USING THE PRINCIPLE OF

O I K O N O MIINAE C U M E N I C A L
DISCUSSIONS
Reflections on The Limits of the Church
by George Florovsky

Tamara Graxeli2ne

Tamara Gdzl~2.w~ executive jecretaty of Faith and Order in the WorW Council of Churchac ir
c u r r e d y involved in dtiddeJ of ecchdblogy, h e r m n e u t h and matterd rehted e.y/icit/y
to Orthodox theology.

Philanthropy and pastoral care suggested by OIKONOMIA is a good entry point for the
Orthodox in ecumenical discussions but... is it relevant to the sacrament of baptism?
In the light of recent ecclesiological discussions spurred by the ongoing redrafting of the
Faith and Order text The Nature and Purpose of the Church, and by the work of the
Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC, the urgent need to find
answers to questions raised by Orthodox ecclesiology has brought my attention once more
to Fr George Florovskys celebrated article The Limits of the Church. This remains an
endless source of positive impulses for ecumenical endeavour; the danger, however, is the
temptation to misuse its generous spirituality by taking from it only its desirable or ecu-
menically convenientJaspects. My task here is to examine Florovskys article The Limits
of the Church, to see what potential it carries for applying oikonomia to ecclesiological
issues, whether it coheres with Eastern patristic thought and with the Orthodox tradition,
and what are its limitations.
When examining the notion of oikonomia, I do not refer to any particular tradition of the
Orthodox churches but I seek rather to focus on the church fathers of the first centuries
such as Irenaeus of Lyon or Basil the Great. I also examine 20th-century study on the sub-
ject. The results of my research suggest making very careful use of the notion of ecclesiastical

0 Grwuhzkx licrkui Provmlavip i &*~iinenwm. Dokumengr 1 Materialy, Moskva, 1999, pp.177-88 (Limitsof
the Church,in Orthodury andEciiincnwm, Documents and Materials, Moscow, 1999). This essay was one of
the key contributions to ecclesiology published by Florovsky (1893-1979).

234
T n m a m GrJrclidzr O N THE LIMITS
REFLECTIONS OF THE CHURCH FLOROVSKY
BY G E O R G E

oikonomia,especially with regard to baptism when this sacrament is administered outside the
Orthodox church, and without any intention on the part of the person being baptized to
enter the Orthodox church.
Is it a paradox that Florovsky encourages the Orthodox to consider seriously the
Augustinian sacramental theology, for the sake of the principle of o&onomia? I say a para-
dox because his ecclesiology is, on the whole, rooted in the Orthodox tradition which does
not associate itself with the Augustinian position. What is it that made Florovsky challenge
the Orthodox ecclesiology with Augustinian sacramental theology? Is it a strong pneuma-
tology that helped Florovsky to shift the borders of the church beyond the Iimits set up by
Orthodox ecclesiology?

Oikonomia as a term
The most common way of using the notion of oikonomia is with regard to the whole work of
salvation. Although oikonomia has not become a technical term in canonical language, it has
been used very widely as a descriptive word, Florovsky refers to oikonomia as opposed to
acrivialstrictness;that is, it indicates an exemption from the strict rule.2 Florovsky relates this
opportunity for exemptionfrom the strict rule to philanthropy [love for humankind] and
pastoral direction, saying that oikonomia (economy or the economic principle) is an
aspect of pedagogical rather than canonical consciousness: Economy is pastorship and pas-
torship is economy. In this is the whole strength and vitality of the economic principle - and
also its limitation^."^ Thus Florovsky has in mind the pastoral aspect of odonomia, i.e.
exemption from the strict rule for the sake of pastoral considerations, when he applies it to
the realm of ecclesiology. Is this a helpful argument in the modern ecumenical context, for
example when making a convergence statement in a multilateral discussion? Does a pastoral
decision recognizing the particular character of a situation apply to a wider, more general
level of theological discussion?
Because the church is desiied for the salvation of human beings, the church cannot be
bound to the letter of the canons. The principle of oikonamia in this respect is a valuable pas-
toral tool; however, the same principle becomes effective when applied to something which
exists, for instance to a valid sacrament.
The number of writings dedicated to ecclesiastical oihtwmiz from the 1950s to the 1990s
shows the anxiety which the term has caused among theologians. From the Orthodox per-

