by Bishop Athanasius (Yevtich) of Zahumlje and Herzegovina [+2021]
Editor's Note: It is with gratefulness to God and relief that Orthodox
Ethos is finally able to publish in the English language the following
exceptional lecture by Bishop Athanasius Yevtich on the well-known and
well-utilized article "On the Limits of the Church" by the
ever-memorable patristic scholar and Orthodox Theologian, Fr. George Florovsky.
For years, since shortly after its publication in the Greek journal Theologia,
we had seen the importance and need for a translation of this lecture for our
English-speaking brethren. We are indebted to our friend and associate Nicholas
Pantelopoulos for this excellent translation, which we know will be of great
interest to many who have been confused or misled as to the Orthodox teaching
on the nature and boundaries of the Church. Bishop Athanasius' contribution to
the inter-Orthodox exchange on the proper understanding of the nature of the
unity and boundaries of the Church is sure to be received with gratefulness by
many and anguish by a few, but with interest by all. ~ Fr. Peter Heers,
Editor of Orthodox Ethos
It will be difficult for me to duly expound on the magnitude
and importance of Fr. George Florovsky, the “ecumenical first-priest”, as he was referred to
by his student, bishop Daniel (Krstich). [1] Nonetheless, with great love and
gratitude to God and to Fr. George, I will always remember when as a Priestmonk
I served Divine Liturgy with this great father, celebrant and theologian, in a
9th C Byzantine church, in the monastery of Saint Nicodemus in Athens,
which later became known in the 19th C as the “Russian Church”.
Afterwards, with the providence and grace of God, I had the honor to succeed
him for three years (1970-1972) at the Orthodox Theological Institute of Saints
Sergius in Paris, as chair of Patristics, along with Fr. Andrew Fyrilla. Before
I met him, however, and got acquainted with him on a personal level, Fr. Justin
Popovich spoke frequently about Fr. George Florovsky, with whom he spent years
together during the German invasion in Serbia, when they would meet and discuss.
Fr. Justin Popovich would call Fr. George Florovsky an “icon on the iconostasis
of orthodox theology of the modern age”.
The organizers of this present colloquium asked me to speak
on the subject, “Fr. George Florovsky on the Boundaries of the Church”. It
concerns a very difficult subject and I will try to speak as objectively as I
can, with complete respect towards Fr. George Florovsky, but with a critical
approach towards the position that he formulated in his article. In previous
sessions, there were already some presentations about Fr. Florovsky’s
ecclesiology, which happens to be rich and multi-dimensional. His article on
the “Boundaries of the Church”, [2] in my opinion constitutes an early phase in
Fr. George Florovsky’s evolution. It was written in Paris on the feast day of
Saint Sergius in 1933. It was published in English, then in Russian, and even
then, in French and Serbian. There exists a translation in Greek. [3] Without a
doubt, the article of Fr. Florovsky is written within the framework of the
ecumenical movement, which also is a leading subject for his time as well as in
our own. This fact is highlighted by the author himself, as he refers to an
article of his, “On the Reunification of Christians”, which was published in a
volume collection in 1933 in Paris, just as another older article of his, “The
Problems of Christian Unification”. [4]
We will not continue the exhaustive analysis of this article
by Fr. George Florovsky. The author briefly mentions in the text the apostolic
and patristic events concerning the unity of the Church, by giving special
emphasis on Saint Cyprian of Carthage. He presents and exercises criticism on
the positions of Cyprian, and then goes to Saint Augustine and the practice of
the Church in relation to the acceptance of heretics. Subsequently, the author
refers to modern Russian theologians. Thus, on the one hand there is a mention
of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and of Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky)
who considered that the charismatic boundaries of the Church coincide with the
canonical. On the other hand, he refers to (Aleksey) Khomyakov and Philaret
(Drozdov), the Metropolitan of Moscow, who considered that the charismatic and
canonical borders of the Church did not coincide. I also remember Fr. Justin
Popovich, who would say that the more correct and theologically orthodox
position was held by Metropolitan Anthony and Archbishop Hilarion, that, in
other words, the charismatic and canonical boundaries of the Church coincide.
It is interesting that in the same year, of 1933, an article was published,
written by bishop Sergius (Stragorodski), the later Patriarch of Russia, which
Fr. George Florovsky most likely did not have a chance to consider. These two
theologians [Metropolitan Anthony and Archbishop Hilarion], although they wrote
independently from each other, almost echo the same views word for word, resulting
in concurring opinions on the limits of the Church. Fr. George Florovsky
elicits the Greek theologians, [Christos] Androutsos and [Konstantinos]
Diovouniotis, – rather old and conservative theologians, and mostly refers to
them in relation to a commentary of his concerning economy of the Church. We
must note that this commentary in particular was also weak. Fr. Florovsky does
not proceed to analyze the great Fathers of the Church, although in
approximately the same period he writes some of his greatest and famous works
on Patristics, such as, “The Eastern Fathers of the 4th C”, [5] and “The
Byzantine Fathers of the 6th- 8th Cs”. [6]
In his article, Fr. George Florovsky is not particularly
preoccupied with an analysis of what he calls, and what is truly, the practice
of the Church in the reception of heretics, but rather how this practice was
formed. In my opinion, this is an important shortcoming of this particular
article, since faith and theology is revealed in the practice of the Church,
and it must be taken into serious consideration when we speak about the
boundaries of the Church.
