Interreligious Engagement

in a Turbulent World
 2

Read in this issue

Editorial
Εκ της Συντάξεως
Editorial p. 2

What is the WCC p. 4-5

Fr George Tsetsis p. 6-10

Ecumenical Winter? p. 12-16

H.E. Job of Telmisos p. 17-19

Ἀγαπητοί ἀναγνῶστες,
Το θέμα που παρουσιάζουμε σε αυτό το τεύχος προκαλούσε, προκαλεί και πιθανώς θα Inter-faith Dialogue p. 21-23
συνεχίσει να προκαλεί πολλές συζητήσεις και αντιπαραθέσεις, αν και αφορά ένα ζήτημα που
πρέπει και οφείλει να προβληματίζει ιδιαίτερα όσους πιστεύουν ότι το σχίσμα των Εκκλησιών Anglican-Orthodox p. 23-27
διαστρεβλώνει το πραγματικό περιεχόμενο του Χριστιανισμού.
Η πρακτική του διαλόγου σε όλα τα επίπεδα έχει αποδείξει ότι, οι δογματικές διαφορές
Ecumenical Reflexions p. 28-31
εύκολα παραμερίζονται όταν πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστούν κοινά προβλήματα, όπως η
καταπολέμηση της φτώχιας, η σύγχρονη δουλεία, οι κοινωνικές αδικίες, η προστασία του
περιβάλλοντος κ.α.
Οφείλουμε σε αυτό το σημείο να τονίσουμε ότι ο παρανοϊκός φόβος των, δήθεν, «ζηλωτών»
ότι ο οικουμενικός διάλογος σκοπεύει στην ίδρυση μιας «υπέρ - εκκλησίας», η οποία θα
αντικαταστήσει όλες τις άλλες, εκφράζει πάνω από όλα τον φόβο αυτών των, ούτως ειπείν,
χριστιανών για τον άλλο, για εκείνον που δεν μπορούμε, μα και δεν θέλουμε να καταλάβουμε,
διότι έτσι θα αναγκαστούμε να εγκαταλείψουμε την βολική μοναξιά της άγνοιάς μας και να
έλθουμε πρόσωπο με πρόσωπο με τον σύγχρονο κόσμο. Τον κόσμο που σήμερα χρειάζεται
όσο ποτέ στο παρελθόν το κοινό μήνυμα όλων των χριστιανών για ειρήνη και κοινωνική
δικαιοσύνη.
Εντούτοις δεν μπορούμε να αρνηθούμε ότι, τα γνωστά ηθικά διλλήματα που τίθενται ενώπιον
όχι μόνο των Ορθοδόξων, αλλά και άλλων Εκκλησιών που προφυλάσσουν ως «κόρην Orthodox Herald
οφθαλμού» τις παραδοσιακές χριστιανικές αξίες, αποτελούν ένα σοβαρό εμπόδιο για την Bulletin of the Archdiocese of
διεύρυνση αυτής της συνεργασίας, συχνά δε οδηγούν ακόμα και στην διακοπή του διαλόγου.
Thyateira & Gr. Britain
Είναι προφανές ότι πλέον ο διάλογος περιορίζεται μόνο σε συγκεκριμένα κοινά προβλήματα
και η προσδοκώμενη ένωση αποτελεί ένα «άπιαστο όνειρο».
Όμως από την άλλη πλευρά, η έλλειψη μιας κοινής, ορθόδοξης προσεγγίσεως των διαλόγων, Editors (in alphabetical order):
όταν δηλαδή κάποιες Εκκλησίες προτιμούν στη θέση της πανορθοδόξου εκπροσωπήσεως τις Rev. Vasileios Papathanasiou
μονομερείς πρωτοβουλίες, αφ’ ενός μεν όχι μόνο δυσχεραίνει αυτή καθαυτή την πορεία των Rev. Christodoulos Persopoulos
διαλόγων, αλλά, αφ’ ετέρου, η Ορθοδοξία προβάλλεται ως μια διηρημένη Εκκλησίας χωρίς Phone: +41(0)2084557510
κοινό όραμα σε ότι αφορά στην ενότητα των χριστιανών. +Email:
Δικαίως λοιπόν, τίθεται το ερώτημα: είμαστε έτοιμοι να ανταποκριθούμε στις προκλήσεις των neworthodoxherald@gmail.com
σύγχρονων κοινωνιών από κοινού, δηλαδή με όλους εκείνους που, ανεξάρτητα από τις
θρησκευτικές τους προτιμήσεις, θέλουν έναν κόσμο καλύτερο, έναν κόσμο αλληλέγγυο ή θα
επιλέξουμε την αυτάρεσκη απομόνωση;

Ἐκ τῆς Συντάξεως

Issue 2 / Year I (LV)

 3

World Council of
Churches

What is the World Council of Churches?

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which

confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the
scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common
calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one

faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in
common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity, as
Jesus prayed for his followers, "so that the world may
believe." (John 17:21)
 4

The World Council of Churches (WCC) is the broadest and

4 September 1948 World Council of Churches First Assembly
breaking down barriers between people, seeking justice and
peace, and upholding the integrity of creation; and
• foster renewal in unity, worship, mission and service.
most inclusive among the many organized expressions of the
modern ecumenical movement, a movement whose goal is
Christian unity.
The WCC brings together churches, denominations and
church fellowships in more than 110 countries and territories
throughout the world, representing over 500 million
Christians and including most of the world's Orthodox
churches, scores of Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist
and Reformed churches, as well as many United and
Independent churches. While the bulk of the WCC's founding
churches were European and North American, today most
member churches are in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin
America, the Middle East and the Pacific. There are now 350
member churches.
For its member churches, the WCC is a unique space: one in
which they can reflect, speak, act, worship and work
together, challenge and support each other, share and
debate with each other. As members of this fellowship, WCC
member churches:
• are called to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one
eucharistic fellowship;
• promote their common witness in work for mission and
evangelism;
• engage in Christian service by serving human need,

History
The historical roots of the World Council of Churches are found in student and lay movements of the 19th century, the 1910 Edinburgh world
missionary conference, and a 1920 encyclical from the (Orthodox) Synod of Constantinople suggesting a "fellowship of churches" similar to the
League of Nations. Leaders representing more than 100 churches voted in 1937-38 to found a World Council of Churches, but its inauguration was
delayed following the outbreak of the second world war.
Predecessor bodies that have been incorporated in the Council over the decades include international conferences on "faith and order" (theology,
sacraments,
ordinances) and
"life and
work" (social
ministries,
international
affairs, relief
services), the
International
Missionary Council
(IMC), a world
alliance of churches
for global peace as
well as a council
descended from the
19th-century
Sunday school
movement.
Two pioneering WCC projects were launched in co-operation with the IMC in 1946: the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA),
and the Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, Switzerland. Today the Ecumenical Institute offers master's and doctoral degrees in ecumenical studies
through the theological faculty of the University of Geneva.
After the war, the Council encouraged churches' development ministries and continues this work among refugees, migrants and the poor. During the
cold war, the WCC provided a forum for East-West dialogue. In 1961 the IMC was merged with the WCC, giving the Council an enlarged agenda in
world mission and evangelism. The Programme to Combat Racism, although controversial, assisted in ending apartheid in southern Africa. A
landmark document, Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (1982) provided some theological consensus among churches in the quest for full Christian
unity.
When the WCC came into being at the First Assembly in 1948, there were 147 member churches. At the end of 2013, the membership stood at 345
churches. Predominately Protestant and Western in its earliest years, the WCC's profile and identity evolved during the 1960s with the influx of many
Orthodox churches from the East and newly autonomous churches from formerly colonial regions in the South. The Second Vatican Council greatly
improved relations between the WCC and Roman Catholics.
The WCC holds its assemblies every six to eight years. The First Assembly took place at Amsterdam, Netherlands, in 1948, and the 10th Assembly was
convened at Busan, Republic of Korea, in 2013.
 5

The Ecumenical Movement met with initial successes

in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including
the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910
(chaired by future WCC Honorary President John R.
Mott). In 1920, the Ecumenical Patriarch of the
Eastern Orthodox Church, Germanus V of
Constantinople, wrote a letter "addressed 'To all the
Churches of Christ, wherever they may be', urging
closer co-operation among separated Christians, and
suggesting a 'League of Churches', parallel to the
newly founded League of Nations". Church leaders
agreed in 1937 to establish a World Council of
Churches, based on a merger of the Faith and Order
Movement (under Charles Brent of the Episcopal
Church of the United States) and Life and Work
Movement (under Nathan Söderblom of the
Lutheran Church of Sweden) organisations.
Its official establishment was deferred with the
outbreak of World War II until August 23, 1948.
Delegates of 147 churches assembled
in Amsterdam to merge the Faith and Order
Movement and Life and Work Movement. This was consolidated by a second meeting at Lund in 1950, for which the British Methodist Robert
Newton Flew edited an influential volume of studies, The Nature of the Church. Subsequent mergers were with the International Missionary
Council in 1961 and the World Council of Christian Education, with its roots in the 18th century Sunday School movement, in 1971. WCC member
churches include most of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental
Orthodox Churches; the Anglican Communion; some Old
Catholic churches; and numerous Protestant churches, including
some Baptists, many Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian and
other Reformed, a sampling of united and independent churches, and
some Pentecostal churches.

What we do
The WCC 10th Assembly called the churches to join a pilgrimage of justice
and peace. This call sets the direction for the WCC in the coming years. All
WCC programmes aim to support the member churches and ecumenical
partners to journey together, promoting justice and peace in our world as
an expression of faith in the Triune God.
Today the WCC focuses its work in three programme areas: Unity,
Mission, and Ecumenical Relations, Public Witness and Diakonia,
and Ecumenical Formation.
All programmes share a responsibility for strengthening relationships with
member churches and ecumenical partners, spiritual life, youth
engagement, inter-religious dialogue and cooperation and building a just community of women and men.

WCC member churches

The WCC is a fellowship of 350 member churches who together represent more that half a billion Christians around the world. WCC member
churches can be found in all regions of the world and include most of the world’s Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental), as well as African
Instituted, Anglican, Assyrian, Baptist,
Evangelical, Lutheran, Mennonite,
Methodist, Moravian, Old-Catholic,
Pentecostal, Reformed, United/Uniting
and Free/Independent churches,
Disciples of Christ and Friends (Quakers).
 6

ΟΙΚΟΥΜΕΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΑΚΤΙΝΟΓΡΑΦΗΜΑ
Του Μ. Πρωτοπρεσβυτέρου Γεωργίου Τσέτση

Μ όλις ἐπερατώθη ἡ ἀκατάπαυστα τόν ἀγώνα τῆς ἑνότητας, κατά τό κεντρικό αἴτημα τῆς
πολυετής καί κοπιώδης ἀρχιερατικῆς προσευχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, «ἵνα πάντες ἕν ὦσιν». (Ν.
προπαρασκευή τῆς ἀπό Ματσούκα, Οἰκουμενική Κίνηση, Ἱστορία-Θεολογία, Θεσσαλονίκη 1986, σελ.5).
δεκαετιῶν ἀναμενόμενης Ἁγίας Συχνάκις ἐπαναλαμβάνεται πώς ὁ Οἰκουμενισμός εἶναι συνέπεια τοῦ
καί Μεγάλης Συνόδου τῆς διχασμοῦ τοῦ κόσμου τῆς Μεταρρυθμίσεως καί ὅτι ἡ κίνηση πού τόν
Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας καί ἐκφράζει, ἀποτελεῖ προσπάθεια ἐξευρέσεως τῶν θεραπευτικῶν ἐκείνων
ἀνεκοινώθη ἡ ὁμόφωνος μέσων, τά ὁποῖα θά ἀπαλλάξουν τόν Προτεσταντισμό ἀπό τά κακά πού τόν
ἀπόφασις τῶν Προκαθημένων κατατρύχουν. (J.Romanidis, The Theologian in the Service of the Church in the
τῶν ἀνά τήν οἰκουμένην Ecumenical Theology, GOTR, vol. XXV, No 2 (1980), p.2). Ἡ θέση αὐτή εἶναι, ἐν
δεκατεσσάρων Ὀρθοδόξων μέρει, σωστή. Διότι, οἱ Διαμαρτυρόμενοι πρωτοπόροι τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς
Αὐτοκεφάλων Ἐκκλησιῶν ὅπως Κινήσεως εἶχαν βαθειά συναίσθηση τῆς τραγικῆς εἰκόνας πού παρουσίαζαν,
ἡ ποθούμενη καί ἀπό τό 1930 καί παρουσιάζουν ἀκόμη, οἱ Προτεσταντικές ὁμολογίες, οἱ ὁποῖες ξεκινῶντας
ἤδη προγραμματιζόμενη Πανορθόδοξος Σύνοδος συγκροτηθεῖ τήν Πεντηκοστή ἀπό τίς κοινές θεολογικές καί ἐκκλησιολογικές ἀρχές πού εἶχαν διακηρύξει οἱ
τοῦ σωτηρίου ἔτους 2016, ἀναζωπυρώθηκε ὁ ἀπό πολλοῦ καιροῦ σέ μερικούς Μεταρρυθμιστές τόν 16ο αἰῶνα, πήραν μέ τό χρόνο ξεχωριστή ἡ κάθε μιά
Ἑλλαδικούς κύκλους ὑποβόσκων ἀντισυνοδικός ἀγών καί ἐγκαινιάσθηκε μιά κατεύθυνση, ἐμφανίζοντας ἔτσι ἕνα κατακερματισμένο καί
ἄνευ προηγουμένου συντονισμένη μαχητική κινητοποίηση, μέ σκοπό τήν ἀλληλοσυγκρουόμενο Προτεσταντισμό. Στήν συμφιλίωση, ἀκριβῶς, καί τήν
ἀπαξίωση στά ὄμματα κλήρου καί λαοῦ τῆς Συνόδου. Διοργανώθηκαν εἰρήνευση τοῦ προτεσταντικοῦ κόσμου ἀποσκοποῦσε τό προαναφερθέν
ἡμερίδες καί συνέδρια˙ εἴδαν τό φῶς τῆς δημοσιότητος πλείστες πραγματεῖες˙ Ἱεραποστολικό Συνέδριο τοῦ Ἐδιμβούργου.
σωρεία ἄρθρων δημοσιεύθηκαν σέ ἐφημερίδες, περιοδικά καί ποικίλης Ὡστόσο, θά ἦταν ἱστορικά ἄστοχο καί ἀβάσιμο, ἄν ἡ πατρότητα τοῦ
φύσεως ἱστολόγια ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἐνημερώσεως˙ κλιμάκια δέ κληρικῶν, Οἰκουμενισμοῦ καί ἡ ἀποκλειστικότητα τῆς μέριμνας γιά χριστιανική ἑνότητα
μοναχῶν καί, ὁμοτίμων ἤ ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ, πανεπιστημιακῶν διδασκάλων, ἔκαμαν ἀποδιδόταν μόνο στόν προτεσταντικό κόσμο, ὡσάν νά μήν ὑπήρξαν διά μέσου
καταδρομές στήν Ἀνατολική Εὐρώπη, τόν Καύκασο τῆς ἱστορίας ἄλλες πρωτοβουλίες, πού ἀπέβλεπαν
καί τά Βαλκάνια μέ ἕνα καί μοναδικό σκοπό. Νά κι’αὐτές στόν τερματισμό τοῦ σκανδάλου τῆς
ματαιωθεῖ ἡ σύγκληση τῆς Συνόδου ἡ ὁποία, κατά τήν Ὁ ὅρος «Οἰκουμενισμός» ἤ διαιρέσεως καί στή βίωση ἀπό ὁλόκληρο τόν
ἀντίληψή τους, δέν θά ἦταν οὔτε Ἁγία, οὔτε Μεγάλη, χριστιανικό κόσμο τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ζωής
οὔτε κἄν Σύνοδος, ἀλλά μιά οἰκουμενιστικῆς προτιμότερο «Οἰκουμενική ἐντός μιᾶς ἡνωμένης χριστιανικῆς οἰκουμένης «ἐν τῷ
ἐμπνεύσεως «Ληστρική Σύνοδος» πού θά ἀθετοῦσε Κίνηση», ἄρχισε νά συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης» (Εφ.4,3),. Ὅταν ἡ Ἀναφορά
τήν Ὀρθόδοξο Πίστη, παρέχοντας δέ Ἐκκλησιακή τῆς πανάρχαιας Ἀντιοχειανῆς Λειτουργίας τοῦ
ὑπόσταση στούς ἑτεροδόξους, θά κατοχύρωνε καί θά χρησιμοποιεῖται, ὡς γνωστόν, Ἀποστόλου Πέτρου, ἱκέτευε τόν Θεό νά εἰρηνεύσει,
νομιμοποιοῦσε ἐρήμην τῶν πιστῶν τήν «Παναίρεση κατά τήν δεκαετία τοῦ 1920, νά διαφυλάξει, νά ἑνώσει, νά κυβερνήσει καί νά
τοῦ Οἰκουμενισμοῦ». Τό ἐρώτημα τό ὁποῖο θέλει νά ἐπεκτείνει τήν Ἐκκλησία στά πέρατα τῆς γῆς, (Βλ. ἐν
θέσει ἡ παροῦσα ὁμιλία εἶναι πῶς μιά διαχριστιανική προκειμένου νά Ἀμβροσίου Σταυρινοῦ, Αἱ Ἀρχαιόταται καί Σύγχρονοι
κίνηση πού, ἀνταποκρινόμενη στήν ἐπιταγή τοῦ ὑποδηλώσει μιά Λειτουργίαι, Τόμ. Α΄, ἐν ΚΠόλει, 1921, σελ. 153),
Κυρίου «ἵνα πάντες ἕν ὦσι» ἀποσκοπεῖ στήν ὑποδήλωνε, ἀκριβῶς, ὅτι στήν πρωτογενῆ Ἐκκλησία
προώθηση τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος, εἶναι δυνατόν ἐνδιαφέρουσα ἐξέλιξη στίς ὑπῆρχε διχόνοια καί διχασμός, καί ὅτι μέριμνα τῶν
νά θεωρηθεῖ «αἴρεση», ὡς ἡ χειρότερη μάλιστα διαχριστιανικές σχέσεις, ποιμένων ἦταν ἡ διασφάλιση τῆς ἑνότητος τῆς
«Παναίρεση» πού ἀντιμετώπισε ποτέ ἡ Ἐκκλησία κατά Ἐκκλησίας, ἀπό περάτων ἔως περάτων τῆς
τόν ροῦ τῆς δισχιλιετοῦς καί πλέον ἱστορίας της. ἔπειτα ἀπό αἰῶνες διενέξεων οἰκουμένης. Ἡ λειτουργική πράξη τῆς Ἐκκλησίας
Ὁ ὅρος «Οἰκουμενισμός» ἤ προτιμότερο «Οἰκουμενική καί ἀπομονοτισμοῦ σέ εὔγλωττα μαρτυρεῖ ὅτι ὁ Οἰκουμενισμός, ὑπό τήν
Κίνηση», ἄρχισε νά χρησιμοποιεῖται, ὡς γνωστόν, ἔννοια τῆς κινητοποιήσεως γιά τήν καταστολή τοῦ
κατά τήν δεκαετία τοῦ 1920, προκειμένου νά Ἀνατολή και Δύση. σκανδάλου τῆς διαιρέσεως καί τήν συμβίωση τῶν
ὑποδηλώσει μιά ἐνδιαφέρουσα ἐξέλιξη στίς χριστιανῶν μέσα σέ μιά ἡνωμένη Ἐκκλησία,
διαχριστιανικές σχέσεις, ἔπειτα ἀπό αἰῶνες διενέξεων βρισκόταν στό ἐπίκεντρο τῆς ποιμαντικῆς φροντίδας
καί ἀπομονοτισμοῦ σέ Ἀνατολή και Δύση. Ὄντως, στήν σύγχρονη τῆς Μιᾶς Ἁγίας Καθολικῆς καί Ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀπό τίς πρῶτες ἤδη
Ἐκκλησιαστική ἱστορία, ἡ πρώτη εἰκοσαετία τοῦ εἰκοστοῦ αἰῶνος θεωρεῖται μέρες τῆς συστάσεώς της. Δέν εἶναι τυχαῖο ὅτι σέ ὅλες ἀνεξάρτητα τίς Θεῖες
ὡς ἡ περίοδος ἐκείνη πού εἶδε νά ἀνατέλλει μιά νέα κατάσταση στίς μέχρι Λειτουργίες, ἀπό τό ἀρχαιότερο λειτουργικό κείμενο πού ἐμπεριέχεται στήν
τότε τεταμένες διεκκλησιαστικές σχέσεις. Οἱ ἀλλεπάλληλες ἐκκλήσεις τοῦ Διδαχή τῶν Δώδεκα Ἀποστόλων (κεφ. ΙΧ καί Χ) μέχρι καί τήν Θ. Λειτουργία τοῦ
Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου γιά καταλλαγή καί συνεργασία μέ τίς Ἐγκυκλίους Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, ὁ τερματισμός τοῦ σχίσματος, ἡ καταστολή
τοῦ 1902, 1904, 1920, ἡ προτροπή τοῦ προτεσταντικῆς ἐμπνεύσεως τῶν αἰρέσεων, ἡ εἰρήνευση καί ἡ ἑνότητα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ὅπως καί ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ
Ἱεραποστολικοῦ Συνεδρίου τοῦ Ἐδιμβούργου γιά ἑνιαία χριστιανική μαρτυρία μέθεξη ἁπάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης, ἀποτελοῦν οὐσιῶδες καί βασικό στοιχεῖο τῆς
στόν κόσμο τό 1910, ἡ σύσταση τοῦ «Παγκοσμίου Συνδέσμου προσευχῆς τῆς προσκομιζούσης τά Τίμια Δῶρα Ἐκκλησίας. (Βλ. Γ. Τσέτση, Ο
Προαγωγῆς Διεθνοῦς Φιλίας διά τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν» τό 1914, ὅπως καί τά Οἰκουμενικός χαρακτήρ τῆς Θείας Λειτουργίας, Ἀνάτυπο ἀπό τό περιοδικό
Συνέδρια τῶν ὑπό ἵδρυση Κινήσεων «Πίστις καί Τάξις» καί «Ζωή καί Ἐργασία» «Ἀπόστολος Βαρνάβας, Λευκωσία 1966, passim).
τό 1920 στή Γενεύη, ἀποτελοῦσαν, ἀναμφίβολα, μιά ἀπόκλιση ἀπό τό Ἐντρυφῶντας στό θέμα τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως καί ἀναφερόμενοι στίς
παρελθόν καί τοποθετοῦσαν τίς βάσεις τῆς σύγχρονης Οἰκουμενικῆς σύγχρονες προσπάθειες γιά καταλλαγή καί ἑνότητα, θά ἔπρεπε ἴσως νά
Κινήσεως, ὡς μιᾶς προσπάθειας τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν καί ὁμολογιῶν νά ὑπερβοῦν ἀποφεύγαμε μερικές στερεότυπες ἀντιλήψεις, σύμφωνα μέ τίς
τίς ἀντιδικίες τοῦ παρελθόντος, νά εὕρουν ἕνα κοινό παρονομαστή στήν πρός ὁποῖες ἡ πρωτογενής Ἐκκλησία ἔζησε μέσα σέ μιά εἰδυλλιακή κατάσταση, τήν
τόν κόσμο διακονία καί μαρτυρία τους, καί νά δημιουργήσουν βαθμιαία τίς ὁποία διαδέχθηκαν αἰῶνες δοκιμασίας καί περιπετειῶν. Ἀναγινώσκοντας
συνθῆκες ἐκεῖνες πού θά ἐπέτρεπαν κάποτε, καί Θεοῦ εὐδοκοῦντος, τήν κανείς τίς Πράξεις τῶν Ἀποστόλων, διαπιστώνει ὅτι καί ἡ ἐν σπαργάνοις ἀκόμη
ἀποκατάσταση τῆς ἑνότητός τους. εὑρισκόμενη Ἐκκλησία, ἔζησε στιγμές ἀγωνίας καί ἐντάσεων, μόλις
Ἐν τούτοις, ἡ ἰδέα τοῦ «Οἰκουμενισμοῦ» αὐτή καθ’ ἑαυτήν, δέν εἶναι κάτι τό παρουσιάσθηκαν στό σῶμα της οἱ πρῶτες διενέξεις (Πράξ. 15,1-34), ὅπως
νεοφανές στή ζωή τῆς Ἐκκλησίας. Καθώς παρατηροῦσε ὁ ἀλήστου μνήμης ἀκριβῶς τίς ἔζησε διά μέσου τῆς ἱστορίας καί ἡ θεσμικά πλέον ὀργανωμένη
στοχαστικός καθηγητής Νῖκος Ματσούκας, «τίς ρίζες τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς κίνησης Ἐκκλησία, ὅταν ἐμφανίστηκαν κατά περιόδους αἰρέσεις καί σχίσματα.
συναντᾶ κανείς ἤδη στά πρῶτα βήματα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, μιά καί ἡ Ἐκκλησία ζεῖ

