Bordeianu Unity Oxford

The Unity We Seek
Oxford Handbooks Online

The Unity We Seek
Radu Bordeianu
The Oxford Handbook of Ecumenical Studies
Edited by Geoffrey Wainwright and Paul McPartlan
Subject: Religion, Christianity, Comparative Religion Online Publication Date: Apr 2018
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199600847.013.44
Abstract and Keywords
Orthodox theologians such as Bulgakov, Florovsky, Afanasiev, Staniloae, and Zizioulas

consider eucharistic communion to be the sign of ecclesial unity, but their understandings
of the boundaries of the church and unity in love, teaching, episcopacy, and Eucharist
(including intercommunion) are varied. This chapter analyses Orthodox understandings of
the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Una Sancta of the creed,
considers the ecclesial status of other Christians, and assesses various models of unity,
such as ‘all in each place’ (New Delhi, 1961). Unity is conditioned theologically:
Christians need to confess the same faith, though uniformity is not the goal. Churches
should enjoy unity in love, common service at the altar of the poor (in ‘the liturgy after
the liturgy’), synodal decision-making, and communion among local churches represented
by their bishops. These forms of unity do not represent successive stages, but they
mutually condition each other.
Keywords: Orthodox Church, Eucharist, bishop, synodality, communion, Staniloae, Florovsky, Afanasiev, Zizioulas
Introduction
In 1920, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople issued an invitation ‘Unto the
Churches of Christ Everywhere’ to form a fellowship (koinonia) of churches. It affirmed
that ‘antiquated prejudices, practices or pretentions’ can be overcome through ‘good will
and intention’. The call for love based on ‘sincerity and confidence between the churches’
was made explicit when the authors affirmed that Christians are not strangers, but all
part of the household of Christ. Moreover, some degree of rapprochement need not await
the resolution of dogmatic differences, and they recommended various ways to foster
Page 1 of 21
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use.
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

The Unity We Seek
unity, thus strengthening churches as they face together the common challenges of war
and unhealthy changes in society (Limouris 1994, 9–11).
This invitation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate became programmatic for the ecumenical
movement, of which the World Council of Churches (WCC) is the largest institution, and
for Orthodox ecumenical involvement. The letter served to indicate five theological
issues. It addressed other Christians as churches, thus raising the question of the
boundaries of the church, and emphasized unity in love, teaching, episcopacy, and
Eucharist as necessary elements in a discussion on the nature of the unity we seek. The
present chapter elaborates these same topics from an Orthodox point of view.
Page 2 of 21

The Unity We Seek
The Boundaries of the Church

Orthodox participants in ecumenical dialogues consistently affirm that the church is
already one, as the image of the Body of Christ suggests. There is only one head, Jesus
Christ, and one Body, the church that is professed in the Creed to be one (una), holy
(sancta), catholic, and apostolic. Consequently, ecumenism is concerned with re-
establishing not the unity of the church, which can never be lost, but rather that of
Christians, who are visibly disunited. And yet, Orthodox representatives have also
consistently referred to the churches (plural) that make up the Christian family. As early
as 1902, the Ecumenical Patriarchate consulted all major Orthodox sees on the initiation
of dialogue with the West, especially with Old Catholics and Anglicans, whose teachings
were regarded as very close to Orthodox doctrine. In the 1904 letter of Patriarch Joachim
III of Constantinople, which included the responses of the other Orthodox sees, he
referred to Western churches as ‘holy local Churches of God’ (Limouris 1994, 3–8). Most
notably, other Christian communities were called churches in the unprecedented 1920
initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to form a fellowship, as already mentioned. This
designation remained consistent throughout the process of preparation for the Holy and
Great Council of the Orthodox Church held in Crete in 2016. While all fourteen
unanimously recognized autocephalous churches participated in pre-conciliar
conferences, only ten were present in Crete. The Council adopted a document entitled
‘Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World’. Notwithstanding
pressure from anti-ecumenical circles, after affirming that the unity of the church cannot
be perturbed the document rather timidly states that ‘the Orthodox Church accepts the
historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in
communion with her’ and describes the WCC as being made up of ‘non-Orthodox
Christian Churches and Confessions’, thereby continuing to recognize non-Orthodox
churches as such. It urged ‘the most speedy and objective clarification possible of the
whole ecclesiological question’ (Holy and Great Council 2016, nn. 6, 16).
Thus, the first theological question related to ecumenism has to be an ecclesiological one:
how do Orthodox understand the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the
church described in the Creed as the Una Sancta, and what does that understanding
mean for the ecclesial status of other Christian churches? In other words, is the Body of
Christ limited to Christians belonging to just one denomination—in this case, Orthodoxy—
or can various denominations be considered as distinct members of the same Body of
Christ? Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodoxy does not have an authoritative
position on this question. In fact, Orthodox theologians and church representatives have
espoused two main views of Christian unity, based on two different understandings of the
boundaries of the church, broad and strict, respectively.
First and foremost, the official position of all autocephalous Orthodox churches and the
view of most contemporary theologians is that Orthodoxy needs to engage in dialogue
with other churches, in whom God’s grace and work of salvation are present. Accordingly,
Page 3 of 21

