THE GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Vol 4\ Nos 1-4.1998

The Limits of the Church

in an Orthodox Perspective
PROF. VLASSIOS I. PHIDAS

I shall try to use in this brief paper only the canonical language,
which is proper to the Orthodox tradition, and to avoid using the kind
of language, which is more familiar to modern ecumenical circles.
This is because I have become fully aware that language is in itself
part of the ecclesiological problem, which exists within the ecumenical movement. The usual theological obscurities or ambiguities of
ecumenical terminology, especially with respect to ecclesiological
questions, are intended to facilitate a growing convergence or agreement of different theological terminologies, in order to move beyond
the present traditional frames and to express with the same terms
different realities.
It is impossible, however, to do this with the established canonical
terminology, which expresses a specific ecclesiological background
and clearly describes the same ecclesial reality. Real unity can not be
based on a compromise, or on a mere accommodation to pluralism,
because unity can not be regarded as a goal to be reached regardless
of the principles involved. That is why the purpose of this paper is
neither to offer an apology for our Orthodox ecclesiological tradition, nor to cover up the real ecclesiological difficulties in
contemporary ecumenical dialogue. It represents an honest effort to
describe more clearly and to point out more fully the deep rooted
theological causes of the historical divisions. In the following lines
we shall try to show the main ecclesiological problems and their great
importance for our theological dialogue and within the ecumenical
movement.
521

522

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 43/1-4, 1998

I. The canonical meaning of the "boundaries" or "limits of the

Church" is indissolubly connected with the teaching concerning the
Church's nature, essence and mission, since the latter describe the
inner unity of the ecclesial body. What is usually meant by the term
"boundaries of the Church, " on the one hand, is derived from the
ecclesiological peculiarities of each Church, while on the other, it
affects the content of their soteriological teachings. The fact that a
variety of ecclesiologies exists (e.g. Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc.) means that there also exists a corresponding differentiation
as to the understanding of the boundaries of the Church, while the
relationship between the boundaries of the Church and the range of
the action of divine grace determines the soteriological dimension of
the meaning of these boundaries. It is true that the variety of
ecclesiologies derives from the obvious difference in the understanding of the Church's nature, essence and mission, as it is also true that
the ecclesiological teaching of the ancient and undivided Church was,
in spite of certain divergencies in Church practice, common to all
local Churches.
The nucleus of this traditional ecclesiology was the common understanding of the Church as the historical Body of Christ (Corpus
Christi), which is extended and is realised in the history of salvation.
This common Apostolic tradition was expressed in the teaching of
the great Fathers and was lived and experienced continuously as a
common faith of the Church both in the East and in the West during
the period preceding the great Schism (1054). On this common basis, related Church practice was developed and corresponding
decisions were taken by local and ecumenical councils. To this body
of the Church belong "the faithful throughout the world, those who
are such, those who become such and those who enter into such a
condition... "l They do not become "many bodies but one body, " because "there is no other body" "than the one which is nourished"
through the holy Eucharist.2 The unity is actualised by the Holy Spirit
only in this one body of the Church, because "to be or not to be the
body is to be united or not be united with the body."3 It is quite clear
that this ecclesiology of the Body of Christ describes the Church's
Christocentric ontology and reveals the respective ecclesial conscience
concerning the boundaries of the Church.
After the great Schism (1054), however, Christological differen-

Phidas: The Limits of the Church

523

tiations came about, which shaped new presuppositions for approaching the delicate ecclesiological question concerning the Church's
boundaries. Thus, a positive or negative evaluation of any
ecclesiological development is possible only on the basis of the authentic relationship of Ecclesiology to Christology, as this was
expressed in the entire patristic tradition and in the ecclesiastical praxis
of the undivided Church. Theologically, it is self-evident that any
differentiation, whatsoever, in the patristic understanding of the relationship between Ecclesiology and Christology leads to a different
understanding of the mystery of the Church itself and, consequently,
to either a gradual or an immediate ecclesiological differentiation.
However, every ecclesiological differentiation affects either qualitatively or quantitatively the corresponding teaching concerning the
limits of the Church. This springsfrom the fact that every Ecclesiology
predetermines the identity of its own ecclesiastical body and that of
the ecclesiastical bodies outside itself. At the same time it also determines the acceptable framework within which the related practice is
to function:
(a) The progressive alienation of western scholastic theology from
the ecclesiological criteria of the common patristic tradition reduced,
in a progressive way, the importance of the Church 's Christocentric
ontology and led to a hierocratic understanding of the constitutional
basis of the ecclesiastical body {papacy and hierarchy). The theoretical searching of scholastic theologians shaped even the conscience
of the Roman Catholic Church, which came more and more to be
expressed in the Church's respective praxis. At the same time, however, along with the weakening of the patristic ecclesiology of the
Body of Christ, it advanced the Ecclesiology of the "People of God"
in order to facilitate this hierocratic interpretation. It is quite clear
that anti-reformationist theology has influenced deeply all RomanCatholic theology until recent times. Thus, even in the official
theological literature of the 18th and 19th centuries one can see that
the patristic doctrine of the Christocentric ontology of the Church
has been almost completely forgotten. Despite all this, however, the
Christocentric ontology of the Church, at least according to the scholastic interpretation, was preserved in a latent manner within the
structures and the conscience of the Roman Catholic Church, as this
is clearly expressed in the new Roman-Catholic theology of recent
times (Neo-thomism).