Ὅσο ὅμως εἶναι ἀποδεδειγμένο ἱστορικά ὅτι ἀντιδικίες καί σχίσματα
ὑπῆρξαν στό Σῶμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀπό τούς Ἀποστολικούς ἤδη χρόνους, ἄλλο
τόσο αὐταπόδεικτο εἶναι πώς ἀπόπειρες γιά τήν ἐπίτευξη ὁμοφροσύνης καί
ἑνότητας μέσα στήν Ἐκκλησία, ἔγιναν μόλις ἐκδηλώθηκαν τά πρῶτα
διασπαστικά κρούσματα. Ὅταν λ.χ. πρωτοεμφανίσθηκαν σχισματικές τάσεις
στήν ἀρχαία Ἐκκλησία καί δημιουργήθηκαν ἀνυπέρβλητες δυσκολίες μεταξύ
τῶν τότε μεγάλων κέντρων τῆς πρωτοχριστιανικῆς ἐποχῆς, μεταξύ
Ἀλεξανδρείας καί Ρώμης, μεταξύ Ἐφέσου καί Ρώμης, Ρώμης καί Βορείου
Ἀφρικῆς, μεταξύ Ἀλεξανδρείας καί Ἀντιοχείας, πάραυτα εἶχε κινητοποιηθεῖ ἡ
ὀρθοφρονοῦσα πλευρά. Καθώς δέ παρατηροῦσε ὁ μακαριστός
Μητροπολίτης Γέρων Ἐφέσου Χρυσόστομος, στίς περιπτώσεις αὐτές
«ἡ στάση τῆς ὀρθόδοξης πλευρᾶς ἀπέναντι σ’ ἐκείνους πού βρίσκονταν ἤ
πού ἔπεφταν σέ πλάνη, ἤ σ’ αὐτούς πού κατά στάδια ἀποσχίζονταν ἀπό τόν
ἑνιαῖο κορμό τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἦταν στάση προσφορᾶς στόν βωμό τῆς
εἰρηνεύσεως μέ κάθε θυσία. Καί ἡ θυσία αὐτή, ἡ ὑποχώρηση κατά
περίπτωση, ἦταν θυσία ἤ ὑποχώρηση προσώπων ἤ καί κατά τόπους
Ἐκκλησιῶν, μέ ἕνα καί μόνο σκοπό: νά μή τρωθοῦν οἱ καλές σχέσεις καί ἡ
ἰσορροπία μεταξύ τους». (Χρυσοστόμου Κωνσταντινίδου, Μητροπολίτου
Μύρων, (καί μετέπειτα Γέροντος Ἐφέσου), Ὀρθόδοξοι Κατόψεις, Τόμος Α΄-
Θεολογία Ἐκδ. Τέρτιος, 1991, σελ. 320).
Στήν ἀντιμετώπιση τοῦ σκανδάλου τῆς
διαιρέσεως οὐδεμία ὑπάρχει οὐσιώδης
διαφορά μεταξύ τῆς πράξεως τῆς Ἀρχαίας
Ἐκκλησίας καί τῆς σημερινῆς πολιτείας καί
πράξεως τῶν κατά τόπους Ὀρθοδόξων
Ἐκκλησιῶν. Ὅπως κατά τήν ἐποχή ἐκείνη,
ἔτσι καί τώρα, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, ἐνῶ συνεχίζει νά
προσεύχεται ἀδιαλείπτως «ὑπέρ τῆς
οἰκουμένης» καί «ὑπέρ εὐσταθείας τῶν
ἁγίων τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησιῶν καί τῆς τῶν
πάντων ἑνώσεως», ταυτόχρονα ἐπιχειρεῖ τήν
προσέγγιση μέ τήν ἑτεροδοξία στά πλαίσια
ποικίλων διμερῶν καί πολυμερῶν διαλόγων,
ὄχι μόνο ἐπειδή αὐτό εἶναι κατά τήν ἐντολή
τοῦ Κυρίου τό ἐπιτακτικό της καθῆκον, ἀλλά
καί διότι σήμερα τό ἐπιβάλλουν,
περισσότερο ἀπό κάθε ἄλλη φορά, οἱ
συνθῆκες μέσα στίς ὁποῖες ζεῖ ὁ σύγχρονος
κόσμος. Καθώς ὑπογράμμιζε μέ ἔμφαση ἡ Γ΄
Προσυνοδική Πανορθόδοξος Διάσκεψις
(Σαμπεζύ, 1986), ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία κατά
τήν διάρκεια τῆς ἱστορίας πάντοτε
ἀγωνίσθηκε γιά τήν ἀποκατάσταση τῆς
χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος, γι’ αὐτό καί σήμερα ἡ
συμμετοχή της στήν Οἰκουμενική Κίνηση
οὐδόλως εἶναι ξένη πρός τήν φύση καί τήν
ἱστορία της, ἀλλ’ ἀποτελεῖ συνεπή ἔκφραση
τῆς ἀποστολικῆς πίστεως μέσα σέ νέες
συνθῆκες καί πρός ἀντιμετώπιση νέων
ὑπαρξιακῶν αἰτημάτων.(Βλ. Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία καί Οἰκουμενική Κίνησις,
ἐν Ἐπίσκεψις, ἔτος 17, ἀρ. 369, 15 Δεκ.1986).Tό καίριο θέμα τῆς
προσεγγίσεως τῶν χριστιανῶν πρός ἀναζήτησιν τῆς ἀπωλεσθείσης ἑνότητός
των τό εἶχε θίξει ὁ Παναγιώτατος Οἰκουμενικός Πατριάρχης Βαρθολομαῖος
στήν ὁμιλία του κατά τήν ἐναρκτήριο συνεδρία τῆς Ἁγίας καί Μεγάλης
Συνόδου. Μεριμνῶντες ἀξιοχρέως διά τήν ἑνότητα τῆς ἡμετέρας Ἐκκλησίας,
ἔλεγε, «ὀφείλομεν νὰ μὴ λησμονῶμεν ὅτι, κατὰ τὴν ἁγίαν
7
καὶ μεγάλην ἡμέραν τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς, ὅτε «ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ πυρὸς τὰς
γλώσσας διένειμεν, εἰς ἑνότητα πάντας ἐκάλεσε» (Κοντάκιον τῆς ἑορτῆς τῆς
Πεντηκοστῆς). Θὰ ἦτο μέγα σφάλμα, ἐὰν ἐν
τῇ μερίμνῃ διὰ τὴν ἐσωτερικὴν ἡμῶν ἑνότητα ἐν
τῇ Ὀρθοδόξῳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπεδεικνύομεν ἀδιαφορίαν διὰ τὸ γεγονὸς ὅτι δὲν
εὑρίσκονται ἐν πλήρει κοινωνίᾳ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν πολλοὶ ἐκ τῶν ὁμολογούντων
πίστιν εἰς Χριστόν, εἰ καὶ οὐχὶ ὀρθῶς καὶ ὑγιῶς, ἐν πᾶσιν ἐπιζητούντων
πάντως τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ τὴν μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἑνότητα, ἕτοιμοι νὰ διαλεχθοῦν μαζί
μας ἐν εἰλικρινείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ περὶ τῶν διαιρούντων ἡμᾶς
ζητημάτων. Ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία ὑπῆρξε πάντοτε καὶ παραμένει ἑτοίμη
πρὸς πᾶσαν προσπάθειαν ἑνότητος τῶν εἰς Χριστὸν πιστευόντων,
μὴ νοθεύουσα ἐπ᾿ οὐδενὶ λόγῳ τὴν ἣν παρέλαβε παρὰ τῶν Πατέρων αὐτῆς
πίστιν».
Ἐπρόκειτο γιά μιά σαφέστατη καί κατηγορηματική τοποθέτηση, πλήρως
εὐθυραμμισμένη μέ ἐκείνην τοῦ γεραροῦ προκατόχου του Ἰωακείμ τοῦ Γ΄
τοῦ «Μεγαλοπρεποῦς», ὁ ὁποῖος μέ τήν Ἐγκύκλιο πού εἶχε ἐξαπολύσει τό
1904, ἀφοῦ καλοῦσε τούς Ὀρθοδόξους Προκαθημένους νά φυλάττουν
ἄγρυπνα τούς ἑαυτούς καί τά ποίμνιά τους ἀπό τήν ἐπήρεια τῶν ἐναντίων,
τόνιζε συγχρόνως ὅτι «σκοπεῖν ὀφείλομεν καί τά τῶν ἄλλων, καί ὅλῃ ψυχῇ
δεόμενοι ὑπέρ τῆς τῶν πάντων ἑνώσεως, μή ἀποδυσπετεῖν πρός τάς
δυσχερείας, μηδέ ἀνεπίδεκτον σκέψεως ἤ δυσέφικτον ὅλως ὑπολαμβάνειν
τό πρᾶγμα, ἀνασκοπεῖν δέ τά δυνάμενα προοδοποιεῖν τῷ θεοφιλεῖ ἔργῳ τῆς
τῶν πάντων ἑνώσεως, ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατοῦντες καί ἐν πνεύματι πραότητος
πρός τούς διισταμένους, ἐκεῖνο ἐνθυμούμενοι, ὅτι τῇ Παναγίᾳ Τριάδι καί
αὐτοί πιστεύοντες καί τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
σεμνυνόμενοι, τῇ χάριτι τοῦ Θεοῦ σωθῆναι ἐλπίζουσιν».
Ἡ ἱστορία τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως, μάλιστα δέ τοῦ θεσμικοῦ της
ὀργάνου, τοῦ Παγκοσμίου Συμβουλίου Ἐκκλησιῶν (ΠΣΕ), εἶναι στενά
συνυφασμένη μέ τήν Ὀρθοδοξία. Νά μή λησμονεῖται ὅτι ἡ πρώτη ἐπίσημη
πρότασις ἱδρύσεως μιᾶς "Κοινωνίας τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν", κατά τό πρότυπο
τῆς "Κοινωνίας τῶν Ἐθνῶν" (League of Nations), εἶχε προέλθει, τό 1920 ἤδη,
ἀπό Ὀρθοδόξου πλευράς, συγκεκριμένα δέ ἀπό τό Οἰκουμενικό
Πατριαρχεῖο, τό ὁποῖο, μέ τήν γνωστή Ἐγκύκλιό του "Πρός τάς Ἁπανταχοῦ
Ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ", ἀφοῦ διατύπωνε τήν πεποίθηση ὅτι οἱ θεολογικές
διαφορές δέν ἔπρεπε νά ἀποτελοῦν κώλυμα γιά τήν προσέγγιση καί τήν
συνεργασία τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν, κυρίως στόν ἠθικοκοινωνικό τομέα, τασσόταν
ὑπέρ τῆς θεσμικῆς ἐκφράσεως τῆς συνεργασίας αὐτῆς, στά πλαίσια
μιᾶς "Κοινωνίας Ἐκκλησιῶν". Κοινωνίας,
σημειωτέον, ὑπό τήν ἔννοια
τοῦ "συνασπισμοῦ" (league), καί ὄχι ὑπό τήν
ἐκκλησιολογική της σημασία, ὡς "κοινωνίας
ἐν τοῖς μυστηρίοις". Ὅπως παρατηροῦσε
κάποτε ὁ W. A. Visser t' Hooft, ὁ ἐκ τῶν
πρωτοπόρων τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως καί
πρῶτος Γενικός Γραμματεύς τοῦ ΠΣΕ, "ἡ
Ἐκκλησία Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὑπῆρξε ἀπό
τίς πρῶτες στήν νεώτερη ἱστορία, πού
ὑπέμνησε στήν χριστιανωσύνη ὅτι θά ἦταν
ἀπειθής στή βούληση τοῦ Κυρίου καί
Σωτῆρος της, ἄν δέν ἐπιζητοῦσε νά δείξει
στόν κόσμο τήν ἑνότητα τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ
καί τοῦ Σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ...Ἡ
Κωνσταντινούπολις (προσέθετε ὁ
Visser t’ Hooft) σήμανε τήν σύναξη τῶν
χριστιανῶν".
Κατά τήν εἰκοσαετία πού ἀκολούθησε τήν
ἐξαπόλυση τῆς Ἐγκυκλίου αὐτῆς καί τήν
ταυτόχρονη, περί τά μέσα τῆς δεκαετίας τοῦ
1920, ἵδρυση τῶν διαχριστιανικῶν
κινήσεων "Πίστις καί Τάξις" (θεολογική
ἔρευνα) καί "Ζωή καί Ἐργασία" (κοινωνικός
προβληματισμός), -ἀπό τήν συγχώνευση τῶν
ὁποίων προέκυψε ἐκ τῶν ὑστέρων τό ΠΣΕ-,
ὅλες οἱ κατά τόπους Ὀρθόδοξες Ἐκκλησίες, -
τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Ἀλεξανδρείας,
Ἱεροσολύμων, Σερβίας, Ρουμανίας,
Βουλγαρίας, Κύπρου, Ελλάδος, Γεωργίας,
Πολωνίας, Ἀλβανίας, ὅπως καί τῆς Ρωσσικής διασπορᾶς-, μέ ἐξαίρεση τήν
συνεπείᾳ τῆς Ὀκτωβριανῆς ἐπαναστάσεως τοῦ 1917 ἐμπερίστατη τότε καί
ἀποκομμένη ἀπό τό λοιπό κόσμο Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρωσσίας, εἶχαν ἐνεργό
συμμετοχή στήν νεοεμφανισθεῖσα Οἰκουμενική Κίνηση, ἐνῶ πολλοί
διακεκριμένοι ὀρθόδοξοι ἱεράρχαι καί κληρικοί ἤ λαϊκοί θεολόγοι τῶν
Ἐκκλησιῶν αὐτῶν ὑπῆρξαν ἀπό τούς κορυφαίους καί μέ μεγάλη ἐπιρροή
ἡγέτες τῆς Κινήσεως αὐτῆς.

