<\/a>Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky)<\/p><\/div>\n
Hilarion (Troitsky)32<\/sup> speaks about the admission of heretics in the Church for their gathering in the unity of the Church, in his Epistle on 18 of January 1917 to the American Robert Gardiner, the secretary of “Faith and Order” committee and responsible to organize the Worldwide Conference of Christians (it was at the beginning of the Ecumenical movement). We will not go through the entire epistle33<\/sup>. We will only note the basic formulations of Archbishop Hilarion: the meaning of salvation in the Church is the coming of a person into Her unity, whereas the manner of admission is a secondary matter. Sacramental-charismatic and salvific significance is at the level of the very same communion in the Church, by which one is received into the unity of the Church (repentance, laying of hands, Chrismation), and consequently, with participation in the Holy Eucharist, the sacramental and ecclesiological Body of Christ.<\/p>\nTherefore, the most important is the Mystery of Christ, which is the Church. For this reason, admission to the Church, union with Her, signifies the entry into the fullness of the Church, the fullness of Grace, the fullness of salvation, the fullness of the incorporation into the Body Christ. It is truly an incorporation, an embodiment and a churchification in the Body of the Theanthropos (as Saint Justin Popovich would say). This means entry into the full communion of the Holy Trinity, which is revealed and in which we participate in the gathering of the Church, in Liturgy as the sacrament of the Supper of the Kingdom, here and now, and a foretaste and participation in the eschatological Kingdom.<\/p>\n
Fr. Florovsky, as we know, referred to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Church that unites us all, and which is the “House of God” (in his well-known essay, “The House of the Father”34<\/sup>), the dwelling of the Holy Spirit, the pillar and ground of the Truth. The Faith of the Church, the great Mystery of Faith, is not simply a “confession”, as some uphold today, but is the selfsame Church. The correct faith – Orthodoxy – is an action of entry into the fullness of the Church, even if it alone does not constitute a sufficient provision for salvation. For it must always express the deeper entry into the unity of the Church.35<\/sup> Thus, prior to Holy Communion, in the fullness of liturgical language and practice, we petition, “The unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit…”.<\/p>\nConcluding this brief study, we will cite two fragments from the same work of Fr. George Florovsky: “In the ancient Church the ceremony of initiation was not differentiated. The three sacraments go together: Baptism, Holy Chrismation and Divine Liturgy. The initiation described by Saint Cyril and later by Cavasilas is comprised by all three. (…) The sacramental life of believers is the edification of the Church. Through sacraments and in them, the new life of Christ is extended and conferred to the members of His Body”.36<\/sup><\/p>\nIn this context, it is valuable to note what can be considered as a confession of the very same Fr. George Florovsky: “As a member and a priest of the Orthodox Church, I believe that the Church in which I was baptized and raised ‘is’ in very truth ‘the Church’, i.e. ‘the true’ Church and the ‘only’ true Church. And I believe this for many reasons: owing to personal conviction and to internal confirmation of the Spirit, who breathes into the Sacraments of the Church. Therefore, I am compelled to regard all other Christian Churches as defective, and in many cases I can define the deficiencies of these other Churches accurately enough. Therefore, for me, Christian reunion is simply universal conversion to Orthodoxy. (…) “Judgement” has been given to the Son. No one has been appointed to pre-empt His judgement. Of course, the Church has Her command inside history. The command firstly to preach and preserve the word of truth. There is some rule of faith and order which must be considered as a canon. Whatever exists beyond is an “abnormality”. But this “abnormality” must be healed, and not simply be condemned. This is what justifies an Orthodox to participate in ecumenical dialogue, with the hope that with his witness the Truth of God makes possible to win human beings”.37<\/sup><\/p>\nThis is the ecumenical protopresbyter George Florovsky. We consider the essay on “The Boundaries of the Church” as a product of a young Florovsky, fragmented and lacking clarity. However, he remains a theologian that contemplates, unafraid to theologize and to speak about the Church, because he feels like a son in the house of his Father, and has the freedom in Christ, with which we become “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God”<\/em> (Ephesians 2:19). This freedom liberates us with the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, the Church of the Living and Philanthropos God, who became man for us men and for our salvation –and the entire<\/em> world.