524

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 43/1-4, 1998

(b) Protestant theology, by rejecting the entire ecclesiological struc

ture of scholastic theology, simultaneously rejected the concept of
the Church's Christocentric ontology and stressed, in opposition to
Roman-Catholic theology, the absolute authority of the Word of God,
the individual character of the experience of the faith, the
eschatological perspectives of the saving act of God, etc. Therefore,
the rejection of the Church's Christcentric ontology made the notion
of the boundaries of the Church imperceptible and even a matter of
indifference. Hence, in Protestant ecclesiological teaching the spe
cific historical boundaries of the "visible" Church are realised and in
no way do they coincide with those of the "invisible" Church. This is
because those who constitute the invisible Church, on the one hand,
are known only to God, while, on the other hand, they could very
well be members of the '^visible" Churches, even different ones, as
for example the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Church, etc. The
differentiation of protestant ecclesiology vis-a-vis that of RomanCatholicism can be clearly understood through the following diagram:
According to Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) Ecclesiology, the
Church pre-exists and precedes the believers', thus we have the fol
lowing figure: Christ - Church -* Believers. According to the
Protestant ecclesiological teaching, the believers pre-exist and pre
cede the Church, which they also constitute; thus we have the
following pattern: Christ -> Believers -* Church.
c. Orthodox theology, despite some partial and periodical influ
ences from Roman Catholic or Protestant theologies, has remained
faithful to the patristic tradition and has fought to preserve the tradi
tional ecclesial experience. According to the Orthodox Ecclesiology,
the Church is the one and only Body of Christ in the history of salva
tion. This one Body of Christ, which is the Church, is realised in
history as one and not as many ecclesial bodies. It is fully mani
fested in the sacraments of the Church, since the Church is "marked"
( in the sacraments. Thus, Orthodox Ecclesiology ex
cludes the manifestation of this one Body of Christ in other
ecclesiastical bodies outside it, since the Body of Christ is only one
and not many. These strict ecclesiological presuppositions predeter
mine the content and define the specific character of the traditional
orthodox ecclesiology.
II. In this spirit, it is possible to interpret the established differ-

Phidas: The Limits of the Church

525

enees between the Churches with reference to the ecclesiological pre

suppositions of their practice of mutually accepting the validity of
one another's Baptism, or their practice of Intercommunion, or even
their acceptance of a unilateral practice of Eucharistie hospitality etc.
It is indeed quite characteristic that the above-mentioned practices
refer to the restoration of sacramental communion, the absence of
which manifests the rift in the unity of the Church. This inner rela
tionship between Ecclesiology and Sacraments is an indissoluble one,
because, according to the Patristic tradition, the sacraments manifest
and indicate the whole ecclesial body. Hence, any differentiation
whatsoever in Ecclesiology is fully expressed in the specific sacra
mental praxis of the Church, which, in its turn, expresses the
corresponding awareness of the Church's limits.
Thus, the main issues concerning the contemporary ecumenical
dialogue, i.e. mutual recognition of Baptism, Intercommunion, Eu
charistie hospitality, etc., are approached with good reason by the
theologians of the various Churches in a variety of ways, depending
upon the various ecclesiological presuppositions of their respective
Churches. In this case, the whole question of the validity of the sac
raments performed outside the Orthodox Church is a broader
theological issue and is deeply connected, not only with the inner
relationship between the Sacraments and the Church, but also with
the indissoluble unity between the Paschal mystery and the mystery
of Pentecost. The ecclesiological differentiations precisely spring from
the different interpretations of the relationship of the Paschal mys
tery to that of Pentecost, especially with regard to the variety of ways
in which the saving grace of God is related to these two mysteries.
During the period prior to the great Schism (1054), the common
patristic tradition teaches that Christ, through His overall redeeming
work, is the Source () of divine grace and the Holy Spirit is the
Bestower {) and the Operator { ) of divine grace
in the faithful. Scholastic theology developed S. Augustin's view con
cerning the relationship between the Paschal and Pentecostal
mysteries. Thus, it put forth Christ as both Source and Bestower of
the divine grace, while ascribing to the Holy Spirit only the mere role
of the Operator of the already granted divine grace, thereby
emphasising the strong Christomonistic tendencies which already
existed in Western theology. The ecclesiological consequences of such
a theological differentiation were decisive for the process which led