The Greek Patristic Dictionary gives a few examples from Origen and John Chrysostom where oikommia
means consideration of special circumstances;in Origens Cmtm Ccbum, oikonomikm signifies for a par-
ticular purpose, in special circumstances. We see that from the period of the early church fathers this par-
ticular meaning of oihnornia has been known, but these texts do not use oikonomk with reference to sacra-
mental theology,
3 Ibid., p.180.

235
THEECUMENICAL
REVIEW Vol. 56 No. 2. April 2004

spective, the purpose of ecclesiastical oikomd is to help attain the salvation of human
beings - which, for its part, is the ultimate purpose of the church. Ecclesiastical oikommia
comes into use in cases of extreme need, allowing moderation of the rule in situations where
sticking to the letter of the rule may ultimately cause harm to the church. The Orthodox
understanding claims a strong pastoral character of the use of ecclesiastical oikownui witbin
lbe cbmb, and not outside it. As to the application of this pastorally motivated ecclesiastical
oiX.onomiu, this is up to the appropriate legislative ecclesiastical instruments such as bishops,
local or ecumenical councils, the whole church. Such moderation of the rule according to
ecclesiastical o&onomh is, by nature, always temporary, while the validity of the canons is
permanent!

Ecclesiological propositions
Florovsky examines the ecclesiologyof St Cyprian, who considers the church as one mono-
lithic entity. According to Cyprian, the sacraments are accomplished only in the church,
but Florovsky suggests changing this to read, where the sacraments are accomplished,
there is the church. Florovsky arrives at his fundamental ecclesiologicalproposition by call-
ing into question the supposition of St Cyprian that the canonical and the charismatic limits
of the church coincide.
Florovsky is not the first to come to grips with this problem. The strictness of Cyprians view
on the canonical and the charismatic borders of the church has been challenged at various
times. And when the Eastern tradition speaks against the coincidence of these two borders,
it is backed up considerably by its own ecclesiolog - namely, by the strong pneumatologi-
c d foundation it ascribes to the church.
The inseparability of the pneumatologicalaspect of the church from its Christological foun-
dation is very widely discussed in Eastern tradition, and in the ecclesiology of Florovsky
himself, Could the proposition to push back the charismatic borders of the church be pur-
sued? And could this process of widening the borders of the church be pursued by using the
principle ofo4onomia?
The Orthodox church sets its own boundaries through sacramental theology. Orthodox
ecclesiologV is eucharistic ecclesiology;the church, founded by the Word of God, by Christ
himself and by the help of the Holy Sp;rit, is sacramental in its very nature. Sacramentality
is the expression of its founders, the persons of the Trinity.
From the Orthodox perspective, however, it is difficult to pursue an economic treatment of
baptism as one of the sacraments which gives existence to the church unless the Augustinian
distinction between the validityand the efficacyof the sacraments is taken into account.

rIpfikipaza4s E w ~ v ~ ~O cL Wz V~O ~) L s(Problems

~~ of the Ecclesiastical Oikonomia, Athens, 1957).

236
Tamara Grddidze O N THELIMITSO F
REFLECTIONS THE C H U R C HBY GEORGEFLOROVSKY

Augustine has never been appropriated in the East in a creative way. Nevertheless,
Florovsky suggests ContemporaryOrthodox theology must express and explain the tradi-
tional canonical practice of the church in relation to heretics and schismatics on the basis of
those general premises which have been established by Augustine.s Thus based on the
strong pneumatological foundation of the church, Florovsky6 proposition is developed on
the lines of Augustinestreatment of the sacramentsof sectarians and schismatics. However,
an assumption lies behind the Augustinian economic (philanthropic and pastoral) approach
towards the problem of sects and schisms opposed to the unity of the church: namely, that
the lost sheep will sooner or later return to the shepherd. But is this exactly what the ecu-
menical movement, as it seeks unity, has on its agenda?

