthodox Unity Archive
Read the principal agreed statements, communiqués and recommendations that define the modern theological dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
The Documentary Record
The official dialogue did not begin as an attempt to erase the history of disagreement after the Council of Chalcedon. Its purpose was to determine, with greater theological precision, whether the two Orthodox families continued to confess fundamentally different understandings of Jesus Christ or whether centuries of separation had also been sustained by different terminology, historical memory, and reception of councils.
The Joint Commission moved from preliminary consultation to formal statements that expressed substantial Christological agreement. The documents are important because they show the dialogue in its own words: what both families could affirm together, what questions remained, and what practical steps were proposed for the Churches themselves to consider.
When reading the statements, several threads deserve particular attention: the common confession of Christ as fully divine and fully human, the central role of St Cyril of Alexandria, the different uses of “one nature” and “two natures” terminology, the reception of councils, and the treatment of historical anathemas. The Historic Documents provide the patristic background for many of these themes, while Theology & Christology explains the terminology in greater depth. Together, these contexts show why the statements are more than diplomatic communiqués; they record how the two traditions sought to describe the content of their faith with greater precision.
Agreement at the level of a theological commission should not be confused with the establishment of full ecclesial communion. Reception belongs to the Churches and their synodal authorities. The broader chronology of how these statements emerged can be followed in the Orthodox Dialogue overview. This distinction remains essential when reading the statements today.
Core Documents
The 1985 meeting at the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate marked the transition from earlier unofficial consultations to an official theological dialogue. The communiqué framed the work as a dialogue between two families of the Orthodox tradition and established the setting for the Christological work that followed.
Read the source collectionThe First Agreed Statement placed the common apostolic faith and the Christological language of St Cyril of Alexandria at the center of the discussion. It affirmed that both sides confess the one Lord Jesus Christ as truly God and truly human, while acknowledging that the two traditions had historically expressed the mystery of the Incarnation with different formulas.
This statement became the foundation for the next stage of the dialogue. Its significance lies not simply in finding a compromise formula, but in identifying a shared Christological confession beneath language that had long been received polemically.
Read the First Agreed StatementThe Second Agreed Statement built directly on the 1989 agreement. It addressed the terminology of one and two natures, affirmed a common rejection of Eutychianism, and stated that both families had maintained the authentic Orthodox Christological faith even while using Christological terms in different ways.
The statement also moved beyond doctrinal formulation toward ecclesial consequences. It recommended that historical anathemas and condemnations separating the two families be lifted according to procedures determined by the individual Churches. Separate pastoral recommendations considered practical questions that would arise as relations developed.
Read the Second Agreed StatementThe 1993 meeting addressed how earlier condemnations might be approached in light of the common Christological understanding reached in 1989 and 1990. The proposals treated the lifting of anathemas not as an isolated symbolic gesture, but as an ecclesial act requiring competent authority and reception within each Church.
This document is especially useful for understanding why theological consensus and full communion are not identical events. The Commission could recommend a path, but the implementation belonged to the respective Churches.
Read the 1993 proposalsReception
The agreed statements are sometimes summarized as if the historical division had been formally ended. That is too simple. They represent a major theological convergence, but full communion requires reception and action by the Churches themselves.
A useful distinction is between theological consensus and ecclesial reception. A theological commission can identify substantial doctrinal agreement and recommend practical steps, while synods and other competent Church authorities determine whether and how those agreements are received into the life of their Churches.
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox bodies have continued to meet and cooperate after the statements. In the United States, a joint commission was reconvened in 2019 with explicit reference to the doctrinal agreement reached through the international dialogue. More recently, representatives of the two families met at St Bishoy Monastery in Egypt in September 2024 to consider the continuation of the relationship and the implementation of earlier work.
The documentary record should therefore be read in two layers: first, what the theological commission actually agreed; second, how those agreements have been received, debated, or implemented in different ecclesial settings.
Frequently Asked Questions
These questions distinguish the theological conclusions of the dialogue from the broader canonical and ecclesial questions that remain.
An Agreed Statement is a text jointly adopted by the theological representatives participating in the official dialogue. It records areas of common confession and, where appropriate, recommendations for further action. Its adoption by a commission does not by itself create sacramental communion between the Churches.
No. The statements expressed substantial Christological agreement and proposed steps toward unity, but full ecclesial communion requires reception and decisions by the competent authorities of the individual Churches.
Christology was central: how to confess the one person of Jesus Christ as fully divine and fully human, and how the traditional language of “one nature” and “two natures” should be understood. The dialogue sought to determine whether these formulas necessarily expressed contradictory faith.
St Cyril belongs to the common patristic inheritance of both families and his Christological language provided a major shared reference point. The statements repeatedly use Cyrillian concepts to explain how full divinity and full humanity are united in the one incarnate Word.
The dialogue reached substantial agreement on Christological faith without requiring the two families to narrate the reception of Chalcedon in exactly the same way. The Second Agreed Statement addressed how the Orthodox understand the later councils and how the Oriental Orthodox respond to that interpretation, while preserving their own historical reception.
No. Relations and cooperation vary by place, and the theological dialogue produced significant agreements, but the two families remain distinct ecclesial communions. Later meetings have continued to discuss how earlier agreements should be received and implemented.
Sources & References
The overview above draws on official Church publications, ecumenical records, and academic institutions. These references are provided for readers who want to compare the documents with their wider ecclesial and scholarly context.
The official 2024 Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches meeting page includes the 1985 communiqué, the 1989 and 1990 Agreed Statements, and the 1993 proposals.
Open sourceOCA educational material provides an Eastern Orthodox account of the post-Chalcedonian division and notes the importance of modern discussions while recognizing that communion remains unresolved.
Open sourceThe Archdiocese reported the 2019 reconvening of a North American joint commission and explicitly referred to doctrinal agreement established by the international theological dialogue.
Open sourceSVOTS continues to host scholarly discussion of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox relations, including questions of Chalcedon, reception, and the practical meaning of Church unity.
Open sourceWCC material places the Eastern–Oriental Orthodox dialogue within the wider question of reception and ecumenical progress, including the significance of the 1989 Christological agreement.
Open sourceA declaration from the Oriental Orthodox patriarchs describes the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox family as important and supports continuing efforts to implement the decisions of previous meetings.
Open source