Ὁ τρόπος μέ τόν ὁποῖον ἡ Ὀρθοδοξία θά ἀντιμετώπιζε στά πλαίσια ἑνός
διαχριστιανικοῦ διαλόγου ὁποιοδήποτε ζήτημα σχετικά μέ θεμελιώδη τῆς
πίστεως κεφάλαια, εἶχε φανεῖ διάφανα, ἤδη ἀπό τό Α΄ Παγκόσμιο Συνέδριο
«Πίστεως καί Τάξεως» τῆς Λωζάννης τό 1927. Εἶναι γνωστό πώς οἱ
Ὀρθόδοξοι μόλις ἀντιλήφθηκαν ὅτι κείμενα τοῦ Συνεδρίου ἀναφερόμενα
στήν Ὁμολογία Πίστεως καί στήν φύση τῆς Ἐκκλησίας δέν ἀνταποκρίνονταν
πρός τήν θεολογική ἀντίληψη τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας, διαφοροποίησαν
τήν θέση τους καί μέ ἰδιαίτερο κείμενό τους δήλωσαν κατηγορηματικά τήν
διαφωνία τους μέ τά προτεινόμενα. Δέν εἶναι δυνατόν, τόνιζαν, νά νοηθεῖ
ἡνωμένη Ἐκκλησία, τῶν μέν παραδεχομένων μία μόνο πηγή τῆς Θείας
Ἀποκαλύψεως, τῶν δέ θεωρούντων ὡς ἀπαραίτητο συμπλήρωμά της καί τήν
Ἀποστολική Παράδοση. Τά ὅρια τῆς ἐλευθερίας τῶν ἐπί μέρους χριστιανῶν,
προσέθεταν, εἶναι καθωρισμένα ἐπί τῇ βάσει τῶν ὑπό τῆς Ἐκκλησίας
συνοδικῶς ἀποφασισθέντων, τά ὁποῖα εἶναι ὑποχρεωτικά δι΄ ὅλους. Στήν ἐν
λόγῳ δήλωσή τους οἱ Ὀρθόδοξοι ἀφοῦ ἐξῆραν τήν σημασία καί τό
οἰκουμενικό κῦρος τοῦ Συμβόλου Νικαίας–Κωνσταντινουπόλεως,
παρατηροῦσαν χωρίς περιστροφές ὅτι «πᾶσα ἕνωσις δέον νά στηρίζηται ἐπί
τῆς κοινῆς πίστεως καί
ὁμολογίας τῆς ἀρχαίας
ἀδιαιρέτου Ἐκκλησίας τῶν
ἑπτά Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων
καί τῶν ὀκτώ πρώτων
αἰώνων». (Βλ. Βασιλείου
Σταυρίδου, Ἱστορία τῆς
Οἰκουμενικῆς
Κινήσεως, ΠΙΠΜ,
Θεσσαλονίκη, 1984, σελ.
349).
Ἐντονώτερη καί σαφέστερη
ὑπῆρξε ἡ ἀντίδραση τῶν
ὀρθοδόξων στό Β΄ Παγκόσμιο
Συνέδριο «Πίστεως και
Τάξεως» τοῦ Ἐδιμβούργου
(1937), τό ὁποῖο εἶχε
ἀσχοληθεῖ μέ τήν
Ἐκκλησιολογία καί τήν περί
Μυστηρίων διδασκαλία. Καί
στό Ἐδιμβοῦργο οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι
διαφοροποίησαν τή θέση
τους, καί ἀφοῦ διατύπωσαν τίς διαφωνίες τους ὅσον ἀφορᾷ σέ πολλά
κεφαλαιώδους σημασίας θέματα, ὡς λ.χ. τήν Ἀποστολική διαδοχή, τήν
φύση, τόν ἀριθμό καί τό κῦρος τῶν μυστηρίων, καί ἀντιδρῶντας στήν ροπή
τῶν Διαμαρτυρομένων νά εὐνοοῦν τήν Intercommunio ὡς μέσο ἑνότητος, μέ
χωριστή καί πάλιν δήλωσή τους τόνιζαν, χωρίς περιστροφές, ὅτι ἡ
μυστηριακή κοινωνία δέν εἶναι τό μέσο, ἀλλά τό ἐπιστέγασμα μιᾶς γνήσιας
καί πραγματικῆς ἑνώσεως, ἡ ὁποία ἐπιτυγχάνεται μόνο μέ μιά θεμελιώδη
συμφωνία, ἐρειδόμενη στήν πίστη καί τήν παράδοση τῆς ἀδιαιρέτου
Ἐκκλησίας. Συναφῶς δέ παρατηροῦσαν «ὅτι μόνον ἡ δογματική διδασκαλία
τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἐκκλησίας, οἴαν εὑρίσκομεν αὐτήν ἐν ταῖς ἁγίαις Γραφαῖς, ἐν
τῷ Συμβόλω τῆς Πίστεως, ἐν ταῖς ἀποφάσεσι τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων
καί ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ βίῳ τῆς ἀδιαιρέτου Ἐκκλησίας, θά ἠδύνατο νά παράσχῃ
ἀσφαλῆ βάσιν πρός συζήτησιν ἀποτελεσματικήν καί ὀρθήν, ἐπί τῶν
δογματικῶν καί θεολογικῶν προβλημάτων.» (Β. Σταυρίδου, μν. ἔργ. Σελ.
353).
Νά σημειωθεῖ ὅτι οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι ἀκολούθησαν τήν ἴδια σταθερή γραμμή καί
μετά τήν ἵδρυση τοῦ ΠΣΕ τό 1948. Τοιουτοτρόπως, στήν Β΄Γεν. Συνέλευση,
τοῦ Ἔβανστον τό 1954 ὑπενθύμισαν καί πάλιν ὅτι «ἡ ἐπανένωσις τῆς
Χριστιανωσύνης εἶναι δυνατόν νά ἐπιτευχθῇ μόνον ἐπί τῇ βάσει
ὁλοκλήρου τῆς δογματικῆς πίστεως τῆς ἀρχαίας καί ἀδιαιρέτου Ἐκκλησίας,
ἄνευ οἱασδήτινος προσθαφαιρέσεως ἤ ἀλλοιώσεως». ( Βλ. Β.Σταυρίδου,
μν.έργ. σελ.361), ἐνῶ στήν Γ΄ Γεν. Συνέλευση τοῦ Νέου Δελχί τό Ι961, τόνιζαν
πώς «τό θεμελιῶδες πρόβλημα τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως εἶναι ἐκεῖνο
τοῦ Σχίσματος καί ὄχι τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος μέ
ἕνα εἶδος πανομολογιακῆς συμφωνίας». (Βλ. Β.Σταυρίδου, Αὐτόθι, σελ.
364 ). Εἶναι σαφές ὅτι διατυπώνοντας τήν ἀνωτέρω παρατήρηση στό Νέο
Δελχί, οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι ἤθελαν νά δηλώσουν ἀπεριφράστως ὅτι ἡ ἐπιμονή τῶν
Διαμαρτυρομένων νά ἐπιτευχθεῖ ἑνότης μεταξύ πλειάδος ἑτερόκλητων
ἐκκλησιῶν καί ὁμολογιῶν ὅπως αὐτές εἶχαν ἐμφανισθεῖ καί διαμορφωθεῖ
προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου, ἦταν ἀπαράδεκτη ἐξ ἐπόψεως ὀρθοδόξου.
Συγκεκριμένα, τόνιζαν πώς «τό κοινόν «ὑπόβαθρον τῶν ὑφισταμένων
χριστιανικῶν ὁμολογιῶν δέον νά ἀναζητηθῇ εἰς τό παρελθόν, εἰς τήν
κοινήν ἱστορίαν των, καί εἰς ἐκείνην τήν παλαιάν καί κοινήν Ἀποστολικήν
παράδοσιν, ἐξ ἧς πηγάζει ἡ ὕπαρξίς των», κατέληγαν δέ παρατηρῶντας
ὅτι «τό ἄμεσον ἀντικείμενον τῆς οἰκουμενικῆς ἐρεύνης, κατά τήν
8
Όρθόδοξον ἀντίληψιν, εἶναι ἡ ἀνασύστασις τῆς χριστιανικῆς νοήσεως, ἡ
ἀποκατάστασις τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως, ἡ πληρότης τῆς χριστιανικῆς
ἐνοράσεως καί πίστεως, ἐν συμφωνίᾳ πρός πάντας τούς αἰῶνας». (Βλ.
Αὐτόθι, σελ. 364 εξ.)
Συχνάκις λέγεται πώς οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι πρωτοπόροι τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως,
διακρινόμενοι γιά τό ἀκέραιο ὀρθόδοξο φρόνημά τους, ἔχοντες δέ βαθειά
συναίσθηση τῆς ἀποστολῆς των, εἴχαν τότε ὑποστηρίξει σθεναρά τίς
θεολογικές καί ἐκκλησιολογικές θέσεις τῆς Ἐκκλησίας των στά διάφορα
διαχριστιανικά Φόρα, σέ ἀντίθεση πρός ἱεράρχας καί θεολόγους τῶν
ἑπόμενων γενεῶν, στούς ὁποίους προσάπτεται ἡ μομφή ὅτι τηροῦν κάποια
χαλαρώτερη στάση ἔναντι τῶν ἑτερόδοξων συνομιλητῶν τους.
Ἐν τούτοις, δέν φρονοῦσαν διαφορετικά οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι ἔπειτα ἀπό πάροδο
τριῶν δεκαετιῶν μετά την Συνέλευση του Νέου Δελχί, ὅταν στά πλαίσια τῆς
Ζ΄ Γεν. Συνελεύσεως τοῦ ΠΣΕ στήν Καμπέρρα τό 1991, καί μέ ἀφορμή τίς
δυσάρεστες ἐμπειρίες τους μετά τήν ἀμφιλεγόμενη καί τά ὅρια τοῦ
συγκρητισμοῦ ἀγγίζουσα παρουσίαση τοῦ κυρίου θέματος δήλωναν, μέ
βάση τά πορίσματα τῆς γ΄ Προσυνοδικῆς Πανορθοδόξου Διασκέψεως τοῦ
1986, ὅτι ἡ ἐπιζητούμενη στά
πλαίσια τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς
Κινήσεως ἑνότης δέν μπορεῖ
νά εἶναι καρπός μόνο
θεολογικῶν συμφωνιῶν. Καί
τοῦτο διότι ὁ Θεός καλεῖ
πάντα ἄνθρωπον εἰς τήν
ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως, ἔτσι
ὅπως βιώνεται αὐτή μέσα
στό μυστήριο καί τήν
Παράδοση τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου
Ἐκκλησίας.
( Βλ. Ενημέρωσις Ζ΄-1991/9-
10 , σελ.13).
Τό κείμενο τῆς Προσυνοδικῆς
αὐτῆς
Διασκέψεως, τιτλοφορούμενο «Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία καί Οἰκουμενική
Κίνησις», καί τό ὁποῖο, σημειωθήτω, ἀποτέλεσε τήν βάση τῶν ὅσων
διεκήρυξε σχετικά μέ «Σχέσεις τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας πρός τόν λοιπόν
Χριστιανικὀν κόσμον» ἡ Ἁγία καί Μεγάλη Σύνοδος τῆς Κρήτης τήν
Πεντηκοστἡ τοῦ 2016, ἐπί τοῦ προκειμένου ἦταν σαφές καί κατηγορηματικό.
Ἀφοῦ ὑπεγράμμιζε ὅτι ἡ Όρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία ὡς φορέας καί μάρτυς τῆς
πίστεως καί τῆς παραδόσεως τῆς Μιᾶς, Ἁγίας, Καθολικῆς καί Ἀποστολικῆς
Ἐκκλησίας, κατέχει κεντρική θέση στό θέμα τῆς προωθήσεως τῆς
χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος μέσα στόν σύγχρονο κόσμο, ἀναφερόταν στήν εὐθύνη
τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας νά μεταδώσει ἅπασαν τήν ἀλήθεια ἡ ὁποία ἐμπεριέχεται
στήν Ἁγία Γραφή καί τήν Ἱερά Παράδοση, παρατηρῶντας ὅτι ἡ πολυδιάστατη
διαχριστιανική δραστηριότης τῶν κατά τόπους Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν,
πηγάζει ἀπό ἕνα αἴσθημα ὑπευθυνότητος καί ἀπό τήν πίστη ὅτι ἡ
συνύπαρξη, ἡ ἀμοιβαία κατανόηση, ἡ συνεργασία, ὅπως καί οἱ κοινές
προσπάθειες γιά τήν προώθηση τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος, ἀποτελοῦν
οὐσιώδη ἀποστολή τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, «ἵνα, (κατά τήν ρήση τοῦ Ἀποστόλου
Παύλου) μή ἐγκοπήν τινά δῶμεν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ»( Α΄Κορ. 9, 12).
Ἀναφερόμενο δέ εἰδικώτερα στή συμμετοχή τῶν κατά τόπους Ὀρθοδόξων
Ἐκκλησιῶν στό ΠΣΕ, τό Προσυνοδικό αὐτό κείμενο δήλωνε
χωρίς περιστροφές ὅτι ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία, «πιστή εἰς τήν
ἐκκλησιολογίαν αὐτῆς, εἰς τήν ταυτότητα τῆς ἐσωτερικὴς αὐτῆς δομῆς καί
εἰς τήν διδασκαλίαν τῆς ἀδιαιρέτου Ἐκκλησίας, συμμετέχουσα ἐν τῷ
ὀργανισμῷ τοῦ ΠΣΕ, οὐδόλως παραδέχεται τήν ἰδέαν τῆς ἰσότητος τῶν
ὁμολογιῶν καί οὐδόλως δύναται νά δεχθῇ τήν ἑνότητα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὥς
τινα διομολογιακήν προσαρμογήν. Ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τούτῳ, ἡ ἑνότης ἡ ὁποία
ἀναζητεῖται ἐν τῷ ΠΣΕ, δεν δύναται νά εἶναι προϊόν μόνον θεολογικῶν
συμφωνιῶν. Ο Θεός καλεῖ πάντα χριστιανόν εἰς τήν ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ καί τῇ
παραδόσει βιουμένην ἐν τῇ Ὀρθοδόξῳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως».
(Βλ. Ἐπίσκεψις, ἔνθ. ἀν. σελ. 15).
Έπρόκειτο γιά μιά θεμελιώδη προϋπόθεση τήν ὁποία ἔθεταν οἱ Ὀρθόδοξοι
προκειμένου νά συμμετάσχουν στήν Οἰκουμενική κίνηση καί τά θεσμικά της
ὄργανα. Μιά προϋπόθεση, τήν ὁποία ἐπανέλαβε ἡ Ἁγία καί Μεγάλη
Σύνοδος, ἐντάσσοντας σχεδόν αὐτολεξεί τήν
προμνημονευθεῖσα παράγραφο στό πολυσυζητημένο κείμενό της περί τῶν
σχέσεων τῶν ὀρθοδόξων μέ τόν λοιπό χριστιακό κόσμο.

Ἡ σύντομη αὐτή ἐπισκόπηση τῆς τοποθετήσεως τῶν ὀρθοδόξων ἔναντι τῆς
Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως, δέν ἀφήνει νομίζω περιθώρια γιά οὐδεμία
παρερμηνεία ὅσον ἀφορᾷ στή φύση τῆς συμμετοχῆς μας στήν ἐν λόγῳ
Κίνηση. Πρόκειται γιά μιά συμμετοχή τήν ὁποία ὑπαγορεύει ἡ
αὐτοσυνειδησία τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας καί ἡ ὑποχρέωση πού πηγάζει
ἀπό αὐτήν, νά παράσχει τήν μαρτυρία τῆς πίστεως τῆς μιᾶς καί ἀδιαιρέτου
Ἐκκλησίας, μεταδίδοντας τοιουτοτρόπως τό σωτηριῶδες μήνυμα τό ὁποῖο
κηρύττει. Ὅπως εὔστοχα παρατηροῦσε κάποτε ὁ ἀείμνηστος Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος
Ἀθηνῶν Χριστόδουλος, ὡς Μητροπολίτης Δημητριάδος, «δέν εἶναι
ἐνδεχομένως ἡ τάσις κάποιας δογματικῆς μειοδοσίας ἤ ἑνός ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ
μινιμαλισμοῦ, οὔτε ἡ ἐνδοτικότης τυχόν τῶν ὀρθοδόξων, τά στοιχεῖα ἐκεῖνα
πού κεῖνται εἰς τήν βάσιν τῶν διεργασιῶν πού συντελοῦνται ἐντός τῆς
Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως μέ τήν συμμετοχήν τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων. Εἶναι μᾶλλον ἡ
στερρά προσήλωσις τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μας εἰς τό θεῖον ἰδεῶδες τῆς ἑνότητος τῶν
χριστιανῶν καί ἡ ἐπιθυμία της νά συμβάλῃ, μέ συνέπειαν, εἰς τήν διαφώτισιν
τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ἐπί τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἀληθείας, πρός ἐπιστροφήν πάντων εἰς
τάς πηγάς.» (Χριστοδούλου Δημητριάδος, Αἱ ἀποφάσεις τῆς Γ΄
Πανορθοδόξου Προσυνοδικῆς Διασκέψεως – Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία καί
Οἰκουμενική Κίνησις, ἐν Πληροφορία, Α. 12-13, Νοέμβριος – Δεκέμβριος
1987, σελ. 6 ).
Εἶναι ἀναντίρρητο γεγονός ὅτι στά ἑβδομήντα
χρόνια πού κύλησαν στήν ζωή τοῦ ΠΣΕ ἔπειτα
ἀπό τήν Συνέλευση τοῦ Ἄμστερνταμ, σύμπασα ἡ
Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία ἐργάσθηκε πολυμερῶς καί
πολυτρόπως γιά τήν προώθηση τῶν σκοπῶν τῆς
Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως καί τοῦ κυριώτερου
θεσμικοῦ της ὀργάνου, τόσο στόν κοινωνικό,
ὅσο καί στόν θεολογικό τομέα, δίνοντας μιά
μοναδική μαρτυρία, κυρίως ὡς πρός τό καίριο
θέμα τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος, ἔτσι ὅπως
ἑρμηνεύεται αὐτό, θεολογικά καί ἱστορικά, ἀπό
τήν Ὀρθόδοξο Ἐκκλησία. Καθώς δέ δήλωνε ὁ
κορυφαῖος ρῶσσος Θεολόγος Γεώργιος
Φλωρόβσκυ, πράγματι "ὁ ρόλος τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας
στήν διαμόρφωση τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς Κινήσεως
ὑπῆρξε σημαντικός, ἐνίοτε δέ καί
ἀποφασιστικός".
Περί τῆς μαρτυρίας τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων καί τῆς
θετικῆς των συμβολῆς στήν διαμόρφωση καί
περαιτέρω ἀνάπτυξη τοῦ ΠΣΕ, ἔκαμε εὐρύτατα
λόγο τό Οἰκουμενικό Πατριαρχεῖο μέ τό Διάγγελμα πού εἶχε ἐκδώσει τό
1973, ἐπί τῇ εὐκαιρίᾳ τῆς συμπληρώσεως εἰκοσιπενταετίας ἀπό τήν ἵδρυση
τοῦ ἐν λόγῳ ὀργανισμοῦ. Ἡ διεύρυνσις τοῦ Βασικοῦ Ἄρθρου τοῦ
Καταστατικοῦ τοῦ ΠΣΕ πάνω στήν ὀρθή τριαδολογική ὁρολογία, ἔλεγε τό
Φανάρι, ἡ ἀποσαφήνισις τῆς θεολογίας τῆς ἱεραποστολῆς ὡς βασικοῦ
σκοποῦ τῆς Μιᾶς, Ἁγίας, Καθολικῆς καί Ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἡ
ἀναγνώρισις τῆς ἀνάγκης ἐγκαταλείψεως τῶν παλαιῶν μεθόδων τοῦ
προσηλυτισμοῦ καί ἡ ρητή αὐτοῦ καταδίκη, ἡ ἔνταξις στά πλαίσια τοῦ
διαχριστιανικοῦ διαλόγου ὡρισμένων βασικῶν θεολογικῶν ἀρχῶν
βασιζομένων στήν θεολογία τῶν Πατέρων τῆς ἀδιαιρέτου Ἐκκλησίας, καθώς
καί ἡ ἐνασχόλησις μέ οὐσιώδη θεολογικά καί ἐκκλησιολογικά θέματα, ὡς
λ.χ. ἡ φύσις καί τά γνωρίσματα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, τό Βάπτισμα, ἡ Θεία
Εὐχαριστία, ἡ Ἱερωσύνη, ὅλα αὐτά, ὑπογράμμιζε ἡ Κωνσταντινούπολις,
ἀποτελοῦν δείγματα τῆς θετικῆς παρουσίας τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων στό ΠΣΕ.
Κατά τήν ἑβδομηκονταετία πού διέρρευσε ὅμως, οἱ Ὀρθόδοξες Ἐκκλησίες
δέν παρέλειψαν νά συμπράξουν μέ τά ἑτερόδοξα μέλη τοῦ ΠΣΕ καί στόν
κοινωνικό τομέα, σέ μιά κοινή προσπάθεια ἐξευρέσεως τρόπων θεραπείας
τῶν πολυποίκιλων ὑπαρξιακῶν ἀναγκῶν τοῦ συγχρόνου ἀνθρώπου. Καί
τοῦτο διότι ὑπῆρχε καί ὑπάρχει σ'αὐτές ἡ ἀκλόνητη πεποίθηση ὅτι ἡ
Ἐκκλησία, πού πρωτίστως εἶναι ἡ φανέρωσις τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ στή γῆ
καί τό μέσο τῆς μεταδόσεως τῆς Θείας Χάριτος στόν ἄνθρωπο, καλεῖται
σήμερα, περισσότερο ἀπό κάθε ἄλλη φορά, νά κομίσῃ τήν λυτρωτική
ἐνέργεια τοῦ Θεοῦ στήν μαστιζόμενη ἀπό ὑλική καί πνευματική φτώχεια
σύγχρονη κοινωνία. Δέν χωρεῖ δέ ἀμφιβολία ὅτι τά πολύπτυχα προγράμματα
πού ἀναπτύχθηκαν ἀπό τό ΠΣΕ, μέ τήν πλήρη σύμπραξη τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων,
στούς χώρους τῆς διακονίας, τῆς θεολογικῆς μορφώσεως, τοῦ
εὐαγγελισμοῦ, τῆς ἀναπτύξεως, τῆς προστασίας τοῦ περιβάλλοντος, τῆς
ὑγείας, τῆς εἰρήνης καί δικαιοσύνης, τῆς ἀποκαταστάσεως τῶν προσφύγων
ἤ τῆς περιθάλψεως τῶν θυμάτων φυλετικῶν διακρίσεων, σ'αὐτό ἀκριβῶς
ἀποσκοποῦσαν.
Ὡστόσο, παρά τήν ἀδιαμφισβήτητη θετική συμμετοχή τῶν Ὀρθοδόξων στό
ΠΣΕ, ἡ παρουσία τους σ'αὐτό ὑπῆρξε προβληματική. Τόσο γιά τούς ἴδιους,
ὅσο καί γιά τόν περί οὗ ὁ λόγος ὀργανισμό. Διότι, ἀφ'ἑνός ὁ εἰδικός
χαρακτήρ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου θεολογίας καί ἐκκλησιολογίας, ἡ περί Θείας
9
Εὐχαριστίας ἀντίληψίς μας, ἡ ὀρθόδοξος θεώρησις τοῦ κόσμου, ὅπως καί οἱ
ἱστορικές ἐπιφυλάξεις μας ἔναντι τῆς Δύσεως, καί ἀφ'ἑτέρου ἡ
ἀνομοιογένεια τῶν προτεσταντικῶν ἐκκλησιῶν καί ὁμολογιῶν πού
συμμετέχουν στό ΠΣΕ, ἡ ρευστή τους ἐκκλησιολογία, ἡ ἀσάφεια τῆς
θεολογίας τους, ἡ ἐκ μέρους των αὐθαίρετη ἑρμηνεία, ἤ «ἐπανασυγγραφή»
ἀκόμη, τῆς Ἁγίας Γραφῆς στή λεγόμενη "περιεκτική γλῶσσα", ἡ ὁλονέν καί
περισσότερο αὐξανόμενη τάση νά ἐφαρμόζουν μεταξύ τους μυστηριακή
κοινωνία παρά τήν ἔλλειψη ἑνότητος ἐν τῇ πίστει, ὁ ἄκρως φιλελεύθερος
τρόπος μέ τόν ὁποῖο προσεγγίζουν διάφορα ποιμαντικά καί ἠθικο-κοινωνικά
θέματα, ὅλα λοιπόν αὐτά, συνετέλεσαν καί συντελοῦν στή δημιουργία
ἐντάσεων καί ἀδιεξόδων, πού προβληματίζουν τούς ὀρθοδόξους, καί
ἀσφαλῶς παρεμποδίζουν τήν ἁρμονική λειτουργία τοῦ ΠΣΕ.
Ἐν τούτοις, πρέπει νά ὁμολογηθεῖ ὅτι παρά τίς δυσκολίες πού παρουσιάζει,
τό ΠΣΕ, εἶναι ἕνα πολύτιμο ὄργανο συμφιλιώσεως, ἕνας μοναδικός χῶρος,
ὅπου παρέχονται ποικίλες εὐκαιρίες ἀλληλογνωριμίας καί
ἀλληλοεκτιμήσεως τῶν χριστιανῶν. Σέ μιά ἐποχή δέ κατά τήν ὁποία ὁ
Χριστιανισμός στό σύνολό του βάλλεται πανταχόθεν καί ἀπό παντοίου
εἴδους πολέμιους, ἡ συμμετοχή τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας στήν Οἰκουμενική Κίνηση
καί τά θεσμικά της ὄργανα, ἀποτελεῖ ὄχι μόνο ἕνα εὐεργετικό κέντρισμα,
ἀλλά καί ὑπόμνηση ὅτι, ἄν ἑμεῖς οἱ Ὀρθόδοξοι ὄντως θέλουμε νά
διαδραματίσουμε κάποιο ρόλο μπροστά στίς ραγδαῖες κοσμογονικές
ἐξελίξεις καί ἀνακατατάξεις τῆς ἐποχῆς μας, εἶναι ἀνάγκη ὅπως, ἐξερχόμενοι
ἀπό τά στεγανά πλαίσια μέσα στά ὁποία ἐγκλωβίσαμε τόν ἑαυτό μας,
πλησιάσουμε τούς «ἄλλους». Ὅλους ἐκείνους πού γνωρίζαμε μέχρις
ἐσχάτων μόνο ἀπό τά ἐγχειρίδια τῆς Συμβολικῆς, ἄν μή τῆς Πολεμικής, κατά
τήν προσφυᾶ ἔκφραση τοῦ μακαριστοῦ καθηγητοῦ Ἰωάννου Καλογήρου. (Βλ.
Ί. Καλογήρου, Ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Καθολική Ἐκκλησία καί ἡ Σύγχρονος Οἰκουμενική
Κίνησις, Θεσσαλονίκη, 1951, σελ.8 )
Δέν χωρεῖ ἀμφιβολία ὅτι ἡ ὁδός ἡ ἄγουσα πρός τήν χριστιανική ἑνότητα
εἶναι δύσβατος καί κοπιώδης, μιᾶς καί δέν εἶναι εὔκολο νά παρακαμφθοῦν
θεολογικές ἔριδες καί ποικίλες ἄλλες ἐκκλησιαστικο-πολιτικές διαμάχες πού
συσσωρεύθηκαν διά μέσου τῶν αἰώνων. Μολαταῦτα, ἡ Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησία
πιστεύοντας ὅτι ὡς φορεύς καί μάρτυς τῆς πίστεως καί τῆς παραδόσεως τῆς
Μιᾶς, Ἁγίας, Καθολικῆς καί Ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας κατέχει κεντρική θέση
στήν ὑπόθεση τῆς προωθήσεως τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος, (Γ΄ Προσυνοδική
Διάσκεψις), ἐπιδιώκει καί καλλιεργεῖ τόν διαχριστιανικό διάλογο, σέ μιά
ἠθελημένη προσπάθεια ἀποκαταστάσεως τῆς ἑνότητος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας καί
τῆς ἐπανόδου ὅλων "εἰς τόν καιρόν ἐκεῖνον, καθ'ὅν ἡνωμένοι ὄντες, τό αὐτό
πάντες ἐλέγομεν καί οὐκ ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν σχίσμα", καθώς ἔλεγε ὁ Ἅγιος Μᾶρκος ὁ
Εὐγενικός στή Σύνοδο τῆς Φλωρεντίας-Φερράρας,
Στήν ἀρχή τῆς παρούσης ὁμιλίας ἔγινε ἀναφορά στίς ἐπιφυλάξεις οὐκ
ὀλίγων ὀρθοδόξων, κληρικῶν τε καί λαϊκῶν, ὡς πρός τό σκόπιμο τῆς
συμμετοχῆς μας στήν Οἰκουμενική κίνηση. Ἡ τάση πρός ἀποχώρηση ἀπό
τούς Διαχριστιανικούς Ὀργανισμούς, ὅπως τό ΠΣΕ καί τό Συμβούλιο
Εὐρωπαϊκῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν (ΚΕΚ), καί ἡ κινητοποίηση γιά τόν τερματισμό τῶν
διμερῶν θεολογικῶν διαλόγων πού διαξάγει ἡ Ὀρθοδοξία μέ τούς
Ρωμαιοκαθολικούς, τούς Ἀρχαίους Ἀνατολικούς, τούς Ἀγγλικανούς, ἤ
διάφορες Ὁμολογίες Προτεσταντικῆς προελεύσεως, εἶναι πολύ πιό
διαδεδομένη ἀπό ὅσο νομίζεται. Να μή λησμονεῖται ὅτι ἡ ροπή αὐτή ἦταν
καί εἶναι ἀκόμη ἐμφανέστατη στά συνθήματα τῶν ἀντι-Συνοδικῶν
ζηλωτικῶν κύκλων. Ἐν τούτοις, ὁ λόγος τῆς παρουσίας μας στήν Κίνηση αὐτή
εἶναι, νομίζω, ἁπλός.
 10

