It is often argued, especially in the online Orthodox sphere, that “apologetics,” which is a subset of theology to be carried out in a context informed by a proper understanding of evangelism, is in antithetical tension with ecumenism. It is believed that an ecumenist is necessarily opposed to evangelism and apologetics and despises the great commission to go and “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19),” whereas evangelism is carried out by those who hate ecumenism and are uncompromising traditionalists (more appropriately called neo-traditionalists).
This sentiment is an example of the ignorance plaguing much Orthodox discourse and attitudes in North America today, especially regarding how the vision of Orthodoxy in the West we have all come to know was created. The fact is that leading up to and during the 20th century Orthodox evangelism was inseparable from ecumenical activity, its greatest apologists were theologians for whom ecumenism was integral to their work and theological outlook, and its greatest triumphs were all a result of this ecumenical-evangelical witness. I am, of course, speaking especially about the émigré theologians that came to the West fleeing Bolshevism, who found support in ecumenical fellowship first with Anglicans and then in the World Council of Churches, and who effectively revived Orthodox theology and made the West aware of it in all its riches, rather than as an insular, ethnicity focused community whose theology was confined to old scholastic manuals. The reason the Eastern Christian tradition, with its rich patristic theology, exegesis, and spirituality, is what it is for us today, and has the academic presence and intellectual respect it does, is because of ecumenism and those groups, institutions, and persons associated with it.
The anti-ecumenists who came to the West, by contrast, were not a great contributing force to Orthodox apologetics.[1] ROCOR’s (the Karlovtsy) thought was focused on preserving old Russian manualism and dreams of a revived Russian Tsardom, and for much of its history flirted with schismatics while criticizing and accusing canonical Orthodox jurisdictions. Undoubtedly ROCOR contained and produced holy people, but there was no great apologetic work, and it did not contribute to the flowering of Orthodox theology. Fr. Michael Pomozansky’s Dogmatics, for example, fine for what it is as an elementary manual, makes little if any mention or explication of St. Gregory Palamas, Hesychasm, or Theosis. The same is true for other anti-ecumenical strands that came over to or emerged in Western Orthodoxy, they were often aligned with or sympathetic to schismatic Old Calendarists, and the influence they had was within Orthodoxy, not outside of it. It is only with the development of the internet, and really only in recent years, that this anti-ecumenical strand has “made” enough converts that its influencers can brag that they are the real force of evangelism. But what exactly has happened? It is the work of those ecumenical Orthodox institutions and persons that are being read because of greater availability online, and anti-ecumenical, often sectarian, opportunists are making use of this state of affairs, using these writings to promote an ideology completely opposed to that ethos from which the writings were created.
The above said, to begin this series we will start by looking at two key Orthodox figures which contributed to the flowering of Orthodox theology in the West, namely Fr. Georges Florovsky and Vladimir Lossky, as well as a soon to be canonized theologian who represents the best of ecumenical Orthodoxy, Fr. Dumitru Staniloae. If they aren’t trustworthy guides to the relation between ecumenism and evangelism and what this means for a proper Orthodox identity, then no one is.
Florovsky: The Ecumenist Par Excellence
Fr. Georges Florovsky, who St. Sophrony of Essex considered his kindred spirit and guide to the mind of the fathers, and who St. Justin Popovich said was on the iconostasis of Orthodox theology, was also the chief architect of Orthodox ecumenism in the 20th century. Beginning his ecumenical career in the discussion group of Nicholas Berdyaev in Paris, and eventually becoming the most prominent figure in Orthodox-Anglican Dialogue in the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius,[2] Florovsky would go on to be a founding member of the World Council of Churches and representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its vision established in the encyclical of 1920 Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere.[3] At no point did Florovsky’s ecumenical views ever change,[4] and it was his ecumenical vision that not only influenced the WCC to capitulate to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology (the Toronto Statement), but also his vision became effectively the canon according to which Orthodox jurisdictions such as the OCA, the MP, and of course the Ecumenical Patriarchate, formalized their own official stances on ecumenical activity.
