CHURCH AND CHURCHES IN RELATION TO THE HOLY AND GREAT SYNOD

By Dr. Gregory Larentzakis,  (Professor at the University of Graz)

Translated by John Sanidopoulos, johnsanidopoulos.com

The multiple negative reactions of some to the Holy and Great Synod in general or to specific positions found in the texts also have a positive element.
They give the occasion or rather the challenge for responses, which not only reveal that their arguments are unfounded and that they are motivated by fanaticism, but they give the opportunity for an Orthodox formulation of our faith without prejudices and arguments.

The various negative reactions by ascribing the term "Church" to heterodox Churches proves indeed that this apologetic attitude completely ignores the consequences of their claim. They even claim that this is the theology of the saints and the holy fathers and the sacred canons of our Church!

And it is regrettable, because the minority has imposed on the Hierarchs of the Church of Greece these innovative views, which of course is inapplicable and very detrimental to Orthodoxy in generally.

The Development of Ecclesiology

It is first necessary to stress that the dogmatic branch which today deals with what the Church is, namely "Ecclesiology", is very new compared with the whole structure of Theology.[1] Indeed, it was not known even in the 1960's if it belonged to the wider branch of Dogmatics.[2]

In the West they began to occupy themselves with the definition of the Church in the 16th century after the Reformation for apologetic and argumentative purposes during the Reformation. The systematic study as to what the Church is, namely Ecclesiology, began to evolve after this first in the West from Scholastic Theology![3] In the 20th century it grew systematically again in the West and then in the East and of course in Orthodox Theology. For this reason the 20th century is characterized by Orthodox,[4] Catholics and Protestants[5] as "the century of Ecclesiology".[6] The systematic dealing with it in Orthodox theology was promoted by the Professor of Dogmatics of the University of Athens, John Karmires, a connoisseur and enthusiast of Patristic Theology, together with his students, who began to publish doctoral studies, mainly researching the works of the Holy Fathers. Moreover, he himself describes his monumental work as "the first such effort by us", "in the hopes that it will be useful to Orthodox theologians and those who may wish to know Orthodox Ecclesiology and seek for a theological basis of the dialogue of Churches with heterodox theologians.[7] From the Orthodox view of course there is no Ecclesiology without Triadology, Christology, Pneumatology and Soteriology. All these aspects have an inter-embracing relationship, without the possibility of isolation and exclusivity.

The Mystery of the Church

And with these investigations it was found that in the long history of our Church there does not exist a precise definition of the Church. Neither Holy Scripture[8] nor the Church Fathers ever attempted to give an accurate and systematic definition of what essentially the Church is! They would always speak of the Church metaphorically, with symbols and images mainly from everyday life.[9] "The Church is written about as an image, metaphorically proclaiming the word."[10] Also no Synod, either Local or Ecumenical, ever dogmatized what the Church is!

Thus, the consciousness of all the Church Fathers was and should be even today in our Theology that the Church is a Mystery without definition or limitation, because the Church has a divine origin and constitutes experience, it constitutes life. And Archbishop Stylianos of Australia stresses that "a complete definition and clear identification of the Church happens to be very weak."[11] Early on Origen identifies the Church as a Mystery.[12] John Karmires says these things, and also points out that this Mystery "is incomprehensible to the human mind!"[13] Furthermore, it is not possible to define and establish with the strongest proof its mysterious and supernatural character.

The Holy Trinity as the Beginning and Source of the Church

Thus the Church as a Mystery, which has her heavenly origins in the Triune God, "before all ages", exceeds every definition. The Church has her source and beginning from the same Triune God before all ages. "And the books of the Apostles plainly declare that the Church exists not now for the first time, but has been from the beginning: for she was spiritual, as our Jesus also was spiritual, but was manifested in the last days that He might save us."[14]

Paradise as the Earthly Beginning of the Church from the Beginning of the Human Race

