Fr. John Behr: OO/EO Unity Will Occur In This Century for 3 Reasons

[AntoniousNikolas]

I'll let the video speak for itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7OK4-jQsuc

 

[WPM]

Yes, the 21st century

 

[William T]

Hopefully he's right.  Exciting stuff.

 

[Asteriktos]

I'll let the video speak for itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7OK4-jQsuc

+1

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Removed quote. This tangent is being discussed in the private fora. If you need access to the private fora, PM Fr. George. -ZZ

Only you could (deliberately?) see a 100% conciliatory statement calling for unity as something polemical or potentially divisive.  :

I think that the OO would agree with Fr. Steven Voytovich's statement and his use of the term nature here.  All he's saying is that our weak and fallen nature leads us towards division contrary to God's wish that we may be one in Him.

So basically, we have the deans of the two most prominent OCA seminaries essentially declaring that we are already one in Faith and that only our human frailties are keeping us apart - but not for long! - while their Primate looks on approvingly.  Glory to God.

Hopefully he's right.  Exciting stuff.

Amen.

Yeah, but would the Church of Greece or Church of Russia agree? I don't see that being as likely as the OCA agreeing.

 

[minasoliman]

I'll let the video speak for itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7OK4-jQsuc

Good points!

I pray and hope this will happen, at least by the time I get grandkids!

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I'll let the video speak for itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7OK4-jQsuc

Good points!

I pray and hope this will happen, at least by the time I get grandkids!

Whoa whoa whoa!!  First things first. 

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

Removed quote. This tangent is being discussed in the private fora. If you need access to the private fora, PM Fr. George. -ZZ

Only you could (deliberately?) see a 100% conciliatory statement calling for unity as something polemical or potentially divisive.  :

I think that the OO would agree with Fr. Steven Voytovich's statement and his use of the term nature here.  All he's saying is that our weak and fallen nature leads us towards division contrary to God's wish that we may be one in Him.

So basically, we have the deans of the two most prominent OCA seminaries essentially declaring that we are already one in Faith and that only our human frailties are keeping us apart - but not for long! - while their Primate looks on approvingly.  Glory to God.

Hopefully he's right.  Exciting stuff.

Amen.

Yeah, but would the Church of Greece or Church of Russia agree? I don't see that being as likely as the OCA agreeing.

So then you think Father John is wrong?  Or at least his timetable is off?

 

[rakovsky]

So then you think Father John is wrong?  Or at least his timetable is off?

It's hard to make predictions.
On one hand, we've seen a drastic increase in cooperation in the last 100 years, and the Joint Statements in the last 60 years saying that EO terminology is acceptable and that Chalcedon cannot be understood as other than agreeing with previous councils is a huge step.
So at that speed, we could reasonably foresee reconciliation within another hundred years.
Still, some things are unknown to me that I would need to make a better judgment like how common it is for OOs to themselves consider the EO formula acceptable like the Joint Statement said it was.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

So then you think Father John is wrong?  Or at least his timetable is off?

It's hard to make predictions.
On one hand, we've seen a drastic increase in cooperation in the last 100 years, and the Joint Statements in the last 60 years saying that EO terminology is acceptable and that Chalcedon cannot be understood as other than agreeing with previous councils is a huge step.
So at that speed, we could reasonably foresee reconciliation within another hundred years.
Still, some things are unknown to me that I would need to make a better judgment like how common it is for OOs to themselves consider the EO formula acceptable like the Joint Statement said it was.

Why don't you try answering the multiple questions I actually put to you in this thread before taking on those addressed to xOrthodox4Christx, HAL 9000?  Especially those related to the context in which Fr. Steven was using the phrase "human nature"?  Or won't your programming permit you to answer questions that might actually advance the discussion?

 

[rakovsky]

Why don't you try answering the multiple questions I actually put to you in this thread before taking on those addressed to xOrthodox4Christx, HAL 9000?

Please do me a personal favor and don't refer to me that way on the forum. Thank you.
I answered your shorter one to xOrthodox4x before answering your longer ones immediately afterwards.