Needless to say, Fr. Georges Florovsky’s influence on Orthodox theology is second to none. The understanding of Orthodox theology as returning to and moving forward with the fathers, the theological ideal of acquiring the patristic “mind,” the emphasis on promoting byzantine studies, all of these bear his indelible mark and are conducted in his shadow. This also means Florovsky’s influence may be the greatest “apologetic” activity of the Orthodox Church in the Western world. In his ecumenical and scholarly activity Florovsky contributed immensely to the transformation of how Western Christians viewed Church history, the importance of patristics, and the question of the Church. For example, Florovsky’s series on the Byzantine Fathers, which was reportedly received by certain “traditionalist” Orthodox with fear because it would show the inadequacy of their manuals, inspired the work of Jaroslav Pelikan in his own monumental series on the history of doctrine and his eventual conversion to Orthodoxy.[5]
But how could it be true that Fr. Georges Florovsky was a pioneer of Orthodox evangelism when he was the chief architect of ecumenism? He believed that Roman Catholics had the fullness of the sacraments including the Eucharist,[6] he defended the existence of sacraments and effectual grace (in proportion to love and charity) outside the Orthodox Church’s canonical bounds,[7] he championed Orthodox participation in the WCC and was their leading face, he was, in short, the ecumenist’s ecumenist. The answer is that for Florovsky evangelism and ecumenism were not at odds, rather, they were inextricably connected.
The main reality and issue which ecumenism has as its goal to resolve is the paradox of schism, the reality that those who participate in Christ sacramentally and who call on His name are really divided. Fr. Georges Florovsky believed that the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the Una Sancta, whose sacraments and grace other confessional bodies of differing ecclesial status participate, though in schism, and as such it is the duty of the Orthodox Church by its very nature to engage in ecumenism to resolve all schisms and unite all who worship Christ.[8] Because of this, ecumenism is evangelism. The Orthodox in ecumenical activity are called to witness to the fullness of the faith held by East and West, and this outward witness necessitates an inner “reintegration” of Orthodoxy’s own tradition, a return to and creative synthesis of its own catholic sources to present the fullness of the faith without one-sidedness or false accretions.[9] Polemical proselytism has no place here; this reintegrative task is only possible if Orthodoxy conducts itself in a spirit of complete intellectual honesty and openness to learn with and from the “other,” not only to better understand its own riches but to understand the good in those groups which it desires to bring into union.
Orthodoxy is summoned to witness. Today more than ever before, the Christian West stands before an array of perspectives, like a living question addressed to the Orthodox world as well. This is the whole point of the so-called ecumenical movement. An Orthodox theology is called upon to show that the ‘ecumenical question’ can only be resolved in the fulfillment of the Church, within the totality of a catholic tradition, uncontaminated and inviolable, yet ever renewed and ever growing… The way to Christian renewal is a critical, not an ironic one. The old theology of denunciation has long lost all meaningful relation to reality – it was an academic discipline based on Western manuals… In the new and desired Orthodox synthesis, the centuries-old experience of the Catholic West must be taken into account with more care and sympathy than our theology has shown to date… A creative renaissance of the Orthodox world is a mandatory precondition for any resolution of the ‘ecumenical problem.’[10]
In short, the path of ecumenical dialogue and theological scholarship, in which schism is resolved and knowledge is transformed through intellectually honest research and creative encounter, is the proper evangelical path for the Church as a whole. Apologetics are to be conducted within this context, not in opposition to it, and it is better to transform the views of other Christians by good scholarship and theological witness, inspiring them to imitate and learn from us, than it is to convert by half-truths, false narratives, lies and deceit. To take the anti-ecumenical path is not only to bear false witness to Christ, but also to create a pseudomorphosis in Orthodoxy damaging our own self understanding, and is the opposite of true intellectual ascetic effort.