The Cyprianic view on the sacraments

The Augustinian view of the validityand efficiencyof the sacraments is explicitly reject-
ed by the Cyprianic view: Extra ecclediam n i i l h rfafud, there is no salvation outside the
church. Cyprian suggests that the ecclesiastical o&onomia can affect only the use of a par-
ticular charisma of the church, and cannot apply to something which does not exist: in other
words, o&onomia cannot declare existent what is non-existent.
The canons of the baptismal council of 257 held by Cyprian in &ca were adopted into the
apostolic canons; they explicitly rejected baptism outside of the church. With some excep-
tions, which are discussed briefly later, the Cyprianic view of heretical baptism was
regarded as standard in the Orthodox church. Not only in the early church, but even later,
there were periods in the Orthodox church during which it became urgent to prove the
superiority of the Orthodox sacraments. In light of the decline of the Greek church in the
18th century, there has been a tendency to distinguish between the sacraments of the East
and West. For example, threatened by the advance of Latin within the Orthodox church and
the sense of inferiority compared to Rome, the Greeks, wanting to underline the difference
between Orthodoxy and Rome, said that the Orthodox church was the only true church of
Christ and the Orthodox sacraments were the only valid sacramentsB6Does Orthodoxy,
while identify;ng the limits of the church with canonical Orthodoxy, see nothing but dark-
ness outside its own church?

The non-Cyprianic view of the sacraments

Who are the holders of the non-Cyprianic view of the church, and where may the notion of
sacramental oiX.ommia find support?

Page 186.
6 See a discussion on Cyril V and Eustratios Argenti, in Timothy Ware, h t m t i h Atyenti: A Stub oftbe Get4
Cbumb under Turkwb Ruk. Oxford,Clarendon, 1964. pp.78-82.

237
THE ECUMENICAL
REVIEW Vol. 56 No. 2. April 2004

The rejection of the Cyprianic position of the invalidity of baptism performed outside the
church is found as early as Basil the Great, who makes a sharp distinction between schis-
matics and heretics. But Basil believes that the rejection or acceptance of any baptism
depends on the evaluation of each particular case.
The standard Byzantine commentators Balsamon and Zonaras of the 7th century call atten-
tion to a criterion for true baptism. Both of them insist on the necessity of distinguishing
between heretics and schismatics, and of considering the content of the sacraments
administered outside the church. They consider the Cyprianic council as an African affair
and do not want to give it universal significance,
Categorizing groups on the basis of their proximity to Orthodox faith seems to be the stan-
dard view in the b t e r n tradition - although the question of proximity to the Orthodox
church arises only when these groups are to join the Orthodox church. The practice of the
Constantiopolitan church for distinguishingwhether to receive someone in the church by
anointing or by confession has been used in various canonical and liturgical texts. There are
Byzantine sources for canon law, writes John Erickson, which make it clear that a correct
form of the sacrament is not sufficient in itself, without reference to the faith and life of the
church, in other words without an ecclesial context. This reflects the relational nature of
the gifts of the church, as has been well demonstrated in the Orthodox tradition. The impor-
tant question in this context is: What is the nature of the sacraments administered outside of
the Orthodox church? Some of these sacraments have much in common with the Orthodox,
some have less.
The later anti-Cyprianic sources refer to the 17th and 18th centuries. In Russia it was Peter
Moghila who introduced the use of ecclesiastical oikonomia within sacramental theology.
According to him, baptism by the Roman Catholics, non-Chalcedonians and mainstream
Protestants is considered valid. However, Peter Moghila has been accused of being hope-
lessly Latinized.
From the 18th kentury, Greek sacramental theology has shown much sympathy for the
ecclesiasticalodottomiz of Peter Moghila. The book of P$alian8 by St Nicodemus of the Holy
Mountain (18th century) gives an account of two ways of treating the non-Orthodox sacra-
ments; the tint was known as strictness, the other as economy. with these two the stew-
ards of the Spirit guide souls to salvation, sometimes with one and sometimes with the
other.g In particular cases the church, by virtue of economy, can decide whether the sacra-
ments are valid or not.