Recently, professor [Constantine] Zaitsev of the Academy of
Holy Trinity in Moscow wrote a substantial and expansive work on the boundaries
of the Church in his 12th volume of the New Orthodox Encyclopedia (published by
the Patriarchate of Moscow with the blessing of the Patriarch). There, he
mentions the opinions of many Fathers of the Church and contemporary Russian
theologians. At the end of this reference, he briefly refers to the “Basic
Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other
Christian Confessions” (“Основные принципы отношения Русской Церкби к
инославию”), an official text which was published recently in Moscow in 2000,
by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church. In a very curious way, Zaitsev
summarizes the opinions of the Council expressed by this official text. Without
having to refer to his opinions in length, we will only mention that he repeats
the views of Fr. Florovsky. In the end of his text, professor Zaitsev arrives
at the same assumption as the one reached by Fr. Florovsky, that the canonical
and charismatic limits of the Church do not coincide, and adds, “Starting
from the position which is expressed in the text, ‘Basic Principles of the
Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian
Confessions’, it seems more defensible from an ecclesiastical and also
historical and theological point of view the position held by Metropolitan
Philaret of Moscow, Patriarch Sergius, and Fr. Florovsky. As it pertained to
other points of view, which he characterizes as “rigid akriveia [exactitude],
– referring primarily to Saint Cyprian, “although these positions are
founded upon correct theological foundations, they require, however, much
better definition”. In other words, Zaitsev equated the position of the
Russian Church with that of Florovsky and almost presents the same opinion.
We must point out, nonetheless, after several readings of
Fr. Florovsky’s article, we have the impression that this text was written at a
young age, when he was a priest no more than a year, and that this text does
not represent a complete expression of his ecclesiological view. Florovsky
presents the position of Saint Cyprian, then quickly passes over to the opinion
of Saint Augustine and accepts his ecclesiological views without adequate
critical thought. In particular, it seems he adopts the views on ex
opera operato and opera operantis, and recommends that the
Orthodox accept Augustine’s opinion concerning the limits of the Church, where
the charismatic and canonical boundaries do not coincide. On the other hand,
the analysis of Saint Cyprian which Fr. Florovsky provides is one-sided. [7] Fr.
George Florovsky did not carefully examine, in parallel to the texts of
Cyprian, his very important letter to Saint Firmilianus of Caesarea (230-268),
the predecessor of Saint Basil, and also the letter to Saint Dionysius of
Alexandria. These two Fathers, both contemporaries of Saint Cyprian, do not
accept the opinion of Augustine and Pope Stephen of Rome. For without a doubt
they speak about coinciding charismatic and canonical limits of the Church even
if they do not refer to them in this manner.
When Florovsky examines the works of Cyprian, and especially
those of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, (who as we said, considers the
canonical and charismatic limits of the Church to be the same), sometimes we
have the impression that he exaggerates. Likewise, it appears, when he talks
about the practice of the Church in relation to the reception of heretics. For
example, the then young theologian and priest George Florovsky observes, “One
may ask who gave the Church this right…” to accept heretics in the
manner, meaning here the application of ecclesiastical economy instead of the
exactitude supported by Cyprian. In other words, the practice of the Church
does not impose on all heretics to be re-baptized, as Saint Cyprian demanded.
To such a question, we dare juxtapose the following counter-question: Who gave
the right to Fr. Florovsky to put such questions to the Church? Or in other
words, to direct this question to Basil the Great, the great hierarch,
theologian and canonist of the Church, whose opinion on the application of
economy in the acceptance of heretics is what the Church ultimately applies.
This position of his concerning the use of economy does not indicate an
acceptance of a “Church outside the limits of the Church” (a phrase belonging
to Fr. Florovsky), because economy of the Church, the act of acceptance of
heretics to the Church in three different phases or in three different modes,
was conveyed perfectly in the canonical letter of Basil the Great to
Amphilochios of Iconium (Epistle no. 188). It is apparent that ecclesiastical
economy has been taken into consideration in a much greater degree than Fr.
Florovsky assumes. Florovsky concludes that the economy of the Church is simply
a pedagogical – pastoral measure, related simply to the philanthropy of the
Church. As if philanthropy is something arbitrary, an unimportant detail! Yet,
for Basil the Great and the Fathers of the Church, economy in the Church
becomes apparent and must be applied as a demonstration and revelation of the
Divine Economy of Salvation, as an expression of Divine philanthropy. For the
Church, this is not simply a word, but a reality with a profound theological
and ecclesiological context. It is not simply a dispensation – dispensatio as
it is rendered by Hieronymus in Latin and in other western languages. Economy is Divine Economy.
The great Fathers like Chrysostom or Evlogios of Alexandria (6th C) and
many others speak in detail about what is Divine Economy. [8] Firstly,
this economy means that God became flesh, condescending towards us without
leaving His Godhead and His throne. Christ “emptied himself” (Philip. 2:8)
through the incarnation and inhomination; this emptying of Divine love is
recognized as economy, the Divine Economy of Grace, the work of the
philanthropy of the Holy Trinity. [9]
We believe that the article on the Limits of the Church by
Fr. George Florovsky, without diminishing it, was “unseasoned”, even though it
was not exactly pioneering or a first of its kind. Since, this path was
followed by Khomyakov and Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, on whom Florovsky is
grounded and to whom he refers. But we will point out two essential elements,
or shall we say, “occurrences” (Fr. Florovsky points out exactly that the
theology of the Fathers, like Saint Gregory Palamas, is a “theology of
occurrences”), two facts that constitute the essence of Orthodox ecclesiology
and the practice of the Church for the admission of heretics which Florovsky
did not take into consideration.
First, the limits of the Church of God in Christ Jesus the
Theanthropos are the “Boundaries” of his boundless Divine Economy of salvation,
the limits of the boundless philanthropy of God, and these limits should not be
separated from the limits of Grace of the all-holy Spirit, the Comforter, in
the Church. These limits cannot be narrower than the narrowest limits of the
Cross and the Resurrection of the Incarnated Christ, in body and as Body, as
the Church, as fullness, revealing the “fullness of Him who fills all in all.”
(Ephesians 1:22-23) [10]
Second, these economic – charismatic limits of the Church,
in a paradoxical way, cannot and should not exclude the exceedingly important
consequence of the liturgical – canonical limits of the Church. Without
expanding further, I will simply summarize that this consequence is derived
from the event of Liturgy as Communion, as participation in what we call the
Church, which is communion and participation of the members of the Church in
the Holy Eucharist, in Liturgy. For this reason, we Orthodox cannot accept
intercommunion. Not for some anti-ecumenist stance, [11] but exactly because in
the Holy Eucharist, as a gathering of the Church in Christ through the Holy
Spirit, the charismatic limits of the Economy of salvation of the Holy Trinity
and the canonical-charismatic limits of the Church coincide. In this sense Saint
Ireneaus of Lyons wrote, when he expressed this view clearly and with
theological precision, “But our opinion is in accordance with the
Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion” (Against
Heresies, Book 4, Chapt. 18:5). [12] This exactly coincides with what even Fr.