Lossky: Uncovering Mystical Unity
While Florovsky was the architect of Orthodox ecumenism and neopatristic theology it was Vladimir Lossky who became the most popular theologian thanks especially to his book titled The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, the single most important book in modern Orthodox theology.[11] This book, and thus Lossky himself, is what formed the inner and outer perspective on Orthodoxy vis a vis Western forms of Christianity for the 20th century, making Orthodoxy desirable for converts and a real challenge to be grappled with for Catholics and Protestants. It also inspired such luminaries of Orthodoxy as the late Met. Kallistos Ware whose evangelical impact needs no introduction. It is no exaggeration to say that the Orthodoxy almost every convert has been drawn to convert to is a vision of Orthodoxy that has Lossky’s stamp on it.
While Vladimir Lossky’s theology was coloured by certain polemics and a view in which abstract doctrinal differences led to necessary historical outcomes, which Florovsky critiqued, he was not an anti-ecumenist. On the contrary, Lossky considered himself a westerner and studied medieval Western spirituality under Étienne Gilson. When Bulgakov had reposed and Florovsky had gone to America Lossky was asked to join, and soon became the chief representative of Orthodoxy for, the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Lossky was also intimately involved with the circles and persons which contributed to the Roman Catholic movement of ressourcement or Nouvelle Théologie, and his The Mystical Theology even began as a series of conferences given to a group which would come to found the Dieu vivant journal, which Lossky was a part of and which worked to promote the new perspective in Catholic theology.[12] Lossky’s polemics were not anti-ecumenical, they were part of the conversation in Roman Catholic theology with which he was intimately familiar, and were only a part of Lossky’s theological work focused on (a) making Orthodoxy known and relevant to the West and (b) discovering the common core of spirituality East and West shared even after the schism.
Throughout his short life (he died of a heart attack at 54 years old) he was not only engaged in these ecumenical activities, but he also operated on an ecumenical theology. He elucidated this clearly in a presentation titled The Doctrine of Grace in the Orthodox Church:[13]
The absence of unity in the Christian world is a cruel reality, constantly present in the conscience of every Christian concerned with the common destiny of humanity. Who could say, especially in the times in which we live, that the destiny of disunited Christianity leaves us indifferent without incurring the terrible condemnation of Revelation: “Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16)?
The wound caused by these separations remains virulent and bleeding… I would like to quote here some words of Karl Barth which clearly express my thinking [he then quotes Barth at length to the effect that Christians are objectively united in Christ but are also separated by doctrinal differences that can only be overcome, to discover the union in Christ we share, by adherence to our respective confessional traditions in dialogue.]
And I would add to Barth: we discover this union of the Churches on condition that we go to the very end in the clear and sincere confession of the faith of our specific and historical Churches or communities, to which alone we are committed. Hence in seeking to present aspects of the Orthodox doctrine of grace, we will certainly not seek to conceal or to downplay fundamental differences which exist on this subject with other Christian confessions. We do not wish to be polemical, since our aim is mutual understanding.
For Vladimir Lossky all Christians, especially those which have valid sacraments, are really united in Christ, and it is precisely because of this that schism is a horrible sin and ecumenical activity is the proper Christian response. Indeed, to be ecumenical is to be “on fire” for Christ and not lukewarm! Lossky further expressed his belief in the validity of sacraments among non-Orthodox in an introductory note to an article by Pat. Sergius of Moscow, and Met. Kallistos Ware used this to express his own view:
Faithful to its vocation to assist the salvation of all, the Church of Christ values every "spark of life," however small, in the dissident communities. In this way it bears witness to the fact that, despite the separation, they still retain a certain link with the unique and life-giving center, a link that is — so far as we are concerned — "invisible and beyond our understanding." There is only one true Church, the sole bestower of sacramental grace; but there are several ways of being separated from that one true Church, and varying degrees of diminishing ecclesial reality outside its visible limits.[14]
This is, it should be noted, completely consistent with the sacramentology given in Vladimir Lossky’s The Mystical Theology, as the sacraments are the absolutely objective reality of Christ’s Body and are not subject to personal change or exceptions.[15] On this basis Lossky firmly states that the practice of re-baptising converts to Orthodoxy is an example of an ecclesiological Monophysitism, a heresy, and a sin against the economy of the Church.[16] As Lossky rightly understood, economy has to do with governing the Church in accordance with the economy of salvation, and cannot change or abrogate the objective sacramental reality of Christ’s Body which is the foundation of this economy. But, while Lossky is clear on his stance on these issues, his main focus was never the minutia of canons, it was rather the discovery of that unity with the Trinity, of theosis, which constitutes the core of authentic Tradition. Lossky believed that this was shared by East and West, but clouded, and that the East must help to uncover this again for the West including the remnants in the Western tradition, such as in Meister Eckhart, 12th century Cistercian mysticism, and even in St. Augustine.