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Removed quote. This tangent is being discussed in the private fora. If you need access to the private fora, PM Fr. George. -ZZ

Only you could (deliberately?) see a 100% conciliatory statement calling for unity as something polemical or potentially divisive.  :

I think that the OO would agree with Fr. Steven Voytovich's statement and his use of the term nature here.  All he's saying is that our weak and fallen nature leads us towards division contrary to God's wish that we may be one in Him.

So basically, we have the deans of the two most prominent OCA seminaries essentially declaring that we are already one in Faith and that only our human frailties are keeping us apart - but not for long! - while their Primate looks on approvingly.  Glory to God.

Hopefully he's right.  Exciting stuff.

Amen.

Yeah, but would the Church of Greece or Church of Russia agree? I don't see that being as likely as the OCA agreeing.

So then you think Father John is wrong?  Or at least his timetable is off?

I think it could happen this century, but toward the end of it. I mean, you see how hard it was for the Council of Crete to convene? And it wasn't even a big deal.

 

[minasoliman]

Removed quote. This tangent is being discussed in the private fora. If you need access to the private fora, PM Fr. George. -ZZ

Only you could (deliberately?) see a 100% conciliatory statement calling for unity as something polemical or potentially divisive.  :

I think that the OO would agree with Fr. Steven Voytovich's statement and his use of the term nature here.  All he's saying is that our weak and fallen nature leads us towards division contrary to God's wish that we may be one in Him.

So basically, we have the deans of the two most prominent OCA seminaries essentially declaring that we are already one in Faith and that only our human frailties are keeping us apart - but not for long! - while their Primate looks on approvingly.  Glory to God.

Hopefully he's right.  Exciting stuff.

Amen.

Yeah, but would the Church of Greece or Church of Russia agree? I don't see that being as likely as the OCA agreeing.

Well, yea, but then again how many OO churches are in Russia and Greece compared to the US where the OCA is?  Perhaps geography is a big factor.  Notice how Antioch also is very open to union because of interaction with local OOs.  I can imagine Alexandria is no different.

It's areas where there are little to no interaction (or worse negative interactions) with the other faction that leads to some hard line views of the situation.

Perhaps with information technology, the tides might change in the future for Greece and Russia (plus we now have more Coptic churches opening in Greece recently).

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

Removed quote. This tangent is being discussed in the private fora. If you need access to the private fora, PM Fr. George. -ZZ

Only you could (deliberately?) see a 100% conciliatory statement calling for unity as something polemical or potentially divisive.  :

I think that the OO would agree with Fr. Steven Voytovich's statement and his use of the term nature here.  All he's saying is that our weak and fallen nature leads us towards division contrary to God's wish that we may be one in Him.

So basically, we have the deans of the two most prominent OCA seminaries essentially declaring that we are already one in Faith and that only our human frailties are keeping us apart - but not for long! - while their Primate looks on approvingly.  Glory to God.

Hopefully he's right.  Exciting stuff.

Amen.

Yeah, but would the Church of Greece or Church of Russia agree? I don't see that being as likely as the OCA agreeing.

So then you think Father John is wrong?  Or at least his timetable is off?

I think it could happen this century, but toward the end of it. I mean, you see how hard it was for the Council of Crete to convene? And it wasn't even a big deal.

Fair enough.  I hope you'll join me in praying for unity in our lifetime though. 

 

[Antonis]

I very much enjoy some of Fr. Behr's work, so I am surprised to hear this kind of answer from him. It doesn't seem particularly convincing or well-grounded to me. I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume there was more meat to the rest of the "debate."

 

[Alpo]

Has there been any official EO-OO dialogues on non-Christological issues? I would be interested to hear if there's any on ecclesiology on statuses of Chalcedon and later councils.

 

[rakovsky]

How do Chaldean and Coptic Catholic catholics who venerate Nestorius and Dioscorus get past the fact that the Catholic councils include Ephesus I and chalcedon?

I see only two possibilities: OOs formally accept Chalcedon or EOs give up considering chalcedon ecumenical, ie accepted by the whole church.

It looks difficult to change this. How many OOS would be willing this century to accept Chalcedon? I think not many EOS would want to give up their belief in the 7 Councils as ecumenical.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Thread unlocked. 