George Florovsky, Fr. Alexander Schmemann and many other theologians emphasize,
when they say, lex orandi est lex credenda, or in other words, the
canon of worship is the canon of faith and the visa-versa.
Here, of course, I would say that there appears to be
an antinomy; for it must be said that an antinomy befits more with
the theological view of Fr. Florovsky, because of his position which he took in
his article on the limits of the Church. And this is how it should be, since
there is an organic unity between the Christological – pneumatological, and the
soteriological – ecclesiological substance, life, and salvation in the Church.
This is what is revealed in the mysteries [sacraments] of the Church – Baptism,
Chrismation, Eucharist, Priesthood – which constitute the Mystery of the
Fullness of the Church. The Mysteries of the Church cannot be above or outside
the Church, because the Church is the fundamental Mystery, the Mystery of
Christ, per Apostle Paul and Saint Maximus, from which spring all the other
mysteries [sacraments] which project onto Him. All these things are revealed
and are experienced in the Mystery of the gathering of the Church in the Holy
Eucharist, and as a unity of faith and communion in the Holy Spirit, which we
confess, glorify and live every time we proclaim together the “Our Father”
during Holy Eucharist, and partake together in Holy Communion. These are the
elements which elude to and constitute the core and the essence of Saint
Cyprian’s view. This is what Saint Cyprian expresses in his known letter: “All
heretics do not have the power and the right to baptize (…) because as enemies
of the Lord, they apostatized from the love and unity of the Catholic Church
(…). The Church is one, and being one, cannot be in and outside (que et intus
esse et foris non potest) (…) The Church cannot be outside Herself (fortis
autem non esse Ecclesiam), nor can She be broken and divided into something
opposite to herself, because She is unity in the house of the God”.
Cyprian, therefore, theologically and ecclesiologically connects the unity
of Baptism with the unity of the Church which reveals
the “unity of Eucharist”. He closely connects the “grace of one
ecclesiastical baptism” (unici ecclesiastici baptismi gratiam), with “the
unity of the Church” (Ecclesiae unitatem) and the “inseparable Mystery of
unity” (inseparabile unitatis sacramentum) with the Eucharist, as Body
and Blood of Christ, where “Christian concord is connected with the
inseparable love, as it is shown in the Sacrifice of the Lord” (unianimitatem
christianam firma sibi adque inseparabilio caritatem conexam etiam ipsa
Dominica sacrificial declarant) (Epistle 69, 1.3-5). Thus, for
Cyprian, the “one baptism” is inseparable from the unity of the Church
in the Eucharist, which is the unity of all in faith, hope and love. In one
word, unity of all in the Holy Trinity, per the Apostle: “endeavoring
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one
Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one
faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:1-6).
The Fathers of the Church, and contemporaries of Saint
Cyprian, and the consequent practice of the Church, bear witness to the
position of Cyprian, since the non-recognition of the baptism of heretics
outside the Church was never rejected by the Church of the East. [13] This
is recognized in their own way by Fr. George Florovsky and his student
Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon. In the Christian east and in Africa,
just as Saint Cyprian, they acknowledge that there is no salvific Baptism among
heretics and schismatics (as it is confirmed by several Ecclesiastical Synods:
Carthage of 220, Iconium of Asia Minor of 235, followed by Antioch of Syria and
others [14]), because the Holy Spirit is not imparted outside the Church. She
is the one that contains the fullness of the faith in the Holy Trinity and in
Christ, and the fullness of Grace and communion in Church, which is the
fullness of salvation, and the fullness of communion with the Holy Trinity.
Saint Firmilianus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (230-268)
[15] and a contemporary of Cyprian, was against Stephen who as bishop of Rome
recognized the baptism of heretics. He wrote like Cyprian and supported the
same theology on the One Baptism. Firmilianus writes about One Baptism in the
Church as a “bond of unity”, and as “divine unity” (divina
unitate). For as he points out, “For as even the Lord who dwells in
us is one and the same. He everywhere joins His own
people in the bond of unity (vincula
unitatis) (…). Those souls however, who have departed from the
unity of God cannot come into the unity of the Holy Trinity”, – and he
refers to the Lord’s prayer for this unity with the Father (John 17:21). “Whence
it appears that this tradition (of Stephane) is of men which maintains
heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church
alone (…). Those who do not recognize and do not confess the
True God the Father, can neither know the truth for the Son and the Holy Spirit (…). Moreover,
all other heretics, if they have separated themselves from the Church of God,
can have nothing of power or of grace, since all power and grace
are established in the Church where the presbyters preside”, who possess
both the power of baptizing, “and of imposition of hands, and of ordaining (ordinandi). For
as a heretic may not lawfully ordain nor lay on hands, so neither may he
baptize, nor do anything holily or spiritually. For heretics are “alien
from spiritual and deifying sanctity” (aliens sit a spirtali et
deifica sanctitate) (…) Spiritual birth cannot be without the Spirit (spiritualem
nativitatem). Thus, Apostle Paul baptized anew with a spiritual
baptism those who had already been baptized by John before the Holy Spirit had
been sent by the Lord, and so laid hands on them that they might receive the
Holy Spirit. (Acts 19: 2-6) (…). But if it is spiritual, how can
baptism be spiritual among those among whom there is no Holy Spirit? (…)
The spouse of Christ is one, which is the (Catholic) Church, it is she
herself who alone bears sons of God. (…). If therefore, Christ is with us,
then Christ is not with the heretics. Then it is obvious they are opponents of
Christ and if we gather with Christ, they disperse (Matt. 12:30) (…) But
we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom (of Pope Stephan) we
oppose custom, but the custom of truth. We accept that which Christ and the
Apostles delivered to us from the beginning. We that knew none but one
Church of God and accounted no baptism holy except that of the
holy Church (…). When they (i.e. the heretics) come baptized to us,
they are then baptized with the only and true baptism of the Catholic
Church (unico et vero Ecclesiae Catholicae baptism) and
obtain the regeneration of the layer of life (Epistle 75,
2.3.6.7.9.13.14.19.22). [16]
Consequently, Saint Firmilianus stresses that he who is
separated from the Church is foreign to the spiritual grace; foreign to the
gift and deifying grace of the Holy Spirit. It is not enough, says Saint
Firmilianus, to offer names (i.e.: the type of the baptism) in order that
sanctification and salvation is truly offered through baptism. These thoughts
are repeated by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in his known work, “Contra
Arianos”: “And these too hazard the fullness of the mystery, I mean Baptism;
for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and
they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like
His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their
own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them
altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help
towards religion?” (…) For not he who simply says, ‘O Lord,’
gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this
account, therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but
first says, ‘Teach;’ then thus: ‘Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and
Holy Ghost;’ that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with
faith might come the consecration of Baptism.” (42: 4-11 and 15-21).