The Unity We Seek
all those baptized with water in the name of the Trinity are validly baptized members of
the Una Sancta. Were such persons to convert to Orthodoxy, they would not need to be
baptized. If in Baptism we unite ourselves with Christ and become members of his Body,
then all baptized Christians are united in their mutual identity with Christ. Consequently,
Orthodox theologians agree with the two external marks of participation in the church,
which were identified at the Third Assembly of the WCC in New Delhi (1961): baptism in
Jesus Christ and confession of him as Lord and Saviour (Kinnamon 2003, 153).
The theological presupposition of recognizing the validity of non-Orthodox baptisms is

that the grace of God is at work fully in the Orthodox Church, which represents the
fullness of the Una Sancta, but also in other churches, which share in that fullness to
different degrees. As will be shown later, this presupposition is worded differently by
various Orthodox theologians, with various (and even conflicting) emphases. But the
basic principle stays the same: Orthodoxy represents the fullness of the church.
This statement sounds very arrogant to Protestant ears, but the Orthodox do not mean it
in the sense that they live a sinless life or that their church, in its historical
manifestations, has been perfect at all times. On the contrary, sin and human weakness
are undeniable realities in the life of the church. But, with deep humility and seeing it as
a calling, the Orthodox believe that the fullness of truth and church life has been
preserved since the beginning of Christianity, without interruption, in Orthodoxy. It is a
calling both in the sense of witness to other Christians and in the sense that the church is
still in need of perfection: the fullness of the church in Orthodoxy is already here, but not
yet; it is both indicative and imperative.
Catholic theologians will recognize in the Orthodox claim to be the fullness of the church
a statement similar to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) that the
church of Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church (Second Vatican Council 1964a, n. 8).
However, the Orthodox generally do not distinguish between ‘churches’ and ‘ecclesial
communities’, as Catholics do when speaking differently of Orthodox and Protestant
communions (see Second Vatican Council 1964b, nn. 15, 22). The terms ‘communion’ and
‘confession’ exceptionally appear in Orthodox statements as an attempt to appease
ultraconservatives (see e.g. Holy and Great Council 2016, n. 6), but such a distinction has
no grounding in the Eastern tradition.
The claim that Orthodoxy represents the fullness of the church represents the basis for
official Orthodox reactions to various models of Christian unity proposed in the context of
the contemporary ecumenical movement. Most notably, the ‘all in each place’ model was
enunciated at the WCC’s New Delhi Assembly, in one of the most frequently quoted
ecumenical phrases:
Page 4 of 21

The Unity We Seek
the unity which is both God’s will and his gift to his Church is being made visible
as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord
and Saviour are brought by the Holy Spirit into one fully committed fellowship,
holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel, breaking the one bread,
joining in common prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and
service to all and who at the same time are united with the whole Christian
fellowship in all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members are
accepted by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion requires for
the tasks to which God calls his people.
(Kinnamon 2003, 153)
The Orthodox representatives at New Delhi affirmed that the statement under discussion
presupposed the model of interdenominational agreement or reconciliation, which is
understandable within a Protestant mindset, adding:
But for the Orthodox it is uncongenial. For the Orthodox the basic ecumenical
problem is that of schism. The Orthodox cannot accept the idea of a ‘parity of
denomination’ and cannot visualize Christian Reunion just as an
interdenominational adjustment. The unity has been broken and must be
recovered. The Orthodox Church is not a confession, one of many, one among the
many. For the Orthodox, the Orthodox Church is just the Church. The Orthodox
Church is aware and conscious of the identity of her inner structure and of her
teaching with the Apostolic message (kerygma) and the tradition of the undivided
Church. She finds herself in an unbroken and continuous succession of
sacramental ministry, sacramental life, and faith.
(Limouris 1994, 30)
On the basis of this text and of other similar Orthodox statements, Peter Bouteneff of the
Orthodox Church in America concludes that from an Orthodox perspective ‘we seek the
visible union of Christians, not of the Church’. That is not to say that others are not the
church, since there is a real koinonia among all Christians, but that bond is not visibly
manifested. Although the church is already one and holy (in no need of repentance or
reformation), Christians must strive for their visible unity. And yet, Orthodox
representatives in the ecumenical movement agree to sign documents that speak of
churches—understood as denominations not as local Orthodox communities, e.g. the
Church of Serbia, the Church of Greece, the Church of Romania1—by doing what
Bouteneff calls ‘mental gymnastics’, knowing full well that the WCC will not change its
wording but will continue to reflect a specific ecclesiology in its documents (Bouteneff
2009, 353, 357). One can detect in Bouteneff’s words the Orthodox uneasiness with the
ecclesiological presuppositions behind some WCC statements, despite the WCC’s promise
articulated in the 1950 Toronto statement on ‘The Church, the Churches and the World
Page 5 of 21

The Unity We Seek
Council of Churches’ that it would not impose a specific view of unity on its member
churches (Kinnamon and Cope 1997, 463–468).
Another Orthodox criticism of the ‘all in each place’ model is its weak emphasis on the
need for unity of teaching not only among contemporary churches, but also between them
and the apostolic tradition itself. Orthodox participants at New Delhi insisted on the need
for ‘ecumenism in time’ in addition to the WCC’s ‘ecumenism in space’. It is in the former
that all Christians converge, so unity in truth really means unity in the faith of the early
Church, ‘a reintegration of Christian mind, a recovery of apostolic tradition, a fullness of
Christian vision and belief, in agreement with all ages’ (Limouris 1994, 30–31). A
reference to this tradition was added at the Fourth Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala in
1968 that referred to ‘the one unchanging apostolic heritage’ and ‘the one people of God
in every age’, with an additional emphasis on universal conciliarity (Kinnamon and Cope
1997, 93–97), which is distinct from New Delhi’s emphasis on locality. In fairness,
however, the New Delhi statement mentions that Christians ‘are united with the whole
Christian fellowship in all places and all ages’ (emphasis mine), but Orthodox
representatives wanted a stronger focus on tradition.
A final Orthodox addition to the ‘all in each place’ model transpired at the Fifth Assembly
of the WCC in Nairobi in 1975, which added a synodal dimension to its understanding of
unity as ‘a conciliar fellowship of local churches’ (Kinnamon and Cope 1997, 110). This
new perspective was another significant Orthodox contribution to the WCC’s
understanding of unity, given the Eastern respect for synodality.
Another model of unity is that of reconciled diversity (Kinnamon 2003, 32–33). Proposed
in the 1970s, this model contains several elements with which the Orthodox should agree,
including unity in faith (although the Orthodox would propose a maximalist, not a
minimalist view of such unity) and the need for mutual recognition of baptism, Eucharist,
and ministry. As stated already, most Orthodox recognize the validity of non-Orthodox
baptisms, but they distinguish between the recognition of a sacrament as valid and
sharing in it. While recognizing the validity of the Catholic Eucharist, for example, the
Orthodox do not partake in it.
Orthodox disagree with this model’s weak emphasis on structural union, which does not
invite Christians to repent for their disunity but preserves current structural divisions
and is content with a peaceful coexistence of various churches. While coexistence is a
significant step towards unity, the church needs to be fully united in order to fulfil its
mission as a sign of the Kingdom. It is true that unity should not mean uniformity, but
should preserve and benefit from the gifts that each community brings into union.
However, denominationalism is not a gift; presupposing the legitimacy of pluriform
denominational existence is an impoverishment of unity. In this sense, the Crete Council
states that the Orthodox Church does not accept ‘the notion of the “equality of
Confessions”, and in no way is she able to accept the unity of the Church as an inter-
confessional compromise. In this spirit, the unity that is sought within the WCC cannot
Page 6 of 21