Γράφοντας στόν ἐν ἐπισκόποις ἀδελφό του, τόν Ἅγιο Ἀθανάσιο Ἀλεξανδρείας, καί ἀναφερόμενος στή σύγχυση πού ἐπικρατοῦσε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ μεταξύ
τῶν κατά τόπους Ἐκκλησιῶν, ὁ Μέγας Βασίλειος ἐξέφραζε τήν ἀγανάκτησή του παρατηρῶντας ὅτι «ἐλεεινή τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ἡ παρατροπή καταφαίνεται». (Μ.
Βασιλείου, Έπιστολή ΞΖ΄, ἐν Migne, P.G. 32 , 424 ). Ἄν ὅμως ἡ ἐπισήμανση αὐτή τοῦ Οὐρανοφάντορος ἴσχυε τό 371, ὅταν ἔγραφε στόν Ἀλεξανδρείας
Ἀθανάσιο, σήμερα, νομίζω, ἰσχύει ἀκόμη περισσότερο, δοθέντος ὅτι στίς μέρες μας ὑπάρχει μεγαλύτερη ἀκόμη σύγχυση. Διότι, οἱ χριστιανοί πού ὑποτίθεται
ὅτι εἶναι « τό ἅλας τῆς γῆς» κατά τήν ρήση τοῦ Κυρίου (Ματθ 5, 13), ἐμφανίζονται σκανδαλωδῶς κατακερματισμένοι καί ἀνταγωνιστικοί, καί ἐνῶ ἀποτελοῦν
τήν μειονότητα τοῦ πληθυσμοῦ τῆς ὑφηλίου, ἀγνοοῦν ἑαυτούς καί ἀλλήλους, τήν στιγμή κατά τήν ὁποία ὁ Χριστιανισμός βάλλεται πανταχόθεν καί ἀπό
παντοίου εἴδους πολέμιους, οἱ ὁποῖοι καραδοκοῦν νά τοῦ ἐπιφέρουν τό καίριο πλῆγμα.
Δέν εἶναι τυχαῖο ὅτι ὁ κατ’ ἐξοχήν ὑπέρμαχος τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας, ἀλλά καί «λάβαρο» τῶν πολεμίων τοῦ Οἰκουμενισμοῦ, ὁ Ἁγιος Μᾶρκος ὁ Εὐγενικός, στόν
ἀγῶνα του γιά τήν ἀποκατάσταση τῆς ἑνότητος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας καί τῆς ἐπανόδου ὅλων, ὡς ἔλεγε, «εἰς τόν καιρόν τῆς εἰρήνης ἐκεῖνον, καθ’ ὅν ἡνωμένοι
πάντες ὑπήρχομεν». (Mansi, XXXI, 516-517), δέν ἀρκέσθηκε ἁπλῶς στό νά ἐλέγξει τίς θεολογικές καί ἐκκλησιολογικές παρεκτροπές τῆς Δύσεως. Ὑπεβλήθη
στόν κόπο νά ὁδεύσει πρός δυσμάς, νά συναντήσει τόν «μακαριώτατον, πάπαν τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης, τόν πρωτεύοντα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἱερέα», καθώς τόν
ἀποκαλοῦσε, (βλ. Μάρκου τοῦ Εὐγενικοῦ, «Τά εὑρισκόμενα ἅπαντα» Editura Pateres, 2009, pp 196), καί νά συνδιαλεχθεῖ μέ τούς ἀντιφρονούντας
λατίνους «ἀδελφούς» του, ὅπως τούς χαρακτήριζε τέσσερις περίπου αἰῶνες μετά τό Μεγάλο Σχίσμα. Καί ἄς ἰσχυριζονται ἐπί τῶν ἡμερῶν μας λατινοτραφεῖς
κάποτε, νῦν δέ «λατινοφάγοι» Θεολόγοι, ὅτι μετά τό Σχίσμα τοῦ 1054 ἡ Ἐκκλησία Ρώμης ἐξέπεσε τῆς Χάριτος καί μετεβλήθη σ΄ἕνα αἰρετικό μόρφωμα!
Ἀλλά δέν εἶναι τυχαῖο καί τό ὅτι ὁ Μέγας Βασίλειος, στήν Ἀναφορά τῆς Θείας Λειτουργίας του ἐκφράζοντας πόνο γιά τό σκάνδαλο τῆς διαιρέσως,
ἱκέτευε, «Μνήσθητι Κύριε τῆς Ἁγίας σου Καθολικῆς καί Ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, τῆς ἀπό περάτων ἔως περάτων τῆς οἰκουμένης καί εἰρήνευσον αὐτήν, ...τούς
ἐσκορπισμένους ἐπισυνάγαγε, τούς πεπλανημένους ἐπανάγαγε καί σύναψον τῇ Ἁγίᾳ σου Καθολικῇ καί Ἀποστολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ». Πρᾶγμα τό ὁποῖο,
συνεχίζουμε νά πράτουμε καί ἡμεῖς στήν σημερινή μας λειτουργική πράξη, ἑπόμενοι τῷ Πατρί τῆς τῶν Καππαδόκων χώρας.
Συμμετέχουσαι ἐνεργῶς ἐπί ἕνα καί πλέον αἰῶνα στήν Οἰκουμενική Κίνηση καί στά ποικίλα παγκόσμια, περιφερειακά ἤ τοπικά θεσμικά της ὄργανα, οἱ κατά
τόπους Ὀρθόδοξες Ἐκκλησίες, σέ τελευταία ἀνάλυση, δέν κάμουν τίποτε ἄλλο, παρά νά συνεχίζουν μιά μακραίωνα παράδοση, ἡ ὁποία ἀπέβλεπε καί
ἀποβλέπει σέ ἕνα καί μόνο σκοπό, τήν ἀποκατάσταη τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἑνότητος καί τήν εἰρήνευση τῆς Ἐκκλησίας.

Fr Georgios Tsetsis
Born in Istanbul (Constantinople) in 1934. He is Grand Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He graduated from
the Halki Theological School, pursued studies at the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey-Geneva, and obtained his doctoral
degree from the Theological Faculty of the Thessaloniki University. He first served as Archdeacon of the Diocese of Princes
Islands (near Istanbul), then he occupied several executive posts at the Geneva Headquarters of the World Council of
Churches, (1965-1984), and from 1985 to 1999 he was Permanent Representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the
WCC, while acting as member of the Central and Executive Committees of this organization. For a while he acted as interim
Director of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at Chambésy-Geneva and as Dean of its Institute of Post
Graduate Orthodox Studies. In 2016 the Theological department of the Theological Faculty of Athens University conferred
to him the title of Doctor Honoris Causa. He published several books and over sixty essays and articles of thelogical,
liturgical, ecumenical, historical and socio- political nature. He is co-editor of the third volume of the History of the
Ecumenical Movement. After his retirement in 1999 he resides in Geneva.
 11

The term "ecumenism" refers to efforts by Christians of different church traditions to develop
closer relationships and better understandings. The term is also often used to refer to efforts to-
wards the visible and organic unity of different Christian denominations in some form.
The adjective ecumenical can also be applied to any interdenominational initiative that encour-
ages greater cooperation among Christians and their churches, whether or not the specific aim of
that effort is full, visible unity. It can also be applied in the same way to other religions or to refer
to unity between religions or between people in general - in this sense it means non-sectarian,
non-denominational.
The terms ecumenism and ecumenical come from the Greek οἰκουμένη (oikoumene), which
means "the whole inhabited world", and was historically used with specific reference to
the Roman Empire.[2] The ecumenical vision comprises both the search for the visible unity of the
Church (Ephesians 4:3) and the "whole inhabited earth" (Matthew 24:14) as the concern of all
Christians.

The consecration of Reginald Heber Weller as an Anglican bishop at the Cathedral of St. Paul the Apostle in the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of
Fond du Lac. Seated (left to right): The Rt. Rev. Isaac Lea Nicholson, Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee; Rt. Rev. Charles Chapman Grafton, Episcopal
Bishop of Fond du Lac; Rt. Rev. Charles P. Anderson, Episcopal Bishop Coadjutor of Chicago. Standing (left to right): Rt. Rev. Anthony Kozłowski of
the Polish National Catholic Church; Rt. Rev. G. M. Williams, Episcopal Bishop of Marquette; Rt. Rev. Reginald Weller, Rt. Rev. Joseph M. Francis,
Episcopal Bishop of Indianapolis, Rt. Rev. William E. McLaren, Episcopal Bishop of Chicago; Rt. Rev. Arthur L. Williams, Episcopal Bishop Coadjutor
of Nebraska; St. John Kochurov, Russian Orthodox protomartyr of the Bolshevik Revolution; St. Sebastian (Dabovich) St. Bishop Tikhon
(Bellavin) of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.
 12

ECUMENICAL WINTER?
The Ecumenical Movement has stopped moving

By Michael Root

I
n 1870, during a plenary session of the First Vatican Council, the Croatian bishop Josip Strossmayer complained that the
introduction to what would become the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith contained an unnecessary and false
claim that modern unbelief could be traced to Protestantism. On the contrary, argued Strossmayer, the roots of unbelief
stretched back to medieval Catholic culture. Voltaire had come from Catholic France, and many Protestants were able
defenders of Christian truth. At this point, the bishops assembled in St. Peter’s Basilica began to shout Strossmayer down. Cardi-
nal Filippo de Angelis, presiding at the session, rang his bell and proclaimed, “This is not the place to praise Protestants.” Stross-
mayer tried to continue, but his words were lost in the tumult, and eventually he gave up in protest. Some ninety-four years lat-
er, in the same St. Peter’s Basilica, George Lindbeck sat as a designated Lutheran observer at the Second Vatican Council. It was
the third session of the council, and the Decree on Ecumenism, which would transform Catholicism’s terms of engagement with
non-Catholic Christians, was being discussed. The French bishop Léon Elchinger commented that the right understanding of faith
and justification had at times been better preserved among Protestants than among Catholics, and that Catholics needed to learn
from Protestants. No uproar ensued. Lindbeck found that, as he listened, he had begun to cry. He had never expected to hear
such words from a Catholic bishop in such a solemn setting. Words that had been unspeakable in that building less than a century
before were now welcome.
Time has not stood still, and the high emotions of mid-twentieth-century ecumenism have given way to predictable gestures and
general indifference. Last year, the Vatican joined in the commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. A Vatican
stamp was issued, depicting Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon at the foot of the cross. On October 31, 2016, the pope himself attended a prayer service in
Sweden sponsored by the Lutheran World Federation to launch its year of commemorative activities. A few observers complained about false ecumenism. An
equally small number proclaimed that a breakthrough in Protestant--Catholic unity must be just around the corner. Most, however, took no particular interest,
and rightly so. It was ecclesiastical business as usual in Sweden: prelates being nice to each other, gestures of goodwill that had no consequences. Fifty years ago,
ecumenism could make grown men cry. Now it is mundane.
Many reasons can be given for the dampening of the ecumenical excitement of two generations ago. The mainstream Protestantism that had been a driving force
of the ecumenical movement has declined precipitously in recent decades. Traditional church-dividing issues—infant baptism, the presence of the body and blood
of Christ in the Eucharist—can seem arcane not just to the laity, but even to a church leadership that is far less theologically attuned than it was in the recent past.
Church unity can seem irrelevant to church life, and ecumenical texts are often written by committees—a recipe for boring prose.
And so the ecumenical process has slowed to a halt. Since the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was signed in 1999—the fruit of
three decades of intensive discussions launched in the 1960s—few significant steps toward unity have been made. Ecumenical professionals (such as I) continue
to attend meetings (when the churches can fund the meetings) and produce texts of various sorts. Regional and national church structures still have offices that
attend to ecumenical matters. Truth be told, though, these activities often just mark time. At present, there appear to be no -breakthroughs around the corner, no
trial projects of great consequence.
St. John Paul II said in his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint, that the Second Vatican Council had committed the Catholic Church “irrevocably to follow-
ing the path of the ecumenical venture.” Prior to Vatican II, Catholic ecumenism had aimed at persuading non-Catholic Christians that their separation was schis-
matic, and that they must return to the unity they had broken—a so-called “ecumenism of return.” Since Vatican II, Catholic ecumenical efforts have sought to
understand and emphasize the “elements of sanctification and truth,” as the council documents put it, that exist in other Christian communions. The Church
hopes and intends that, through prayer, dialogue, and common witness, the separated communions may finally be reunited in a Church recognizably Catholic, but
transformed and renewed. But what does the Church’s commitment to ecumenism mean in a time of ecumenical stagnation? What can be done to renew the
ecumenical venture?
It is common to speak of an “ecumenical winter,” and to blame it on a conservative return to tradition and certainty—for instance, the continued Catholic refusal
to ordain women, or the rejection by some Lutherans of agreements on the doctrine of justification. This diagnosis is often followed by exhortations to overcome
institutional inertia, reject ecclesial prejudices, and transcend self-interest and fear of change. With a bit of goodwill, spring can come again.
That account is, I believe, simply wrong. It misunderstands how ecumenical change came about in the twentieth century, and it fails to see why progress has
slowed. Misdiagnosing the predicament, it prescribes solutions that will only make the ecumenical -situation worse.
To understand our situation, we need to ask a larger question: How have changes in the unity and disunity of Christians occurred in the past? Change has usually
come in brief periods of significant disruption, set off by particular crises that could not be accommodated by previous patterns of common life. The separation
between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches in the Near East in the middle of the first millennium a.d. is one example; the separation of Western
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches at the beginning of the second millennium is another. And of course the Reformation crisis of the sixteenth century
changed the ecumenical landscape in profound ways.
 13