[17] There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but
not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in
consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in
piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion
than redeemed (43: 22-26).
This is a very important position by Athanasius the Great
and must be taken seriously into account today when we meet people in the
framework of the ecumenical movement who claim that “the limits of the Church
is Baptism”. [18] By not taking into account the correct – orthodox faith and
confession of doctrines, which if some do not possess, they are not Orthodox.
They are schismatics, separated from the fullness of the God-given gifts,
charismas and operations, grace and unity in the Eucharist which is the
identity of the Church in Christ, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the
glory of God and Father and the salvation of the world.
Let us refer to the opinions of another contemporary of
Cyprian, Saint Dionysius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria (247-264). In his
letter to Philemon, a priest of Pope Sextus, he writes: “I received
this rule and ordinance from our blessed father, Heraclas. For those who came
over from heresies, although they had apostatized from the Church, – or rather
had not apostatized, but seemed to meet with them, yet were charged with
resorting to some false teacher, – when he had expelled them from the Church he
did not receive them back, though they entreated for it, until they had
publicly reported all things which they had heard from their adversaries; but
then he received them without requiring of them another baptism. For they had
formerly received the Holy Spirit from him.” [19] Hence, according to
Dionysius, we should not rebaptize those who were once baptized in the Church,
even if they have consequently lapsed. Jerome confesses that Dionysius “agreed
with Cyprian and with the decisions of the Council of Africa, and wrote many
letters in relation to this subject.” (De viris illustribus, 69). [20] In a
not very well-known epistle to Dionysius, “Epistle to Dionysius,
Stephen and the presbyters of the Church of Rome”, [21] he
notes: “Those who are baptized in the name of the three persons (of the Holy
Trinity), – of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, should not be
rebaptized, even if they were baptized by heretics, but only when these
heretics do not confess the three persons. Those who come to the Church from
other heresies, we baptize.”
As we can see, Saint Dionysius the Great expresses the same
opinion with Cyprian and later with Athanasius the Great. But as we shall
subsequently show, as Saint Dionysius confessed, Basil the Great expressed the
opinion which he also applied in practice that it is not necessary to rebaptize
just anyone who comes to the Church from various heresies and schisms. In
Epistle II to Pope Sextus, Dionysius refers to the case when a believer “came
to me weeping, and bewailing himself; and falling at my feet he acknowledged
and protested that the baptism with which he had been baptized among the
heretics was not of this character, nor in any respect like this, because it
was full of impiety and blasphemy. And he said that his soul was now pierced
with sorrow, and that he had not confidence to lift his eyes to God, because he
had set out from those impious words and deeds. And on this account, he
besought that he might receive this most perfect purification, and reception
and grace. But I did not dare to do this; and said that his long communion was
sufficient for this. For I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who
had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the Amen; who had stood
by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and
who had received it, and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ. But I exhorted him to be of good courage, and to approach
the partaking of the saints with firm faith and good hope.” [22]
This example shows that this practice of the Church to
accept certain groups of heretics into the Church without rebaptizing had
already begun from that time, and continues until today. This practice is
already witnessed in the 3rd and 4th C and is expounded by Basil the
Great, as will see further. At the same time, however, it is stressed that for
the practice of admission of heretics and schismatics into the Church what was
basic and fundamental was their unification with the oneness and
communion of the Church and not any “objective” recognition of the
sacraments of heretics. Thus, it appears that the principle which is in force
is the one of Cyprian. That canonical and charismatic boundaries of the Church
coincide, and are especially revealed in practice in the One Eucharist of the
real Church, in which those who approach partake in communion, and in this
manner, belong to the Church. For there is no Church outside the Eucharist,
outside the Liturgical communion. This is the content and meaning of the canonical
tradition of the Church. When unity of the Church has been sundered, at exactly
that moment, the canons are applied, such as economy, to protect and rebuild
unity.
This same canonical practice and theological confession is
clearly what Basil the Great employs and expresses in his first canonical
epistle to Amphilochius of Iconium (Epistle 183). We will not refer to it
entirely. Nevertheless, it has been summarized in all the collections on Canon
Law of the Orthodox Church as Canon I of Basil the Great, based on the First
Ecumenical Council and reiterated in a special manner in Canon VII of the
Second Ecumenical Council, as in the case of Canon XCV (95) of the Council in
Trullo. Basil the Great observes in the beginning of this (letter) canon: “As
to your enquiry about the Cathari, a statement has already been made, and you
have properly reminded me that it is right to follow the custom obtaining in
each region, because those, who at the time gave decision on these points, held
different opinions concerning their baptism. But the baptism of the Pepuzeni
(i.e.: Montanists) seems to me to have no authority; and I am astonished how
this can have escaped Dionysius, acquainted as he was with the canons. The old
authorities decided to accept that baptism which in nowise errs from the faith.
