a) In speaking about “divided churches,” we are speaking about the division which exists not within the Orthodox Church (which is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) but between the Orthodox Church and other churches, like Eastern Oriental churches, or the Roman catholic church. We call them “churches” because we find and recognize in them many elements of ecclesiality, although not the fullness.

The fact is that the schism occurred at Chalcedon (451) and the great Schism of 1054 AD, and that the Church and the Holy Fathers made many attempts at union.

b) Orthodox Christian Churches are not divided, but united.

c) Orthodox ecclesiology doesn’t know the principle “all Churches under one Patriarch” because a monolithic unit is not an ecclesial unity. The one Church is made up of many Churches, and this is of the very esse of the Church. However, the history of the Orthodox Church knows of one Primus who coordinates the many in order to witness the unity. In order to have a greater unity and to speak with “one mouth and one voice” to the contemporary world the Orthodox Churches need to unite their efforts in offering themselves to the world instead of imposing themselves on it, as I said in my text. They also need to have unified way of inculturating the Gospel and manifesting the life of the Church in culture, in arts (iconography, architecture), in parish life…

It is interesting to me that most of us during of the history normally think about Christ like gnostic and beliefs and interpreted that the Incarnation as a ’spiritual Jesus Christ’ coming upon a ‘human Jesus Christ’ and He took up man into Himself.

The basic discussion following Chalcedon focussed on the Incarnation and relationship of will to nature. The determination that since the will having its reality in the nature, what can be said of the possession of natures must be said also of wills. One confesses two natures one confesses two wills.
The question of whether one can speak of a ‘composite will’ would probably fall under the same heading. But the Church tends to speak and identifying the union most often not in terms of physis but person……and explain how nature can be dual yet singular.

And understanding this will help us to begin to be a witness to others who have fallen into such intellectual “dead ends”, not only by by our Words, but by Faith through the very life we live in denial for Christ, in ascetism…laboring only and always for the heavenly kingdom, and this is how we personalize Christ for the Whole world.

In the end…Christ simply expects His followers to Hear Him and to Obey Him.

On theological significance of Chalcedonian Christology
Why is it so important that Christ’s natures are fully preserved and respected? It appears that affirmation of the natures is a condition for the relations of communion and otherness. That perichoresis between Trinitarian hypostasis is the model for our way of being.
Maybe to learn and accept that His relationship with us is not based on some kind of confluence, uncontrollable outpouring of Grace that can paralyze us and capture us in a way that would be forced on us.
“By preserving the two natures after the Incarnation, Chalcedon safeguarded the precious concept of otherness!”
Hypostatic unity is defined with profound clarity! Why? Certainly not just to fight of Nestorian and monophysite heresy, but to bring receiving of the Person closer to man who was burdened with confusion and despair – back then, as well as today!

“The Theanthropic (“bogocovecanska”) reality of Christ does not represent a mere episode of human history but the ontological basis of its salvation.”
And again, this is precisely why it is fundamental for faithful to accept the teachings of Chalcedon’s Council in its fullness. For someone who is not well versed, I must say it is very promising to human kind, to have guidance of true theology and its original meaning, instead of scholastic representation of dogmas that modern man is confused with, to say the least.
Which brings us to the next superb point from the author’s heart:
“Theology must not simply speak about God, but invite people to His Body, for Christ is not an individual, conceivable in isolation:”
So this relational concept, taking part in the Banquet that is offered to us, for our salvation, which is eucharisticly, taking place through others and with Other inevitably places us in the position of acting in love and freedom; so what happens if we manifest in the first place rational discernment instead of love and trust in our relationships?

“So, communion with the personal being of God through Christ in the Spirit is the primary service which the Church can render to every person and to all humanity in the modern world.” – brilliant! Talk about ultimate responsibility of the man as a Priest of the created world! Our thirst is aimed at acquiring the Grace of the Holy Spirit, so that we can abide in the Holy Trinity.

On Postmodern Cultural and Existential Significance
Within the first sentence of this very important part of the study, without which we would have just another well-written reflection, one can ponder over and over again about ultimate “reason” and implications of Christ’s Love for the mankind.
“What do men say about who I am” – It is astonishing to see in writing, (spoken out loud) baffling truth of how people perceive Christ!

The tragedy of contemporary man including Christians who are not immune to the direct or indirect influences of the world, or better yet, allowing unchristian views to creep in the Church, in our families – our most precious heritage, forgetting that “when I am weak, I am strong”.
Individualism as one of the tragic consequences of the human weakness to overcome isolation (that we embraced intentionally or not)…
There are numerous evidence that illustrates this unfortunate reality of the contemporary man. The epidemic of self satisfaction notions and eager desire to fulfill one’s own senses, manifests in so many ways, but probably best demonstrated in the fact that our current culture is so self-destractional in nature, which is scary to say the least.
Granted, through the history of mankind we always had gladiator’s arena, sensational spectacles of all kind, up to the present brain washing techniques, all to the same service – to forget about Other and to survive on its own (somehow); (isn’t that a tragedy of the highest measures?). This is what are we fed with, and exposed to, daily, whether we admit it or not.
Misusing technology and media as a quick transmitter of the bad news versus the Gospel is diametrically opposite of salvific Truth that Church caries throughout the centuries.
The popularity of the so called charismatic mega- churches that are rising like the mushrooms, is another evidence of how much men watered down and distorted Christ’s message to His beloved children; the way we receive one another lost its significance (unless it’s politically correct – sorry for a sarcasm)
And so where is our responsibility laying down in this “anxiety in the face of an uncertain future ….?”
Well, in this instance, we have in front of us, magnificent reflections of Bishop Maxim, who showed us clear path that we could walk together without loosing our uniqueness on the way to our Harbor! ἀσυγχύτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως (unchangeably) and ἀχωρίστως (inseparably); just like our Holy Fathers labored to do that at their time and their cultural conditions, thanks God we have (every generation) Church leaders alike who truly want to save their flock!
I don’t mean to sound like revolutionary ideologist (and idealist) pretending that “something” will happen over night and change all this into the rosy life that we always wanted. And I am sure that there are not many people who would disagree with these profound expressions in the study, but the question remains not only how do we receive each other, and love each other, helping carrying the cross and living together – the way Christ showed us how to… the way He instructed us how to – but how to freely chose the Way, the Truth and the Life as our open response to His Love. Another words, what Bishop Maxim said: “In our particular situation today, our divided Churches are called to receive from one another and indeed to simply receive one another.” Being of significant importance, it still might not be enough for all to wake up and make a necessary (but free) movement toward the Grace that is abundantly given to us. “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). At what point we will transcend (even though) well – meant, rhetorical claims and embrace “living life” that our Creator intended for us all along? God’s gift of giving His only Son to all Creation, to live eternally with – in communion of Love and freedom, is the Way the Truth and the Life. Now, is our faith so weak that we are afraid to make an effort toward a “…vision of the Christological transformation of the world in a Neopatristic way” ?

In concluding remarks, author is inviting us to consider Chalcedonian view of Christ as a solution to the specific problems of the modern man. Amazing!
It is expressed with conviction and boldness of the good shepard who loves his flock, and wants the most for them. Thank you dear Vladyka for your “outstretched hand”!

Yours,
In resurrected Lord
maria m.