The Unity We Seek
simply be the product of theological agreements, but must also be founded on the unity of
faith, preserved in the sacraments and lived out in the Orthodox Church’ (Holy and Great
Council 2016, n. 18).
This consideration of the boundaries of the church and consequent evaluation of various
models of Christian unity points to a certain tension within Orthodoxy. On the one hand,
Orthodoxy is believed to be the church, the Body of Christ. On the other hand, non-
Orthodox are understood to have a valid baptism and to be members of the church;
Orthodox theologians who hold this position do not deny the ecclesial status of non-
Orthodox churches, but they cannot say positively what that ecclesial status is. Here is
where the language of fullness of belonging to the church is helpful: the Orthodox Church
is the fullness of the church, but others partake of this fullness in various degrees.
A second understanding of the boundaries of the church is found in some anti-ecumenical

Orthodox circles which consider that only Orthodox baptisms are valid, so those
converting to Orthodoxy need to be baptized validly. The ecumenical Orthodox, just
described, condemn this practice as rebaptism. At stake is a different understanding of
the boundaries of the church: if the ecumenical group recognizes the reality of the church
in other Christians, the anti-ecumenical group denies it. For the latter, there is no church
outside of Orthodoxy; non-Orthodox are in schism from the church and thus there is little
or no difference between them and non-Christians. Accordingly, unity can only take the
form of the canonical integration of other denominations into Orthodoxy. This group is
quite vocal, but numerically speaking a tiny minority which opposes the official position
of all canonical Orthodox churches, sometimes in a publicly scandalous manner.
Given the 1920 initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it is understandable why a

number of Orthodox churches were represented at the inaugural assembly of the WCC in
Amsterdam in 1948, thus becoming foundational for the WCC: the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, the Churches of Cyprus and Greece, as well as the Romanian Orthodox
Episcopate of the USA. Between 1961 and 1965, all remaining autonomous and
autocephalous Orthodox churches became members of the WCC. At that time, the
Orthodox Church of Albania was unable to exist officially within its territory, so it joined
the WCC only in 1994. All canonical Orthodox churches have therefore been involved in
ecumenism at some stage.
If Orthodox ecumenical commitment has been unwavering, participation in the WCC is

another matter. The delegates of all canonical Orthodox churches met in 1998 in
Thessaloniki, Greece, to discuss the then-recent withdrawal of the Georgian Orthodox
Church from the WCC and to address the concerns of the Russian and Serbian churches
regarding Orthodox involvement in the WCC. In their statement, the delegates
‘unanimously denounced those groups of schismatics, as well as certain extremist groups
within the local Orthodox Churches themselves, that are using the theme of ecumenism in
order to criticize the Church leadership and undermine its authority, thus attempting to
create divisions and schisms in the Church’ (FitzGerald and Bouteneff 1998, 136).
Page 7 of 21

The Unity We Seek
The statement thus distinguishes between the consensus existing among local Orthodox
churches, all of which are involved in ecumenism, and the ‘schismatic’, ‘extremist’ groups
that are accusing ecumenism and its supporters of heresy. Its harsh terminology suggests
the seriousness of the rift between the official position of all Orthodox churches and that
of anti-ecumenical groups. At the same time, the delegates distinguish between Orthodox
participation in ecumenism in general and participation in the WCC in particular. While
the 1997 withdrawal of the Church of Georgia means that the WCC is not unanimously
embraced (shortly thereafter, in 1998, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church withdrew from the
WCC as well), a broad commitment to ecumenism is part of both older and more recent
Orthodox traditions:
Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement has always been based on

Orthodox Tradition, on the decisions of the Holy Synods of the local Orthodox
Churches, and on Pan-Orthodox meetings, such as the Third Pre-Conciliar
Conference of 1986 and the meeting of the Primates of the Local Orthodox
Churches in 1992. The participants are unanimous in their understanding of the
necessity for continuing their participation in various forms of Inter-Christian
activity.
(FitzGerald and Bouteneff 1998, 137)
Along the same lines, the Holy and Great Council reaffirmed the pan-Orthodox
commitment to the ecumenical movement, even while some autocephalous churches do
not send representatives to bilateral dialogues (Holy and Great Council 2016, nn. 4, 5, 9).
When the discussion shifts from ecumenical and anti-ecumenical attitudes within
Orthodoxy in general to the views of individual theologians, one notes that most
theologians agree that the boundaries of the Una Sancta extend beyond the Orthodox
Church. And yet there is great diversity among them. The Russian Orthodox theologian,
Georges Florovsky (1893–1979) distinguished between the canonical and charismatic
boundaries of the church. He identified the former boundary with the unified early
church and its continuation today—the Orthodox Church—and the latter one with the
entirety of Christianity. Florovsky pointed out that some heretics were received into the
early church without the administration of baptism and their orders were recognized as
valid. These sacraments are validly performed ‘by virtue of the Holy Spirit’. Moreover,
according to Florovsky, ‘the unity of the Church is based on a twofold bond—the “unity of
the Spirit” and the “union of peace” (cf. Eph 4:3). In sects and divisions the “union of
peace” is broken and torn apart, but in the sacraments the “unity of the Spirit” is not
terminated. This is the unique paradox of sectarian existence’. Thus, Florovsky
considered that the canonical and charismatic boundaries of the church do not coincide
because of the extended presence of the Holy Spirit outside the canonical Orthodox
Church (Florovsky 1989, 37–42).
Page 8 of 21