Thus, they used the names of heresies, of schisms, and of unlawful
congregations. By heresies, they meant men who were altogether broken off and
alienated in matters relating to the actual faith; by schisms, men who had
separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual
solution; by unlawful congregations, gatherings held by disorderly presbyters
or bishops or by uninstructed laymen.” [23] Saint Basil refers to examples
of unlawful congregations and schisms, but refers to the Manichæans, of the
Valentinians, of the Marcionites, and “Pepuzeni” (Montanists) as heresies,
which have substantial differences in faith from the Church. And Saint Basil
continues saying, “So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject
the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the
ground that they still belonged to the Church. As to those who assembled in
unlawful congregations, their decision was to join them again to the Church,
after they had been brought to a better state by proper repentance and rebuke,
and so, in many cases, when men in orders had rebelled with the disorderly, to
receive them on their repentance, into the same rank.” Then, concerning the
Montanists, Saint Basil says, “What ground is there, then, for the acceptance
of the baptism of men who baptize into the Father and the Son and Montanus or
Priscilla? For those who have not been baptized into the names delivered to us
have not been baptized at all. So that, although this escaped the vigilance of
the great Dionysius, we must by no means imitate his error. The absurdity of
the position is obvious in a moment, and evident to all who are gifted with
even a small share of reasoning capacity.” [24] Consequently, the baptism
of heretics cannot be accepted.
More specifically, Basil continues to expound the practice
(praxis) of the Church: “The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to
the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilian, to reject all
these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ, by one common condemnation,
because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized
from the Church had no longer on them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for it
ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had
received their ordination from the Fathers, and possessed the spiritual gift by
the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen,
and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy
Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either
to baptize or to ordain. And therefore, those who were from time to time
baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the
church to be purified by the Church’s true baptism. Nevertheless, since it has
seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of management of the
majority, their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted.” [25]
These last words of Basil the Great show that economy in the
Church is applied differently each time, in accordance to the local traditions
and customs. Saint Basil respected this practice, even though he believed that
we should employ akriveia [exactitude]. Basil recalls the same
for the Encratites, in canon 57, [26] for whom he literally notes:
“We re-baptize them all. If it be forbidden with you, (as it is at Rome) [27]
for prudential causes, yet let reason prevail.” This freedom of
Basil the Great, a freedom in the Holy Spirit, and his greatness of heart with
a fullness of pastoral duty of a hierarch and theologian, pastor, and canonist,
was not only particular to him, but also characterized all the other Fathers before
and after him. This rule was followed as canonical and liturgical wisdom for
the edification of the Church. This is why the authority of Basil the Great is
so great. Basil concludes at the end of Canon I, “On every ground let
it be enjoined that those who come to us from their baptism be anointed in the
presence of the faithful, and only on these terms approach the mysteries.”
This practice is expressed by Basil the Great in Canons I
and XLVII (47) and shows that ecclesiastical economy can transcend lawful
exactitude [akriveia]. In this case, an unfulfilled baptism of
schismatics is not repeated, but received with the Holy Oil of the Holy Spirit,
especially bishops accompanied by their flock, so that they may be united to
the fullness (pleroma) of the Church, where the Holy Spirit revivifies
and completes all that is dead and lacking in them. [28] Thus we can say with
confidence that the Holy Mysteries do not exist outside or above the Church and
their forms are not the criterion of ecclesiality and salvation. However, the
Church is the criterion and the seal of all those who come to the Church. Consequently,
the Church as a summarized salvation of Christ is the only path of salvation,
the Mother of all of us (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22-24, and Methodius of
Mount Olympus, Symposium 8: 5-8).
The position and practice of the Church is traced in the
Holy Canons of the Fathers and the Synods (and we already mentioned Canon VIII
of Nicaea, Canon VII of Constantinople, and Canon XCV (95) of the Council in
Trullo), as well as the Offices of the Church for the reception of heretics. We
have as examples Timotheos of Constantinople, 6th C, repeated by George
the Priestmonk, and John of Damascus, Methodius of Constantinople, the Book of
Prayers (Euchologion) of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the
“Interpretation of the commandments of the Lord” (Discourse LXIII, Pandekti) of
Nikon Mavroreitis, [29] and others. All these [views and practices] were later
introduced as canonical collections of the Orthodox Church and were translated
into Slavonic – “The Rudder” of Ephraim and the “Nomokanon” of Saint
Sava – as in other languages.
However, it is characteristic that Canon VII of the Second
Ecumenical council begins with the words of the Acts of the Apostles, with the
well-known verse 2:46-47, which expresses the ecclesiological-Eucharistic
truth: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be
saved.” The same canon restates the Epistle of Patriarch Gennadius of
Constantinople (5th C) to Martyrius of Antioch and is literally repeated
in Canon XCV (95) of the Council in Trullo, where it uses the words from
Acts: “THOSE who from the heretics come over to orthodoxy, and to the
number of those who should be saved, we receive according to the following
order and custom.” [30] This expresses the attitude of the Acts of the
Apostles. These sacred canons and the practice of the Church add that those who
come to the Church in repentance with their rejection of heresy or schism are
received with the laying of hands and with Holy Oil, with the phonation, “Seal
of the gift of the Holy Spirit”, and thereafter they receive Holy
Communion. The same happens as mentioned in Canon I of Basil the Great. This
means that only through entry into the Church, those who were not yet
[received] are incorporated in the unity and communion of the Church – in the
fellowship of the saved.
To not expound further, we could make the following
conclusions: the most significant is not what we recognize when we admit
heretics, whom we are obligated to baptize, or others who should receive
chrismation with Holy Oil. Rejection of heresy and repentance on their part is
obviously preconditional, but the most important is their entrance and union
with the Church. [31] Thus unfortunately Fr. George Florovsky fails to relate
communion and union with the Church, in this essay about the “Boundaries of the
Church”.
Hilarion (Troitsky) [32] speaks about the admission of
heretics in the Church for their gathering in the unity of the Church, in his
Epistle on 18 of January 1917 to the American Robert Gardiner, the secretary of
“Faith and Order” committee and responsible to organize the Worldwide
Conference of Christians (it was at the beginning of the Ecumenical movement).