This spiritual Church had her beginning on earth in Paradise from the creation of the first-formed, namely the parents of the human race, as the Fathers of the Church say. There existed full communion between God and man, where God and man "spoke friend to friend", according to Saint John Chrysostom.[15] This is how life in Paradise is described, as the Church of the first-born, a communion of the righteous in a sacred place, where the Church was planted. And Tertullian says that Adam is "translated into Paradise, out of the world into the Church."[16] Fr. Theodore Zisis, repeating Origen, says: "The spiritual Church was planted on the earth at the creation of the first man and since then the history of man follows the plan of God."[17]

Even after the fall of the first-formed the Church exists although it is "darkened", and "it is kept by the grace and care of God."[18] It is a fact that according to Patristic and Orthodox teaching the image of God in fallen man was not destroyed, but darkened. Athanasius the Great says that the image was darkened and concealed, just like a mirror,[19] without losing its abilities to have a knowledge of God and divine grace in its historical course. Regarding this historical course of the human race and the Church, this holy father stresses the continued and unbroken divine grace: "For Adam too, though he received grace from the beginning, and upon his creation was at once placed in Paradise, differed in no respect either from Enoch, who was translated there after some time from his birth on his pleasing God, or from the Apostle, who likewise was caught up to Paradise after his actions; nay, not from him who once was a thief, who on the ground of his confession, received a promise that he should be immediately in Paradise."[20] And Eusebius of Caesarea also refers to this unbroken continuity of the Church from the creation of the human race in Paradise. Of interest is his observation that there exists an unbroken continuity of righteous people, from the first-formed to Abraham. And if, he says, someone called these people, the rightous, Christians, not according to name but way of life, they would not be far from the truth.[21]

Regarding the singleness of the body of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom says: "What is this body? All the faithful of the entire ecumene that have been born and exist. Also those who preceded Christ's coming in a body. How? Because they also saw Christ."[22]. The spermatic word of the philosopher and martyr Justin of the period before Christ is certainly known. Regarding the breadth of his spirit and his soteriological boundaries Professor George Martzelos makes reference how Justin records the Johannine conception, according to which the luminous energy of the Logos in the world is not limited exclusively to Christians, but extends to all people, since the Logos of John is "the true light, which gives light to everyone coming into the world" (Jn. 1:9), and "certainly not just Christians."[23] And John of Damascus, "who summarized most broadly the patristic teachings," defined the Church as "the assembly of the holy Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and Martyrs who have been from the very beginning, to whom were added all the nations who believed with one accord."[24] The same is said almost verbatim in the middle of the Divine Liturgy after the change of the Holy Gifts: "Again we offer this rational worship to You, for those who have reposed in faith, Forefathers, Fathers, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Preachers, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, Ascetics, and for every righteous spirit perfected in faith. Especially for our all-holy, pure, most-blessed, glorious, Lady, the Theotokos, and ever-Virgin Mary." In a single moment is referred the catholicity of the salvation of the entire human race.

The Incarnation of the Logos of God - The Perfection of the Church

The Church continues to exist and indeed "is reborn, refashioned and perfected through the incarnation"[25] of Jesus Christ. Thus the Church was not founded by Jesus Christ after the Incarnation out of nothing, as if previously it did not exist at all. Jesus Christ Himself says: "Do not think I came to abolish the law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish it, but to fulfill it" (Matt. 5:17). And this "fulfill" does not simply mean the "fulfillment" of prophecy, but, as Karmires says, "her perfection." This view is held by other Fathers of the Church, among whom are John Chrysostom,[26] as well as other interpreters of Holy Scripture, such as Zygabenos,[27] etc.

The incarnate Savior did not only receive an individual human nature, but was united with the entire human race, that He may redeem everyone, as the ancient Fathers taught, such as Irenaeus, Athanasius the Great, Methodius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary, Leo the Great, Augustine and others.[28] Within Patristic theology, therefore, is the universality of salvation.

When on the day of Pentecost the Church received the Holy Spirit, she was illumined, strengthened, and rejuvenated to launch her missionary and pastoral activity. The first public preaching of the Gospel and the establishment of the first community in Jerusalem became the beginnings of the Church, which was transplanted throughout the world, with the activity of the apostles and preachers of the faith, and of course with the help and support of God.

