Page 282 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
fessional elements such as acceptance of the Ecumenical
Councils or apostolic succession—are no longer adequate.
Orthodox fidelity is directed not to a confession but to the
Una Sancta, both historical and eschatological.
Thus, the question “Where is the Church?” must be ap-
proached differently. The Church exists wherever a historical
community manifests, through its structure and faith, the
eschatological destiny revealed in Christ. All churches—in-
cluding the Orthodox—must continually ask this question of
themselves and one another. The ecumenical movement be-
comes the space where this question is posed in common.
Participation in the ecumenical movement does not re-
quire abandoning the conviction that the Orthodox Church
faithfully expresses this reality. But this conviction must be
held under certain conditions: the Church must continually
measure itself against eschatological criteria; not all historical
elements are essential; and no church can claim to be the
Church while refusing to seek unity. Division itself compro-
mises catholicity.
Thus, participation in the ecumenical movement is not a
departure from Orthodox ecclesiology, but an expression of
it.
The Orthodox have generally resisted attributing an eccle-
siological character to the World Council of Churches itself,
often referring to the Toronto Statement (1950), which affirms
that membership does not require changes in ecclesiology.
They have also viewed with caution proposals to describe the
ecumenical movement in terms of conciliarity, since concili-
arity presupposes a united Church.
At the same time, it is difficult to deny that the ecumenical
movement possesses an ecclesiological dimension. The par-
ticipating Churches do not simply engage in dialogue; they
282