We will not go through the entire epistl3. [33] We will only note the basic
formulations of Archbishop Hilarion: the meaning of salvation in the Church is
the coming of a person into Her unity, whereas the manner of admission is a
secondary matter. Sacramental-charismatic and salvific significance is at the
level of the very same communion in the Church, by which one is received into
the unity of the Church (repentance, laying of hands, Chrismation), and
consequently, with participation in the Holy Eucharist, the sacramental and
ecclesiological Body of Christ.
Therefore, the most important is the Mystery of Christ,
which is the Church. For this reason, admission to the Church, union with Her,
signifies the entry into the fullness of the Church, the fullness of Grace, the
fullness of salvation, the fullness of the incorporation into the Body Christ.
It is truly an incorporation, an embodiment and a churchification in the Body
of the Theanthropos (as Saint Justin Popovich would say). This means entry into
the full communion of the Holy Trinity, which is revealed and in which we
participate in the gathering of the Church, in Liturgy as the sacrament of the
Supper of the Kingdom, here and now, and a foretaste and participation in the
eschatological Kingdom.
Fr. Florovsky, as we know, referred to the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Church that unites us all, and which is the
“House of God” (in his well-known essay, “The House of the Father” [34]), the
dwelling of the Holy Spirit, the pillar and ground of the Truth. The Faith of
the Church, the great Mystery of Faith, is not simply a “confession”, as some
uphold today, but is the selfsame Church. The correct faith – Orthodoxy – is an
action of entry into the fullness of the Church, even if it alone does not
constitute a sufficient provision for salvation. For it must always express the
deeper entry into the unity of the Church. [35] Thus, prior to Holy
Communion, in the fullness of liturgical language and practice, we petition,
“The unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit…”.
Concluding this brief study, we will cite two fragments from
the same work of Fr. George Florovsky: “In the ancient Church the ceremony of
initiation was not differentiated. The three sacraments go together: Baptism,
Holy Chrismation and Divine Liturgy. The initiation described by Saint Cyril
and later by Cavasilas is comprised by all three. (…) The sacramental life of
believers is the edification of the Church. Through sacraments and in them, the
new life of Christ is extended and conferred to the members of His Body”. [36]
In this context, it is valuable to note what can be
considered as a confession of the very same Fr. George Florovsky: “As a member
and a priest of the Orthodox Church, I believe that the Church in which I was
baptized and raised ‘is’ in very truth ‘the Church’, i.e. ‘the true’ Church and
the ‘only’ true Church. And I believe this for many reasons: owing to personal
conviction and to internal confirmation of the Spirit, who breathes into the
Sacraments of the Church. Therefore, I am compelled to regard all other
Christian Churches as defective, and in many cases I can define the
deficiencies of these other Churches accurately enough. Therefore, for me,
Christian reunion is simply universal conversion to Orthodoxy. (…) “Judgement”
has been given to the Son. No one has been appointed to pre-empt His judgement.
Of course, the Church has Her command inside history. The command firstly to
preach and preserve the word of truth. There is some rule of faith and order
which must be considered as a canon. Whatever exists beyond is an
“abnormality”. But this “abnormality” must be healed, and not simply be
condemned. This is what justifies an Orthodox to participate in ecumenical
dialogue, with the hope that with his witness the Truth of God makes possible
to win human beings”. [37]
This is the ecumenical protopresbyter George Florovsky. We
consider the essay on “The Boundaries of the Church” as a product of a young
Florovsky, fragmented and lacking clarity. However, he remains a theologian
that contemplates, unafraid to theologize and to speak about the Church,
because he feels like a son in the house of his Father, and has the freedom in
Christ, with which we become “fellow citizens with the saints, and of
the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19). This freedom liberates us with
the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Church of the Living and Philanthropos God,
who became man for us men and for our salvation –and the entire world.
Consequently, we cannot separate the boundaries of the
economy of God from the limits of the Eucharist. And thus, we cannot expand the
charismatic limits beyond the canonical, nor can we restrict the canonical so
much so that we exclude the practice of the Church in the reception of
heretics. The moment that admission and participation in the unity of the
Church is realized, meaning in the Eucharist, then we judge those who come; and
moreover, not in an objective manner otherwise we would be objectifying the
Sacraments above the Church. This constitutes a paradox, a type of antinomy,
yet, in the end, this is the truth.
- - -
1. This Essay was published in the quarterly journal of the
Church of Greece, “THEOLOGIA” («Θεολογία), 2010. Volume 4 was dedicated to the
important works of Fr. George Florovsky. This address was first introduced in
French at the International Conference “Fr. George Florovsky and renewal of
Orthodox theology in the 20th C, which took place in Paris, 27-29
November, 2009. This article was translated by Nicholas Pantelopoulos.
Translator’s note: The title of Fr. George Florovsky’s work, as it is published
in the Collected Works, Vol. XIII, is “The Boundaries of the Church”
(FLOROVSKY, George, The Collected Works, Vol. XIII, Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal
Approach”, Büchervertriebsansalt, Vaduz, Europa, Liechtenstein, 1989, pp.
36-45.
2. “О границах Церкви”, Путь 44 (July-September 1934), pg.
15-26, and in Greek translation of Florovsky’s “The Limits of the Church”, The
Body of the Living Christ (An orthodox understanding of the Church), published,
Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki, 1972, pg. 127-148.
3. With the help of our dear Michel Stavrou, I had the
opportunity to read other articles on this subject by Fr. George Florovsky.
They are as follows: FAMEREE Joseph, « Les limites de l’ Église: l’apport de
Georges Florovsky au dialogue catholique-orthodoxe », Revue théologique de
Louvain, 34/ 2 (2003), pp. 137-154. MARENGO Marco, I confine della Chiesa nel
pensiero di Georges Florovsky, Tesi di Dottorato, (Firenze 2006). For this
subject, there are two very important studies by Metropolitan of Pergamon, John
Zizioulas, a dedication to Fr. George Florovsky («Πατήρ Γεώργιος Φλωρόβσκυ: ὁ
οἰκουμενικός δάσκαλος», Σύναξη 64/1977, pp. 13-26 (see the current volume of
Theologia, pg. 31-48) and the other on the subject of the limits (“Orthodox
Ecclesiology and the Ecumenical Movement”, Sourozh 21/1985, pg. 16-27). It is
about the lecture which was delivered on 13-02-1985, at Ladbroke Grove, London.