 So What are the Limits/Boundaries of this Church?In regards to the fixing of the "boundaries" of the Church, there is no official judgment of the Church.[29] The problem is even bigger, when some claim that the canonical boundaries are identical with the charismatic boundaries of the Church. And the subject pushes even further, when the canonical and charismatic boundaries are made to be identical, limiting it only within the boundaries of the Orthodox Church. This implies a denial of the character of the Church, as well as the energy/activity of the Holy Spirit and divine grace outside of the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church, and therefore in all heterodox Churches, who are not in full communion with Orthodoxy, and the entire world in general! In consequence this supports the concept of exclusivity not only for the jurisdictional canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church, but it rejects the possibility of God's actions, Who desires the universal salvation of the world. A complete teaching of exclusion from salvation of those people alive who are outside the Church is not taught in the New Testament, "and therefore lacks the most authoritative feature and support of all Orthodox doctrine, countering the essential and apostolic and fundamental for salvation teachings of the Christian religion."[30]
And for the Holy Fathers and many Theologians[31] today, it is not possible to equate the canonical and charismatic boundaries of our Church, to ignore the great importance of the unlimited dimension of God's love, of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of all people. And just as there is in God the Father and Christ and the Holy Spirit unity, so also the Church is one and unique and united before the Triune God, in Whose name all her members are baptized, acquiring justification, independently of what Confession they belong to,[32] joined with Christ and one another in one body, which may not be divided into several bodies.[33]
This is the deeper significance of the mysterious unity of the Church above, namely of the Triune God, which has consequences for the relevant contemporary situation of divided Christians: "Therefore we have the existing current ecclesiastical divisions coming from outside and below and not from inside and above, it comes from people, due to their imperfections and sins, extending above and almost disappearing before God, from which in contrast originates the internal mysterious union of the Church."[34] Karmires refers to Metropolitan Plato of Kiev, who considers the "Universal Church" (Universalkirche) as a huge Temple with many internal chapels, which are between either partition walls or separated by railings, but this separation does not reach to the ceiling, where everyone has access to heaven.[35] Continuing, Karmires finds a basis for this reality, when "the Ecumenical Patriarchate did not hesitate to set forward the famous proclamation of the year 1920, 'Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere,' where the Christian Confessions were described as 'Churches', stressing 'that above all love should be rekindled and strengthened among the Churches, so that they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ (Eph. 3:6).'"[36] The Orthodox Catholic Church persists until today in the "ancient traditional holy patristic teaching," "relying on the compassionate, all-wise and all-powerful God who wants all people to be saved," and that those found outside the Orthodox Church and have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, "and therefore have acquired justification," internally live in a state of grace, just as those who have not been baptized, but seek the true God in faith."[37]
Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, the chairman of the Department of External Church Relations for the Patriarchate of Moscow, says, in reference to Saint Philaret of Moscow, that "it is beneficial for the Orthodox Christian to be in a position to discern between a heterodox and a heretic. It is less reasonable to apply to current heterodox Christians what the Fathers referred to in the era of the great Ecumenical Synods regarding the cutting off of heretics and the forbidding of communion with them. The Orthodox Christian is not allowed to forget that it is solely and only God who knows where the boundaries of the Church are.... If it is assumed that outside the Orthodox Church there does not exist or may not exist the grace of God, this would mean God's almightiness has its limits, that there are barriers to God, outside of which He has no right to act. For this reason the acceptance of Orthodoxy and the faithfulness to her doctrines should not turn into a rampant triumphalism, whereby all other Christian Churches are unfortunate assortments, made from the duplicity of people and in which all the world in general and ninety-nine percent of humanity are doomed to destruction."[38] This is how His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion responded to the known views of Fr. Justin Popovich!
Accordingly one will question how is it Theologians and Hierarchs make it easy for so many people, outside the possibility, to partake of divine grace and to even invoke patristic theology? How can we restrict the free activity of God, namely the Holy Spirit? No Orthodox believer from any position of theology or ecclesiastical office can establish by themselves, without synodal decision, the canonical boundaries of the Church. Much less can one or several or even in the synod define the boundaries of the charismatic Church, namely where the grace of God will or may be allowed to act! These arbitrary assertions constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Therefore let us discard the narrow and misunderstood boundaries/limits of the Church in which divine grace is limited, and in which millions of heterodox Christians and people in general are excluded from potential to salvation. Such a view is against the design and will of God for the universal salvation of the entire human race, according to Patristic Theology and genuine Orthodox teaching. Orthodoxy is not entrenched in nor does it create a ghetto!
Consequently the Church as the ark of salvation has her earthly and terrestrial canonical and administrative boundaries, and also the limitless dimensions of the effects of divine grace, which both exceed geographically as well as time and limits. This is the Patristic Theology of the Church with open dimensions and definition, based on the unconditional and unlimited love and mercy of the Triune God.
But the zealots of Orthodoxy must know and realize, that with only one formal incorporation in the Church through baptism, without the genuine spirit and experience, there is no guarantee of either the substantial incorporation nor of salvation, because the mysteries do not act magically. This patristic view is expressed very graphically by Saint Gregory the Theologian: "Even before he was of our fold, he was ours. His character made him one of us. For, as many of our own are not with us, whose life alienates them from the common body, so, many of those without are on our side, whose character anticipates their faith, and need only the name of that which indeed they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot, but inclined by his life towards us."[39] The omniscient and benevolent God will judge the final result.