Staniloae: Building up the Body
Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, a soon to be canonized confessor, who contributed immensely to the revival of Palamite theology and the Philokalia, achieved the prayer of the heart under Communist imprisonment, and is considered by many the greatest Orthodox theologian of the 20th century, was also a powerful ecumenical voice. He participated in the first official conference between Eastern Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians in Addis Ababa, was part of the Orthodox consultation to the WCC in 1974, participated in several dialogues with the Evangelical Churches in Germany, and came to a more favorable view of Roman Catholicism through participating in the second plenary meeting of the Orthodox-Roman Catholic International Commission of Dialogue.[17] And, while some statements or reported statements of his are polemical as a result of his unfortunate experience with Byzantine Catholic proselytism in Romania, his rich theological vision was thoroughly inseparable from an ecumenical view of Christian relations and the cosmos.
The concept Fr. Dumitru Staniloae created to characterize and define Orthodox ecumenical evangelism was “Open Sobornicity.” What this name signifies is the recognition of the Orthodox Church that God in Christ is at work in and through all those confessions which worship him, and that Orthodoxy in its witness to other Christians must be open to learning from them, praying with them, and finding the theological and spiritual value which has grown in their distinct traditions, even to the point of drawing on them for self-correction through critical reflection.[18] This is not to compromise the Orthodox faith, far from it, for Staniloae the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ which is called, as the bearer of grace and faith in its fullest manifestation, to resolve the schisms not only for the sake of Christian unity but for the unity of the entire world and cosmos. Thus in the fourth volume of his dogmatics Staniloae affirms that other Christian confessions are related to the Orthodox Church in different degrees, including sacramentally, that the goal of ecumenical activity is to “re-establish the unity of the Church,” which has been divided, by bringing all those who have an imperfect relation to the Church into the fullness of union and thus the fullness of Christ, and that the sacraments of the non-Orthodox are efficacious to their communicants insofar as they are not taken in the spirit of will to schism.[19] It is clear that, for Staniloae, Orthodox ecumenical activity which promotes right theology and spirituality especially as regards theosis, benefits the non-Orthodox by allowing them to participate in Christ to a greater degree within their own confessions:
Within the different Christian confessions, there are many believers whose Christian life has not been reduced to their particular denomination's official doctrinal formulas… In Catholicism, for example, the mysteries are even today practiced along with the conviction of the faithful that through these mysteries they are intimately and directly united with Christ, and that Christ is therefore working within the Church. These convictions persist even though Catholic theological theory… declares that the grace received in the mysteries is a created grace.