526

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 43/1-4, 1998

to the Schism between the Churches of the East and the West, as well
as to the two divergent tendencies within the western Christianity
(Roman-Catholicism and Protestantism). Eucharistie debate was in
the center of all those historical fermentations.
So, if Christ, through His overall redeeming work, is not only the
Source but also the Bestower of the divine grace, then it stands to
reason that, because of the universality of the work of Christ, the
divine grace is automatically granted to all, irrespective of their re
lationship to the Church, within which the already bestowed divine
grace is active through the Holy Spirit. If, however, this divine grace
is granted to all, because of the universality of Christ's redeeming
work, then it stands to reason that it is bestowed also in those believ
ers outside the Roman-Catholic Church, even if such persons belong
to a heresy of schism. Thus, the sacraments performed outside the
Church are not only real {), but also valid {), be
cause they only lack the efficacy {) of the bestowed divine
grace, which] is operative through the Holy Spirit only within the
Roman-Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Church, accepting Jesus Christ only as the Source
and the Holy Spirit as the Bestower and Operator of the divine grace,
in no way denies the universality of Christ's redeeming work. It sim
ply holds that this divine grace is perpetuated in the historical Body
of Christ, which is the Church, and is granted to the faithful by the
Holy Spirit, which also effects the divine grace in the Church for the
continuous realisation of the Body of Christ in time and space. The
ecclesiological consequences of such a theological tradition is also
decisive for the question of the canonical boundaries of the Church.
On the basis of this Christocentric Ecclesiology the Church's limits
are exhausted only within the Orthodox ecclesial body. It is only within
this ecclesial body that the Holy Spirit bestows and effects the divine
grace, which flows from Christ's redemptive work.
Through such a teaching concerning the Church's nature, essence
and mission in the world, one finds himself face to face with the
well-known soteriological and ecclesiological principle of "extra
Ecclesia nulla salus, " which strictly determines the canonical limits
of the Church. Thus, the Orthodox Church, while accepting the ca
nonical possibility of recognising the existence () of
sacraments performed outside herself, it questions their validity
{) and certainly rejects their efficacy {). It is al-

Phidas: The Limits of the Church

527

ready well-known that in the ecclesial praxis, the Orthodox Church

moves, according to the specific circumstances, between canonical
"acrbela " and ecclesial economy, recognising by economy the validity {) of the sacraments of those ecclesiastical bodies. Yet,
such a practice of "economy " does not overthrow the canonical
"acribeia, " which also remains in force and expresses the exclusive
character of Orthodox ecclesiology.
This observation is really important, because it reveals that the
canonical recognition {) of the validity of sacraments
performed outside the Orthodox Church: a) is done by economy, b)
covers only specific cases in certain given instances, and c) refers to
the validity of the sacraments only of those who join the Orthodox
Church, and not of the ecclesiastical bodies to which belong those
who join the Orthodox Church. There is, of course, a variety ofopin
ions or reservations concerning this question. No one, however, could
propose or support the view that the mutual recognition of the valid
ity of sacraments among the Churches is an ecclesiastical act
consistent with Orthodox Ecclesiology, or an act which is not re
jected by the Orthodox canonical tradition. Trerefore, we can say
that Orthodox Ecclesiology, being an "exclusive " one, lays special
emphasis on the inner unity of the Paschal and Pentecostal myster
ies.
In this light, we can also say that the definition of a given Church's
canonical limits varies as well as by the peculiarity of its interpreta
tion of the inner relationship between the Paschal and the Pentecostal
mysteries. Roman Catholic Ecclesiology, not being openly an "ex
clusive" one, lays special emphasis on the Paschal mystery of Christ.
Protestant Ecclesiology, being a very loose one, lays special empha
sis on the Pentecostal mystery.
It is obvious that these different ecclesiological positions spring
from different understandings concerning the Bestower of the divine
grace and the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church. This variety
also indicates the related ecclesiological difficulties concerning mu
tual recognition of the validity of sacraments. Protestant Churches
have no ecclesiological problem for proposing or supporting any kind
of mutual recognition of the validity of sacraments performed out
side their respective ecclesiastical bodies. The Roman Catholic
Church, even though it identifies the canonical limits of the Church
with her own ecclesiastical body, is able to proceed to a kind of mu-