Church and Churches?

Reactionaries refer to and invoke the Symbol of Faith and claim that the phrase "In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" means solely the Orthodox Church.

What response to this is given once again by the Professor of Dogmatics John Karmires. Interpreting this phrase in the Symbol of Faith, he says the following: "Thus all Christians consider themselves to belong to the vast meaning of the Church, perceiving to belong to the body of Christ, which is one, since the Church is one, as defined in the sacred Symbol of Faith of Nicaea-Constantinople. It appears ... to be obvious that the heteredox belong to their substantial one united Church, by which they are perhaps capable of salvation."[40]

And the known Orthodox theologian Stefan Zankov[41], clearly states that the phrase "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" ("outside the Church there is no salvation") "has never been taught in the Orthodox Church either from the sanctuary or from the pulpit. Even if a similar expression was used by Orthodox theologians, its purpose was simply to say, that a Christian finds with certainty in the bosom of the Orthodox Church the necessary means of divine grace, without excluding that outside this bosom salvation is possible."[42] Therefore Karmires concludes, that the phrase "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" does not exclude "the parallel validity and general Christian teaching regarding the existence of 'a Church outside the Church' and the possibility of salvation within it by divine grace."[43]

Since reactionaries constantly invoke Saint Mark the Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus, we should briefly refer to his views and stance regarding the Western Church, which today is called the Roman Catholic Church.

And first it must be asked: Did Saint Mark recognize the ecclesiastical character of the Western Church or not? Did he describe it directly as a Church or not? There could be no other answer but a positive yes. He describes it not only as a Church, but, despite the serious differences of which he certainly knew, he even called it a "sister Church".[44] We also must remember that the Westerners, or the Latin, and the Easterners, or the Greek[45] synodal bishops received a place at the Synod of Ferrara-Florence of 1438/39, namely the 15th century(!), as equal members of the Synod, to solve common problems of the Church. That means no one questioned the ecclesiastical identity of the other! Or the validity of the Mysteries, Baptism or Ordination, or whatever ecclesiastical offices and priestly ranks.[46] We know, of course, that it unfortunately failed. Nevertheless they cooperated and prayed together.