John H. Esickson. The Challenge of Our Past, in S t d h in C 3 t - t Canon

~ L a w and Cbumb Hbtory,
Crestwood NY St Vladirnirs Seminary, 1991, p.128.
Pirlnlion is a standard modern Greek work on canon law, published in 1800.
ware, Elldtratliu. p.83.

238
fiinzurn Grdze/idse REFLECTIONS
ON THE LIMITSOF T H E C H U R C H BY G E O R GFLOROVSKY
E

In the period between 1484 and 1755 sacramental economy was applied in Constantinople.
After 1667 the Russians applied economy to the sacrament of baptism administered by the
Roman Catholics.O
The standard church practice up until today concerning non-Orthodox sacraments is to
decide on their validity in each particular case: the church, as a living body, can decide in
each case on the validity of the sacraments but this decision affects neither Orthodox eccle-
siology nor sacramental theology; it is rather a change in disciplinary practice.
The most controversial aspect of the Orthodox treatment of this issue seems to be the
policy of applying ecclesiastical oikurzornicl to non-Orthodox wheh they decide to enter the
Orthodox church. In other words, when a non-Orthodox person who has been baptized (or
ordained) in the name of the Holy Trinity decides to join the Orthodox church, th,en these
sacraments are considered partly valid so that rebaptism and reordination do not take
place.I2 Thus the Orthodox church retains the right to decide whether the sacraments are
valid and complete or not. It is not surprising that the ambiguity about the validity of non-
Orthodox sacraments has been called in question by the Catholic theologian A. de Halleux:
We cannot understand how a sacrament reported invalid... can be received as valid at the
moment of conversion to Orth~doxy.~

Shaping of the borders of the one, holy, catholic and

apostolic church in the era of the ecumenical councils~4
It is true that the borders of the church were defined already at Pentecost. The unity of
the church of the first three centuries was based on the identity of Tradition and the una-
nimity in faith, rather than on any institutional att tern."'^
However, even before the first
ecumenical council in 325 there existed a long history of insiders and outsiders in the
church, and a huge polemical literature on our topic. Before Nicea, the criterion for estab-
lishing the borders of the church was as simple as the apostolic tradition which, in all prob-
ability, defined the borders of the church in its very beginning.
The gospel first proclaimed, then handed down in the scriptures as foundation and pillar of
our faith, is preserved in the Tradition which originates from the apostles -that is the con-

Ibd.
Ibd., p.85.
l2 This is not the only position within the family of the Orthodox churches, and inconsistencies in full or par-
tial rejection of the sacraments may be found even within the same church. A good example is Mount Athos
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. rebaptizing all Christians who were not baptized as Eastern Orthodox and
who decide to stay on Mount Athos, including even those who have been received in the Orthodox church
by chrismation or ocher means but have not been rebaptized.
l 3 A. de Halleux, Orthodoxie et catholicisme: Un seul baptdme?, RPwc tb/o/o&ue de huvniti, 11, 1980, p.449.
l 4 In this case ecumenical councils refers to the first four councils.
l5 George Florovsky, Nuw a t d t b r Kwnetticd Lhiitzcil. Tbe Co//ected Wurkr, vol. VIII. 1987, p. 138.