<\/p>\nConsequently, we cannot separate the boundaries of the economy of God from the limits of the Eucharist. And thus, we cannot expand the charismatic limits beyond the canonical, nor can we restrict the canonical so much so that we exclude the practice of the Church in the reception of heretics. The moment that admission and participation in the unity of the Church is realized, meaning in the Eucharist, then we judge those who come; and moreover, not in an objective manner otherwise we would be objectifying the Sacraments above the Church. This constitutes a paradox, a type of antinomy, yet, in the end, this is the truth.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
FOOTNOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n1<\/sup> This Essay was published in the quarterly journal of the Church of Greece, “THEOLOGIA” (\u00ab\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1), 2010. Volume 4 was dedicated to the important works of Fr. George Florovsky. This address was first introduced in French at the International Conference “Fr. George Florovsky and renewal of Orthodox theology in the 20th<\/sup> C, which took place in Paris, 27-29 November, 2009. This article was translated by Nicholas Pantelopoulos. Translator’s note: The title of Fr. George Florovsky’s work, as it is published in the Collected Works, Vol. XIII, is “The Boundaries of the Church” (FLOROVSKY, George, The Collected Works, Vol. XIII, Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach”, B\u00fcchervertriebsansalt, Vaduz, Europa, Liechtenstein, 1989, pp. 36-45.<\/p>\n2<\/sup> “\u041e \u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430\u0445 \u0426\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0432\u0438”, \u041f\u0443\u0442\u044c 44 (July-September 1934), pg. 15-26, and in Greek translation of Florovsky’s “The Limits of the Church”, The Body of the Living Christ (An orthodox understanding of the Church), published, Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki, 1972, pg. 127-148.<\/p>\n3<\/sup> With the help of our dear Michel Stavrou, I had the opportunity to read other articles on this subject by Fr. George Florovsky. They are as follows: FAMEREE Joseph, \u00ab Les limites de l’ \u00c9glise: l’apport de Georges Florovsky au dialogue catholique-orthodoxe \u00bb, Revue th\u00e9ologique de Louvain, 34\/ 2 (2003), pp. 137-154. MARENGO Marco, I confine della Chiesa nel pensiero di Georges Florovsky, Tesi di Dottorato, (Firenze 2006). For this subject, there are two very important studies by Metropolitan of Pergamon, John Zizioulas, a dedication to Fr. George Florovsky (\u00ab\u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 \u0393\u03b5\u03ce\u03c1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a6\u03bb\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03c3\u03ba\u03c5: \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\u00bb, \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03b7 64\/1977, pp. 13-26 (see the current volume of Theologia, pg. 31-48) and the other on the subject of the limits (“Orthodox Ecclesiology and the Ecumenical Movement”, Sourozh 21\/1985, pg. 16-27). It is about the lecture which was delivered on 13-02-1985, at Ladbroke Grove, London.<\/p>\n4<\/sup> See, “\u041f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043c\u0430\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0445\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u043e\u0441\u0441\u043e\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0435\u0438\u044f”, \u041f\u0443\u0442\u044c 37 (February, 1934 -supplement), pg. 1-15, [Translator’s notes, and a Greek translation in this article in THEOLOGIA, pg. 119-136].<\/p>\n5<\/sup> FLOROVSKY, G. “\u039f\u03b9 \u0391\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4’ \u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03b1”, translated by P. Ralli, published by P. Pournara, Thessaloniki 2006.<\/p>\n6<\/sup> FLOROVSKY, G. “\u039f\u03b9 \u03b2\u03c5\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03af \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4’-?’