In this history, we observe that change in church

unity has been “punctuational” rather than gradual.
Most of the time, church structures remain
relatively constant. Institutions resist change. But
problems and pressures accumulate. Rome and
Constantinople had been moving in different
directions religiously and culturally for a long time
prior to the decisive breaks of 1054 and 1204. The
century and a half before the Reformation saw the
conciliar crisis and the growth of the power of local
rulers over the churches in their territories, which
destabilized old patterns of church governance. In
these situations, earthquakes occur and old
patterns collapse. Things then settle down into new,
relatively stable configurations.
This pattern of stability punctuated by brief periods
of significant change accords with modern analyses
of large-scale change in various fields. In The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), Thomas
Kuhn criticized the notion of scientific change as
resulting from the gradual accumulation of data and
theories. He contrasted “normal science,” in which
scientists work on problems in accordance with a
stable sense of the basic laws and methods of a
field, with “revolutionary science,” which emerges
when basic laws and methods are up for grabs, when even what counts as a problem may be redefined. In 1972, the evolutionary biologists Niles Eldredge and
Stephen Jay Gould coined the phrase “punctuated equili-brium” to describe the way in which species typically remain unchanged for long periods of time, and
then undergo sudden bursts of evolutionary activity.
Perhaps the modern ecumenical movement is best seen as a “punctuation” in the history of church unity. In retrospect, we can see that pressures were
accumulating during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Within the increasingly large and energetic Protestant missionary movement of the late
nineteenth century, intra-Protestant church differences seemed increasingly trivial. The Student Volunteer Movement, which recruited young and idealistic
missionaries, became one of the most important incubators for future ecumenical leaders. In Europe, the bonds between national and confessional identity
loosened. Increasing geographical mobility caused formerly isolated Catholic and Protestant groups to mix with each other, and the new secular, urban, and
industrial environment undercut structures of confessional identity. These social changes put new pressures on traditional religious boundaries. Political
upheavals had decisive consequences, as well. The fall of the Russian and Ottoman empires at the end of World War I altered the situation of the Orthodox
Church. It is no coincidence that the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople sent out an important letter on the topic of church unity to the leaders of all
churches—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—in 1920.
In the twentieth century, these pressures crystallized into the ecumenical movement. A wide range of Protestant churches joined with the Orthodox Ecumenical
Patriarchate and the Orthodox churches of the non-communist world in large assemblies during the 1920s. The goal of these meetings was to articulate a unity
in doctrine and church ordinances (“faith and order”), and to make common cause in social ethics and meeting the world’s needs (“life and work”). By the late
1930s, everything was in place for the creation of the World Council of Churches, which, after being postponed due to World War II, was launched in 1948. In
the U.S., the Federal Council of Churches was organized among various Protestant denominations in 1908, to be succeeded in 1950 by the more expansive
National Council of the Churches of Christ.
Initially, the Catholic Church was suspicious of these initiatives. In 1928, Pope Pius XI banned Catholics from attending ecumenical assemblies. By 1949,
however, joint prayer and limited Catholic participation in ecumenical meetings were officially sanctioned. The Second Vatican Council brought far-reaching—
though complex—changes. The Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, focused on the existing unity of the people of God and characterized non-Catholic
Christians as separated Christian brethren. The ecumenical movement among non-Catholic Christians was now described as the work of the Holy Spirit, rather
than an expression of indifference to doctrine. Protestant congregations were said to mediate salvation and their members to be genuine brothers and sisters in
Christ. Language of a “return” to Mother Rome was replaced by language of reconciliation and repentance on all sides. Yet the Catholic Church was still said to
be the community in which the one Church of Christ
uniquely subsists. Many of the realities that constitute
the Church were acknowledged to be present in
Protestant communities, yet those communities were
not acknowledged as “churches” in the strict sense.
Whatever shape a reconciled Church might take, the
bishop of Rome must still be its head.
Thus, the Catholic Church entered the ecumenical
movement with vigor, but on its own terms. It never
has joined the World Council of Churches, though it has
pursued dialogue with almost every group one might
place within mainstream Christianity. Joint prayer is
encouraged, though Eucharistic communion remains
limited to those who belong to the Catholic Church.
Where has all the activity and enthusiasm of the
twentieth century left us? What “punctuation” has -
occurred in the flow of the Church’s history? Among
Protestants, change has been decisive. For the vast
majority of the laity, and even for many clergy, the
differences among the mainstream Protestant churches
have become irrelevant. People move from one
Protestant church to another easily when they move to
a new neighborhood or city.
 14

Some ecumenical agreements permit clergy from one church to serve in another. When
two Lutheran seminaries in Pennsylvania merged last year, a Presbyterian became the
new seminary’s president.
These changes have occurred without much actual change in church structures. A
proposal to create one large mainstream Protestant church in the U.S.—the Consultation
on Church Union’s 1970 Plan of Union—failed and now is almost forgotten. Almost all
church mergers over the last fifty years have taken place within particular traditions—
Presbyterians joining Presbyterians, Lutherans joining Lutherans. The structures created
by bitter post-Reformation divisions over doctrine remain in place. But they are inhabited
in a new way. Differences are now seen as more like the difference between Skippy and
Jif, or Crest and Colgate, than like that between truth and falsehood.
What about the deeper, more challenging divisions between Catholics and Protestants? (I
will not say much about the Orthodox, who raise different questions and present a
different set of ecumenical opportunities and challenges.) Real change has come here, as
well. A 2017 Pew Research Center study indicated that more than half of both Protestants
and Catholics in the U.S. believe that Catholics and Protestants are more alike than
different. A parallel survey of Western Europe found similar attitudes. Comparative data
for one hundred years ago is not available, but it is hard to imagine that nineteenth-
century Americans or Europeans were not more impressed by Protestant and Catholic
differences than by their similarities. The trend toward downplaying differences is
reinforced by declining commitment to the doctrines that have historically split the
churches. The Pew survey found that only 30 percent of American Protestants accepted both “Scripture alone” and “salvation by faith alone.” (One can
argue about the way the survey phrased its questions, but the result is still striking.)
This shift in attitudes parallels changes in behaviors and practices. Research shows that contemporary Americans have a strong propensity to change
religions. More than a quarter of Americans have shifted from one major tradition to another (not counting movement among Protestant churches), or
to no religion at all—for instance, from Judaism to Catholicism or from Hinduism to Protestantism or atheism. By contrast, as recently as the mid--
twentieth century, only about 4 percent had made such a shift. A quarter of married Americans today are in religiously mixed marriages (not counting
spouses in different Protestant churches).
Worship practices have also converged. The Catholic Mass is no longer restricted to Latin. The liturgical movement has made Protestant worship more
liturgical and Catholic worship more demotic. The result is a similitude in worship that makes it easier to cross the lines of church division on Sunday
mornings. The Presbyterian church in which I grew up had no liturgical calendar beyond Easter, Christmas, and Pentecost, and the only liturgical colors
were black and white (as the pastor’s black preaching robe was exchanged for a white one in the heat of a Tidewater Virginia summer). When I
encountered vestments in other churches, they looked odd. When a nor’easter that struck the area in 1962 was dubbed “the Ash Wednesday storm,” I
was baffled. I had no idea what Ash Wednesday was.
The changes in attitudes and convergences in church practice rarely arose from official ecumenical efforts. The social trends that helped to generate the
ecumenical movement generated these changes, as well. Church-sponsored ecumenism has often provided a rationale for what was already occurring on
its own. It is in the area of theology and doctrine that the ecumenical movement has sought to lead rather than follow. Ecumenical dialogues
demonstrated that hard and creative thinking may reveal commonality where for centuries we had assumed theological opposition. The World Council of
Churches’ text Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry articulated extensive similarities in sacramental theology. The Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on the
Doctrine of Justification addressed the doctrine of salvation, showing that the divergent Catholic and Protestant doctrines need not be church-dividing.
These documents represent permanent achievements.
Since then, discussion has turned to the Church and its way of life, and the ecumenical movement has hit a wall. Different churches may agree on many
questions about God and salvation, but they do not agree on how to live together in Christ. Intra--Protestant discussions have often run aground on the
issue of church leadership and authority—the question of whether bishops, presbyteries, or some combination of models would be best. When people
change churches, seeing Methodism as not so different from Presbyterianism, their informal ecumenism leaves church structures in place, downplaying
and working around them. For Catholics, such ad hoc solutions are not possible. Church unity, for Catholics, requires unity in teaching, sacraments, and
governance. The Catholic Church’s insistence on unity in governance is itself a source of disagreement, as it cuts against the grain of much Protestant
ecclesiology. Catholicism sees unity as manifest in the teaching and governing authority of the local bishop, who is himself in union with the bishop of
Rome. As Walter Cardinal Kasper, former head of
the Vatican’s ecumenical office, put it recently: “The
main question which still divides the churches is the
understanding of the Church itself.”
There are good reasons why modern ecumenism
has foundered on the question of the nature of the
Church. Theologians are adept at analyzing the
history and use of the theological concepts with
reference to which core convictions are elaborated
into doctrines; for this reason, recent decades have
seen progress in defusing formerly church-dividing
differences. These differences, concerning primarily
the nature of God and of salvation, have been
addressed on the level of official church teaching.
They relate to concrete practices, but often only in
indirect ways. By contrast, theological issues
concerning the nature of the Church are often
closely related to specific practical questions. Who
makes what sorts of decisions in the Church? Who
decides what is authoritative? Who may be
ordained, and by whom? These are necessary questions, and contradictory answers have consequences. When churches cannot find a way to live as one
Church in unity, then they are in a significant sense divided. Ecumenism is finally about the relations among actual, existing churches, not about the
relations among theological schools or professors.
 15

There is an additional factor. When the

ecumenical movement first gained momentum
in the early twentieth century, differences
among the churches on ethical matters were
marginal. Service, social advocacy, and moral
witness were areas in which the churches could
easily come together. That agreement has
eroded in recent decades, especially in relation
to issues of sex—abortion, contraception, same-
sex relations, and marriage. This erosion is
closely related to divergences in the churches’
understandings of male-female difference,
divergences manifest in debates about the
ordination of women. These ethical questions
often excite immediate and passionate
disagreements, which do not portend the
discovery of common ground anytime soon.
And so we face a paradox. The churches are
characterized by much friendlier attitudes than
prevailed in the past, a certain fluidity among
their members, worship patterns that look
similar, and theological agreement on some
important doctrinal issues. At the same time, we
observe a stalemate on unavoidable issues of
church life and widening divergences on
prominent ethical matters. The possibility that a
breakthrough on the ecclesiological issues might
be forthcoming cannot be excluded—but it seems unlikely. The few ecumenical dialogues that have addressed the new ethical differences have simply
registered the impasse. In a general climate of goodwill, the ecumenical movement has ceased to move.
The cessation may stem in part from the fact that the typical Christian, at least in the U.S., is satisfied with the new status quo. Much of the pain of
Christian division has been relieved. Protestants may marry Catholics without social stigma, and usually without family disapproval. If one doesn’t like
one’s church, one feels free to seek another.
To borrow Kuhn’s language about science, the “revolutionary” ecumenism of the twentieth century disrupted old patterns. It rearranged many aspects of
church unity and division, changing the way we think about our commonalities and differences. This -rearrangement happened both in formal ways,
through dialogues, and in informal ways, through changed attitudes and practices. But in a pattern of punctuated equilibrium, the period of disruption
eventually ends, and we settle into new patterns, which become the new normal. The ecumenical movement has a problem. What can it accomplish, now
that the possibilities of the period of disruption have come to an end?
To my mind, the new normal requires a new approach, a “normal” ecumenism, suited to the present moment. We need an ecumenism that does not live
off the expectation of new breakthroughs—an ecumenism weaned from the addiction to “progress.”
Achieving it will not be easy. Two temptations should be avoided. One is the temptation to see ecumenism as simply over, yesterday’s news. We can be
happy that we no longer curse one another, some say, but now let Catholics be Catholics and Baptists be Baptists. Stressing what makes our church
distinctive is better marketing, anyway. As differences over hot-button ethical issues continue to increase, the impulse to walk away from ecumenical
engagement becomes stronger. Despair and complacency conspire to remove ecumenism from the new normal.
All Christians must grapple with the meaning of Christ’s call for us to be one, as he and his Father are one. Catholics cannot abandon ecumenical efforts.
The “irrevocable” commitment St. John Paul II spoke of is theologically grounded. In Lumen Gentium, its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican II
declared that the many elements of truth to be found in other churches and ecclesial communities have their true home in the Catholic Church. We know
that the Catholic Church has not always found a suitable home for truths emphasized (or overemphasized or misinterpreted) by other traditions. This is a
loss for the Catholic Church, for insofar as she fails to bring into herself the fullness of Christian truth, she fails to live out her native catholicity. The
universal claims of the Catholic Church are not an obstacle to her ecumenical commitment, needing to be relativized for the sake of politeness. On the
contrary, they serve as the theological foundation for the irrevocable character of Catholic ecumenism. Simply turning our backs on other traditions,
traditions that embody, however imperfectly, genuine aspects of Christianity, is profoundly uncatholic. Other Christian traditions need to think through
their ecumenical commitments on their own terms, but they too affirm the universality of Christ’s proclamation, and so they too must discern how to
serve the catholic character of Christian truth—which is to say, how to be ecumenical.
A second, opposite temptation must also be resisted. This is the temptation to insist that ecumenical progress must somehow continue, regardless of
whether the theological grounding is adequate. Let each church invite members of the other churches to receive Communion, even while church division
remains! Unity can be experienced at the altar, even if not in a truly common life!
For Catholics, this proposal is unacceptable. One cannot separate unity at the altar from unity elsewhere. The reception of Communion is not a private
exchange between the Christian and Christ. Reception joins the recipient to the gathered community and to those with whom the community is united by
virtue of its incorporation into the universal Church made visible in her common life. Widespread inter-communion in the face of institutional division
would contradict this truth about the Eucharist, a truth that is central to Catholic belief. Nor can we assume that intercommunion will be a spur to greater
visible unity over time. Many mainstream Protestant churches have entered in recent decades into full communion agreements that allow for
intercommunion, as well as interchange of clergy. These practices have produced very little movement toward unity of teaching authority and governance.
If we should neither give up on ecumenism nor press forward at all costs, what should we do? Does “normal” ecumenism mean merely a friendly but
distant coexistence, with the occasional joint service when neither side can turn out a sufficient congregation on its own?
I don’t have a full answer, but I can give a partial sketch of what is needed. A normal ecumenism would seek less to achieve decisive breakthroughs than to
deepen the real but limited communion that exists already. This kind of ecumenism is already emerging. The Global Christian Forum came into existence at
the beginning of this century as a looser, leaner organization than the World Council of Churches. It includes a wider range of churches, among them the
Catholic Church and many Evangelical and Pentecostal bodies not in the World Council. It is a forum, not a council, providing an open space for encounter,
mutual learning, encouragement, and whatever common initiatives might develop.
 16

A similar shift can be seen in bilateral relations. The international Catholic–Anglican dialogue involving theologians is now complemented by a regular meeting
of Catholic and Anglican bishops. When the head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, visited Pope Francis in -October 2016,
the joint declaration they issued was clear: “We ourselves do not yet see solutions to the obstacles before us.” The emphasis fell on common endeavors in
which cooperation is possible. We should at least be living in whatever unity the gains of the last century have made possible, even if we cannot see our way to
the next punctuation in the equilibrium.
Our sense of what counts as ecumenical dialogue also needs to expand. The last fifty years have seen many officially sponsored dialogues among experts. Such
dialogues almost always have the goal of producing an agreed-upon text, which the experts hope will move the churches closer to unity. This enterprise has
reached the point of diminishing returns. More important for the future, perhaps, will be unofficial engagements across confessional boundaries. They will not
aim at agreements or the production of common statements, but will be motivated by an interest in vigorous theological discussion. These discussions already
take place at the occasional -conferences sponsored jointly by the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. and the Center for
Barth Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary, and at conferences of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology. The lack of official sponsorship (and of
implicit pressure to seek agreement in a common statement) gives these discussions a livelier character than official dialogues possess. In these contexts,
disagreement can be more prominent, and indeed is sometimes sought out as a spur to a shrewder grasp of the issues.
A normal ecumenism must seek common mission, where common mission is possible. Anyone active in pro-life endeavors has experienced such common
mission, but it can also occur in our central witness to Christ and to God’s saving work. Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants share basic convictions on
such matters, convictions that are increasingly at odds with our secular context. How can we witness to those convictions together? When Billy Graham
embarked on his preaching missions, he assembled coalitions of local churches to receive those who pledged their lives to Christ. In the post-Christian West, the
churches increasingly rely on one another to spark and strengthen the faith. Catholics such as Bishop Robert Barron or Scott Hahn can be evan-gelizing allies for
a Protestant pastor planting a church, just as Protestant writers such as William Lane Craig or C. S. Lewis can be indispensable aides to Catholic university
chaplains.
Our situation is not easy. We cannot sustain the old revolutionary optimism; nor can we accept the new normal as our permanent condition. We are like the
children of Israel under Moses in the wilderness. They were not to turn back to Egypt, and they were not to look upon the wilderness as their new home. They
could not press forward into the Promised Land until the Lord willed that they should do so. We are not to forget the unity to which we are called, but we
cannot simply will that unity. Disagreements are real and significant; pretending they do not exist will not make them go away. But we cannot become -
complacent. Talk of “normal ecumenism” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, an excuse for ignoring real opportunities for change. We can easily misread the
signs of the times. How many foresaw the rapid collapse of communism? We need to think carefully about our situation and weigh the merits of any paths
forward.
Ecumenism is rooted in a sense that things are not what they should be. As Christians, we take our name from the One who came to break down the walls of
division. Disagreement, even dispute, may be a permanent part of Christian existence. Paul told the Corinthians, “There must be factions among you in order
that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor. 11:19). But dispute among the followers of Christ should not take the form of enduring
structures of disunity. Today, we need to find ways of living out as faithfully as we can the unity we find possible. As we do so, we must not forget the unity to
which we are called, the fullness of unity we seek with God in Christ and thus with all others who share in Christ.

Michael Root is Ordinary Professor of Systematic Theology at the Catholic University of America.

THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE AND THE
FORMATION OF THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
By Archbishop Job of Telmessos
Representative to the World Council of Churches, Geneva
O
ne hundred years ago, in
January 1920, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate issued a very
prophetic document. Its
encyclical addressed “unto the
Churches of Christ everywhere”, stated
that the Orthodox Church “holds that
rapprochement (προσέγγισις)
between the various Christian
Churches and fellowship (κοινωνία)
between them is not excluded by the
doctrinal differences which exist
between them”, and them called for
the “necessity for establishing a
contact and league (fellowship —
κοινωνία) between the Churches”, by
analogy to the League of Nations
created in Geneva in 1919. This
prophetic call is usually considered as a pioneering step towards the creation
in 1948 of the World Council of Churches, of which the Ecumenical
Patriarchate is a founding member.
The future Archbishop of Thyateira Germanos Strenopoulos, at that time
Dean of the Faculty of Theology of Halki, near Constantinople, was one of
the drafters of this historic encyclical. He later became the Exarch of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate for Western Europe in 1922 and played a key role in
the contribution of the Orthodox to the newly born Ecumenical Movement.
He could be certainly considered as a pioneer of the Ecumenical Movement.
He took an active part as a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in
the first conferences of the Movements of “Faith and Order” (Geneva 1920,
Lausanne 1927, Edinburgh 1937) and “Life and Work” (Geneva 1920,
Stockholm 1925, Oxford 1937). In Lausanne, in 1927, he spoke in moving
words about the urgent need for Christian unity, stressing though that this
unity could not be achieved without a unity in faith. His message was quite
clear: “Unity in faith constitutes a primary condition of reunion of the
Churches. (…) Therefore, the mind of the Orthodox Church is that the reunion
can take place only on the basis of the common faith and confession of the
ancient, undivided Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils and of the first
eight centuries”. This remains the position of the Orthodox Church in the
ecumenical dialogues until today.
At Edinburgh in 1937, the two currents of the Ecumenical Movement of the
20th century — “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work” — decided to merge
and founded the World Council of Churches at the General Assembly of
Amsterdam in 1948. Besides Archbishop Germanos, was Father Georges
Florovsky, who always represented the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople in the previous conferences of the Ecumenical Movement as
well as in the process of formation of the World Council of Churches. As
Willem Adolf Visser T’Hooft, the first secretary general of the WCC, has
written, Florovsky played a very important role in the process of formation of
the WCC in the early years of its life. The story begins in 1937 at the second
World Conference on Faith and Order in Edinburgh where he was the most
effective spokesman of the Orthodox position, stressing that it was
impossible to jump over all the doctrinal differences into a reunion of
Churches that would rather be a confusion of Churches. Fr. Georges
Florovsky and Archbishop Germanos of Thyateira were then the two
Orthodox delegates to guide the process of formation of this new institution
called to incarnate the “koinonia of Churches” for which the Encyclical of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate of 1920 had prophetically called all the Churches of
Christ everywhere.
17
Fr. Georges Florovsky served on the Provisional Committee of the WCC from
1939 to 1948. The WCC archives preserve a rich correspondence between
Florovsky and various leading figures of the WCC. In a letter of 23 September
1947 to the future secretary general of the WCC, Willem Adolf Visser
T’Hooft, Florovsky sadly noted the lack of interest of the Orthodox for the
Ecumenical Movement:
“My personal feeling is that the real difficulty we have to face is the utter
unreadiness of the Orthodox people to visualize any Christian activity
unrelated to the particular worldly concerns of those involved. This does not
depend upon the special conditions of our time, and cannot be explained by
any external pressure. There is a lack of true ecumenicity behind it, which is
only strengthened by the political tensions of today”.
In a letter sent on 18 July 1948 from Geneva to Henry Smith Leiper, Executive
Secretary of the American Committee for the World Council of Churches,
Florovsky was unhappy of the initiative of the Church of Russia to convey a
so-called pan-orthodox council in Moscow in July 1948 which ought to
condemn the Ecumenical Movement. Florovsky was afraid that the Orthodox
Church would be divided at the constitutive assembly of the WCC that ought
to gather in Amsterdam one month later:
“You have heard already I trust of the consultation convoked by the Moscow
Patriarch to deal on the first place with the question of the Orthodox
participation in the Ecumenical Movement and kindred subjects. All Greek-
speaking Churches have declined the invitation, pointed out that the
authority for such gathering belongs to the Ecumenical See of
Constantinople. This means a deep split in the Orthodox Communion and is of
a momentous importance for the composition of the Amsterdam Assembly.
Two Orthodox groups, Moscow with the Satellites and Greeks, will take
probably different line of action. For the moment, I am rather in the deep
waters of theology, more than in the urgent problems of today”.
The meeting of Moscow in July 1948 condemned the Ecumenical Movement
and the creation of the WCC. As a result, only four Eastern Orthodox
Churches officially appointed delegates to the founding WCC assembly of
Amsterdam in August 1948: the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of
Cyprus, the Church of Greece and the American Archdiocese of the
Antiochian Patriarchate. History ought to wait until the third WCC Assembly
(New Delhi, 1961) to see most of the other Orthodox Churches joining the
WCC.
The question of the representativeness of the Orthodox Church in at the
constitutive General Assembly of Amsterdam was already raised in 1948.
Could a few Orthodox Churches represent Orthodoxy as a whole?
Responding to that question in an article published in Irénikon in 1949, Fr.
Georges Florovsky stressed that the unity of the Orthodox Church is so
evident that any local Orthodox Church is capable to represent the fulness of
Orthodoxy, since the aim of authentic Orthodoxy is not to represent local or
national interests, but the truth of the Orthodox faith. With his prophetic
voice, Florovsky then stated: “The temptation of provincialism and of ‘local
tradition’ is always out there and always strong. But we overcome it least in
agreement of local provincialisms than in ratcheting up the spirit of
universalism and in examining the conscience focusing on the constant
conscience of the Church”. The Orthodox delegates present at the
Amsterdam Founding Assembly represented the interests of Orthodoxy, not
of local national interests.
At the first constitutive assembly of the WCC in Amsterdam in August 1948,
Archbishop Germanos of Thyateira was elected as one of the six presidents
of the World Council of Churches and Fr. Georges Florovsky was appointed a
member of the new Central Committee, and at its first meeting, was chosen
to serve on the Executive Committee. Florovsky served these committees
until 1961 very actively, underlining always the dynamic character of the
WCC and not considering it as being a static institution: indeed, he viewed
the WCC rather as a process and not as an institution.