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

How about replying to my interrogatives regarding the phrase "human nature", rakovsky?

How do Chaldean and Coptic Catholic catholics who venerate Nestorius and Dioscorus get past the fact that the Catholic councils include Ephesus I and chalcedon?

That's actually a good question.  I'd love for an Eastern Catholic - or a Roman Catholic of any stripe - to present a cogent answer.  How are the Miaphysite Catholic Copt and the "Nestorian" Catholic Chaldean able to coexist in one communion at all?  Could their method of doing so in some way provide a template for EO-OO reunion?  Or is it meaningless "big tent" theology and ecclesiology of the strictly heterodox variety?

I see only two possibilities: OOs formally accept Chalcedon or EOs give up considering chalcedon ecumenical, ie accepted by the whole church.

It looks difficult to change this. How many OOS would be willing this century to accept Chalcedon? I think not many EOS would want to give up their belief in the 7 Councils as ecumenical.

Have you read Jonathan's essay above?  What are your thoughts?

 

[ZealousZeal]

Mor has moved the tangential discussion introduced by rakovsky into the private fora. I have now moved posts that were related to the OP back to this thread so that the discussion can continue. I tried to clean up the quotes to remove any reference to what got this discussion derailed in the first place, so future readers, if you are confused, this is why.

Please, keep the discussion in this thread related to the OP. Trying to sort out this mess was a lot of work. Any sort of further hijacking with pet causes and old axes to grind will be dealt with harshly. It is not fair to the OP and fellow board members who are trying to partake in fruitful conversation to take any opportunity, no matter how far-fetched, to insert one's personal agenda. Rakovksy, I am looking at you. If you have something in particular you wish to discuss, to use your words: "I would invite you to a private thread."

Now, I'm unlocking this thread.

-ZZ

 

[Asteriktos]

I very much enjoy some of Fr. Behr's work, so I am surprised to hear this kind of answer from him. It doesn't seem particularly convincing or well-grounded to me. I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume there was more meat to the rest of the "debate."

I assumed this was a Q&A session at the end of detailed talks, the "meat to the rest" of it. I took the answers given in the vid to presuppose that "meat," since there have been plenty of talks, debates, articles/essays, and agreed statements over the years. He seemed to be saying that that theological work, along with the increasing ease of communication across distances/languages, and the relationships being built over the decades (and moreso now than ever), would all converge and result in intercommunion/unity. I tried to go back and find the rest of the talk(s) on the channel, but without success.

 

[rakovsky]

I see only two possibilities: OOs formally accept Chalcedon or EOs give up considering chalcedon ecumenical, ie accepted by the whole church.

It looks difficult to change this. How many OOS would be willing this century to accept Chalcedon? I think not many EOS would want to give up their belief in the 7 Councils as ecumenical.

Have you read Jonathan's essay above?  What are your thoughts?

I will have to invite you to the Moved private thread.

Peace.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

I see only two possibilities: OOs formally accept Chalcedon or EOs give up considering chalcedon ecumenical, ie accepted by the whole church.

It looks difficult to change this. How many OOS would be willing this century to accept Chalcedon? I think not many EOS would want to give up their belief in the 7 Councils as ecumenical.

Have you read Jonathan's essay above?  What are your thoughts?

I will have to invite you to the Moved private thread.

Peace.

Rakovsky, in the interests of not undoing all of ZZ's hard work (for which I truly thank her, she saved this thread from certain death!), I'm just asking for your thoughts on Jonathan's proposed ecclesiological model.  Do you think it makes sense, or not?  I don't think you have to go into polemics to answer that here.  To my mind, what Jonathan proposes works as a model through which unity might be achieved within the timeframe proposed by Fr. John Behr.  Jonathan's definition of the Church makes sense to me.  Does it make sense to you?

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

I very much enjoy some of Fr. Behr's work, so I am surprised to hear this kind of answer from him. It doesn't seem particularly convincing or well-grounded to me. I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume there was more meat to the rest of the "debate."