This belief that Christ’s activity and presence continues to exist, not statically but actively and effectually in guiding other confessions to produce spiritual fruit and legitimate witness to revelation, allows Fr. Dumitru Staniloae to argue boldly that the ecumenical movement is part of God’s providence in bringing about the growth of the kingdom of God and recapitulation of creation:
The Orthodox Church and Orthodox theologians have become conscious in recent times, as have the other Church’s and their theologians, that the risen Christ has an efficacity in the general scheme of history… History moves towards a fulfillment, like that which the revelation in Christ calls the Kingdom of Heaven… The striving of humanity towards a better future has become a dominant fact, and is today evident to all. The Churches… believe that it is Christ Himself who is secretly exercising His action on history, in drawing it towards the end which He has promised…
Orthodoxy also, in its more recent theology, has begun to open itself to experiences and articulations of the Christian mystery necessary to the spiritual level of contemporary mankind. In this way the Christian Churches have begun to get rid of many of the obstacles which stood in the way of their coming together, and have begun to move forward toward a situation in which together they will be able to seek for new expressions of the Christian mystery… The progress of mankind towards unity which is present in men’s fundamental aspirations at every level, obliges the Churches to engage in this search together for new and common expressions of the Christian faith…
Essentially all Christians live by their redemptive relationship with Christ, by faith in Him, by hope in the resurrection accomplished in Him. All of us advance toward that common resurrection, being all led by the action of Christ, and by our own action in a common history. We are all made spiritual by the Spirit of Christ. These are the encouragements which are common to all of us, and these are the foundations of our unity in Christ, which we long may become ever closer and more intimate.[20]
The above quoted short lecture, given at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, should be read in full alongside Fr. Dumitru Staniloae’s treatment of history and eschaton in the sixth volume of his dogmatics. In short, Staniloae envisioned ecumenism as evangelism in which the Orthodox Church’s task is, through open sobornicity, transfiguring the creation, spiritualizing it, working for the union of all Christians and realization of the Kingdom of God in human society and in relation to creation. This is to be achieved, as fully as possible, in this period of history as synergy between man and God prior to the advent of the eschaton in the fullness of time.
Evangelism within a Total Vision
Evangelism then, as we learn from the example of the above theologians, finds its proper context and understanding within a wholistic vision of the Church and divine economy as it is working in history. This is obvious from Christ’s own command, “go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mtt 28:19).” If other Christian confessions are doing this baptizing and are teaching the apostolic faith to the nations, then that informs our view of evangelism. It leads us to the conclusion that our evangelistic activity towards these Christians should be based on Christ’s other command, “that they may be one, even as we are one (Jn 17:22),” and the work towards this unity must be one that recognizes Christ’s presence and activity in them. If this is the case, then evangelism in this context is properly carried out through dialogue in which all sides work together, using honest and self-critical study, not only to reintegrate the legacy of the undivided Church, but to recognize the divine economy in each of our histories, and to unify our thought and spirituality in the present moving forward to the future. Apologetics then must rely upon and be subordinated to this dialogue and academic study and be carried out in the same spirit, not in a polemical spirit looking to tear down the other and present false or misleading theological or historical narratives, no matter how “effective” these are in manipulating potential converts.
This is essentially the shared vision in which evangelism was understood by Florovsky, Lossky, and Staniloae. It is the view that practically all those Orthodox theologians who contributed to the growth and revivification of Orthodoxy in the West shared; Meyendorff, Schmemann, Affanasiev, Gillet, Clément, Evdokimov, Bloom, Ware, Zizioulas, and on and on, including Saints such as Nikolai Velimirović, Maria Skobtsova, and Sophrony of Essex, and which informs the official ecumenical stance of the vast majority of our hierarchy. I chose to present the views of Florovsky, Lossky, and Staniloae in this article because they are arguably the three most foundational voices of Orthodox theology of the 20th century, and because they are the most relied upon in the online apologetic context. It cannot be overstated that the image and thought world of Orthodoxy (tradition as living continuity, the importance of byzantine patristics, Palamism, Hesychasm, and personalism, communal ontology and freedom, etc.) that we in the West, especially as converts, fall in love with and then take for granted, is one “traditioned” to us by the above-mentioned theologians.
In light of the above, is it possible to claim that ecumenism, as these theologians and our hierarchy understand it, is antithetical and opposed to evangelism and apologetics? No. Is it even rationally intelligible to say an ecumenical ecclesiology undermines evangelism? Not at all! Ecumenism is the work of evangelism in which the Holy Spirit unites all those who call on the name of the Lord but have been separated, the Pentecostal presence of the Spirit not only being that which founds the Church but also that which persists within it, healing all schisms by guiding into all truth. Ecumenism is however opposed to a false “proselytism” and triumphalism, which themselves thrive on ignorance and hatred of the nuanced, and self-critical.