The Unity We Seek
Much of his theology developed as a reaction to what he perceived as faulty

understandings of Christian unity and ecumenism, such as denominationalism or the
branch theory, according to which the universal church consists of the sum total of the
denominations existing today. He also reacted strongly against charitable forms of union,
according to which doctrinal agreement was minimized or even considered unnecessary,
while sharing in a common mission towards the world and growing in love was regarded
as all that was necessary. In response, Florovsky wrote about the Orthodox Church being
the church, though not yet perfected:
The Orthodox Church claims to be the Church. There is no pride and no arrogance
in this claim. Indeed, it implies a heavy responsibility. Nor does it mean
‘perfection’. The Church is still in pilgrimage, in travail, in via. … In a sense, the
Orthodox Church is a continuation, a ‘survival’ of Ancient Christianity as it has
been shaped in the age of the Ecumenical Councils and of the Holy Fathers … And
for that reason the Orthodox Church recognizes herself, in the distorted
Christendom of ours, as being the only guardian of the ancient Faith and Order;
that is, as being the Church. For the same reason the Orthodox Church cannot
regard herself as just a ‘denomination’ among the multitude of others or just a
‘branch’ of some wider Church.
(Florovsky 1989, 139–140; emphases in original)
Florovsky’s concern was to say that the church confessed in the Creed still exists today,
and not to exclude other Christians from the church. He wrote the above words in 1950,
the same year that the newly formed WCC declared at Toronto (under Florovsky’s direct
influence) that membership of the Una Sancta is more inclusive than the membership of
individual churches, and that members of the WCC recognize in other churches ‘elements
of the true Church’ (Kinnamon and Cope 1997, 467), as in Florovsky’s distinction
between the canonical and charismatic limits of the church. His theological insights have
become the basis for most of the documents signed by Orthodox delegates at ecumenical
gatherings.
Another great ecumenical theologian, Nicolas Afanasiev (1893–1966), also Russian

Orthodox, was very much in favour of Christian unity but disagreed with the idea that
non-Orthodox churches have only ‘vestiges’ of the church, or share in the fullness of the
church to different degrees. He believed that if they have a valid Eucharist they are fully
the church, and he therefore considered the Roman Catholic Church to be a local church
of the Una Sancta as was the Orthodox Church. For Afanasiev, the division between the
Orthodox and Catholic churches has affected only the surface of their ecclesiastical lives
and has merely a canonical character (Afanasiev 2003, 25).
The Romanian Orthodox, Dumitru Staniloae (1903–1993), disagreed with Afanasiev, and
stated that doctrinal disunity creates an essential separation between churches, which
can be healed only in the context of a common confession of faith. Presently, Christians
do not share in the fullness of the faith, even though they agree on the fundamental
truths of Revelation. Staniloae regarded the Orthodox Church as the fullness of the
Page 9 of 21

The Unity We Seek
church, while other denominations belong to the Una Sancta in different degrees of
closeness to that fullness (Staniloae 2012, vol. 4, 66–68). On this issue, the Russian
Orthodox Paul Evdokimov (1901–1970) agreed with Staniloae and added the memorable
words: ‘We know where the Church is, but we cannot judge where the Church is
not’ (Bordeianu 2011, 199–205).
One can conclude that there is a main-line Orthodox position regarding the boundaries of
the church, according to which Orthodoxy is the fullness of the church, while non-
Orthodox churches belong to the Una Sancta in different degrees. This position is
challenged on both sides, by the anti-ecumenists who simply identify Orthodoxy with the
church and by Afanasiev who recognizes a fullness of church existence outside of
Orthodoxy, too. These three positions imply three different ecumenical strategies and
models of unity: dialogue towards a common faith expressed in eucharistic communion,
canonical integration into Orthodoxy, and intercommunion based on a still-existing unity,
respectively. Orthodox delegates at ecumenical gatherings largely accepted the first of
these models based on the already existing unity of the church in the common baptism of
Christians. Baptismal unity represents both a call to manifest visibly the unity that
already exists in Christ and the foundation on which other forms of unity rest. The unity
we seek encompasses love, common teaching, and episcopal and eucharistic communion,
which will now be considered in turn.
Unity in Love
The 1920 initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate called for unity in love. Before solving
dogmatic differences, all churches would adopt an irenic tone, a peaceful approach to
past historical divisions, seek a healing of memories, exchange professors and students,
and teach theology in an ecumenical spirit (Limouris 1994, 9–11). Love is more conducive
to theological dialogue. In fact, love overcomes denominational barriers even when
doctrinal unity is lacking, or rather as long as doctrinal unity is not given more weight
than it deserves. Such was the case with Orthodox, Latin Catholics, Eastern Catholics,
and Protestants who suffered side by side under militant atheist regimes which
persecuted them irrespective of denominational identity. They ‘gave a Christian
ecumenical witness by their common suffering. This kind of witness has been called,
significantly, “ecumenism behind bars” or “ecumenism under the cross”’ (FitzGerald and
Bouteneff 1998, 133). As Communist persecutions have ended, new challenges have
arisen: social polarization, secularization, poverty, and violence, so churches need to
engage in an ecumenism of solidarity with those who suffer from marginalization and
discrimination. This is a traditionally Orthodox attitude, because the Orthodox value not
only their liturgy and theological witness (leitourgia and martyria), but also their
diakonia, ‘the liturgy after the liturgy’, when they serve at the altar of the poor (Bria
1996). However, they now have an opportunity to collaborate with other Christians. As
Page 10 of 21

The Unity We Seek
the Lund principle (1952) states, churches should ‘act together in all matters except
those in which deep differences of conviction compel them to act separately’ (Kinnamon
and Cope 1997, 463).
Unity in Teaching
The ecumenical grundaxiom that unity does not mean uniformity holds true for Orthodoxy
both internally and in its approach to ecumenism. There is a significant degree of
diversity in the East, from the ways in which different national churches celebrate the
Liturgy, to the calendar that they use, to various practices concerning divorce, the
election of bishops, or the means by which converts are received into Orthodoxy. Despite
their practical differences, all national Orthodox churches have maintained unity in faith
and dogma. This unity is enriched by the diversity that exists at the level of
theologoumena and theological opinions, as the Spirit has been manifested differently in
various contexts. In its diverse unity, the Orthodox Church may be said to be an image of
the Trinity—three persons but one essence.
These principles apply to Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement as well.