528

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 43/1-4, 1998

tual recognition of the validity of sacraments, without abrogating her

fundamental ecclesiological principles. The Orthodox Church can not
proceed to any kind of mutual recognition of the validity of sacraments without a further development of her fundamental
ecclesiological teaching on the canonical boundaries of the Church.
However, it is quite clear that in the ecumenical dialogue the absolute ease of Protestant theologians, the relative ease of Roman
Catholics and the limited ease of the Orthodox flow from their respective ecclesiological presuppositions, which are not the result of
their personal theological preferences. Thus, the mutual recognition
of the validity of certain sacraments, which for a Protestant or a Roman-Catholic theologian could be considered as an ecclesiologically
consistent position, it is for an Orthodox an act of inconsistency, when
it is assessed with Orthodox ecclesiological principles. These
ecclesiological principles manifest in a strict fashion the organic unity
of the Orthodox ecclesial body and differentiate those who do not
belong to its body as either schismatics or heretics.
The*relation of schismatics or heretics to the body of the Orthodox
Church is strictly defined by the canonical tradition. However, Orthodox canonical tradition and praxis appraises and classifies these
ecclesiastical bodies into various categories, analogous to their distance from the Orthodox Church or to their deviation from the
traditional true faith. This classification concerns only those beyond
the boundaries of the Orthodox Church and is clearly expressed by
the differentiation in the ecclesiastical praxis for their entrance into
its bosom. If, for example, the Orthodox Church stands for a particular circle which determines the boundaries of the Church, then those
found outside the boundaries are said to belong to external circles, in
which some form of ecclesiality is recognised. This type of ecclesiality
is not easily determined, because the Orthodox tradition by accepting the Holy Spirit as the Bestower of the divine grace, which flows
from the saving work of Christ, does not recognise the efficacy of the
divine grace outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church.
III. The new theological discussions within the ecumenical movement are demonstrating that the mutual recognition of certain
sacraments {Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) is the basis for the view
that different Christian traditions simply represent various formulations of the same apostolic faith. It means that those outside the

Phidas: The Limits of the Church

529

Orthodox Church hold the same essential faith, despite its diverse
expressions in different cultures, languages and religious contexts.
Thus, the ecumenical dialogue puts forth as its specific goal a mere
theological agreement or compromise only in those areas, where the
division is clearly expressed in the life of the Church. The Vancouver
Assembly proposed, for example, the reception of BEM as an expression of a common understanding of the Apostolic faith, "for what
the Churches are asked to receive in this text is not simply a document, but in this document the Apostolic Faith, from which it comes
and to which it bears witness. "
This vision of unity is based on the following requirements: a) full
recognition of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, b) common understanding and expression of the Apostolic Faith, and c) common ways
of decision-making and teaching that faith authorities. In any event,
it becomes clearer that the cause of unity is poorly served through
these ecumenical discussions, because there is no agreement on how
many theological issues there are, on which consensus should be
reached before a genuine unity is realised. Some Churches propose
that just a basic agreement on certain sacraments {Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) could be considered as sufficient theological
foundation for restoring full communion. Others regard every theological document of convergence as simply afirststep toward a deeper
theological consensus. In reality, there is no clear vision of the goal
which should guide theologians and Church leaders, because, by putting various theological traditions into a common document, numerous
fundamental theological questions are left open. If ecumenical dialogue is really a "spiritual battle for truth, " then it can be better
served through the spirit of the tradition of the undivided Church,
which offers the key to distinguishing between the essential and secondary elements of the Apostolic faith and reconciling the existing
diversities through the recovery of the integrity of true faith.
The question of mutual recognition of Baptism is a crucial
ecclesiological perspective toward full communion. In the BEM document mutual recognition of Baptism is encouraged as "an important
sign and means of expressing the baptismal unity given in Christ. "
But, this "mutual recognition should be expressed explicitly by the
Churches. " What does this mean in ecclesiological perspective? Logically, mutual recognition of Baptism leads to the mutual recognition
of members, as mutual recognition of members leads to the full com-