This rejection of triumphalism is especially needful because the real evil of schism is precisely the will to schism, and this sin begins within the Church. God’s grace and activity in the sacraments remain “for the gifts and call of God are irrevocable (Rom 11:29),” but their efficacy is hindered by refusal to love one another and preserve the bond of charity. If, as the above discussed theologians argued, Orthodoxy preserves the fullness of faith and spirituality and we wish for all Christians to be united to us, what does it say about our Church that currently thousands are being genocided in a war between Orthodox nations, priests calling for peace are silenced, and in North America many cheer it on based on propaganda over canonical issues or a perverse desire to see “Christian power” exercised in the spirit of antichrist? We cannot doubt that since among the non-Orthodox real holiness can be found corresponding to Christian love and nearness in faith, so to can individuals in Orthodoxy be found without the Spirit by their hate. And, while the current war on Ukraine is the most shocking example of hate and disunity, what are we to say about those who, in a spirit of stubbornness, not only reject Christ’s objective sacramental presence among the non-Orthodox but treat the Orthodox hierarchy, and their fellow siblings in faith, with contempt and teach others to do likewise?
What Orthodoxy must be, as a whole but beginning with each of us individually, is loyalty to Christ and that Christianity which is the core of the faith, the canon of truth, exegeted and its riches expounded through the best of our theological tradition. It must not be a slavish subservience to cultural and ecclesial deformations and prejudices. In the words of Olivier Clément:
Here I believe, with all my being, that the answer is called Orthodoxy. With no exclusivism and wholly for ecumenical sharing, but basically Orthodoxy. And to be more precise, the meeting of the West with Orthodoxy.[21]
This is the proper path of evangelism, and the only way to faithfully move forward with what has been traditioned to us. Indeed, it is the only way to conduct evangelism if we really believe that the kingdom of God will triumph in history, and does so by raising all of humanity up to perfection, “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 fulness of Christ (Eph 4:13).” A polemical, triumphalist, fundamentalist, and anti-ecumenical “evangelism” is not only a false proselytism, but also forgets the very spirit which opened the riches of Orthodoxy to us and, in forgetting this spirit, we degenerate and cannot continue in it. May we not forget the Holy Spirit also, and so lose Him.
[1] This is not to say that they did not contribute to evangelism. Evangelism includes not only intellectual work, but most importantly it is the witness of the Spirit by lived example, prayer, and the spread of the worship of God. All Orthodox jurisdictions, and Orthodox of all sorts of temperaments and convictions, have contributed to this evangelism. I do not wish to minimize that at all. However, as evangelism includes the creation of theological culture and apologetic presence, it is fair to say that the neo-traditionalist and rigorist strands of Orthodoxy were not great contributors in this regard.
[2] While Fr. Georges Florovsky would come to replace Fr. Sergius Bulgakov as the Orthodox representative in the eyes of the Fellowship, through triumphing in the debate over intercommunion, he in a footnote recommends Bulgakov’s article “At Jacob’s Well, Concerning the Real Unity of the Divided Church in Faith, Prayer, and Sacraments” in “The Limits of the Church” The Patristic Witness of Georges Florovsky: Essential Theological Writings. Edited by Brandon Gallaher and Paul Ladouceur (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2019), 256. While Florovsky had major disagreements with Bulgakov’s sophianic approach to and justification of ecumenism (CW 14, 212), their approach to and understanding of the canons of the Church in regard to reception of heterodox was virtually identical. Compare Florovsky’s “Limits” with the earlier “Fr Sergius Bulgakov’s Outlines of the Teaching About the Church: Address given at the Orthodox & Anglo-Catholic Conference” Fellowship of St Alban & St Sergius, 1926-1927. https://fsass.org/shop/archives/fr-sergius-bulgakovs-outlines-of-the-teaching-about-the-church/.
[3] Archb. Job Getcha, “Georges Florovsky and the World Council of Churches” in The Living Christ: The Theological Legacy of Georges Florovsky. John Chryssavgis & Brandon Gallaher, eds (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2021), 394-401. See also Fr. Matthew Baker & Seraphim Danckaert, “(31) Fr. Georges Florovsky” in Orthodox Handbook of Ecumenism: Resources for Theological Education. Pantelis Kalaitzidis, Thomas FitzGerald, Cyril Hovorun, Aikaterini Pekridou, Nikolaos Asproulis, Guy Liagre, Dietrich Werner, eds (Oxford, UK: Regnum Books International, 2014), 211-215.
