Page 269 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

T H E R E L AT I O N S H I P O F T H E O R T H O D O X C H U R C H W I T H O T H E R C H R I S T I A N S
For Fr. Florovsky, this matter constituted a broader funda-
mental ecclesiastical principle. He was convinced—and em-
phatically and repeatedly declared in his writings—that East
and West once comprised what he characteristically described
as “Siamese twins,” which could not be severed from one an-
other without impacting the life of both. This is why he be-
lieved and proclaimed that the schism between East and West
affected the catholicity of both parts, while their reunion is
ecclesiologically necessary for both sides.
With this approach, Fr. Florovsky does not imply that the
Orthodox Church is not the Una Sancta. He categorically re-
jects the “branch theory,” which reduced the Orthodox Church
to one church among many. The Orthodox Church is the
faithful continuation of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
Church,” but this does not mean that it can exist without ex-
periencing the “tragedy” of the schism—that is, without seek-
ing its healing, the painful absence of our sibling.
In this way, Fr. Florovsky endeavors to challenge the notion
among the Slavophiles (Khomiakov and others) that the East
is self-sufficient and has no need of the West. He calls this no-
tion an “historical fiction, a sinful and dangerous fiction” that
is regrettably espoused by many Orthodox even today. He
writes, “The inveterate illusion of self-sufficiency must be bro-
ken down.”
In this context, the controversial matter of the boundaries
of the Church also arises, and Fr. Florovsky’s position on this
has evoked much debate. This question is treated elsewhere;
here it suffices to present the general contours of his perspec-
tive in order to demonstrate his ecclesiological approach.
The reasoning of Fr. Florovsky sets out from an historical
observation. According to Cyprian of Carthage, every separa-
tion or heresy results in a complete absence of the gifts of the
269