I assumed this was a Q&A session at the end of detailed talks, the "meat to the rest" of it. I took the answers given in the vid to presuppose that "meat," since there have been plenty of talks, debates, articles/essays, and agreed statements over the years. He seemed to be saying that that theological work, along with the increasing ease of communication across distances/languages, and the relationships being built over the decades (and moreso now than ever), would all converge and result in intercommunion/unity. I tried to go back and find the rest of the talk(s) on the channel, but without success.

+1

Almost word for word, I was about to post something similar.

 

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky, in the interests of not undoing all of ZZ's hard work (for which I truly thank her, she saved this thread from certain death!), I'm just asking for your thoughts on Jonathan's proposed ecclesiological model.  Do you think it makes sense, or not?  I don't think you have to go into polemics to answer that here.  To my mind, what Jonathan proposes works as a model through which unity might be achieved within the timeframe proposed by Fr. John Behr.  Jonathan's definition of the Church makes sense to me.  Does it make sense to you?

Antoniouis,
Sorry, I have no choice but to follow the moderator instructions to me earlier.
I replied to you on the private thread.

Go in peace.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

Rakovsky, in the interests of not undoing all of ZZ's hard work (for which I truly thank her, she saved this thread from certain death!), I'm just asking for your thoughts on Jonathan's proposed ecclesiological model.  Do you think it makes sense, or not?  I don't think you have to go into polemics to answer that here.  To my mind, what Jonathan proposes works as a model through which unity might be achieved within the timeframe proposed by Fr. John Behr.  Jonathan's definition of the Church makes sense to me.  Does it make sense to you?

Antoniouis,
Sorry, I have no choice but to follow the moderator instructions to me earlier.
I replied to you on the private thread.

Go in peace.

Your call, Hoss.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

I very much enjoy some of Fr. Behr's work, so I am surprised to hear this kind of answer from him.

Are you surprised by the answer because you disagree with his conclusions or simply because you find it glib?

It doesn't seem particularly convincing or well-grounded to me.

In what way is it not firmly grounded?

I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume there was more meat to the rest of the "debate."

I also would like to see more of this talk, and I agree with your implication that the term "debate" is something of a misnomer here, perhaps a misapplication of the term by the person posting the YouTube video.  It seemed more of a talk to me.

Has there been any official EO-OO dialogues on non-Christological issues? I would be interested to hear if there's any on ecclesiology on statuses of Chalcedon and later councils.

You could mine the reams of official papers on this site: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/

Though not a part of the official dialogue, our own Jonathan wrote an excellent blog post on the topic here: http://www.canadox.ca/?p=53

And our own Fr. Peter also wrote an interesting position paper on the subject here: http://britishorthodox.org/glastonburyreview/issue-125-can-the-oriental-orthodox-receive-the-eastern-orthodox-councils/

 

[Alpha60]

I'll let the video speak for itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7OK4-jQsuc

Woot!

EO/OO unity is vital for the survival of both sides of the divide, not just for reasons relating to Islamic persecution.  The actual Orthodox Christology, shared by both, appears to be a synthesis of the ideas of Sts. Cyril, Severus and Justinian, and the Presanctified Liturgy of St. Gregory is an obvious derivative of earlier works of Severus.  The OO never succumbed to iconoclasm or several other heresies which temporarily and for political reasons infected parts of the EO church, but on the other hand, the OO at present are at greater risk of Protestantization and Latinization, due to subversive influences, and I believe the strength of EO seminaries teaching essentially the same theology, like SVS, of which Fr. John Behr is the Dean, will provide enough eternal leverage to force the crypto-Protestants out.

In other words, the two communions need each other, even theologically, and always have.  Unity will also help ensure the survival of the Christian population in the Islamic world.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

The OO never succumbed to iconoclasm or several other heresies which temporarily and for political reasons infected parts of the EO church, but on the other hand, the OO at present are at greater risk of Protestantization and Latinization, due to subversive influences, and I believe the strength of EO seminaries teaching essentially the same theology, like SVS, of which Fr. John Behr is the Dean, will provide enough eternal leverage to force the crypto-Protestants out.

In other words, the two communions need each other, even theologically, and always have.

+1

Nicely stated.