And what do the words of Saint Mark the Eugenikos mean, which he addressed to the Pope of Rome, when he proclaimed at the opening of the discussions at the Synod: "Today is the preamble of universal joy... Today the members of the body of the Master, which many years ago was torn and dismembered, urgently seeks union with each other. For the head Christ God does not tolerate the division of the body."[47] Saint Mark speaks of "torn" and "dismembered members of the body" and a "divided body" of the Church. And he continues in his personal address to the Pope: "Therefore he raised up priests to be the first in this calling... And what is this which by God's power and grace is taking place, and is beyond good and loved by God, hence the preamble?"[48] Not only does he not reject the ecclesiastical identity and priesthood (pontificate) of the Pope, but calls him "His (Christ's) primary priest" and "most-holy father" and asks that the Pope "receive your children who have come from the far east. Embrace those who have long been separated by time, in your protective arms."[49] What would happen today if a certain Metropolitan repeated to the Pope of Rome today what Saint Mark the Eugenikos said then to the Pope of Rome?

Then Saint Mark posed a question before the Pope, which he puts before us today and to the Holy and Great Synod which will convene, as well as to all those who with militant fanaticism react. Saint Mark the Eugenikos therefore asks: "How long will we strike at one another and cut each other to pieces over the same Christ and the faith? How long as worshipers of the Trinity will we bite at each other and devour, destroying one another and by external enmity will we be divided?"[50] This was the belief and struggle of Saint Mark the Eugenikos, which is why he attended that Synod, although he was aware of the struggles and fatigue, to set forth and present the sacred demand to reconcile the Churches of East and West.

This is the belief and struggles of the Holy and Great Synod with the text under discussion, although we all know, first Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and all the Patriarchs and Archbishops, that there are difficulties and problems which must be solved. Nobody claims that there are not serious problems. No one is blind, but we have a dire task to request an agreement on the basis of the correct faith and good will and love to fully realize the longed for ecclesiastical communion. So also did Saint Mark understand the difficulties and problems. But with conviction he stressed: "Despising the labor and dangers to bring about the divine work of union, if it so pleases God, it is evident we will arrive and we are eager that in this mighty commission with speedy divine grace we will join together."[51]

No one, therefore, should be ignorant of the fact that Saint Mark the Eugenikos went in person to that Synod and took an active part in ecumenical dialogue with Western Christians. He did not remain away and in a place of security and comfort, so to speak, and spit fire against his brethren, who went by order of their Church, to lift the weight of the dialogue. Saint Mark went to the dialogue, because he was convinced that he was going to talk with the Western Church, which he unequivocally described as a "sister Church" and referred to his interlocutors as "friends" and "brothers", just as Patriarch Joseph II called Pope Eugene his brother.[52]

When and for what reason and what happened thereafter, that the designation as a Church to Westerners was rejected?

Orthodoxy has never feared dialogue with anyone. And when it conducted dialogues, it never made compromises of the contents of the faith. Those who refuse dialogue either fear or doubt their strength, power and knowledge and do not dare consider them as "equal", but they try to cover over and trivialize others, thus self-invalidating and harming our Church!

Conclusion

The dimensions of the faith and conviction of Orthodoxy are the unlimited boundaries of God's love for all people without exception, the unlimited boundaries of "the illuminating energy of the Logos in the World," and the illuminating and saving action of the Holy Spirit and divine grace, without narrowness, exclusion and condemnation.

With the few examples of patristic views and the few ecclesiastical testimonies that we presented here, which can certainly be increased, it is clearly shown that this is the Ecclesiology of the Saints and Holy Fathers[53] of our Church, that this is the Ecclesiology of our Orthodoxy. If we deny all these things, it means we are abandoning the genuine Orthodox spirit and self-downgrading our Orthodoxy. Therefore, the theory of exclusivity of our Church and the complete rejection of heterodox Churches, canonically and charismatically, and even of the name "Churches", is a novelty and has no relation to the Ecclesiology of Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers of our Church.