Diversity, understood as constitutive of unity, is a blessing. But seen as an end in itself,
diversity becomes division, schism, or ‘illegitimate diversity’ that damages unity.
Ecumenism is thus concerned with establishing the limits of acceptable diversity. One
notices over the years a reassessment of past controversies and of what constitute
church-dividing issues. Such is the case with regard to Christology in relations between
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (pre-Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian)
churches. Their dialogue started on an informal basis in 1964, but since 1985 it has
continued at the level of a Joint Theological Commission. The Commission’s most
important statements of Anba Bishoi (1989) and Chambésy (1990) show that, despite
centuries of alienation and terminological confusion, the two churches share the same
Orthodox faith (Kinnamon and Cope 1997, 147–149; FitzGerald and Bouteneff 1998, 145).
This is one of the most important accomplishments of bilateral dialogue involving the
Orthodox Church and it is already bearing fruit in pastoral life in some jurisdictions in
Western Europe and North America, where members of the two churches share in the
Eucharist.
Orthodox theologians have retraced other lines between church-dividing and non-church-
dividing issues. Noteworthy is the recommendation of the North American Orthodox–
Catholic Theological Consultation that the Filioque ‘need no longer divide us’ (O-C 2003,
183), but that the different ways of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit in the
East and in the West should be placed in their proper theological, historical, and
terminological context. Churches should continue to discern what pertains to the essence
of their faith and what are cultural embodiments of that faith in specific contexts. As Pope
John XXIII stated when he opened the Second Vatican Council in 1962: ‘The substance of
Page 11 of 21

The Unity We Seek
the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is
presented is another’ (Pope John XXIII 1962, 715). Churches will grow together as they
look back into their respective traditions and find various ways to confess the same faith.
Several Orthodox theologians have made similar remarks that justify seeking a growth in
faith while being faithful to tradition. Florovsky, for instance, called for a ‘neo-patristic
synthesis’. In a creative interaction with the West, Orthodox theologians should write in a
patristic spirit, or in ‘the mind of the Fathers’, and rediscover the ‘catholic mind’ which is
the language of the Scriptures, the worshipping church, and the fathers of the church
(Florovsky 1975, 11–30). This is a call to go beyond the fathers but in their spirit, while
engaging with contemporary scholarship and especially with Western theology.
Another significant contribution to ecumenical dialogue is Staniloae’s concept of ‘open

sobornicity’, understood as the acceptance of every valid theological insight in other
theological traditions without running the risk of doctrinal relativism. Building on the
diversity of Scripture, Staniloae affirmed that the Bible canonizes the diversity of
Christianity and reflects the diversity of God’s actions in different historical situations, as
well as the diversity of human responses to God’s actions. He recommended that all
churches should learn from each other and search for manifestations of God’s revelation
outside their own confines. In so doing, they would come to a symphonic unity, without
uniformity, and not regard their own limited experience of God as ultimate and exclusive
(Bordeianu 2011, 27–29). Another path to unity advocated by Staniloae is the spiritual
interpretation of dogmas. Churches differ greatly in their dogmatic formulations, but by
looking at the spiritual core of these formulations one might see a similar spiritual
concern. That is why, in the present context when Christians do not share in eucharistic
communion, they should engage in what Staniloae calls ‘spiritual intercommunion’, by
means of common study, prayer, and action. As the Holy Spirit multiplies the connections
between Christians, they will come to live the same life in Christ and arrive at unity in
faith (Bordeianu 2011, 30).
All the Orthodox authors and official positions mentioned thus far converge in their
commitment to dialogue in order to achieve unity of faith, a unity that will be enriched by
the diverse gifts that churches bring as they grow together in Christ: ‘speaking the truth
in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom
the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as
each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in
love’ (Eph. 4:15–16).
Episcopal Communion
From an Orthodox perspective, episcopal communion represents an essential aspect of
unity, given the bishop’s role in the local eucharistic assembly and in ensuring
communion with other local churches through synods. According to Afanasiev, the
Page 12 of 21

The Unity We Seek
charism of the bishop is to stand in the same place that Jesus occupied at the Last Supper
and the apostles occupied in early eucharistic assemblies. This charism results in a
topological understanding of apostolic succession that emphasizes not so much private
episcopal qualifications, as the liturgical space and community. The latter is significant
for Afanasiev, who rediscovered the role of the laity in Orthodoxy. He affirmed that the
early church regarded the rite of initiation as ordination into the royal priesthood, such
that sacerdotal acts are celebrated by the entire church, clergy and ‘laics’ alike
(Afanasiev 2007, 24–30, 248). Thus, the episcopal unity that the Orthodox seek places the
bishop within the local eucharistic assembly of all the faithful, in communion with other
churches today and going back to apostolic times (see also Zizioulas 2001). In light of this
understanding of apostolicity and the priestly calling of all the faithful, one hopes that
Orthodox laity will play a more central role in future ecumenical dialogues, compensating
for an overemphasis on episcopal communion in current ecumenical discussions.
Ecumenism in general and Orthodox ecumenism in particular suffers from an unhealthy
clericalization and professionalization, even though the ecumenical movement had a
pronounced lay character at its inception.
Another important Orthodox emphasis with regard to episcopal communion is on

