Fr. George Florovski is one of
the most prominent Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. He is
considered one of the Orthodox pioneers in the contemporary ecumenical
movement. Due to his involvement within the ecumenical sphere, he is regarded
as one of the architects of the World Council of Churches. As most theologians,
he had many ecumenical aims, but also doubts in regards to the furtherance of
the WCC and the Ecumenical Movement as a whole. Below we give a number of his
ideas in regards to ecumenism.
“We could meet each other in
complete Christian freedom. This did not exclude controversy, but even the
controversy was dominated by the conviction that divided Christian still do
belong together and dwell under the mighty challenge of the call to unity. This
dialogue has helped me to discover both the common ground of universal Christian
commitment and the depth of the actual estrangement and tension. It was at this
point that I became inwardly compelled to develop a sense of ‘ecumenical
patience’.
The ecumenical problem is a problem of schism and its healing. Christian
disunity is an open and bleeding would on the glorious body of Christ. The
ultimate unity can come only from above, as a free gift of Almighty God.
It is not enough to be moved
towards ecumenical reconciliation by some sort of strategy, be it missionary,
evangelistic, social or other, unless the Christian conscience has already
become aware of the greater challenge, by the Divine challenge itself. We must
seek unity or reunion not because it might make us more efficient or better
equipped […] but because unity is the divine imperative, the divine purpose and
design, because it belongs to the very essence of Christianity.
Christian disunity means nothing
less than the failure of Christians to be true Christians. In divided
Christendom, nobody can be fully Christian, even if one stands in the full
truth and is sure of his complete loyalty and obedience to the truth ‘once
delivered to the saints’ – for no one is permitted freedom from responsibility
to others. For everyone is, and this is the privilege of Christians […] the
keeper of his brethren. The catholicity of the Church is never broken by human
secessions, but her universality is heavily compromised by the unhappy
divisions. Christian provincialism […] is not less a failure than a doctrinal
error. And if heresy prevails, is it not chiefly because the witness to
orthodox truth has been inadequate or has been sorely neglected?
Ecumenical does not mean or
should not mean either pan-Protestant or non-Roman. No true ecumenical
cooperation, no true Christian fellowship and obviously no Christian reunion
can be achieved unless Rome could be included […]. The ultimate integration of
Christendom is to be truly total and universal. Everything else is inevitably
but partial and provincial, basically inadequate and incomplete, and perhaps
even misleading”[1].
[1]
Fitzgerald, Thomas, “Florovsky at Amsterdam: his ‘ecumenical aims and doubts’”,
Sobornost, Volume 21, Number 1, 1999,
p. 37-50
No comments:
Post a Comment