But the
Amsterdam
constitutive
assembly had
not clarified the
question of the
ecclesiological
significance of
the WCC. After
Amsterdam, in
a report on the
Central
Committee
meeting at
Chichester (England) in July 1949, Florovsky stated:
“Ecumenism does not mean ecclesiological relativism or syncretism. It is
precisely the originality of the ecumenical movement that it invites churches,
many of which are as yet unable to regard each other as branches of the
same tree, to enter into fraternal conversation and cooperation with each
other, so that they may come to know each other and, if the Lord wills,
advance toward a wider manifestation of unity in Him”.
But he then added:
“To speak so much and so persistently of difficulties and tensions is not to
indulge in a hopeless pessimism. Just the opposite is true. The growing
realization of difficulties is the greatest ecumenical promise. The Amsterdam
decision ‘to stay together’ will be vindicated only if it will stand the test and
trial of fraternal controversy and common pain”.
In order to avoid any ecclesiological relativism or syncretism, Fr. Georges
Florovsky ought to have a decisive influence in 1950 in the drafting of the so-
called Toronto statement, which proper title is “The Church, the Churches
and the World Council of Churches” and which ought to discuss the
ecclesiological question after the constitutive Assembly of
Amsterdam of 1948. This document was received by the meeting
of the Central Committee of the WCC in Toronto in 1950. Its
subtitle is: “The ecclesiological significance of the World Council
of Churches”.
The Toronto statement begins by quoting the Amsterdam
resolution on the “authority of the Council” and then goes on by
stating “what the World Council is not”. The WCC is not a supra-
Church. Florovsky had already underlined in an article in 1949 on
the First constitutive Assembly of Amsterdam 1948. The WCC
does not exist to negotiate unions between the Churches.
Florovsky had already underlined this in his article of 1949 when
stating that “the ecumenical fellowship cannot be considered as
the reunion of the Churches”. The WCC is not based on a
particular conception of the Church. The membership in WCC
does not mean that we consider our own conception of the
Church as relative and does not mean that we accept a specific
doctrine concerning the nature of Church unity. Furthermore, the
Toronto statement affirms: “The member churches of the World Council
consider the relationship of the other churches to the holy catholic Church
which the creeds profess as a subject for mutual consideration. Nevertheless,
membership does not imply that each Church must regard the other member
Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the word”. This last
sentence led to a long and intensive debate. The Orthodox regarded the
other churches as essentially incomplete. During that debate, Florovsky
made what Willem Adolf Visser T’Hooft considered to be “the most
important speech he ever made in the history of the World Council”.
Florovsky pointed out that there was already, from the very beginning, a
division among the WCC. In the minutes of the meeting we read:
“Now it is no secret that in this matter there are divisions between us. In
Section I in Amsterdam this was clearly shown. We can either say that these
disagreements do not destroy the WCC fellowship, or that they are so great
that we have no common language and cannot speak together. Fr. Florovsky
continued that some members regard other churches as essentially
incomplete. If it is felt undesirable or impossible to retain such members, and
hence such cleavages in the WCC, it had better be said clearly and plainly.
Possibly the viewpoint of this tradition is too sharp for some, and if so it may
be time to part. […] He did not threaten, but gave a serious warning that this
was no matter of editorial revision, but a matter of principle”.
18
In Toronto, many Protestant and Anglican agreed with the position of
Florovsky. Finally, the Toronto statement was adopted and showed the
originality of the WCC which is a fellowship of Churches who are not yet able
to give full recognition to each other. This document is still of a significant
importance until today concerning the participation of the Orthodox in the
World Council of Churches, as it is reminded by the document of the Holy
and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 2016) on the “Relations of
the Orthodox Church with the rest the Christian world” in paragraph 19.
Another key figure for the participation of the Orthodox in the World Council
of Churches was the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras himself. In his
encyclical, dated 31 January 1952, sent prior the third world conference on
Faith and Order in Lund, Patriarch Athenagoras asked the Primates of the
Orthodox Autocephalous Churches to express their view “in order to clarify
our future attitude to the World Council of Churches” that has just been
created in 1948, and encouraged the local Orthodox Churches to participate
in it:
“In an epoch in which the peoples and nations of the world are working
intensively for some kind of rapprochement in order to confront the great
problems which face humanity today, and when the need for some
manifestation of the unity of the Christian world in opposition to the anti-
Christian tendencies in the world has acquired particular importance, the task
of rapprochement and cooperation between all Christian confessions and
organisations is a sacred obligation and a holy duty, derived from their own
function and mission”.
The dream of Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras became a reality one
decade later, during the Panorthodox conferences that he conveyed (Rhodes
-Chambésy, 1961-1968), which decided to launch bilateral dialogues with
other Christian Churches. The fourth Panorthodox Conference (Chambésy,
1968) officially stated that the Orthodox Church must be an organic member
of the WCC, that Orthodox staff and theologians should be employed by the
WCC and in the Commission on Faith and Order and that Orthodox liturgical
celebrations ought to be integrated in the various event of the WCC.
At the Lund Conference of Faith and Order in 1952, Fr. Georges Florovsky
was elected member of Faith and Order Commission as representative of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate. He remained a very active member of this
commission until 1971. At its meeting in August 1953 in Bossey, he prepared
a memorandum entitled: “Tradition and our traditions” where he stated his
fundamental principles for ecumenism, which ought to become the
fundamental principles of the Orthodox in the Ecumenical Movement until
today. According to Florovsky, Christianity is a historical religion, founded on
the revelation in Jesus Christ, the Apostolic message, and the Tradition
(paradosis). The Tradition is constituted by the Church, the Holy Scripture
and the Holy Spirit. Florovsky emphasized that the Church grew and
developed. According to him, the Church had a common history. Therefore,
Florovsky rejected what he called “ecumenism in space”, which would intend
to merely put the different denominations together as pieces of a puzzle,
and advocated for “ecumenism in time”, which implied a critical evaluation
of each confession through the prism of Tradition:is intrinsically fallacious,
because it dangerously obscures the relation between the stabilized
traditions and that common paradosis, out of which they came and by which
they should be measured and judged”.

Florovsky believed that it is necessary to
identify the common tradition, the
additions or deviations to that common
tradition, in a non-polemical way,
recognizing the essential kerygma and
paradosis in other Christian communities
than our own. He stated: “Only by an
historical analysis it is possible to identify
the distinctive ethos of the existing
denominations and their relation to that
abiding paradosis, which only can vitally
relate the broken aspects together”.
Only six years after the foundation of the
WCC, Florovsky regretted the shift within
the WCC from doctrinal discussions to
practical cooperation. In a report sent to
Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in
January 1954, Florovsky deplored that the
theme for the 2nd WCC Assembly in
Evanston (Christ — the Hope of the World)
was of practical character and that “there
will be no room for doctrinal disputes”. He
suggested to the Ecumenical Patriarch that
“the Orthodox will be guided even in the
discussion of practical topics by their basic
beliefs and convictions.” But pointed out that “the interest of our Holy
Orthodox Church may require from its representatives a clear definition of
the Church’s position and conviction. It would not contradict the principles set
by Your Holiness in Your Encyclical Letter of January 31, 1952, if the Orthodox
delegates, when required, would make statements on the Orthodox faith and
teaching, in order to elucidate their standing and attitude in practical field
itself. The only thing they should not do is to initiate debates on doctrines or
to expose the Orthodox teaching to criticism”. He stressed that “the
Orthodox will be put in a difficult position if they will not be allowed to bear
witness to their faith”.
At the second assembly of the WCC in Evanston in 1954, Florovsky presented
a paper entitled “The challenge of disunity” in which he stated that there is
One Church as there is One Lord, but the Christians are divided. This
distinction between the unity of the Church and the division of Christians is
fundamental. According to Florovsky, the Church is not divided, but the “the
Christian World is in schism”. He stressed that there is no common “Christian
language” and therefore pointed out the existence of a problem of
communication. According to him, “the greatest achievement of the modern
Ecumenical Movement is in the courage to acknowledge that there is a major
disagreement”. For him, the Tradition is the main criteria to judge the
Christians confessions. In the same paper he affirmed:
“Christian convictions must be submitted to the test of paradosis, of tradition.
19
And probably it is precisely in this process of a common return to the glorious
Tradition, which was continuing in the midst of all conflicts and dissensions, if
often in a disguised and distorted shape, we, the ‘divided Christians’, will
meet on a safer ground than ever before. This ‘Tradition’ is the Church
herself, in which the Lord is ever present”.
Following the death of Fr. Georges Florovsky on 11 August 1979, the first
secretary general of the World Council of Church, Willem Adolf Visser
T’Hooft, expressed the wish that “the younger generation in the World
Council will not forget what we owe to Fr. Georges, who represented a quite
unique combination of strong, deeply rooted theological conviction with
ecumenical breadth”. Definitely, Fr. Georges Florovsky and Archbishop
Germanos of Thyateira were the two hands of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
who shaped the World Council of Churches.
Besides having been a founding member of the WCC and having taken an
active role in its governing structures from the foundation until today, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate established in 1955 its Permanent Representation
to the World Council of Churches and appointed as its first permanent
representative Bishop Iakovos de Melita, who remained there until his
election as Archbishop of America in 1959. During the
four years of his stay in Geneva, Bishop Iakovos played a
leading role in the World Council of Churches. Emilianos
Timiadis, the future bishop of Meloa and later
Metropolitan of Silivria, succeeded him in 1959 and held
the position of permanent representative until his
retirement in 1985. He was succeeded by Fr. Georges
Tsetsis (1985-1999), Fr. Benedict Ioannou (2000-2008)
and Mr. Georges Lemopoulos (2008-2015). Since the end
of 2015, I hold the office of the Permanent
Representation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate located at
the headquarters of the WCC which serves until today as
an embassy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate by promoting
its cooperation with the WCC in particular and with the
Ecumenical Movement in general.
There are no doubts that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has
played a key role in the formation of the World Council of
Churches, being a founding member. When Ecumenical
Patriarch Athenagoras visited the WCC in 1967, the first
secretary general of the WCC, Willem Adolf Visser
T’Hooft, stated: “The Church of Constantinople was one of
the first in modern history to remind Christianity that it
would be being disobedient to the will of its Master and
Saviour, if it did not seek to demonstrate to the world the
unity of the people of God and of the Body of Christ.” Through its prophetic
Encyclical, “Constantinople sounded the clarion call to bring us together.”
 20

Interfaith dialogue refers to cooperative, constructive, and positive

interaction between people of different religious traditions (i.e., "faiths") and/
or spiritual or humanistic beliefs, at both the individual and institutional levels. It is distinct
from syncretism or alternative religion, in that dialogue often involves promoting understanding
between different religions or beliefs to increase acceptance of others, rather than to synthesize
new beliefs.
The Archdiocese of Chicago's Office for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs defines "the
difference between ecumenical, interfaith, and interreligious relations", as follows:
 "ecumenical" as "relations and prayer with other Christians",
"interfaith" as "relations with members of the 'Abrahamic faiths' (Jewish and Muslim traditions),"
and
 "interreligious" as "relations with other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism".
Some interfaith dialogues have more recently adopted the name interbelief dialogue, while other
proponents have proposed the term interpath dialogue, to avoid implicitly excluding atheists,
agnostics, humanists, and others with no religious faith but with ethical or philosophical beliefs, as
well as to be more accurate concerning many world religions that do not place the same emphasis
on "faith" as do some Western religions. Similarly, pluralistic rationalist groups have hosted public
reasoning dialogues to transcend all worldviews (whether religious, cultural or political),
termed transbelief dialogue. To some, the term interreligious dialogue has the same meaning as
interfaith dialogue. Neither are the same as nondenominational Christianity. The World Council of
Churches distinguishes between 'interfaith' and 'interreligious'. To the WCC, interreligious refers to
action between different Christian denominations. So, interfaith refers to interaction between
different faith groups such as Muslim and Christian or Jew for example.
From Wikipedia
 21

The Orthodox Church and

the Inter-Faith Dialogue

By Petros Vassiliadis
Petros Vassiliadis is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Theology of the Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, in which he taught New Testament Theology and Inter-Faith dialogue as part of the course on
Missiology. He is currently the Director of the English-speaking Master Program on “Orthodox Ecumenical
Theology” of the International Hellenic University.

O ur society is characterized by religious pluralism, i.e. the acceptance of all religious paths as equally valid
and able all to promote coexistence. It is related to, and for most scholars is the result of, “modernity”,
the most tangible outcome of the Enlightenment that prevailed in Europe and globally dominated in all
aspects of public life. I, therefore, firmly believe that the Orthodox Church cannot meaningfully and
effectively exercise its mission in today’s world without a reassessment of the present context and a certain
encounter with modernity. And this is what the mission document of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox
Church has tried to affirm. If today this encounter is possible, and even desirable this is because of the transition
of our culture to a new era, the post-modern era that brought with it the resurgence of religion; and this is
undoubtedly both a threat and a hope. It is a threat if the fundamentalists assume uncontrolled power. However, it is a hope if religion is willing, or
allowed, to exercise its tremendous potential and power to bring back moral values, and if recreate, and originate new images of what it means to be
human in a just, peaceful and sustainable universe.
The Orthodox Church since the 2008 Synaxis of her Primates had indirectly endorsed this encounter: “Efforts to distance religion from societal life
constitute the common tendency of many modern states. The principle of a secular state can be preserved; however, it is unacceptable to interpret this
principle as a radical marginalization of religion from all spheres of public life.” (§ 7 of the Message) This affirmation was, of course, on the ecumenical
agenda of World Christianity, at least since the 1963 World Mission Conference in Mexico. It was there that ecumenical Christianity replaced the
negative assessment to modernity and gradually a new understanding of Christian mission was developed and the old terms as Christianization, verbal
proclamation, evangelization, conversion etc. were replaced by a variety of much more inclusive ones, like witness or martyria, public presence,
liberation, and of course inter-faith dialogue. And of course, the Church universal began to address the human sin in the structural complexities of our
world and started ministering the socially poor and marginalized of our societies in their contexts.
Coming back the Holy and Great Council, it was declared in its Message that “sober inter-religious dialogue helps significantly to promote mutual trust,
peace and reconciliation” (§4). And in its Encyclical emphasized: “We are experiencing today an increase of violence in the name of God. The explosions
of fundamentalism within religious communities threaten to create the view that fundamentalism belongs to the essence of the phenomenon of
religion. The truth, however, is that fundamentalism, as “zeal not based on knowledge” (Rom 10.2), constitutes an expression of morbid religiosity. A
true Christian, following the example of the crucified
Lord, sacrifices himself and does not sacrifice others, and
for this reason is the most stringent critic of
fundamentalism of whatever provenance. Honest
interfaith dialogue contributes to the development of
mutual trust and to the promotion of peace and
reconciliation. The Church strives to make “the peace
from on high” more tangibly felt on earth. True peace is
not achieved by force of arms, but only through love
that “does not seek its own” (1 Cor 13.5). The oil of faith
must be used to soothe and heal the wounds of others,
not to rekindle new fires of hatred” (§ 17). Finally, in its
Mission Statement, entitled The Mission of the
Orthodox Church in Today’s World, it is stated: “The
Orthodox Church resolutely condemns the multifaceted
conflicts and wars provoked by fanaticism that derives
from religious principles.…Existing interfaith and
international relations are threatened, while many
Christians are forced to abandon their homes. Orthodox
Christians throughout the world suffer with their fellow
Christians and all those being persecuted in this region,
while also calling for a just and lasting resolution to the
region’s problems”(§ E3).
 22

The Orthodox theologians went even further and on the basis of “the The interfaith dialogue is currently being promoted and with full
economy of the Holy Spirit” insisted, against the arrogant offensive determination pursued by Christians, with the Ecumenical Patriarch
proselytist behaviour by Western missionaries; for God uses not only leading the way, in order to build upon what is left unfinished in
the Christians or the Church, but many other powers of the world in modernity by the so-called “secular condition”. And the areas where the
God’s mission (missio dei) for the salvation of humankind and the entire “modern paradigm” failed to succeed were the spiritual and material
creation. According to the biblical magna Charta (Mt 25), God judges welfare of the people, the degradation in social and moral values. I am
humanity with criteria other than the conventional religious ones. Thus, referring to the inability of secularism to enforce a lasting just peace on
the superiority syndromes and arrogant missionary behaviour gave their earth, to its unwillingness to preserve the natural environment, and to
place to a “common witness” and a humble “inter-faith dialogue”. its surrender to the rules of the dominant world economic system, all
God in God’s own self contrary to
is a life of communion God’s will.
and God’s The failure or
involvement in
“Economic justice” is a concept developed by the Christians shortcomings
history (and and the ecumenical movement towards achievement of global of modernity in
consequently justice, peace,
Christian missional justice through advocating for equitable sharing of resources the integrity of
responsibility) aims at creation, and
drawing humanity
and power as essential prerequisites for human development the world
and creation in and ecological sustainability. economic
general into this system, is to a
communion with certain extent
God’s very life. This the result of
ultimate expression of koinonia (communion) and love, through this individualism, one of the pillars of modernity, and the ensuing absolute,
kind of “inter-faith” encounter, is transferred to the whole world; not as unconditioned, uncontrolled freedom of the individual in all aspects of
doctrinal statements (dogmas) or ethical commands, but as a life (sexual freedom, legally protected freedom in accumulating wealth
communion of love. This openness toward the faithful of other religions etc.), heralded as the new faith after the Enlightenment. Here in Great
is also reinforced by the unique Orthodox anthropology, expressed in Britain similar activities and research are pursued by the Jubilee Center
such terms as theosis or deification. The human nature is not a closed, Relational Thinking Projects (www.jubilee-centre.org/relational-
autonomous entity, but a dynamic reality, determined in its very thinking).
existence by its The most revered in
relationship to God. the modernity
Determined by a document, the
vision of how to Universal
“know” God, to Declaration of
“participate” in His Human Rights, after
life, and of course to so many
be “saved,” neither unsuccessful
by an extrinsic action attempts by
of God nor through International
the rational Conventions on
cognition of Climate Change, it
propositional truths, became clear – at
but by “becoming least in religious
God”, this circles – that human
anthropological rights are awfully
notion, developed in ineffective, if they
the Byzantine are not
tradition, is much accompanied by
more inclusive to “human
non-Christians, even to non-believers, and much more relevant to the responsibilities”. To this direction, our Orthodox Church was pioneer,
social, economic and environmental issues, than the old conventional declaring at the Holy and Great Council: “The people of faith nowadays
missionary attitude. believe that the and principles values that form part of a common world
This rapprochement with people of other faiths does not mean a naïve ethic need not only be publicly declared, they also require an
affirmation that all religions are the same, or that a new “world international legal endorsement; they should be more effectively
religion”, a Pan-religion, is needed or is at hand, as it is feared or integrated into the work of the UN system and major international legal
claimed by the ultra-conservatives from all religions. On the contrary, institutions, even if integrating such values and principles requires
the interfaith dialogue and co-operation are necessary, exactly because significant reforms to leading organs and agencies of the UN.
the various religious traditions are different and promote different The struggle, however, of Christians and faithful of other religions to
visions of the reality. The inter-faith dialogue is an “encounter of mutual promote a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities is not just a
commitments and responsibilities” on the common goal of humanity to diplomatic initiative aiming at introducing in the world agenda moral
restore communion with God, which would inevitably also lead to a values at the expense of the values of modernity and the democratic
“communion of faithful from different religious traditions”. After all, this achievements of the Enlightenment. It came out of pressure by
is the ultimate goal of the divine economy, as it is clearly stated in the prophetic and charismatic figures and theological movements for social
Christian Bible (cf. Eph 1:10, Cοl 3:11 etc). and ecological justice from a faith perspective. “Economic justice” is a
The inter-faith-dialogue from an Orthodox Christian point of view does concept developed by the Christians and the ecumenical movement
not simply aim at decreasing the enmity and the hostilities between towards achievement of global justice through advocating for equitable
people of different religions - this is what the secular powers in the sharing of resources and power as essential prerequisites for human
world are interested in, but just for the stability of the present world development and ecological sustainability.
order and status quo. Unlike the Christians, who are called to make the
“other” a real partner in, and not just an “object” of, mission – the
modernists stop at the point of tolerance to any “other”.
 23