synodality. At synods, the bishop represents the faith of his community, then takes the
decisions of the council back to his faithful and submits them to his diocese for reception.
Unity is achieved by consensus not only among participant bishops, but also throughout
the entire church. One should not idealize the system of synodality or misunderstand
consensus as unanimity. All through history, and especially today when there are
numerous overlapping jurisdictions within Orthodoxy, human weakness dominates over
the principle of synodality. But history also shows that it is possible for local churches,
represented by their bishops, to arrive at a common mind, the mind of the church, the
mind of Christ.
Another aspect of synodality is prominent in the case of Orthodox–Catholic relations,

namely its relationship with primacy. Recent national and international bilateral dialogues
have addressed the most important question dividing the two churches: the role of the
bishop of Rome in a united church. This is not simply a canonical issue. Papal primacy
impacts on the understanding of the local church as embodying the fullness of the church
(in communion with other local churches, of course). Orthodox and Catholics need to
grow together in their understanding of various levels of primacy: local, regional, and
universal. Does the local church still represent the fullness of the church when the
universal ministry of the Pope is recognized? Are regional structures of authority
necessary or do they contribute to the fragmentation of the church? How can papal
authority strengthen the unity among local churches?
Episcopal communion might also be considered as simply a canonical issue. However,

given the Orthodox understanding of the relationship between the bishop, the church,
and the Eucharist described earlier, it needs to be recognized as truly theological: leaders
of all local communities must deliberate communally, representing the faith of their local
communities and, after a process of reception, facilitate the formulation of a unified faith.
Page 13 of 21

The Unity We Seek
The Orthodox Liturgy invites participants to ‘love one another that with one mind we may
confess’ the Creed, as a condition for receiving the Eucharist (Chrysostom 1985),
illustrating the link between unity in love, faith, episcopacy, and the Eucharist. The need,
however, for nuance in considering the relationship between these elements is discussed
in the following section.
Page 14 of 21

The Unity We Seek
Eucharistic Communion
Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement consistently condemn the practice of
intercommunion or eucharistic hospitality. As early as 1937, the Orthodox delegates at
the Second World Conference of Faith and Order in Edinburgh affirmed that
intercommunion ‘must be considered the crowning act of real and true Reunion which
has already been fully achieved by fundamental agreement in the realm of Faith and
Order and is not to be regarded as an instrument for Reunion’ (Limouris 1994, 16).
According to this line of thinking, the Eucharist is a sign of unity, and only within a united
church can it become a means to strengthen that unity. In today’s divided Christianity, the
inability of the Orthodox Church to share in the Eucharist with other churches is the sign
of our disunity, for reasons which may be described as follows.
First, the Eucharist is a sign of unity in love. Christians are supposed to leave their gift
before the altar, reconcile with one another, and then offer their gifts (Matt. 5:24). As
churches are trying to reconcile with each other, it may be said that the gift is at the altar,
waiting to be brought by Christians together. And yet, by the same logic, one wonders if
churches should bring the gifts at all while they remain separated, since they all
participate in the present disunity. Christians also need to reflect on the meaning of the
Eucharist from a social perspective: even when members of the same church have full
communion with one another, should the Eucharist not challenge the social injustice that
sometimes clouds their relationships? How can they partake of the same Eucharist when
there is oppression and discrimination? Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) offers
encouragement to overcome divisions and to increase the love that comes from the
Trinitarian communion: ‘God does not receive the sacrifice of a person living in discord.
He orders us to leave the altar and first to reconcile ourselves with our brother or sister,
and in this way God may receive our prayers offered up in peace. The greatest sacrifice
that we can offer God is our peace, our goodwill toward one another, a people gathered
together in the unity that exists between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’ (On the
Lord’s Prayer–De Dominica oratione 23; FitzGerald and Bouteneff 1998, 135).
Second, eucharistic communion is a sign of unity in teaching. Given the liturgical

connection between a common confession of faith and the Eucharist, as well as the
practice of the early church to interrupt Eucharistic communion when serious dogmatic
differences arose, Orthodox representatives have emphasized the need for doctrinal unity.
There is, of course, a great deal of discussion about the degree of diversity that such
unity entails, as well as regarding the issues that need resolution before eucharistic
communion can take place. As previously stated, the list of church-dividing issues is
evolving, and one of the greatest recent accomplishments of ecumenical dialogue has
been the recognition of the common Christological faith of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox
churches, which unofficially and not uniformly sometimes share in the same Eucharist.
This occurrence of intercommunion will remain confined to the grass-roots level until the
Page 15 of 21

The Unity We Seek
bishops of the two churches normalize their relationships (Kinnamon and Cope 1997,
148).
Thus, the Eucharist is also a sign of episcopal communion. Theologically, the Eucharist
cannot be separated from the bishop, who is the centre of the local eucharistic assembly,
in communion with other local eucharistic assemblies. Unfortunately, in practice,
canonical (or simply sinful human) divisions sometimes cloud the unity of the church.
Even when there is no doctrinal division, local churches—or sometimes only their bishops
—interrupt their eucharistic communion for non-theological reasons. Another issue that
urgently needs a solution concerns the calendar. For example, Greece and Romania have
adopted the Gregorian calendar, while Russia and Serbia still follow the old Julian
calendar for fear that the new calendar is a Western influence, even though scientifically
it is more accurate. There is eucharistic communion among these national churches, and
for them the calendar is not a church-dividing issue, but within Greece and Romania
there are schismatic groups that refuse to adopt the new calendar. They have established
new synods and this break in episcopal communion has resulted in the break of
eucharistic communion, leading to a paradoxical situation in which the calendar is a
church-dividing issue within certain national churches but not among various national
churches.
To understand fully the Orthodox attitude towards intercommunion, one has to look
beyond official positions. According to John Jillions of the Orthodox Church in America,
individual Orthodox theologians display one of two main attitudes: mainstream or
prophetic. The foremost proponent of the mainstream view was Florovsky, and his vision
has been adopted in all Orthodox ecumenical statements in a surprisingly consistent
manner: the purpose of ecumenical discussions is to bring other Christians into the
fullness of Orthodox faith and life. In the meantime, there can be no intercommunion
(Jillions 2008, 159–163). A closer look at recent Orthodox theologians, however, shows
that their understanding is not as monolithic as ecumenical statements might suggest.
In line with the prophetic view, Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944) called in 1934 for partial
intercommunion among members of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius (mainly
Anglicans and Orthodox), based on their sharing in the same faith, as a result of their
intense theological dialogue. Bulgakov noted that the members of the Fellowship shared
the same faith more deeply than members of the congregations of either church, so he
was not advancing a minimalist proposal. Bulgakov went even further, adding a structural
aspect to his proposition: based on the model of autocephalous Orthodox churches, he
advocated a union between Orthodoxy and other churches who would preserve their
historical character (see Jillions 2008, 155–156). Other Christians preserved ‘a grain’ of
Orthodoxy and their status as churches, since Christianity lives in the antinomy of
simultaneous unity and division: schisms happened within the church, so non-Orthodox
Christians are of the church (Bulgakov 2003, 56–57). Intercommunion is a logical
consequence. It does not need to wait for the solution of dogmatic differences, and it
Page 16 of 21

