Page 281 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

E C U M E N I C A L R E L AT I O N S
has come to outweigh that of tradition. Since Orthodoxy is
represented by a limited number of autocephalous Churches,
it has become a minority, reflected in decision-making struc-
tures. This has heightened Orthodox sensitivity regarding
their ability to influence the Council’s direction, especially in
doctrinal matters.
A more fundamental issue concerns the ecclesiological sig-
nificance of the Council itself. As a “Council of Churches,” it
seems to imply some level of ecclesial recognition. Yet this
raises the question: how can such implications be reconciled
with divergent understandings of the Church? In the absence
of agreement, confusion arises both about the use of the term
“Church” and about the ecclesiological meaning of participa-
tion.
This question is particularly acute for the Orthodox. Tra-
ditionally, they have affirmed the Orthodox Church as the
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on the basis of fi-
delity to the faith and tradition. Yet such a claim, if argued
historically, risks sterile debate, and it raises the question of
how Orthodoxy can participate in a body composed of
“Churches” beyond its own boundaries.
Various responses have been offered. One approach held
that while the Orthodox Church is certainly the true Church,
we cannot judge those outside it—an ecclesiological agnosti-
cism that allowed participation in the Council. Another, pro-
posed by Florovsky, distinguished between canonical and
charismatic boundaries: the historical form of the Church
does not exhaust the fullness of the Una Sancta, which extends
into a wider charismatic reality. Yet this raises difficulties, es-
pecially from a Eucharistic ecclesiology, and does not clearly
define criteria for ecclesial recognition.
Earlier attempts to establish such criteria—based on con-
281