“Ecological justice,” on the other hand, did not come as a surprise for us Orthodox, if we take into account that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and
His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew in particular, who has become known all over the world for his sensitivity for the environment, God’s
creation. Patriarch Bartholomew, is universally known and appreciated for his activities and initiatives, like the series of the international ecological
conferences, for which he was given the nickname the “Green Patriarch.”
The Holy and Great Council reaffirmed this special concern declaring that “the Orthodox Church emphasizes the protection of God’s creation
through the cultivation of human responsibility for our God-given environment and the promotion of the virtues of frugality and self-restraint. We
are obliged to remember that not only present, but also future generations have a right to enjoy the natural goods granted to us by the Creator.”
Long before a universal concern (political, scientific etc.) and advocacy for the dangerous effects of the climate change was developed, the
Orthodox Church was responsibly alerted. But at the same time, or a little bit later, theologians in the ecumenical movement put a critical question
to their own religious institutions: “Will the churches – and I will add the Eastern Orthodox ones primarily – have the courage to engage with the
‘values’ of a profit oriented way of life as a matter of faith, or will they withdraw into the ‘private’ sphere? This is the question our churches must
answer or lose their very soul,” declared a WCC consultation of Eastern and Central European Churches on the problem of economic globalization
at the dawn of the 3rd millennium.
Therefore, the Christian Churches slowly, but steadily, started being concerned about two interrelated aspects of globalization: ecology and
economy, both stemming from the Greek word oikos (household), and both carrying inherently the notion of communion (koinonia), so dear and
revered in Christianity, but definitely rooted stronger in the Orthodox tradition.
On a theoretical level, however, the most significant and crucial decision, shared now by all religions, was the conviction that from a faith
perspective economy and ecology cannot be dealt with in isolation from each other. This interrelatedness is in line with a similar conviction in the
ecumenical movement, which for almost half a century had being examining justice and peace as inseparable entities, even at a time when the
superpowers during the cold war stubbornly were prioritizing them in differing and opposite ways. “Justice and Peace” was a permanent project in
WCC, which later – prophetically and with special Orthodox contribution – became “Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation”
In the wider ecumenical movement Christians, in cooperation with their partners in other religions, came to the conclusion that “various aspects of
climate, ecological, financial, and debt crises are mutually dependent and reinforce each other. They cannot be treated separately anymore.”. The
people of faith “discern the fatal intertwining of the global financial, socio-economic, climate, and ecological crises accompanied in many places of
the world by the suffering of people and their struggle for life. Far-reaching market liberalization, deregulation, and unrestrained privatisation of
goods and services are exploiting the whole Creation and dismantling social programs and services and opening up economies across borders to
seemingly limitless growth of production” (§ 10 of the Economy of Life, Justice, and Peace for All: A Call for Action).
Needless to say, that faithful from all religions must join forces to this end, and not fight one another. Hostility between them is a betrayal of
religion. And the battle for achieving a legally established Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities cannot be won unless it is fought by a
united front of people of faith, through an honest inter-faith dialogue. If all religious leaders take actions similar to the ecological initiatives of
Patriarch Bartholomew, a new and better world will certainly rise.
Finally, in 2013 the Centre for Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES),
established with the blessing of our Ecumenical Patriarch, organized a series of scientific consultations aiming at
the investigation of the problem of existence of, but also the responsible approach to, the living world
religions. These consultations concluded that “participation in the inter-faith dialogue does not
mean acceptance that ‘all religions are the same,’ and does not endanger the fate of the inter-
Christian dialogue, nor does it lead to syncretism.” The Orthodox faithful at the
exercise of the imperative of mission should always act as reconciling and healing
agents, and render their witness as “servants of reconciliation,” according to the
biblical demand “that God has reconciled us in Jesus Christ and gave us the
ministry of reconciliation" (2 Cor 5:18). And finally, that “a ‘theology of
religions’ from the viewpoint of the Orthodox faith is possible, feasible, but also
legitimate; it requires however further scientific theological investigation.
 24

Relations between the Orthodox Church and the

Anglican Communion have been an ongoing
phenomenon since the 17th century. However, the
20th century has taken the relations to a new level,
resulting in the establishment of the Official Dialogue
between the two churches. This century will be known
as the Age of Ecumenism, “the age in which Christians
of all denominations became aware of the scandal of
disunion, and attempted to do something to bring it to
an end.”
 25

How Anglican-Orthodox Relations assisted the

Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain
Βy Dr Dimitris Salapatas

Examining modern Orthodox Church history, one can find it interesting how the first Orthodox
Archdiocese in the West, under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, was established in London in
1922. Why London? Why not another major European or even American city? What does that
say about Orthodox relations with the Anglicans? How did the Orthodox benefit from their
interactions with the Anglicans? What examples do we have of the fruits of the dialogue
between the two ecclesiastical bodies? In this article, these questions will be the main focus, in
order to further comprehend the significance of Church Relations in the 20 th and 21st centuries.
This article will try and answer two main points: a. The history of the relations between
Orthodox and Anglicans, which resulted in the birth and establishment of the Archdiocese of
Thyateira in Great Britain and b. Give a number of case studies where this is evident.
The number of Anglican-Orthodox groups which exist, primarily in the West, and more
specifically in Britain, have contributed immensely towards the establishment of the current
dialogue. The first group to be founded in Britain was “The Association for the Promotion of
the Unity of Christendom” which was founded in 1857, whilst the Eastern Church Association
came into being in 1864. The E.C.A.’s purpose was to

 inform Anglicans of the state and position of the Eastern Christians;

 to make the doctrines and principles of Anglicanism known in the East;
 to take advantage of all opportunities which the providence of God shall afford us for intercommunion with the Orthodox Church,
and also for friendly intercourse with the other ancient Churches of the East’;
 to give financial assistance to the Orthodox bishops to assist in their efforts to promote the spiritual welfare of their flocks.

The E.C.A.’s importance is evident, since it was the first endeavour within the United Kingdom to find an organisation with a sole purpose the promotion of
Anglican-Orthodox Relations. On the whole, discussions before this point were products of individuals, existing on the periphery of the church’s interest, in
both East and West. Nevertheless, the E.C.A. altered this practice. It persisted that its members were representing a church; consequently, giving it an
official position within the relations of the two churches. This organisation is currently known as ‘The Anglican and Eastern Churches
Association’ (A.E.C.A.). It eventually amalgamated with ‘The Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union’, in 1906, forming finally the existing A.E.C.A,
based in London. It is significant to identify its goals; the Association has the following aim:

To advance the Christian religion, particularly by teaching members of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches about each other, in
order to prepare the way for an ultimate union between them, in accordance with our Lord’s prayer that ‘all may be one’. All its
members are urged to work and pray constantly to this end

The second important society promoting Anglican-Orthodox Relations is the Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius. It is an unofficial body; “it numbers
among its members some eminent theologians and Church leaders” and therefore it is considered to be “one of the most important international forums
for Orthodox theology.” It does not “conduct any official negotiations; its members are not committed to any particular scheme of reunion. Its purpose is
to help Christians to acquire mutual trust and understanding”, and thus prepare the way for the future union between East and West. “The Fellowship
shows the one life of the Church overcoming division;” it is a sign of the future unity, wished by everyone who is involved in the Ecumenical Movement.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew stated, during the Archbishop of Canterbury’s visit to Constantinople (January 2014) that: “These two societies have
fostered countless ecumenical friendships; and without such ecumenical friendships, on the direct and personal level, we cannot hope to build a firm
foundation for Christian unity.”
The Inter-Christian relations between the Orthodox and the Anglicans have been an ongoing reality, since the 17 th century, where for the first time the
West wished to study the Eastern Church. However, the first years of the relations were a result of individual and personal friendships that existed and that
were cultivated on an academic interest between members of the two churches and not so much an initiation from the whole body of either church.
However, the 20th century has taken the relations to a new level, resulting in the establishment of the Official Dialogue between the two churches. This
century will be known as the Age of Ecumenism, “the age in which Christians of all denominations became aware of the scandal of disunion, and attempted
to do something to bring it to an end.” The Anglican Communion, since its separation from Rome, demonstrated a sporadic interest in the Orthodox, “who
had succeeded in retaining their catholicity without being papalist.” It was important for the Anglicans to verify their existence through an ancient church,
which was not Rome, papalist, and this could only be found in the Eastern Christian Church. Anglicans easily observed that the Orthodox Church had
“preserved the Creed, the Sacraments, the Hierarchy, and the life of Catholic devotion, in spite of the most protracted dangers and difficulties, without
Roman addition and Protestant subtraction.” The 19th century saw a revival of an interest towards the Orthodox Church, which was sparked by the Oxford
Movement, having as one of its main objectives Christian reunion. Nevertheless, it was also facilitated due to the Greek Independence that commenced in
 26

against the Ottoman Empire, resulting in the flea of countless Greeks to the West, mainly England.
The 20th century saw a massive increase in communications, conferences and visits between representatives of both Churches. This was the case, not only
for theological and ecclesiastical reasons, but also and mainly for political purposes, especially from the Orthodox side. The Orthodox states were under
major political and social difficulties, being either under Communism, the Ottoman Empire, oppressive governments or Muslim rule. Any help from the West
was needed and desired, in order to obtain peace and freedom, in the ecclesiastical and social fields. This was of course a time when the Anglican Church
and its hierarchs had political power and could intervene in Foreign Affairs or Government policies. Nevertheless, a theological basis existed in the talks and
conferences that took place, showing therefore an ecclesiastical and doctrinal interest between the two distinct groups; conversely, it is more likely that the
theological matters were discussed in order to achieve political and economic gains from the West.
After the Great War, which brought West and East (in ecclesiastical terms) closer, we have the establishment in 1922 of the Archdiocese of Thyateira and
Great Britain in London, as an Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople making it the first Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in the West where
Germanos Strenopoulos was appointed as its first Archbishop (1922-1951). This was, of course, achieved with the help and assistance of the Anglican
Bishops in Britain, especially the Archbishop of Canterbury. Without the good relations between the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox Church, the
first Orthodox Archdiocese in the West could have been established in Berlin or Paris or New York. However, the success of the dialogue and relations
between the two brought the Archdiocese to the British capital. Archbishop Germanos “worked hard for nearly 30 years on matters concerning Church
Relations”. This ongoing cooperation has brought us to the current established and flourishing Archdiocese, which “now embraces 112 churches,
communities and monasteries, with new communities in the process of being created to meet the needs of the Faithful.”
Strenopoulos’ work was of great importance, being ‘the best man for the job,’ remaining always “an optimist in regards to Anglican and Orthodox Re-
Union.” His ecumenical work before and during his time as Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain is what formed his relations on a theological and
political level, whilst his ideas on union between the churches also contributed towards these aspirations, being “one of the pioneers of the Movement and
one of the greater Ecumenists.” He achieved countless objectives set out not only on a theological and ecclesiastical basis but also on a diplomatic one.
Case Studies:
Britain is a great paradigm for the long history of the Anglican-Orthodox relations, with its successes and also its difficulties. Each Orthodox Community,
under the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain has a history to tell in regards to how it was established, how it flourished, but interestingly enough,
how it was assisted and supported by the Anglican Communion (officially and unofficially). Most Orthodox Communities have bought their Church buildings
from the Anglicans, showing that cooperation exists on all levels. Co-inhabitancy is also evident. Below are three examples of Greek Orthodox Churches in
London which were assisted by the Anglicans, showing evidently how the relations have been and continue to be crucial for both ecclesiastical groups.
The former church of the Dormition of the Mother of God, Soho: This example does not show good relations between the two denominations. However, it
is examined here, since the interaction between the Orthodox and Anglicans has brought a change in the Anglican mindset and traditions, i.e. the issue of
the icons. The history of this church is recorded by the former Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain, Gregorios. He states that:

The former church of the Dormition of the Mother of God in Soho, founded in 1677, still stood. This had been built with contribution from (among
others) the “Porphyrogenitos” James, Duke of York (later King James VII & II). However, a few years after its opening, it was closed partly on the
insistence of Henry Compton, Anglican Bishop of London, who had forbidden the Greeks to have icons there and who had asked that they disowned
various of their beliefs. When the Patriarch of Constantinople protested to the English Ambassador to the Sublime Porte, the latter replied that it
was just as bad to have Romish beliefs professed in Greek as in Latin (!). The church was then handed over to the Huguenots, although it
subsequently became an Anglican church under the title of St. Mary. The foundation stone of this building was rescued when it was demolished in
1932 and is now to be found in the narthex of the Cathedral of the Divine Wisdom in Bayswater.

It is interesting to see that, despite this initial negative response to the Orthodox, many Anglican churches, currently, have at least one icon, an important
change which has been increasing over the last 80 years. Icons are not a new reality for the West, introduced by the Orthodox Church. They are a revival of
the ancient tradition of iconography in the West, as is evident in many Cathedrals in England, such as St. Albans and Winchester Cathedral. It is interesting
to see how an Anglican hierarch (Rowan Williams) has shown such an interest in icons, which is, in many respects, a very Orthodox theme. This interest of
his, and due to his publications-whereby he wishes to “help us ‘read’ what the icon ‘writes,’ whether it is written deliberately or by God’s providence,”- he is
asked by many churches to “bless and dedicate an icon;” therefore, making him an Anglican specialist on icons. This is definitely a move away from past
ideas and practices, which resulted in the closing down of the former Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God.

All Saints Cathedral, Camden Town: All Saints is the second Greek Orthodox Church established in
London in 1948. The local Greek-Cypriot community worked together with Metropolitan Germanos
Strenopoulos in order to create the second Greek Orthodox Church, after St Sophia (Bayswater). ‘The
building they were allowed to use was originally Anglican and had first been known as the Camden
Chapel, having been built in 1824 as part of Lord Camden's development area.’ The Church was
renamed as St Stephen’s Church and at a later date as All Saints. The latter name was retained by the
Orthodox community when they celebrated the first Divine Liturgy on 25th April 1948 (Palm Sunday).
The Church was leased until the end of 1949. Despite the troubled history and the ongoing
discussions, where the lease was extended a number of times, the Church building of All Saints was
bought in 1978. According to Deacon Meliton, ‘… the church was eventually acquired by the
Community for the sum of £72.000 (reduced from the original asking price of £80.000, in part as an
expression of sympathy and support for the refugees from the then recently-invaded island of
Cyprus).’ All Saints Church was raised to Cathedral status, ‘being consecrated by Archbishop
Gregorios of Thyateira and Great Britain (who had previously served as its parish priest) on 17th
November, 1991.’

St Panteleimon Community, Harrow
St Nicholas (Liverpool)
and the Anglicans in Britain. This interaction has been beneficial for both. The continuation of the relations and dialogues between the Orthodox and
Anglicans will allow for further growth and progress.
27
St Panteleimon Community, Harrow: The
Community of St Panteleimon in NW London,
Harrow, was founded in 1975. This new
community was greatly supported by
Archbishop Athenagoras Kokkinakis. Initially,
the community was housed in a number of
Anglican Churches, where they rented the
church for a few hours, moving within the
Harrow area. The Community eventually
moved to the Church building of the Anglican
Mission Church of the Holy Spirit, where it is
currently located. ‘On 21st January 1994 the
Community completed the purchase of the
freehold property of the Holy Spirit Church,
Church Hall and Holy Spirit House.’ In August
2009 The Community demolished the old
Anglican building, and
began constructing a new
Byzantine Church, which
was completed in 2011. St Panteleimon and St Paraskevi Church is in
a small group of Churches in the UK that have been built by the
Orthodox, including St Sophia (London), St Nicholas (Cardiff), St
Nicholas (Liverpool) and The Annunciation of the Mother of God
(Manchester). The newly built Church in Harrow is considered the ‘St
Paul’s Cathedral’ of Harrow, being the first Orthodox Byzantine
building to be completed in Britain for nearly a century.
Many question the dialogue and the relations, due to their slow pace
in taking and applying decisions. However, the results of the
Ecumenical Movement will not be evident immediately. Whoever is
involved in the Ecumenical Movement can understand what Fr.
George Florovski claimed, that “the highest and most promising
‘ecumenical virtue’ is patience;” patience is imperative for all sides in
order to take small steps and achieve our goals, salvation and unity
between mankind and God. A good example is given from the Greek
world; the Greeks are known for smashing plates when celebrating.
Christianity could be considered to be a plate. It is easy to smash this
plate in many pieces. It happens in an instance. However, putting
these pieces back together is a long process, which needs patience
and understanding. And again, some cracks will be evident. Despite
this reality, it is encouraging to identify that the good relations between the two
ecclesiastical groups have resulted in the co-existence and flourishing of both the Orthodox

Ecumenical reflections: Where we were, where we
are, and where we are called to go.
By Nikos Kosmidis, a Master’s
student of theology and a graduate
of European Civilization (HOU), is
the General Secretary of the
Center of Ecumenical,
Missiological and Environmental
Studies “Metropolitan
Panteleimon
Papageorgiou” (CEMES). During
the period 2007-2013, he served as
a member of the ECHOS
Commission on youth in the
ecumenical movement (WCC).
Introduction
This year we commemorate the
100th anniversary (1920-2020) of
the Encyclical of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate “Unto the Churches
of Christ Everywhere”. The
Encyclical had been issued on a
very crucial time when the global community was trying to recover from the
disastrous and bloodstained Great War. On January 10th 1920, the founding
of the League of Nations took place for the protection of world peace; a
vision so much desired and longed. The Encyclical shared a similar hope,
calling for the establishment of peaceful relations among the Eastern
Orthodox Church, the “sister churches in the East and of the venerable
Christian churches in the West and everywhere in the world”.
It is not unfounded to describe the Encyclical as a prophetic cornerstone in
the modern ecumenical movement. Before even the establishment of the
official multilateral dialogues between churches, meaning the “Life and Work
Movement” (1925) and the “Faith and Order Movement” (1927), this historic
church document manifested the need to overcome the long estrangement
among divided Christians, the “mutual mistrust and bitterness”. The
Encyclical is not exhausted by general words of politeness and good-wishes.
On the contrary, it set a very progressive and specific framework for the
cultivation of a methodology that hoped to lead the former suspicious
strangers into a new area of mutual understanding, respect and fraternal
love. Moreover, the document suggested that time had come for Christians
to start addressing together social, spiritual and even economic challenges of
the time as partakers of the one promise of God in Christ.
A lot has been said and written about the Encyclical, its ecclesiology,
strategical methodology and fresh-breathing nature. Many Orthodox and
non-Orthodox Churches have implemented most of the proposed steps
throughout their ecumenical engagement. In fact, in the collective
ecumenical memory, the Encyclical is recognized as a pioneering proposal for
the establishment of what would become later the World Council of
Churches (WCC). The WCC itself has provided an essential service in the
quest of Christian unity for more than seven decades, having been officially
established in 1948, after the end of the Second World War, as a result of a
pre-war agreement for the merge of “Faith and Order” and “Life and Work”
Movements. Other national, regional and international ecumenical
organizations have also been established on a later stage, covering a broad
spectrum of the ecumenical engagement and inter-Christian cooperation. In
most of these organizations, the local Orthodox Churches are officially
participating.
Although the significant theological, humanitarian, peace-centred, antiracist,
environmental and even political work of these organizations has been
widely acclaimed, an important question pops again and again: Has the goal
of unity been achieved with the founding of such ecumenical organizations
and the formation of official bilateral theological dialogues?
The nature and roots of the ecumenical movement
When we speak about the modern ecumenical dialogue, we do not refer
necessarily to a unified, consolidated, or even more, centrally governed
movement. The vision of Christian unity gave birth to numerous
28
manifestations of fraternal cooperation among the faithful of different
denominations. The ecumenical work has been task not only for the
hierarchies and the churches’ leadership but also of the laity. It was the
motivation of the laypeople that fostered, even more, the inter-Christian
engagement within their communities.
Having entered a new year, which the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
declared as “year of spiritual renewal and due concern for the youth”, we
should not forget the ecumenical role of youth and young adult movements
like the Young Men’s Christian Association (1844), the Student Volunteer
Movement for Foreign Missions (1886) and the World Student Christian
Federation (1895). These movements fostered the early inter-Cristian
cooperation within the fragmented Protestantism; a world characterized by
multiple and ongoing schisms and divisions. Indeed, the Protestant
missionary movement of the 19th century faced the challenge of the
confessional sectarianism. The missionaries carried not only the saving
message of the Gospel but also the divisions and antagonisms of the various
Protestant denominations. Additionally, the Christian East, already oppressed
under the Ottoman rule, had often been considered by both Roman Catholic
and Protestants as a harvest field for proselytism.
The World Mission Conference in Edinburgh (1910) attempted to address
such and other challenges. The motto of the conference, “the evangelization
of the world in this generation”, had been put forth by the Christian student-
youth movements which were much more flexible in their
interdenominational identity and synergy. Influenced by the 19th century
“Social Gospel”, they laid the foundations for transcending the bond divisions
at the level of joined charity and missionary work.
Edinburgh’s conference, having succeeded previous similar initiatives, was
the first major ecumenical event in the 20th century. However, no Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental missionaries or church representatives
were listed among the attendants. Moreover, the newly founded missionary
churches were present only with 19 delegates. The conference’s preserved
photos reveal the nature of the Protestant mission of the time, as it was
represented in Edinburgh. By majority, it concerned the Anglican and
Protestant Anglo-Saxons and the spread of Christianity, as the white
westerners understood it.
Someone may ask, why should the Orthodox take into consideration the intra
-protestant missionary problems of that era? What does this have to do with
our involvement in the inter-Christian dialogue today? Should we not focus
on our possible shared future? The answer to these questions is quite simple:
It is impossible to understand the ecumenical movement without addressing
the historical reasons which fostered its foundation. Though eschatologically
inspired, it is also deeply rooted in the course of modern human history.
Through specific historical realities and the pain caused by wars, divisions,
nationalisms, arrogance and spiritual separation, Christ’s famous prayerful
words “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you,
that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent
me” (John 17:21), re-found their place in the hearts of many Christians in the
dawn of the 20th century.
The prophetic ecumenical awareness of the Orthodox Church
The modern ecumenical movement is often wrongfully described by
Orthodox anti-ecumenical critics as inter-protestant or western-centred.
Such a claim ignores the fact that Christian East and Christian West never
ceased entirely to communicate their religious, cultural and spiritual values
and ideals with each other during their post-schism history. Despite the
traumatic memories, the long estrangement and the doctrinal and
hermeneutical differences among divided Christians, the Orthodox Church
remained faithful in praying and working “for the peace of the whole world,
for the welfare of the holy Churches of God, and for the union of all” in Jesus
Christ’s name.
The late professor of dogmatic theology and philosophy of religion, Nikos
Matsoukas, underlined the early interest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to
“point out the necessity of unity” already during the second patriarchy (1901-
1912) of Joachim III.

