Page 268 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
Orthodox tradition. However, it also risked creating a new
polarization between East and West, equally harmful and just
as artificial.
With the arrival of our century, the time has come to con-
front this issue and to seek a proper solution.
It is precisely at this point that the theological contribution
of Georges Florovsky must be understood.
The ardent participation of Georges Florovsky in the ecu-
menical movement, particularly in the formation of its early
programs and agencies, has already been mentioned. This
contribution emanated from his theological principles and
convictions—he was, above all else, a theologian—and was
associated with his ecclesiology. What were these principles,
and what could their significance be for the attitude of Ortho-
doxy today on the matter of the unity of Christians?
Before proceeding to the ecclesiological presuppositions of
Fr. Florovsky’s involvement in the ecumenical movement, it
should be observed that he was not in agreement with the way
in which the Protestant founders perceived the ecumenical
movement. Instead of a convergence or fellowship of existing
Christian entities, which reflects the current situation, Fr. Flo-
rovsky supported what he called an “ecumenism in time,”
namely, a reconciliation of Christians on the basis of the tradi-
tion of the Church, which should also be the criterion for
every Christian entity: any deviation from the common tradi-
tion of the ancient undivided Church should be denounced,
and this should form the premise for the unity of Christians
that is sought. It is noteworthy that this was also the position
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when it became involved in the
ecumenical movement: that the reunion of Christianity should
take place on the foundation of the ancient undivided Church
of the first millennium.
268