239
THEECUMENICAL
REVIEW Val. 56 No. 2. April 21101

tinued proclamation of the same gospel by successive generations of presbyters in the

church and in the apostolic writings themselves.16
The same apostolic tradition became the foundation for canonical limitations issued by the
church councils. The fact that the decrees of the ecumenical councils start with the words
as our holy fathers say is a witness to the apostolic tradition being the criterion for plac-
ing people insideand outsidethe church. The guiding principle of the ecumenical coun-
cils was the truth and hrygm of the apostles of the church.17
As we have seen, the treatment of the sacraments administered outside the Orthodox church
varies from time to time and from place to place. Canonical, theological and pastoral aspects
are all taken into account when the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments is under discussion.
The ecclesiologicalquestion of insiders and outsiders is at stake in the way the sacraments are
treated. The problem becomes acute as outsidersdo not represent a homogenous group but
are divided into two (or three) fairly large groups: heretics and schismatics (as well as illegal
congregations), From the 4th century there seems to be more clarity about the issue of out-
siders, and more reflection on the content of a rite carried out by those groups. The council of
Nicea (325) dealt in a different way with the followers of Paul of Samosata than with
Novatians or Meletians. The first were to be rebaptized, but the baptism of the others was
accepted. Similarly, the council of Laodicia required rebaptism for Montanists but chrisma-
tion for Novatianists or Quartodecimans.18The basis for the judgment was the nature of the
sacrament: was baptism administered within the proper trinitarian faith or not?
Most helpful in this connection is the reflection of St Basil. Basil, with a clear distinction in
mind between heresy and schism, gives a pastoral solution of the issue: But since on the
whole it has seemed best to some in Asia that, for the sake of the discipline of the majority,
their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted.lgBaptism, as the ancients decided, says Basil,
shall not deviate from faith.2O In other words, Basil values the content of the performed
sacrament, Then he differentiates between schism and heresy, saying that schism is to be at
variance regarding penance with those belonging to the church.2 Basil rejects the
Cyprianic rigidity, disagreeing with the claim that all who had broken away from the
church no longer had in them the grace of the Holy Spirit.22At the same t i e , Basil does

l6 Irenaeus of Lyon, Ah. Hec 3.1.1. So Irenaeus understands tradition as the message delivered by the apostles
and preached by the church. See John Behr, RicetiLm an2 Antbnvology Lt Irennew and Clement, London,
Oxford UP, 2000, p.31.
I7lb2.,p.144.
Ifl John H. Erickson, Divergences in Pastoral Practice in the Reception of Converts, in Orthodm PPpywtiiw
on P,wtoralPrmw, Theodore Stylianopoulos ed., Brookline MA, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1988, p.157.
l9 Letter 178, in St Basil, The Lettew, with an English translation by Roy J. Deferrari, Loeb Classical Library,
vol. 111, 1969, p.17.
20 Ihd., p.9.
{bid., p.13.
22 Ibt2.8 p.17.

240
fiimaro Grhirlidzr REFLECTIONS
ON THELIMITSO F THE C H U R C HBY GEORGE
FLOROVSKY

not exclude the possibility of those who had fallen away being cut off from the grace of the
Holy Spirit. Certainly, to follow Basils approach literally would not be helpful to ecclesio-
logical discussion in ecumenical meetings. It would be a double-edged awkwardness if the
Orthodox were to call non-Orthodox schismaticsand persons who must undergo penance
and eventually return to the church. Only if we had agreed thatpll of us, whether Orthodox
or non-Orthodox, would have to aim at a penitential return to the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic church, would this have been a just proposition for ecumenical discussion.
Undoubtedly, Basil affirms that the grace of the Holy Spirit operates in those who have bro-
ken away from the church. With a will to find a flexible ecclesiologicalbreadth in Orthodox
sacramental theology, one may follow Basils line even while overlooking the context in
which it arose, namely, the fact that B a d spoke thus in favour of the baptism of schismatics
who erred but still were of the church.
There is one ambiguity that I am unable to clarify; and this ambiguity most directly affects
the non-Orthodox reader. In spite of the fact that the Orthodox church in the 17th and 18th
centuries, in both Russia and in Greece, spoke about the validity of the sacrament of bap-
tism according to o&onotnh, I conclude from my research that for the Orthodox tradition
those pronouncementsare less normative, while the writings of Basil the Great are still stan-
dard. I know that this sounds hopelessly biased, especially from the point of view of those
trained in the systematic theologies of the North Atlantic. Those who need convincing about
my view should take into consideration the Orthodox understanding of the living tradition,
and view such a treatment of the subject as a gift of the living tradition. However, I admit
that for ecumenical discussions a serious argument must be found to articulate why certain
church practices have less (or no) significance for the Orthodox tradition, while some have
been standard for ages. Or is everything in the tradition to be considered of the same value?
What about the different church practices carried out by various churches under various
circumstances? And how do the Orthodox maintain living tradition?