Almost twenty years later, the profoundly spiritful decision of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate to set a new and brave paradigm of a fraternal witness of truth in
love, as described more specifically in the Encyclical of 1920, renewed and
strengthened the already existing hesitant dialogue. It marked the blooming of a
new area in contemporary inter-Cristian relations. By addressing the non-
Orthodox Christians and, in fact, their churches, the Ecumenical Patriarchate
offered to the wounded post-war world a sign of prophetic martyria.
The Encyclical reminded a vital truth to all Christians and particularly to the
Orthodox: The Church’s call to seek and offer thanksgiving for the incarnation of
the Logos “in every person, every community, every institution and every
individual culture”, according to the professor emeritus of biblical
theology, Petros Vasiliadis. Contrary to the claims of the
anti-ecumenical criticism, this is not an innovation
at all. Neither the Encyclical nor the general
ecumenical openness of the Orthodox
Church represents an expression of
modernist distortion of the Orthodox
faith.
It is true that the question of
“otherness” has challenged
theologically, canonically, pastorally
and even existentially the Church
for a long time and it is continuing to
do so today. Nevertheless, apart from
the principals of the economy
(κατ’ οικονομία) and strictness
(εκκλησιαστική ακρίβεια), the Pauline
missionary approach towards the
“otherness” (Acts 17:22-23) and the forgotten
concept of Spermatic Logos, form a specific way of
understanding the issue. In other words, the Church is continually
seeking to acknowledge, with the gift of discernment, the move of the Holy Spirit
(John 3:8) and the manifestations of the divine illumination wherever they may
be present, even outside the canonical and visible boundaries of the Body of
Christ. The following question remains unanswered: If the early Church
recognized the possibility of true inspiration of God in the world of the Gentiles
and the thought of the ancient Greek philosophers, how is it possible for the anti
-ecumenical Orthodox to reject the breath of the Holy Spirit within the non-
Orthodox churches and ecclesial communions who confess and proclaim, even
deficiently, their faith in the triune God?
Speaking of boundaries, the Orthodox involvement in inter-Christian dialogue
receives much criticism for having exceeded the acceptable limits in
encountering the heterodox Christians. Τhis criticism is expressed not only by
fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, hyper orthodox circles but also by faithful of
goodwill with strong motivation to preserve the canonical tradition of the
Church. Participation in interconfessional prayers, recognition of the validity of
the sacraments and the apostolic succession in other historical churches, the
baptismal theology, the existence of true sanctity outside the Orthodox Church,
interreligious cooperation; these are only a few of the challenging issues that
raise much debate.
During the 20th century, the Orthodox Church addressed the question of the
inter-Christian dialogue, among other issues, by holding pre-conciliar pan-
Orthodox consultations, in which the local Orthodox Churches officially
participated. Eventually, this lengthy process laid to the convocation of the Holy
and Great Council of Crete (2016). The Council’s document “Relations of the
Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world”, emphasizes that the
Orthodox Church in her ecumenical involvement “gives a dynamic witness to the
fullness of truth in Christ and to her spiritual treasures to those who are outside
her, with the objective aim of smoothing the path leading to unity”. In response
to the widespread anti-ecumenical rhetoric, the Council clarifies the conditions
that allow the participation of the Orthodox Church in the WCC, as well as in
other bilateral and multilateral dialogues. At the same time, the document
underlines the dogmatic divergence of the non-Orthodox as well as the
ecclesiastical self-consciousness of the Orthodox Church as the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Consistencies and inconsistencies
Despite the pre-synodical and synodical decisions to continue its ecumenical
involvement, the Orthodox Church is characterized by a variety of conflicting
views and every-day pastoral practices regarding other Christians. Metropolitan
Kallistos of Diokleia identifies two main different theological tendencies in the
Orthodox Church concerning the non-Orthodox. Both sides agree that Orthodoxy
holds the fulness of the apostolic and patristic faith. The disagreement between
the two tendencies refers to the question of whether the heterodox Christians
29
can be invisibly in communion with the Orthodox Church or not.
But what about the other churches as bodies? Among Orthodox, there is no
consensus whether it is possible to speak in favour of the existence of actual
ecclesiastical and thus soteriological elements in other churches, without
challenging the Orthodox ecclesiology. So, when the Orthodox Patriarchs and
Archbishops meet, co-sign declarations and even pray together with the
hierarchy and primates of historical churches that maintained the tradition of
the Apostolic Succession, do they recognize their real bishopric ministry? Can the
Orthodox reach internal agreement on how they view the ecclesial status of the
Pope and Bishop of Rome, of the Patriarchs of the Oriental Churches and the
Archbishop of Canterbury? Unfortunately, the Council of Crete has
been unable to address the canonical status of the non-
orthodox churches and ecclesial communions. In
church history, this Council will also be
remembered as the one that debated even
the technical ability to call the non-
Orthodox churches as churches.
A characteristic example of the
theological and pastoral dispute
within the Orthodox Church
regarding the nature of the non-
Orthodox is the rebaptism of
converts coming to Orthodoxy from
other churches and ecclesial
communions. It is not a secret that this
controversial practice takes place even
within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate (rebaptisms in Mount Athos) and in
other autocephalous Orthodox Churches with a
known ecumenical commitment, like the Patriarchate of
Alexandria, the Church of Cyprus and the Church of Greece. The
same confusion also applies in the case of whether Orthodox clergy are allowed
to perform the funeral service to non-Orthodox Christians if there is no clergy of
their churches available, as well as if it is permissible to commemorate non-
Orthodox during the Divine Liturgy or in memorial service.
Moreover, the Orthodox faithful becomes a subject of anti-ecumenical preaching
not only by monastics and theologians but also by bishops or diocesan
institutions, a situation well known in the Church of Greece. The veneration of
the sanctity of modern-days monastic elders by the faithful also refers to their
outspoken criticism towards the existing ecumenical movement. It is mainly the
Ecumenical Patriarch who receives a lot of criticism by clergy and monastics for
his worldwide known ecumenical work. This selective and often ignorant and
malicious criticism seems to forget the inter-Christian and even the inter-
religious engagement of primates and bishops of other Orthodox Patriarchates
and Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, as well as the fact that all the Orthodox
Churches, even the Patriarchates of Bulgaria and Georgia, agreed to continue the
dialogue with those not in communion with the Orthodox Church.
The Message that has been issued following the 2008 Synaxis of the Primates
and the Representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches, clearly states the will
“to continue, despite any difficulties, the theological dialogues with other
Christians, as well as the interreligious dialogues, especially with Judaism and
Islam, given that dialogue constitutes the only way of solving differences among
people, especially in a time like today, when every kind of division, including
those in the name of religion, threaten people’s peace and unity”. The Pre-
Conciliar document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the
Christian World”, signed by all the representatives of the Local Orthodox
Churches (Chambésy, October 15th, 2015) and later adopted by the Holy and
Great Council, condemned “all efforts to break the unity of the Church,
undertaken by individuals or groups under the pretext of maintaining or
defending true Orthodoxy”. The document continues by saying that “as
evidenced throughout the life of the Orthodox Church, only conciliarity—always
the suitable and final judge in matters of faith in the Church—can preserve the
authentic Orthodox faith”. However, the truth is that there is no practical
consensus among Orthodox about our engagement with the non-Orthodox. How
long will we continue to pretend that such significant intra-Orthodox differences
and conflicting pastoral practices are to be understood as expressions of the
philanthropic ecclesiastical economy?
New challenges in the ecumenical path of unity in Christ
Anti-ecumenical criticism is not always groundless. Namely, the ecumenical
movement is experiencing an ongoing “winter time” for many years now. With
the foundation of the inter-Christian dialogue, more than 100 years ago, there
was a trust that churches would move beyond simple missionary and diaconal
cooperation.

Early ecumenical pioneers believed that sacramental unity and mutual
ecclesial recognition was not impossible. The establishment of the bilateral
theological dialogues served precisely the purpose of identifying and
overcoming, if possible, the existed doctrinal differences and disagreements in
the process towards full communion. For the Orthodox Church, this process
meant the joined examination of these differences based on the faith of the
undivided Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils.
Despite the progress in clarifying mutual misconceptions and even reaching
agreements on specific theological issues, participation in the same Eucharistic
experience is still very far from becoming a reality. According to the former
permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the WCC, Fr
George Tsetsis, not all of the bilateral dialogues aim to restore the full
communion, since, with several Protestant denominations the Orthodox
Church shares no common background and historical ties. The case is different
regarding the expectations for the bilateral dialogues with Roman Catholics
and Orientals [19].
As it is known, the present ecumenical dialogue has been burdened with
additional problems. All over the world, Christianity experiences new divisions
based on the polemic between the so-called conservative and liberal-
progressive views on issues related to human anthropology, the individual’s
freedom of choice and contemporary ways of living. Issues like human
sexuality, feminism and bioethics, often politically charged, are causing further
divisions not only between Orthodox and non-Orthodox but also among the
western churches as well. Both the ecumenical-minded Orthodox, along with
the supporters of anti-ecumenical views, seem to ignore this reality.
The Roman Catholic Church is struggling to maintain a controlled balance
between a broad, sometimes secular-minded, demand for change on specific
church rules and the conservative voices warning against the distortion of
traditional Catholic morality, theology and ethos. Issues like the permission for
divorced Catholics, women that had an abortion and practising LGBTQ to
receive Holy
Communion, the
allowance for
family planning, the
open
intercommunion
for mixed couples,
the role of women
in church life and
decision-making
processes, the
liturgical confusion
following the
Second Vatican
Council, as well as the abolition of mandatory celibacy for the Latin-rite priests,
challenge the every-day cohesion and life of the Roman Catholic Church. This
situation is causing an increasing pressure even towards the papal institution
itself.
Within Protestantism, the dogmatic liberalism and rationalization of the faith
are challenging the fragile unity of communities with an already existing
doctrinal heterogeneity. The female episcopacy, the use of the so-called
“inclusive language” concerning the reference to God, the ordination of
practising LGBTQ Christians and the blessing of same-sex marriage, among
many other issues, have caused the painful formation of new ecclesial bodies
in the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran and Reformed traditions, and they
continually causing new schisms as these lines are written.
Should the Orthodox Churches seek to establish ecumenical ties with these
newly “schismatic” but more traditional-minded churches or should we
continue our long-standing official dialogue and cooperation with the mainline
Protestant churches, despite their adaptation of modern ethical norms? And
what about the internal Roman Catholic debates? Should the Orthodox
reexamine how they perceive Roman Catholicism in terms of the ongoing
conflict between pre-modernity and modernity? One thing is for sure; the local
Orthodox Churches should overcome the illusion of immunity and the false
reading of such significant cultural changes as realities that apply only to the
“ungodly West” and not to their context.
How can we proceed further?
No truthful ecumenical-minded Christian can ignore the realities mentioned
above. Having experienced the life of WCC and other ecumenical
organizations, it became clear that the “ecumenical winter” is not only due to
the ongoing different theological beliefs or the controversial adaptation of
30
particular respected churches into modern secular demands. As the
ecumenical family is broadening with the increasing involvement of
Evangelicals, Pentecostals and indigenous churches, the old ecumenical
structures struggle to maintain a balance of participation for traditional and
non-traditional as well as historical and non-historical churches and ecclesial
communions.
The ecumenical organizations, aimed to serve as spaces for dialogue and
cooperation, have been transformed into slow-moving structures where the
most crucial issues that separate Christians cannot be addressed openly for the
sake of their continuation. Moreover, the work of these organizations depends
also on external funding. Often, religious and secular donors form the agenda
of the programmatic areas of work. Today, the interest focuses mainly on
environmental issues and climate justice, human rights, gender equality and
interreligious dialogue. It appears that in times of “ecumenical wintriness”, the
churches are finding safer to address such themes rather than issues that
separate them. Although these issues are of most importance and churches
should continue addressing them together, the temptation to identify the
unity in Christ with joined ecumenical activism and social service, is quite
strong, especially among the younger generation involved in the ecumenical
dialogue.
It might sound like a radical suggestion, but, perhaps, it is necessary to
reconsider the methodology of the current ecumenical dialogue and even to
abandon long-time familiar but dead-end procedures. The political correctness
and the fear to speak the truth for the sake of maintaining a lukewarm
communication with each other transforms the dynamic dialogue of love in
Christ into a dialogue of politico-religious correlations. The churches have the
responsibility to re-think their genuine commitment to the quest of Christian
unity by examining their priorities, informing properly the faithful about the
work that has been done and rejecting any temptation of spiritual
complacency and pride.
Especially regarding
the Orthodox, it is
questionable how
many of the local
Churches that took
part in the Holy and
Great Council
informed their
faithful about the
outcomes of this
historic ecclesial
event also
concerning the pan-
Orthodox
ecumenical involvement. The reception of the synodical documents is weak,
and there is no sign of hope for a wider re-catechism of the ethnocentric-
minded and often culturally self-referential Orthodox people. Given this
situation, it should not be a surprise why, for so many faithful, the ecumenical
movement is considered to be an elitist reality, totally irrelevant to their
church life. In this direction, the ecumenical formation of the young people, as
it is understood from an Orthodox point of view, would cultivate a new
generation, faithful to the call of unity and reconciliation in Jesus Christ.
The Encyclical of 1920 had suggested various steps that reflected the needs
and possibilities of those days and the truth is that some of these suggestions
are still very much relevant today. It is also essential to reflect why and how we
engage in dialogue in today’s context. Is it because we have been “trapped” to
follow a specific order on how things are supposed to be done according to the
cotemporary norms? Is it because the ecumenical movement secures the
public voice and political presence of the churches in the international public
spectrum? Or is it because the churches are only supposed to serve the so-
called common good as the secular world understands it?
The call to unity in Christ is a fundamental obligation for all Christians. Despite
the negative voices and, yes, even with failures, shortcomings and mistakes,
the Orthodox Church is committed to continuing to call all peoples of goodwill
into the unity in Christ. Thus, the evaluation of the ecumenical dialogue from
an Orthodox perspective is an essential and ongoing process because the
journey itself is not over, and the desired restoration of full Eucharistic unity in
love and truth has not been achieved. Furthermore, the flame for unity will not
decline within us as long as the Holy Spirit sows the seed of unity in the hearts
of those feeling broken in front of the separated guests of the one and same
Bridegroom’s table.
 31

[1] Ecumenical Patriarchate, “Unto

the churches of Christ
everywhere,” in The Ecumenical
Movement, ed. Michael Kinnamon
and Brian E. Cope (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 2002), 12.
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Patriarchal proclamation for
Christmas 2019,” Ecumenical
Patriarchate, accessed January
20th, 2020, https://www.ec-
patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=gr&id=2974&tla=gr.
[4] Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Michigan/Oxford: Eerdmans, 2009), 51, 66, 72.
[5] David A. Hollinger, Protestants Abroad: How Missionaries Tried to Change the World but Changed America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), 59.
[6] Stanley, Ibid, 12.
[7] This situation reflected the widespread, even within the churches, dominion of social Darwinism and imperialist colonialism. In some cases, the indigenous
peoples were considered by the white missionaries as primitive receivers of cultural and spiritual enlightenment.
[8] Litany of Peace, The Divine Liturgy of our father among the Saints John Chrysostom (Oxfordshire: Nigel Lynn Publishing), 20.
[9] Nikos Matsoukas, Ecumenical Movement: History, Theology [in Greek] (Thessaloniki: P. Pournaras Press, 2005), 217.
[10] It is worthy to mention that, before the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church maintained a negative attitude towards the budding ecumenical
movement, which the 1928 Papal encyclical “Mortalium Animos”, issued by Pope Pius XI, rejected (“Mortalium Animos”, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, accessed
February 5th, 2020, http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html). A similar rejection came
from the Moscow Pan-Orthodox Conference (8-18 July 1948), which, under the pressure of the Soviet Government, condemned the political role of the World
Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement as theologically opposed to genuine Orthodox faith [Daniela Kalkandjieva, The Russian Orthodox Church,
1917-1948: From Decline to Resurrection (Oxon: Routledge, 2015), 333].
[11] Petros Vasiliadis, Unity and Martyria [in Greek] (Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2007), 303.
[12] According to the late elder archimandrite, Fr. Placide Deseille, the economy of God makes possible the existence of “authentic holiness in heterodox
Churches and indeed even outside the visible boundaries of Christianity” [Placide Deseille, Eastern and Western Christendom [in Greek], trans. Sotiris Gounelas
(Athens: Armos, 2004), 153], a reality that should not be seen as contrary to the canonical tradition of the Church.
[13] “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian world”, Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, accessed
January 20th, 2020, https://www.holycouncil.org/-/rest-of-christian-world.
[14] Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church [in Greek], trans. Iosif Roilidis (Athens: Akritas, 2001), 485-488.
[15] In 1997, the Patriarchate of Georgia left both the WCC and the Conference of European Churches. The fellow year, the Patriarchate of Bulgaria took the
same step.
[16] “Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches (12/10/2008)”, accessed January 20th, 2020, http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?
lang=en&id=995&tla=en.
[17] “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian world,” Pre-Conciliar Document, accessed January 20th, 2020, https://
www.holycouncil.org/-/preconciliar-relations. Additional changes were made in the document by the Holy and Great Council. The final version states: “The
Orthodox Church considers all efforts to break the unity of the Church, undertaken by individuals or groups under the pretext of maintaining or allegedly
defending true Orthodoxy, as being worthy of condemnation. As evidenced throughout the life of the Orthodox Church, the preservation of the true Orthodox
faith is ensured only through the conciliar system, which has always represented the highest authority in the Church on matters of faith and canonical decrees.
(Canon 6, 2nd Ecumenical Council)”, (“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian world”, Official Documents of the Holy and Great Council
of the Orthodox Church, Ibid).
[18] Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian world”, Pre-Conciliar Document, Ibid.
[19] George Tsetsis, “The Ecumenical Dialogue in the 21st Century: A Course with Obstacles?,” in The Ecumenical Dialogue in the 21st Century: Realities,
Challenges, Prospects [in Greek], ed. I. Petrou, S. Tsompanidis, M. Goutzioudis (Thessaloniki: Vanias Publishers, 2013), 77.
32