The Text of the Holy and Great Synod titled "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World"

The problematic text of the Holy and Great Synod "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World" must be tackled in the spirit of the task of Orthodoxy for reconciliation and unity between the Churches.[54] This is the command of Jesus Christ, without any discussion and without any doubt. The text of the Synod is clear. If we compare the generosity of the Church Fathers with the cowardliness and hard-heartedness of the defenders and zealots of Orthodoxy, we will find that the Holy and Great Synod should proceed undisturbed with the fundamentals of the text "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World", enriched perhaps with more positive proposals. But it will be disastrous if we eliminate the word "Churches" for the heterodox Churches because certain people require ecclesiastical exclusivity and charismatic exclusion and could not bear the breadth of the grace of God for others. They gain nothing by wanting to demote and minimize others, thinking that by doing this they elevate themselves. It is absolutely necessary, if we intend to be honest with ourselves and before the merciful God, to take care first of our own house! Nobody doubts that we have before us enough and glaring problems and therefore a lot of work for reconciliation and unity.

And this should not be misinterpreted, that supposedly we are making compromises. I repeat here and am fully convinced that we belong to the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", and all that this implies, and this is non-negotiable. But we cannot ignore the existence of heterodox Churches and the scandalous state that we are in by not being in communion. We have no right to intervene in the free-will of God and dare to set the boundaries of the energies of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God for the entire world.

Notes:

1. Franz Dvornik, Byzanz und der römische Primat, Stuttgart 1966, 16.

2. J. Ratzinger, LThK, Bd. 6, 19612, 173.

3. Hugo Rahner, Symbole der Kirche. Die Ekklesiologie der Väter, Salzburg 1964, 7.

4. K. Mouratidou, Ἡ Οὐσία καί τό πολίτευμα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας κατά τήν διδασκαλίαν Ἰωάννοπυ τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, Athens 1958, 5.

5. H. de Lubac, Betrachtung über die Kirche, Graz 19542, 22.

6. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, Athens 1973, 7.

7. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, 6.

8. Georg Galitis, Eingliederung in die Kirche nach dem Neuen Testament, in Taufe und Firmung, hg. V. Ernst Christian Suttner, Regensburg 1971, 9.

9. Hugo Rahner, Symbole der Kirche. Die Ekklesiologie der Väter, Salzburg 1964.

10. John Chrysostom, "On Psalm 44" 44:10, PG 55, 199.

11. Περί τό ἀλάθητον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐν τῇ ὀρθοδόξὡ θεολογίᾳ, Athens 1965, 39.

12. "On the Gospel of John" 20, PG 12, 1036.

13. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, Athens 1973, 18.

14. Clement of Rome, "Second Epistle" 14.

15. John Chrysostom, "Homily 3", 1, PG 63, 473-474.

16. Tertullian, "Adv. Marc". 2, 4, PL 2, 314D.

17. Theodore Zisis, "Ἑπόμενοι τοῖς θείοις Πατράσι. Ἀρχές καί κριτήρια τῆς Πατερικῆς Θεολογίας". Πατερικά Ι, Θεσσαλονίκη 1997, 162.

18. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, 52.

19. "Against the Greeks" 8, PG 25, 16 CD.

20. "On the Synod of Nicaea", ΒΕΠ 31, 147.

21. Ecclesiastical History 1, 4, 4.

22. "Homily 4", 10, PG 62, 75.

23. "H θεολογία του 'σπερματικού λόγου' και η σημασία της για τους θεολογικούς και διαθρησκειακούς διαλόγους", Θεολογία 84, 2 (2013)3.

24. "Against Those Who Decry the Holy Images", PG 96, 1357.

25. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, 74.

26. "On the Gospel of Matthew", Homily 16, 2-3 PG 57, 241-242.

27. "Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew", 5:17, PG 129, 204ΑΒ.

28. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, 80.

 29. Theodoros Nikolaou, "Die Grenzen der Kirche in der Sicht der Orthodoxen Katholischen Kirche", in: Ökumenische Rundschau 21(1972) 325.

30. John Karmires, "Ἡ σωτηρία τῶν ἐκτός τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀνθρώπων τοῦ Θεοῦ". Ἀνατυπον ἐκ τῶν Πρακτικῶν τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν, τόμ. 56, Ἀθῆναι 1981,397.

31. Among whom are John Karmires, George Galites, George Florovsky, Philaret of Moscow, Evdokimov, Zankow and others.

32. My emphasis.

33. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, 241.

34. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, 242.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. John Karmires, Ὀρθόδοξος Ἐκκλησιολογία, 195.

38. Hilarion Alfejev, Geheimnis des Glaubens. Einführung in die orthodoxe dogmatische Theologie, Freiburg/Schweiz 2003, 146: «Der orthodoxe Christ darf auch nicht vergessen, dass einzig und allein Gott weiß, wo die Grenzen der Kirche sind.....»

39. Gregory Nazianzus, Homily 18, 6, "On His Father", PG 35, 992B.

 40. John Karmires, "Ἡ σωτηρία τῶν ἐκτός τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀνθρώπων τοῦ Θεοῦ", Ἀνάτυπον ἐκ τῶν Πρακτικῶν τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν, τόμ. 56, Athens 1981, 404.

41. Ibid., p. 401.

42. S. Zankov, Das orthodoxe Christentum des Ostens, Berlin 1928, 77.

43. John Karmires, "Ἡ σωτηρία τῶν ἐκτός τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἀνθρώπων τοῦ Θεοῦ", Ἀνάτυπον ἐκ τῶν Πρακτικῶν τῆς Ἀκαδημίας Ἀθηνῶν, τόμ. 56, Athens 1981, 399. See also Στυλιανοῦ Τσομπανίδη, Ἐκκλησία καί Ἐκκλησίες. Ἡ θέση τῶν ἄλλων χριστιανικῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν στήν ἐκκλησιολογική αὐτοσυνειδησία τῆς Ὀρθόδοξης Ἐκκλησίας στό πλαίσιο τοῦ οἰκουμενικοῦ διαλόγου, Ἀθήνα 2013.

44. Γρηγορίου Λαρεντζάκη, Ὁ ἅγιος Μᾶρκος ὁ Εὐγενικός καί ἡ ἑνότητα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ’Ανατολῆς καί Δύσεως, Κατερίνη 1999, 59 καί σημ. 76.

45. At that time the Churches did not go by the name Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Catholic Church.

46. What then is the significance of the horrible events of 1054, which is considered the Great Schism of our Church?

47. Μάρκου Εὐγενικοῦ, Τῷ μακαριωτάτῳ πάπᾳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης, Μάρκος ἐπίσκοπος τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ τῶν πιστῶν παροικίας, ἐν: SFÂNTUL MARCU EVGHENICUL, Ὁ Ἅγιος Μάρκος ὁ Εὐγενικός, OPERE Τά εὑρισκόμενα ἅπαντα, Vol. I, Precuvantâre de P.S. Lucian, Episcopul Caransebeşuluiu…Coordinator: Cristian Chivu, Editura Pateres 2009, 197ἑξ.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Συλβέστρου Συροπούλου, Ἀπομνημονεύματα V, 7, ἔκδ. ὑπό V. Laurent, Les „memoires“ du Grand Ecclésiarque de l´ Eglise de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439) Vol. IX (Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores. Editum Consilio et Impensis Pontificii Instituti Orientalium Studiorum), Rom 1971, 262ἑξ.

52. See more in Γρηγορίου Λαρεντζάκη, Ὁ ἅγιος Μᾶρκος ὁ Εὐγενικός καί ἡ ἑνότητα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν ’Ανατολῆς καί Δύσεως, Κατερίνη 1999, 59 καί σημ. 76.

53. Grigorios Larentzakis, Die Bedeutung der Patristik für das ökumenische Gespräch. Eine orthodoxe Betrachtung: Orthodoxe Theologie zwischen Ost und West, Festschrift für Prof. Theodor Nikolaou, hg. v. Konstantin Nikolakopoulos, Athanasios Vletzis und Vladimir Ivanov, Frankfurt am Main 2002, 551-572.

54. Γρηγορίου Λαρεντζάκη, Τό καθῆκον τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας γιά καταλλαγή καί ἑνότητα. Ἐξελίξεις καί προοπτικές σέ μεγάλα θέματα τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Διαλόγου, Ostracon Publisching, Θεσσαλονίκη 2014.