The Unity We Seek
offers a favourable climate for solving theological divisions and for common growth into
Orthodox doctrine and life (Bulgakov 2003, 63–65).
Afanasiev’s eucharistic ecclesiology holds a prominent place in the prophetic category. As

already seen, he claimed that the early church had a eucharistic ecclesiology in which the
eucharistic assembly of the local church was understood as containing the fullness of the
church, and thus that the church exists wherever the Eucharist is celebrated. Although
Catholics and Orthodox are separated, they celebrate the same Eucharist, the same
ecclesial reality is present in both of them, and therefore they have never been essentially
disunited. Afanasiev recommended that the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church
work towards manifesting their still-existing unity by renewing their communion, sharing
in the Eucharist, and postponing the solution of dogmatic divergences (including with
regard to papal primacy) to a time when they would be able to address them in the spirit
of love (Afanasiev 2003, 12–25; Bordeianu 2011, 189–196).
As Jillions shows, other theologians from the School of Paris advocated intercommunion
before the solution of all dogmatic divergences for various reasons. Nicholas Zernov
(1898–1980) proposed that Christians submit their ecumenical impasses to divine
arbitration and allow God to bring them into unity, as opposed to trying to build that unity
by human efforts (Jillions 2008, 171–174). Lev Zander (1893–1964) considered that other
churches did not have the fullness of the faith, so prohibiting Orthodox participating in
Western sacraments was understandable to him. However, he proposed that the Orthodox
should invite others to share in the Orthodox fullness of the faith and in Orthodox
sacraments, trusting the mystical power of the Spirit to act in the hearts of all Christians
(Jillions 2008, 170–171). Anton Kartashev (1875–1960) considered that if intercommunion
started out in just one place as an instance of ecumenical heroism, then it would spread
to the entire church (Jillions 2008, 169–170).
One more theologian needs to be added to Jillions’ list. John Zizioulas (1931–) has
criticized the term ‘intercommunion’ as ‘inept’, since sharing in the Eucharist can only
take place within a united church, not between churches that are not in full union.
Appealing to the authority of Irenaeus, who affirmed that ‘our doctrine [i.e. the orthodox
faith] is agreed on the Eucharist, and the Eucharist confirms our doctrine’ (Against
Heresies IV, 18, 5), Zizioulas contends that ‘orthodoxy is unthinkable without the
Eucharist’ and that ‘the Eucharist without orthodoxy is an impossibility’. In the present
state of Christian disunity, there can be no eucharistic sharing, even though this situation
is tragic and unnatural (Zizioulas 2001, 133, 257–258). If here his emphasis falls on the
rejection of intercommunion, elsewhere Zizioulas emphasizes the tragic nature of our
divided Christianity by questioning the very idea of denominationalism and denouncing
the existence of separate denominational cultures in the same locality, where the
Eucharist is supposed to strengthen the unity between people regardless of race,
ethnicity, or gender (Zizioulas 1985, 259–260).
Page 17 of 21

The Unity We Seek
The prophetic attitude towards ecumenism represents a healthy reminder that the
mainstream view might place too much emphasis on academic, theological dialogue, and
overlook the action of the Spirit in the church today, the common life in Christ that
Christians already share, and the possibility of new forms of Christian unity. The merit of
the mainstream position is that it compels Christians to continue their dialogue towards
the goal of unity in faith, episcopacy, and full eucharistic communion.
Conclusion
What then is the nature of the unity we seek? These diverse Orthodox perspectives
converge towards the conclusion that the ultimate sign of unity is eucharistic communion.
But the understandings of full unity and of the ways to reach it are varied. In their quest
for full union, Christians should be encouraged by the progress made in recognizing the
unity they already share thanks to their common baptism, confession of Jesus as Lord,
and faith in the Trinity. Stemming from their common belonging to the Una Sancta,
churches need to collaborate in love in order to be a sign of the Kingdom on earth and
instruments of the full coming of the Kingdom. Christians also need to confess the same
faith and to reach doctrinal unity, though uniformity is not the goal. To be fully united and
to fulfil their missionary nature, churches need to enjoy common decision-making and
unity among various local churches manifested by communion among their bishops.
These forms of unity do not represent successive stages, clearly separated
chronologically; rather, they mutually condition and enrich each other.
Regarding love, common teaching, and episcopal and eucharistic communion exclusively
as signs of unity risks giving the impression that unity is an end in itself. Unity is, indeed,
the goal of the ecumenical movement, but not the goal of the church’s existence. In fact,
Christian unity is a means, a necessary condition for fulfilling the missionary calling of
the church: to live as a foretaste of the Kingdom by sharing life in Christ, as his Body, in
the bond of the Spirit, as children of the Father.
References
AFANASIEV, NICOLAS (2003). ‘Una Sancta’, in M. Plekon, trans. and ed., Tradition Alive:
On the Church and the Christian Life in Our Time (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield): 3–
30.
AFANASIEV, NICHOLAS (2007). The Church of the Holy Spirit, trans. V. Permiakov (South
Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press).
BORDEIANU, RADU (2011). Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology (New York/