Consequences for current ecumenical discussions

A whole range of questions arise from the above-mentioned propositions, both on the part
of the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox, The principle of oikonornia as treated by the early
church fathers, as we saw, does not solve the problem of Orthodox sacramental theology:
oikonomiz is not a tool for chmjng an invalid sacrament into a valid one. Frequency of use
of the term oikonomin, as John Erickson has explained, does not grant to the term the abili-
ty to make the invalid sacraments valid.23

23 Erickson, The Challenge,p. 126.

241
THE ECUMENICAL
REVIEW Val. 56 No. 2. A p r i l 2004

On the part of the Orthodox, it is an open question whether a rite performed outside the
communal consciousness of the church is a sacrament. We may glean some useful proposi-
tions for ecumenical discussions from the reflections by Florovsky on ecclesiology;the most
helpful thesis, grounded in the Eastern church tradition and thus normative for Orthodox
ecclesiology, seems to be that which questions a statement of St Cyprian on the coincidence
of canonical and charismatic borders of the church. But how far can this be pushed?

The Orthodox on the baptism of non-Orthodox in

ecumenical discussions
The issue of The Ecumenical Review on worship in relation to the work of the Special
Commission included an article by Prof. Vlassios Phidas entitled Baptism and
Ec~lesiology.2~ The author points out that the evaluation of the validity of baptisms per-
formed by ecclesiastical bodies outside the Orthodox church has moved between acrivh and
oikonomia. There is a patristic tradition of the evaluation of the existencelvalidity of baptism
of those outside the church, and here there are varieties of practices, as has been demon-
strated earlier. The adoption of ecclesiastical economy, according to Prof. Phidas, served
either the maintenance, or the restoration, of the unity of the church. Although this evalu-
ation served the process toyards reunion, as the article justly points out, there were special
.circumstances under which this reconsideration of the validity of the sacraments took place:
applying ecclesiastical oikonamia to the sacraments of those outside the church required the
willingness of the outsidersto go back to the church; the restoration of unity between the
church and those outside of it did not mean that the latter would be incorporated as they
were, without any change, and without asking forgiveness for their errors in faith. Indeed,
according to the early patristic sources, on the contrary: in case of their unwillingness to join
the Orthodox (now united) church, the sacraments of baptism and ordination were consid-
ered invalid.
It is true, as Prof. Phidas writes, that
the enduring mind of the church consistently and continuously projected the criterion of
baptism not only as an absolute canonical principle (exactitude - ucrivh or akribeia), but
also as a lenient or flexible ecclesiastical rapprochement (lenience - aikonomh), so as to
serve both the unity and the mission of the church in the history of salvation.25

However, this is incomplete insofar as it does not take into account that the Orthodox
church required metanoh from those outsiders with a view to their joining (or coming back
to) the Orthodox church - as the article clarifies later:

24 Vol. 54, no. 1-2, Jan.-April 2002, pp.39-47.

25 Ibid.#p.42.

242
 Tamara Grd:tliJzc O N THELIMITSO F
REFLECTIONS T H E C H U R C H BY GEORGEFLOROVSKY

Both heresy and schism, or even the term conventicle, denote the ecclesiastical identity of
these bodies vis-A-vis the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and constitute a con-
tinuous invitation for their return to the unity of the ecclesiastical body.26
This means that these groups were invited to return to the united church, but without con-
version their sacraments would not be recognized as vdidperde, without their pledge to cor-
rect (or perhaps even leave behind) the faith sealed by their sacrament of baptism. A good
illustration is canon 95 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod (691), or any example from the
canons quoted above. There were a number of ways for receiving outsiders into the church
by applying ecclesiastical economy to these groups, but it would never have worked for
recognition of their baptism per de.
The striving of the Christian churches in the ecumenical movement does not presuppose the
return of all other churches to the present Orthodox church. On the other hand, Orthodox
ecclesiology finds it unacceptable to understand the unity of the church as Simply a return
to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Orthodox. Under these circumstances,
if the Orthodox propose to use ecclesiasticaloikonumia as a ruling principle in evaluating the
sacrament of baptism of those outside its church, and if this is applied according to the
patristic tradition, it must have in mind the conversion to the Orthodox church of all the
groups which have erred. It is true that the Orthodox church may consider each case sep-
arately, and use different gifts of ecclesiastical o2onomia to receive these groups into its
bosom, but does this sound like a proper proposition for any genuine ecumenical encounter?
With all the sympathy due to the author because we are not dealing with his reflections in
his original language, it still sounds ambiguous when Prof. Phidas argues that
the purely Christological character of baptism refers more particularly to the
Christocentric ontology of the church, and lends itself for an evaluation of the ecclesial
status of the ecclesiastical bodies which exist outside the church which is in agreement
with the perennial ecclesiastical tradition.27
Does Prof. Phidas mean that baptism, as referring to the Christocentric ontology of the
church, is related less to the mystery of Pentecost and more to the incarnation of Christ?
And if this is so, what implications may this have for the recognition of others baptism by
the Orthodox?

Does the Holy Spirit, the founder of the church, abide

outside its borders?
The pneumatological aspect of the foundation of the church is of utmost importance in
Orthodox ecclesiology,

26 lc!d., Q.45.
27 tbi2, Q.45.

243
THEECUMENICAL
REVIEW Vol. 56 No. 2. April 2004

For as a compact lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor
can a loaf possess unity, so in like manner, neither could we, being many, be made one in
Christ Jesus without the water from heaven: And as dry earth does not bring faith unless
it receives moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have
brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain from above. For our bodies have
received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorporation; but
our souls by means of the Spirit.28

Irenaeus expresses the unity of human beings in Christ through the Holy Spirit. This is a
strong ecclesiological line in Orthodox theology:
...
The church is a theocentric organism inspired by the Spirit The church is the fulfilment
of the salvation in Christ in a concrete historical form; Pentecost is the completion of the
Christ-event by a further Trinitarian re~e1ation.l~
Florovsky makes it an explicit part of his ecclesiological argument that the Spirit unites the
historical church with its head - Christ - and that Pentecost is a sanctification of the union
between the head and the body, Very much in the spirit of Florovsky, Nissiotis claims that
it is pneumatology that affirms the personal presence of God in the church:
The aim of pneumatologicd Christology is the new, direct and personal presence of God
by his Spirit and through a distinctive community. The descent of the Holy Spirit makes
our purification possible through this historical comrni~nity.~~

While the sacraments constitute the church, sacramental life is the continuation of
Pentecost. It is from the moment of Pentecost that the Spirit dwells in the world in a way
that was not yet known? The church as the unity of charismatic life has oriinated from the
Last Supper and Pentecost, while Pentecost is made permanent in the life of the church by
means of the apostolic succe~sion.~~
The work of the Spirit manifests the historic reality of the divine economy in and through
the church. The church exists for the world and is not finite in itself. The eschatological ful-
filment of the church is another aspect of Orthodox ecclesiology that has been articulated
often by Florovsky.
In the ecclesiology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, to pneumatology is ascribed the consti-
tutive qtldity, dong with the institutive quality of Christology, and it is understood as

8Adtr Hcr. Ill. 17.1-3.