 

[copticorthodoxboy]

Found some of the lectures held at Orthodox School of Theology at Trinity College to be very interesting on this issue, particularly the lectures provided:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xnQo2-7bI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOnYJr-iOgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F87oqGjFWjI

 

[xOrthodox4Christx]

Found some of the lectures held at Orthodox School of Theology at Trinity College to be very interesting on this issue, particularly the lectures provided:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xnQo2-7bI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOnYJr-iOgo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F87oqGjFWjI

This is where I felt that the Oriental representative completely bastardized EO theology for polemical reasons, even though this was supposed to be a dialogue. Not to say things don't go the other way, but I was unimpressed, to say the least.

 

[Alpha60]

The OO never succumbed to iconoclasm or several other heresies which temporarily and for political reasons infected parts of the EO church, but on the other hand, the OO at present are at greater risk of Protestantization and Latinization, due to subversive influences, and I believe the strength of EO seminaries teaching essentially the same theology, like SVS, of which Fr. John Behr is the Dean, will provide enough eternal leverage to force the crypto-Protestants out.

In other words, the two communions need each other, even theologically, and always have.

+1

Nicely stated.

Thank you.  I believe in my post I addresssed why the EO historically needed the OO (to help maintain purity of the faith, Christologically and iconographically), and why the OO need presently need the EO (to help maintain the puirty of the faith in the face of efforts by Western churches to subvert or absorb us), and why we need each other (for protection, solidarity and brotherhood, and shared witness in the face of martyrdom by Islam and other threats, secularism perhaps, recall Bolshevism and the bloody toll it exacted upon EOs and OOs alike).

I want to just outline two other aspects of this relationship: why the OOs historically needed the EOs, and why the EOs need the OOs now.  The historic symbiotic relationship between the Eastern and Oriental churches resulted in a mutual exchange of liturgies and worship traditions as a result of periodic restorations of communion and warmings of the relationship.  For example, we know that the Coptic Holy Unction Service on the Last Friday of Lent and the nearly identical Byzantine service most commonly celebrated on Holy Wednesday are of a common origin; I don't think this dates to the fourth century or predates Chalcedon, owing to the striking simpliicty of the Blessing of Oil we see in the Euchologion of St. Serapion in comparison (of course, being a bishop's service book, it is possible that the service as we know it today was included, but omitted from that book owing to the tradition wherein multiple priests take turns saying the consecratory prayers, the psalms and litanies being a function of the Psaltis and Deacons).

It aeems probable this liturgy, along with the pre-sanctified, and the liturgies of Sts. Basil and John Chrysostom (one of the anaphorae available in the Syriac Orthodox Church) were part of a bidirectional exchange; St. Severus supplied the Presanctified as a concept; St. Basil supplied the key parts of his liturgy, which were blended a bit with that of St. Cyrl, itself a translation of the Greek St. Mark; the St. John Chrysostom liturgy in the Syriac Orthodox Church may predate the schism owing to his Antiochene origins, but the few Patristic notes on the subject suggest his liturgy was composed for use in Constantinople owing to discontent with the length of the Divine Liturgies of St. Basil and St. James; an analysis of the text suggests it is based on the ancient Antiochene Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, which the Syriac Orthodox also have in their service books.

I think at least some of this exchange of liturgical concepts and ideas had to postdate Chalcedon.  For example, we see in the Coptic Church a progressive Byzantinization of the Iconostasis; compare the design of the iconostasis of the ancient Coptic Churches in Old Cairo with that of more recent churches.  We see in the Armenian church the use of a Liturgy of the Catechumens which is virtually identical to that of the Byzantine Rite (whereas the other OO liturgies have similiar anaphorae but different prothesis/synaxis), and I recall reading this present form is not attested to in some of the older manuscripts of that rite (recall the Armenian Church historically used 13 anaphorae including a presanctified liturgy before standardizing on what we have now).

Some things clearly do predate Chalcedon; I think we can easily see how the core observances surrounding Pascha are ancient, and in their present form, largely derivative of the work of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.  However, there is too much commonality between the Eastern and Oriental rites, including concerning things we know to be of more recent origin, like the Byzantine style iconostasis, to say that an absolute wall of fire separated the churches liturgically after the schism; we know this not to be the case most clearly with the Pre-Sanctified, but I feel like the liturgy is a two way street.