-\u03b7\u2019 \u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd”, translated by P. Ralli, published by P. Pournara, Thessaloniki 1993.<\/p>\n7<\/sup> An analysis of the ecclesiological positions of Saint Cyprian was made, before Fr. George, by B. A. Troitsky (the afterwards archbishop and saint, Ilarion, Confessor of Christ, +1929) in his post- graduate study: “\u041e\u0447\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0446 \u0446\u0437 \u0438\u0437 \u0438\u0446\u0441\u043c\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0438\u0446\u0446 \u043e \u0426\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0432\u0438\u0446\u0446, \u0421\u0435\u0440\u0433\u0438\u0435\u0432 \u041f\u043e\u0441\u0430\u0434”, 1912 (it was republished on \u0422\u0432\u043e\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f, tome 1, Moscow 2004, pp. 253-308). Also, the then layman John Zizioulas (currently Metropolitan of Pergamon) in his doctoral thesis, “On the Unity of the Church in the Holy Eucharist and the Bishop during the first three centuries”, Gregory, Athens 1990, pp. 121-134, mentions Saint Cyprian. Soon, we will publish our own study on the teaching of Saint Cyprian on Baptism and his positions concerning the canonical and charismatic limits of the Church, which he considers identical.<\/p>\n8<\/sup> Many Fathers of the Church speak about economy. See Gregory the Theologian, Homily 21, 34, PG 35, 1124Z, Homily 21, 13, PG 35, 1096, etc. The position of Saint Evlogios of Alexandria concerning, see Photius the Great, Bibliotheca, 227, publ. by R. Henry, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1964, v. IV, pp. 113-114.<\/p>\n9<\/sup> Concerning Trinitarian economy of grace of the salvation by Apostle Paul and the Fathers, see more in my doctoral thesis, “The ecclesiology of Apostle Paul”, publ. Gregory, Athens 1967, especially chapter 1.<\/p>\n10<\/sup> This is exactly what Florovsky means when he speaks about the faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which reveals her nature, which is not of this world, and consequently is primarily the object of faith. By expressing the Symbol of Faith in the Church, we position it together with God Himself and confess Her divinity and holiness. In the Church, we believe and can only believe, because it is the Body of Christ, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22-23). The name of the Church as the Body of Christ links Her being with the Mystery of Divine Incarnation, with the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, – and is perpetually alive, and the irrevocable basis of the visibility of the Church comprising the realization of that event that the “Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The teaching about the Church as being visible and simultaneously invisible, historically given and Divine at the same time, is the continuation and unfolding of the Christological doctrine in the spirit of the definition of the faith of Chalcedon. Only from Her profound ecclesiastical experience of the doctrine of Chalcedon can we understand the Church in Her fullness. Or, in reverse, through the doctrine of Chalcedon we can know the Theanthropic nature of the Church, [this is a paraphrase from the article of Florovsky, “The House of the Father”, published in \u041f\u0443\u0442\u044c 7 (April 1926), pp. 63-85, see the Greek translation, of Arch. Meletius Kalamara, on FLOROVSKY, G. An Anatomy of Problems of Faith”, Rigopoulos, Thessaloniki 1977, pp. 100-146]. This article proves the view, with which we agree, that the boundaries of the Church coincide, on the one hand with the boundless limits of Divine Economy, consequently including all, and on the other with the specific canonical limits of the Church revealed in the Holy Eucharist.<\/p>\n11<\/sup> See the important text of FLOROVSKY<\/strong>, George, “Confessional Loyalty in the Ecumenical Movement<\/em>”, in Intercommunion, D. Baillie, -J. Mash (ed.) (Harper and Bros, New York 1952), pp. 196-205, and the Greek translation as “Inter-communion: \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\u00bb, in FLOROVSKY<\/strong>, George, “\u0398\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u039f\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f49\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2”, Artos Zois, Athens 1973, pp. 211-220.<\/p>\n12<\/sup><\/em> Translated by Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .<\/http:><\/p>\n13<\/sup> The position of Cyprian is found in summary in his own Synodical epistle 50 (since it was written by the Synod), which is included as a special Canon in the canonical collections of the Church. Concerning Saint Cyprian and his canon, the Fathers of the Synod in Trullo (in Canon II, where in the end the canon of Cyprian is referenced) say: “It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, (…) Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them<\/em>.” [Alivizatos, A., “The sacred canons and the Ecclesiastical laws”, Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens 1949, pp. 75-76]. The underlined words were possibly the reason for the particular history of this canon, which is ecclesiastically correct. For in the East, as in the case of Cyprian, it was understood that among heretics, even schismatics, there is no salvific baptism, because the Holy Spirit does not impart itself outside of the Church. However, when the Church received schismatics and heretics who confessed the Holy Trinity, in the East and in Rome, by economy they would not rebaptize (see. Canon VIII of the Council of Arelate in 314, canon VIII of the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Carthage in 348, Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon XCV in Trullo, which repeats the former canon, and Canon I of Basil the Great).<\/p>\n14<\/sup> See ZIZIOULA, John, “\u1f29 \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2” [The Unity of the Church”], pp. 127 and 186.<\/p>\n15<\/sup> This is the known Epistle no. 75, which was preserved in Latin alongside with the Epistles of Saint Cyprian (Bayard, Correspondence, v. 2, pp. 280-308). In this epistle, Saint Firmilian writes to Cyprian a very severe critique about Pope Stephen and his view, as well as his threats that anyone who disagrees with him will be excommunicated. These have resulted in many… Disagreements with all the Churches and to cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his flock, and to rebel against the sacrament of faith” (75, 4, 2). Concerning the limits of the Church, it is noteworthy that Basil the Great valued Saint Firmilian, whom he consequently succeeded, having before him the ecclesiastical tradition which he inherited from him. Although later he would accept certain heretics without baptism, Basil the Great preserved the theological core which Saint Firmilian upheld. For what is most important is the reintegration of heretics into the unity of the Church and not an “objectified” acceptance of Baptism outside the Church.<\/p>\n16<\/sup> Translated by Robert Ernest Wallis. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .<\/http:><\/p>\n17<\/sup> ATHANASIUS, “Contra Arianos” Discourse II (42 :14, 15-21) (Translation Philip Schaff).<\/p>\n18<\/sup> ZIZIOULAS, John, “\u1f29 \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2” [The Unity of the Church]<\/strong>, ex. pp. 127, 126, 129. Although John Zizioulas correctly comments when discussing Saint Cyprian that the faith and Orthodoxy of Cyprian is an ecclesiological given. The correct faith cannot be, surely, a means of salvation as a self-existing means, but is dependent on the entire devotion of the faithful to the Catholic Church (…) The Catholic Church is the one which incarnates the fullness of Orthodoxy, the Holy Eucharist and all the means of salvation, every sacrament: Ordination and Baptism. Due to the ecclesiological content of the Eucharist, schismatics and heretics who do not partake in Her, cannot perform valid sacraments. For Cyprian, the basis of “validity” of baptism of heretics is: if they had partaken in the unity of Holy Eucharist, they would have partaken in the charismatic and salvific life of the Church. Cyprian expresses this position clearly, that Eucharistic unity reveals the pleroma (fullness) of the unity of the Church. See Cyprian, Epistle 69:5-6.<\/p>\n19<\/sup><\/em> EUSEBIUS, “Church History”, Book VII, Section 4. Translation Philip Schaff.<\/p>\n20<\/sup> The English translation of Saint Jerome’s account in De viris iIllustribus<\/em>, Chapter 69, reads, “Consenting to the doctrine of Cyprian and the African synod, on the rebaptizing of heretics, he sent many letters to different people, which are yet extant;” (Translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .<\/http:><\/p>\n21<\/sup><\/em> The original epistle has been preserved in Syrian translation only (See Cardinal PITRA, Analecta Sancta, Vol. IV, p. 170).<\/p>\n22<\/sup><\/em> EUSEBIUS<\/strong>, “Church History” Book VII, Section 9. Translation Philip Schaff.<\/p>\n23<\/sup><\/em> BASIL<\/strong> the Great, Concerning the Canons (Canonica Prima), Epistle CLXXXVIII to Amphilochius, Paragraph I. Translation by Philip Schaff.<\/p>\n24<\/sup><\/em> BASIL<\/strong> the Great, Ibid.<\/p>\n