London: T. & T. Clark/Continuum).
Page 18 of 21

The Unity We Seek
BOUTENEFF, PETER (2009). ‘Ecumenical Ecclesiology and the Language of Unity’,

Journal of Ecumenical Studies 44: 352–360.
BRIA, ION (1996). The Liturgy after the Liturgy: Mission and Witness from an Orthodox
Perspective (Geneva: WCC Publications).
BULGAKOV, SERGIUS (2003). ‘By Jacob’s Well’, in M. Plekon, trans. and ed., Tradition
Alive: On the Church and the Christian Life in Our Time (Lanham, MD: Rowan &
Littlefield): 55–65.
CHRYSOSTOM, ST JOHN (1985). The Divine Liturgy (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox
Press).
FITZGERALD, THOMAS and BOUTENEFF, PETER, eds (1998). Turn to God, Rejoice in
Hope: Orthodox Reflections on the Way to Harare (Geneva: WCC Publications).
FLOROVSKY, GEORGES (1975). Aspects of Church History. Collected Works, Vol. 4.

(Belmont, MA: Nordland).
FLOROVSKY, GEORGES (1989). Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach. Collected Works,

Vol. 13 (Belmont: Nordland).
HOLY AND GREAT COUNCIL (2016). Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of
the Christian World, available at: https://www.holycouncil.org/official-documents
JILLIONS, JOHN (2008). ‘Ecumenism and the Paris School of Orthodox Theology’,
Theoforum 39: 141–174.
JOHN, POPE, XXIII (1962). ‘Pope John’s Opening Speech to the Council [Gaudet Mater
Ecclesia]’, in W. M. Abbott, ed. (1966), The Documents of Vatican II (New York: Guild
Press): 710–719.
KINNAMON, MICHAEL (2003). The Vision of the Ecumenical Movement and How It Has
Been Impoverished by Its Friends (St Louis: Chalice Press).
KINNAMON, MICHAEL and COPE, BRIAN E., eds (1997). The Ecumenical Movement: An
Anthology of Key Texts and Voices (Geneva: WCC Publications).
LIMOURIS, GENNADIOS, ed. (1994). Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism: Statements,

Messages and Reports of the Ecumenical Movement 1902–1992 (Geneva: WCC
Publications).
ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC (O-C) (2003). ‘North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological

Consultation, The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?’, in R. G. Roberson, T. FitzGerald,
and J. Figel, eds (2016), The Journey Toward Unity: The Orthodox–Catholic Dialogue
Statements, vol. 1 (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian Publications): 153–183.
Page 19 of 21

The Unity We Seek
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL (1964a). Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen

Gentium, available at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/
ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL (1964b). Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio,

available at: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
STANILOAE, DUMITRU (2000–2013). The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic

Theology, trans. I. Ionita and R. Barringer, 6 vols (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox
Press).
ZIZIOULAS, JOHN (1985). Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church
(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press).
ZIZIOULAS, JOHN (2001). Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the
Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries, trans. E. Theokritoff
(Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press).
Suggested Reading
BOBRINSKOY, BORIS (2012). The Mystery of the Church: A Course in Orthodox Dogmatic
Theology, trans. M. Breck (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press).
MEYENDORFF, JOHN, ed. (1992). The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the
Early Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press).
PLEKON, MICHAEL, trans. and ed. (2003). Tradition Alive: On the Church and the
Christian Life in Our Time (Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield).
Notes:
(1) Orthodox primarily understand the term ‘local church’ in this sense, though in the
context of eucharistic ecclesiology ‘local church’ designates a diocese.
Radu Bordeianu
Radu Bordeianu is an Associate Professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, USA,

and a past president of the Orthodox Theological Society in America (2011-2013)
Page 20 of 21

The Unity We Seek
Page 21 of 21

Bordeianu Unity Oxford

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bordeianu Unity Oxford

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bordeianu Unity Oxford

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Unity We Seek

Oxford Handbooks Online

Abstract and Keywords

Orthodox theologians such as Bulgakov, Florovsky, Afanasiev, Staniloae, and Zizioulas

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

The Boundaries of the Church

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

The theological presupposition of recognizing the validity of non-Orthodox baptisms is

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

(Kinnamon 2003, 153)

(Limouris 1994, 30)

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

A second understanding of the boundaries of the church is found in some anti-ecumenical

Given the 1920 initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, it is understandable why a

If Orthodox ecumenical commitment has been unwavering, participation in the WCC is

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement has always been based on

(FitzGerald and Bouteneff 1998, 137)

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Much of his theology developed as a reaction to what he perceived as faulty

(Florovsky 1989, 139–140; emphases in original)

Another great ecumenical theologian, Nicolas Afanasiev (1893–1966), also Russian

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

These principles apply to Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement as well.

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Another significant contribution to ecumenical dialogue is Staniloae’s concept of ‘open

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Another important Orthodox emphasis with regard to episcopal communion is on

Another aspect of synodality is prominent in the case of Orthodox–Catholic relations,

Episcopal communion might also be considered as simply a canonical issue. However,

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Second, eucharistic communion is a sign of unity in teaching. Given the liturgical

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Afanasiev’s eucharistic ecclesiology holds a prominent place in the prophetic category. As

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

BORDEIANU, RADU (2011). Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology (New York/

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

BOUTENEFF, PETER (2009). ‘Ecumenical Ecclesiology and the Language of Unity’,

FLOROVSKY, GEORGES (1975). Aspects of Church History. Collected Works, Vol. 4.

FLOROVSKY, GEORGES (1989). Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach. Collected Works,

LIMOURIS, GENNADIOS, ed. (1994). Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism: Statements,

ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC (O-C) (2003). ‘North American Orthodox–Catholic Theological

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL (1964a). Dogmatic Constitution on the Church: Lumen

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL (1964b). Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio,

STANILOAE, DUMITRU (2000–2013). The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic

Radu Bordeianu is an Associate Professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, USA,

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 16 April 2018

You might also like