Now, why do the EO need the OO today?  I believe the answer to this is threefold: to suppress a latent but worrisome crypto-Nestorianism which does exist, even among some scholarly figures (Nicholas Marinides springs to mind, but even in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, who I normally agree with on nearly all points, and who supports reunion, we find a very curious explanation of "Eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani" which is controversial even in EO circles), to suppress a liturgical maximalism that borders on idolatry and contradicts the Fathers and the diverse liturgical practices of the early Church, a view which holds the Byzantine Rite alone to be the correct form of worship, and which demands exacting adherence to a mythical, idealized version of it in every respect (to the extent of arguing for the suppression of tonal harmony in Slavonic Orthodoxy in favor of the imposition of uniform Byzantine chant, everywhere, and to the extent of regarding pews as blasphemous; these tendencies reached their nadir I think in the Russian Old Believer schism; Old Believers who are not Edinovertsy and particularly the Priestless Old Believers I do think simply went too far in their devotion to the liturgy and contradicted the ancient faith, with its multiplicity of liturgical forms); lastly, the reunion with the OO will help the EO avoid certain contemporary errors which seem to be creeping in largely among the Western conwertsy: specifically, the idea that the Seven Ecumenical Councils are in every respect infallible and thus a direct equivalent or answer to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, a fundamentalist, modernist view which is exposed as erroneous every time someone makes a metanoia on Sunday, or worse, the view emerging in the Ecumenical Patriarchate that the office of His All Holiness is, as the Metropolitan of Bursa disturbingly expressed it, "first without equals." 

Oriental Orthodoxy has no Canon 28; no autocephalous OO primate has any jurisdiction over any other autocephalous OO church, and this scenario, in which even the primacy of honor one might expect to be afforded to the Coptic Pope is, at best, subtle or even ethereal (the Copts verbally chant a commemoration of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch in their liturgy, but I have not heard these diptychs recited aloud to this degree in Syriac Orthodox services in a manner one might consider recirprocal).  The OO communion is preserving the ancient Patristic model of the equality of bishops, at least at the Patriarchal level (the proliferation of general bishops and Patriarchal vicars, who are almost mere glorified Chorepiscopi, is a growing problem in the Coptic and Syriac churches), and the absence of any conceptual analogue to canon 28 of Chalcedon I believe, in a scenario of restored communion, would act as a bulwark against either the EP or another Orthodox bishop attempting to assert a Roman-style Papal Supremacy over other bishops in contravention of the ancient faith.

So thus, I believe the relationship was in ancient times mutually beneficial and symbiotic, for the reasons I outlined, and that reunion will likewise be of mutual benefit to both churches.  It should ideally be accomplished as a prerequisite to attempting reunion with Rome and the Assyrians.

 

[Asteriktos]

Still couldn't find any more video, but this article explains the 'where' (the people and room in the first image match the video)...

At the invitation of His Holiness Marthoma Paulose II, Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon, St. Vladimir's Seminary President and Board Chairman, traveled to India to participate in celebrations marking the 200th Anniversary of the Orthodox Theological Seminary in Kottayam, Kerala, India. Founded in 1815, the institution was the first Orthodox Christian school of theology in Asia.

St. Vladimir's Dean, the Very Reverend Dr. John Behr, accompanied His Beatitude, as did the Very Reverend Dr. Steven Voytovich, dean of sister seminary St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary in South Canaan, PA. Traveling with them was His Grace Metropolitan Nicholovos of the Northeast American Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church...

Later, the two seminary deans met with the faculty of the Orthodox Theological Seminary. "Father Steven and I led an intense and stimulating discussion that covered a wide range of topics," noted Fr. John Behr. "We looked at things like institutional assessment, self reflection, and the question 'What is the study of Theology and how is it best done?'"...

And this article, linked at the bottom, says (in part):

After a meeting with members of the Kottayam Seminary faculty, Fathers John and Steven joined Father K. M. George in offering presentations at a symposium for the seminary students.

(Here's the OCA photo gallery of it)