4. See, “Провлематика христианского воссоединенеия”, Путь 37
(February, 1934 -supplement), pg. 1-15, [Translator’s notes, and a Greek
translation in this article in THEOLOGIA, pg. 119-136].
5. FLOROVSKY, G. “Οι Ανατολικοί Πατέρες του δ’ αιώνα”,
translated by P. Ralli, published by P. Pournara, Thessaloniki 2006.
6. FLOROVSKY, G. “Οι βυζαντινοί Πατέρες των στ’-η’ αιώνων”,
translated by P. Ralli, published by P. Pournara, Thessaloniki 1993.
7. An analysis of the ecclesiological positions of Saint
Cyprian was made, before Fr. George, by B. A. Troitsky (the afterwards
archbishop and saint, Ilarion, Confessor of Christ, +1929) in his post-
graduate study: “Очеркц цз из ицсмориицц о Церквицц, Сергиев Посад”, 1912 (it
was republished on Творения, tome 1, Moscow 2004, pp. 253-308). Also, the then
layman John Zizioulas (currently Metropolitan of Pergamon) in his doctoral
thesis, “On the Unity of the Church in the Holy Eucharist and the Bishop during
the first three centuries”, Gregory, Athens 1990, pp. 121-134, mentions Saint
Cyprian. Soon, we will publish our own study on the teaching of Saint Cyprian
on Baptism and his positions concerning the canonical and charismatic limits of
the Church, which he considers identical.
8. Many Fathers of the Church speak about economy. See
Gregory the Theologian, Homily 21, 34, PG 35, 1124Z, Homily 21, 13, PG 35,
1096, etc. The position of Saint Evlogios of Alexandria concerning divine
economy, see Photius the Great, Bibliotheca, 227, publ. by R. Henry, Les Belles
Lettres, Paris 1964, v. IV, pp. 113-114.
9. Concerning Trinitarian economy of grace of the salvation
by Apostle Paul and the Fathers, see more in my doctoral thesis, “The
ecclesiology of Apostle Paul”, publ. Gregory, Athens 1967, especially chapter
1.
10. This is exactly what Florovsky means when he speaks
about the faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which reveals
her nature, which is not of this world, and consequently is primarily the
object of faith. By expressing the Symbol of Faith in the Church, we position
it together with God Himself and confess Her divinity and holiness. In the
Church, we believe and can only believe, because it is the Body of Christ, the
fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22-23). The name of the Church
as the Body of Christ links Her being with the Mystery of Divine Incarnation,
with the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, – and is perpetually alive, and the
irrevocable basis of the visibility of the Church comprising the realization of
that event that the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The teaching about the
Church as being visible and simultaneously invisible, historically given and
Divine at the same time, is the continuation and unfolding of the
Christological doctrine in the spirit of the definition of the faith of
Chalcedon. Only from Her profound ecclesiastical experience of the doctrine of
Chalcedon can we understand the Church in Her fullness. Or, in reverse, through
the doctrine of Chalcedon we can know the Theanthropic nature of the Church, [this
is a paraphrase from the article of Florovsky, “The House of the Father”,
published in Путь 7 (April 1926), pp. 63-85, see the Greek translation, of
Arch. Meletius Kalamara, on FLOROVSKY, G. An Anatomy of Problems of Faith”,
Rigopoulos, Thessaloniki 1977, pp. 100-146]. This article proves the view, with
which we agree, that the boundaries of the Church coincide, on the one hand
with the boundless limits of Divine Economy, consequently including all, and on
the other with the specific canonical limits of the Church revealed in the Holy
Eucharist.
11. See the important text of FLOROVSKY, George,
“Confessional Loyalty in the Ecumenical Movement”, in Intercommunion, D.
Baillie, -J. Mash (ed.) (Harper and Bros, New York 1952), pp. 196-205, and the
Greek translation as “Inter-communion: Ὁμολογιακὴ πιστότης ἐντός τῆς
οἰκουμενικῆς κινήσεως», in FLOROVSKY, George, “Θέματα Ορθοδόξου
Ὁρθοδόξου Θεολογίας”, Artos Zois, Athens 1973, pp. 211-220.
12. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut.
From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson,
and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.,
1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .
13. The position of Cyprian is found in summary in his own
Synodical epistle 50 (since it was written by the Synod), which is included as
a special Canon in the canonical collections of the Church. Concerning Saint
Cyprian and his canon, the Fathers of the Synod in Trullo (in Canon II, where
in the end the canon of Cyprian is referenced) say: “It has also seemed good
to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the
holy and blessed Fathers before us, (…) Moreover the Canon set forth by
Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod
under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops,
according to the custom delivered down to them.” [Alivizatos, A., “The
sacred canons and the Ecclesiastical laws”, Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens 1949,
pp. 75-76]. The underlined words were possibly the reason for the particular
history of this canon, which is ecclesiastically correct. For in the East, as
in the case of Cyprian, it was understood that among heretics, even
schismatics, there is no salvific baptism, because the Holy Spirit does not
impart itself outside of the Church. However, when the Church received
schismatics and heretics who confessed the Holy Trinity, in the East and in
Rome, by economy they would not rebaptize (see. Canon VIII of the Council of
Arelate in 314, canon VIII of the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Carthage in
348, Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon XCV in Trullo, which
repeats the former canon, and Canon I of Basil the Great).
14. See ZIZIOULA, John, “Ἡ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας” [The Unity
of the Church”], pp. 127 and 186.
15. This is the known Epistle no. 75, which was preserved in
Latin alongside with the Epistles of Saint Cyprian (Bayard, Correspondence, v.
2, pp. 280-308). In this epistle, Saint Firmilian writes to Cyprian a very
severe critique about Pope Stephen and his view, as well as his threats that
anyone who disagrees with him will be excommunicated. These have resulted in
many… Disagreements with all the Churches and to cut himself off from the unity
of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his flock, and to
rebel against the sacrament of faith” (75, 4, 2). Concerning the limits of the
Church, it is noteworthy that Basil the Great valued Saint Firmilian, whom he
consequently succeeded, having before him the ecclesiastical tradition which he
inherited from him. Although later he would accept certain heretics without
baptism, Basil the Great preserved the theological core which Saint Firmilian
upheld. For what is most important is the reintegration of heretics into the
unity of the Church and not an “objectified” acceptance of Baptism outside the
Church.
16. Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland
Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and
edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .
17. ATHANASIUS, “Contra Arianos” Discourse II (42 :14,
15-21) (Translation Philip Schaff).
18. ZIZIOULAS, John, Ἡ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας” [The Unity
of the Church], ex. pp. 127, 126, 129. Although John Zizioulas correctly
comments when discussing Saint Cyprian that the faith and Orthodoxy of Cyprian
is an ecclesiological given. The correct faith cannot be, surely, a means of
salvation as a self-existing means, but is dependent on the entire devotion of
the faithful to the Catholic Church (…) The Catholic Church is the one which
incarnates the fullness of Orthodoxy, the Holy Eucharist and all the means of
salvation, every sacrament: Ordination and Baptism. Due to the ecclesiological
content of the Eucharist, schismatics and heretics who do not partake in Her,
cannot perform valid sacraments. For Cyprian, the basis of “validity” of
baptism of heretics is: if they had partaken in the unity of Holy Eucharist,
they would have partaken in the charismatic and salvific life of the Church.
Cyprian expresses this position clearly, that Eucharistic unity reveals the
pleroma (fullness) of the unity of the Church. See Cyprian, Epistle 69:5-6.
19. EUSEBIUS, “Church History”, Book VII, Section 4.
Translation Philip Schaff.
20. The English translation of Saint Jerome’s account
in De viris iIllustribus, Chapter 69, reads, “Consenting to the
doctrine of Cyprian and the African synod, on the rebaptizing of heretics, he
sent many letters to different people, which are yet extant;” (Translated by
Ernest Cushing Richardson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series,
Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian
Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin
Knight. .
21. The original epistle has been preserved in Syrian
translation only (See Cardinal PITRA, Analecta Sancta, Vol. IV, p. 170).
22. EUSEBIUS, “Church History” Book VII, Section 9.
Translation Philip Schaff.
23. BASIL the Great, Concerning the Canons
(Canonica Prima), Epistle CLXXXVIII to Amphilochius, Paragraph I. Translation
by Philip Schaff.
24. BASIL the Great, Ibid.
25. BASIL the Great, Ibid.
26. This canon addresses Enratites, Saccophorians, and
Apotactites.
27. Translator’s note: This text is taken directly from the
Canons and it is slightly worded differently in the English translation of the
Epistle. The phrase “as it is at Rome” was most likely added as a clarification
to the Canon XLVII. The actual Epistle reads, “All these I re-baptize on the
same principle. If among you their re-baptism is forbidden, for the sake of
some arrangement, nevertheless let my principle prevail.” (Translation by
Philip Schaff).
28. The prayer of ordination is very characteristic:
“Divine Grace always heals the sick and completes what is lacking”. This is not
random, such a prayer of ordination; it demonstrates that in the Church the
Holy Spirit completes with its Grace, through Chrismation, whatever is lacking
during the reception of those with an unfulfilled baptism.
29. 11th C.
30. The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Philip Schaff.
31. The importance of unity with the Church is shown in the
ancient confessions of Faith: “Lord Jesus Christ, Shepherd and Lamb, receive me
your penitent servant, and join me and unite me in your Holy Church”.
32. Fr. George Florovsky mentions him in only one Footnote,
but it seems that he had not read his works, which were not widely known
moreover in the Russian diaspora.
33. This letter was published many times. Here we use the
Russian edition of 1995, of the Meeting of the Lord Monastery in Moscow, in a
collection volume with title: “Единство Церкви и Всемирная конференция
Христианста”, pp. 52-105. This last edition in Творения. Т. 3, Стеренский
монастыр.ыр, (Москва 2004), pp. 495-540. In this text, Saint Hilarion recalls
the Metropolitans Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, with
whom he agrees on the question of the limits of the Church. He critiques the position
of Saint Augustine and the distinction he makes between “having sacraments” and
“having sacraments with benefit”, considering this as the start of the
scholastic distinction between the reality and activity of the Sacrament. “In
Augustine the principle of the Roman Catholic teaching on opus operatum (which
Florovsky seems to adopt) is evident, and it signifies that the sacrament is
independent from the Church, but only dependent upon some expressed forms”. We
saw that Saint Firmilianus of Cappadocia protested this opinion, whom Hilarion
references, as well as Dionysius of Alexandria (pp. 65, 69, 76). In the end, he
characteristically concludes: “the position of the opponents of Pope Stephen
about the possibility of the existence of certain acts in the reception of
heretics and schismatics in the Church is explained only with the condition
that these Fathers of the Church found that sometimes for the peace and benefit
of the Church it was best not to ask to rebaptize, believing in the sacramental
and charismatic power of the very same union with the Church” (pp. 76).
34. See “The House of the Father”, published in Russian in
Путь 7 (April 1926), pp. 63-85, see the greek translation of Archbishop
Meletios Kalamaras on Florovsky, G. Ἀνατομία Προβλημάτων Πίστεως, Rigopoulos,
Thessaloniki 1977, pp. 100-146.
35. ZIZIOULAS, John, “Ἡ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας” [The
Unity of the Church], p. 126.
36. FLOROVSKY, G., «Ἀπολύτρωση» στὴ Δημιουργία καὶ
Ἀπολύτρωση», Ἔργα 3, translated by Palli, Pournara, Thessaloniki 1983, pp. 176,
179.
37. FLOROVSKY, G., “Inter-communion: Confessional
loyalty in the ecumenical movement”, from the Greek translated by A. Koumantos,
ΦΛΩΡΟΒΣΚΥ Γ., Θέματα Όρθόδοξης Θεολογίας, Artos Zois, Athens 1973, pp. 211-220.
Source: https://orthodoxethos.com/post/fr-george-florovsky-on-the-boundaries-of-the-church