530

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 43/1-4, 1998

munion. If we recognise that all those baptised are incorporated into

Christ, it is very difficult to avoid the consequence that they are also
incorporated into the Body of Christ. But, if they belong to the Body
of Christ, then it is more difficult to deny that they belong to the
Church, "which is his body. " If it is so, the Baptism, as incorporation into the Body of Christ, points by its very nature to the eucharistie
sharing and leads to the full communion.
Thus, Baptism and membership in the body of the Church, of every Church, are interrelated through the bond of the incorporation of
baptised persons "into the Body of Christ. " But this presupposes a
common understanding of both Baptism and membership, which is
not the case in the respective traditions of the Orthodox and the Protestant Churches. For the Orthodox tradition, membership means
incorporation through Baptism into the one Body of Christ, "which
is the Church. " For the Reformed tradition, it is therightto patricipate
constitutionally in ecclesiastical governance. A possible agreement
on the nature of Baptism could serve as a very important
ecclesiological achievement towards a common understanding of the
"membership" into the Body of Christ. This could lead to a new
approach of the full participation in eucharistie communion. It is quite
clear that a possible agreement on the doctrine o Baptism could lead
to a possible recognition of the membership in the one Body of Christ,
"which is the Church. "
It would, in fact, be very difficult to reach a common understanding of Baptism and membership, without a serious convergence in
the ecclesiology of the Body of Christ. In the light of an ecumenical
approach, Baptism is studied as the unifying/im event in all Churches.
In the BEM document there is an exploration into many of the dividing issues in a new way. It is obvious that real agreement shall only
be achieved when the Churches feel prepared to recognise that the
agreement on Baptism is fundamental and constitutive for membership in the Body of Christ and cannot be conceived apart from the
confession of the true Apostolic Faith. In fact, the central
ecclesiological meaning of Baptism is the participation in the death
and resurrection of Christ and the incorporation of the baptised persons into the Body of Christ. Since the Body of Christ is One, Baptism
must be also One, because it is Baptism "into Christ" and, as such, it
unites the baptised with Christ and his Body, which is the Christ of
every time and every place.

Phidas: The Limits of the Church

531

Vatican II was unable to propose a new and ecclesiologically consistent formula in order to combine mutual recognition of Baptism
with full eucharistie communion. In Lumen Gentium it is stated that
baptised persons are incorporated into the Church, but in the Decree
on Ecumenism, referring to non-Catholic believers, it is declared that
"all those justified by faith through Baptism are incorporated into
Christ, " which effectively means that they are not incorporated also
"into the Church. " The Decree on Ecumenism clarifies this distinction: "The ecclesial communities separatedfrom us lack that fullness
of unity with us, which should flow from Baptism, and we believe
that, especially because of the lack of the sacrament of orders, they
have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistie
mystery. " However, the validity of Baptism of those ecclesial communities is fully recognised as an "incorporation into Christ, " which
introduces a specific relationship with the ecclesial reality.
In this sense Baptism is really the fundamental sacrament of unity
and opens the way toward a full participation in eucharistie communion, i.e. toward full communion. We agree that on a baptismal
basis "incorporation into the Body of Christ" and "membership into
the Church, " which is the Body of Christ, could lead to a serious
convergence in ecclesiologies. But, if we confess in common that we
are members of the one Body of Christ, I can not see any possibility
to deny the Christocentric ontology of the Church. Thus, mutual recognition of Baptism could serve as a basic step toward the full
communion, although it is not in itself a direct means toward the full
communion. This means that we must place our understanding of
Baptism in the dynamic perspective of the ontological relationship
between Christ and His Church, which is fully manifested in the holy
Eucharist. Through Baptism and Faith baptised persons are incorporated into the Body of Christ as well as into the body of the local
Church. Since we agree that we are baptised "into the Body" of Christ
(1 Cor. 12:13), it is quite obvious that our failure to restore eucharistie communion and to live as an ecclesial body reflects a serious lack
of agreement as to the meaning of the fellowship into which Baptism
introduces us.
The reassessment of the Orthodox tradition concerning the work
of the Holy Spirit in relation to the boundaries of the Orthodox Church
could offer a theological support for a moreflexibleinterpretation of
the canonical tradition regarding the precise content of the notion of

532

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review: 43/1-4, 1998

the boundaries of the Church. In this context, it would be useful to

employ as criterion the 66th canon (Greek 69th) of the Synod of
Carthage, which accepts as possible the "communion" with those
having different views {Donatists) for the benefit of the Church and
for a more effective repentance () and salvation of those
existing outside its boundaries. In this way, converging tendencies of
Christology in more recent times better serve the cause of unity and
could be made the basis for a converging movement in Ecclesiology,
where constant criteria would be the common understanding of the
Christocentric ontology of the Church and of the work of the Holy
Spirit within the Church.
NOTES
1

St. John Chrysostom's, Homilies, Ephesians, 10:1.

St. John Chrysostom's, Homilies, 1 Cor. 24:2.
3
St. John Chrysostom's, Homilies, 1 Cor 30:2.
2

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.