[4] Fr. Matthew Baker, “Florovsky and Ecumenism: A Critique of False Claims” in Faith Seeking Understanding: The Theological Witness of Fr. Matthew Baker (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2021), 311-334. Originally published as comments on the website Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/06/28/the-limits-of-the-church-by-fr-georges-florovsky/).
[5] Paul L Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 177-178, 247.
[6] “… the Roman temple is in no way empty or deserted. The cloud of the glory of God is still over the temple. The Spirit of God breathes in Roman Catholicism, and not even all the unclean fumes of pernicious human passions and perversions can disturb this. The Saving thread of Apostolic succession has not been broken. The sacraments are performed. The bloodless sacrifice is brought and offered… Rome is incorrect in faith and weak in love. But Rome is not without Grace, not outside of grace. Strange as it may seem, the schism of West and East is a schism and division in faith and scarcity of love, but it is not a schism in grace and sacraments, it is not a division of the Spirit. And the Comforting Spirit (Dukh Uteshitelnyi) is one and indivisible even in schism (CW 14, 54-55).”
[8] Florovsky, “Confessional Loyalty in the Ecumenical Movement,” 285-286.
[9] “They [East and West] were partners in the same historical quest. They were rivals often. And yet, rivalry or competition does unite no less than an alliance. The point is that both West and the East are incomplete while disrupted. The task of reunion is imposed on both by the inner logic of Christian history. This is the spring of the ecumenical idea…It is but true to say, we are living now in an age of patristic revival. Greek fathers are once more recognized as competent and safe theological guides in many quarters of the Christian West. And there is, in this rediscovery of the fathers, a sure hope for a reintegration of Christian tradition, for a recovery of the true catholic mind. And yet the success depends very much upon the right approach (“The Legacy and the Task of Orthodox Theology”, 186-187).”
[12] See Viorel Coman. “Vladimir Lossky’s Involvement in the Dieu Vivant Circle and its Ecumenical Journal,” Irish Theological Quarterly, issue 1, vol. 85, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021140019889211.
[13] Vladimir Lossky, “The Doctrine of Grace in the Orthodox Church,” introduction and translation by Paul Ladouceur, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 58, 1 (2014), 72-73.
[14] Cited from Met. Kallistos Ware, “Strange Yet Familiar: My Journey to the Orthodox Church” in The Collected Works Vol. 1: The Inner Kingdom (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2000), 8-9.
[15] Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997),182-183, 187-191.
[16] Vladimir Lossky, Dogmatic Theology: Creation, God’s image in Man, & the Redeeming Work of the Trinity (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2017), 153-154.
[17] Barbu, “(40) Fr. Dumitru Staniloae,” 248-249.
[18] Barbu, “(40) Fr. Dumitru Staniloae,” 250-251. See also Radu Bordeianu, Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology (New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2011), 27-30.
[19] Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology Vol. 4. Translated and edited by Ioan Ionita (Brookline, MSS: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2012), 65-68.
Thank you for taking the time to write this article! These thoughts and themes have been brewing in my head as of late, so this was encouraging to read. ❤️
There's no such thing as "Old Calendarists". Just those who stick to the Patristic Calendar and the heretics who don't.
The schismatics and heretics are those who have indulged in modernism and changed the calendar, not those who have remained faithful to the traditions including the Patristic Calendar.
Great article! I've been meaning to get into Olivier Clement. Any works you'd recommend?
Thank you for taking the time to write this article! These thoughts and themes have been brewing in my head as of late, so this was encouraging to read. ❤️
There's no such thing as "Old Calendarists". Just those who stick to the Patristic Calendar and the heretics who don't.
The schismatics and heretics are those who have indulged in modernism and changed the calendar, not those who have remained faithful to the traditions including the Patristic Calendar.