29 Florovsky, The Cbumb:Hrr Nahn and Tmk. T& ColCrCa W o& vol. I, pp.57-72.
30 Nikos A. Nisiiotis, Pneumatological Christology as a Presupposition of Ecclesiology,in Oecusurzinl, 1967,
p.237.
st Florovsky, Tbr Cbiircb:Her Natim nnd Twk, pp.61-63.
32 i b d , p.65.

244
Turizarn Crr3zrWzr R E F L E C T I O NOSN THEL I M I T SO F THE C H U R C HBY G E O R G EFLOROVSKY

belonging to the ontology of the church: Pneumatologydoes not refer to the well-being but
to the very being of the church.33
The Holy Spirit abides in the whole creation. Gods creation is sanctified by the Spirit and
our whole life is a liturgical activity. Communion with God and with each other implies the
theology of the Holy Spirit, wrote Vladimir Lossky.
Orthodox tradition has developed the teaching on the Spirit that has filled the world (Wis.
1:7)It is reflected in the teaching on deification of the human being, as well as in the teach-
ing on the divide essence and energies. In other wordsl according to Orthodox tradition the
Holy Spirit permeates all of Gods creation.
The life of a believer is l d ~ ~ @life
~ lbecause the faithful live in constant communion with
God, striving to restore the unity which has been disrupted. This striving on the part of
human beings does not imply corporate worship only; in other words, liturgical life goes
beyond attending church services, although the sacraments do lay a foundation for such life.
The Holy Spirit, constitutive power of the church, abides in the creation; for its part, the
churchs liturgical life is not restricted to church services but refers to the whole human life
sanctified by the Holy Spirit. This is what Florovsky advocates not only in this article but
elsewhere in his writings.
The position expressed by V Lossky adheres to what has been suggested above. In the intro-
ductory note to the article on Patriarch Sergius of Moscow, Lossky wrote,
Faithful to its vocation to assist the salvation of all, the church of Christ values every
spark of life, even in the dissident communities. Thus it bears witness to the fact that,
despite the separation, they still retain a certain link with the unique and life-giving cen-
tre, a link that is - so far as we are concerned - invisible and beyond our understand-
ing. 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 dimin-
ishing ecclesial reality outside its visible limits.34
Clearly, Lossky is under the influence of the neo-Platonic vision of the relation between the
Absolute and the creation; but this does not minimize the importance of his position since he
values every spark of life from the eschatological perspective.

33 Metropolitan John Zizioulas. fkUz.9 c w ~lmmimicmCrestwood NY, St Vladimirs Seminary, 2001, p. 132.
Here I refer to a few Orthodox theologians who have been influential both within their own church and the
ecumenical movement. In the ecumenical movement pneumatological perspective has become more impor-
tant since the New Delhi assembly of the WCC and even more so after the Montreal Faith and Order con-
ference (1963) and the Louvain Faith and Order meeting (1971). See Konrad Raiser, Holy Spirit in
Modern Ecumenical Thought. in Dktimiyof fbeE~unzenirulMourmrnf,N. Lossky et al. eds, WCC, 2nd ed.
2002.
Vladimir Lossky, LEglise du Christ et les communautds dissidentes, in rl.lr.wuyer ck IEsurc&tz/ du Patrkm&t*
RN.Mor Etinyv Oci*2rntul*,2 1 , Paris. 1955, pp.9- 10.

245
THE E C U M E N I C AREVIEW
L Vol. 56 No. 2. April 2004

Without any ambition of being original, my argument is threefold: firstly, to push as far as
possible the pneumatological aspect of Orthodox ecclesiology in relation to one of its foun-
dational sacraments, baptism; second, to advocate the idea of proximity to the Orthodox
faith as a governing principle of treating the sacraments of those outside the Orthodox
church: third, to make sure the principle of oikonornia is not overused, especially from the
patristic perspective.
As to the question raised at the very beginning of this essay - whether pneumatology helped
Florovsky to shift the borders of the church beyond the limits set up by Orthodox ecclesi-
ology - there is clearly a positive answer.

246