The Limits of the Church

[Anastasios]

Fr Florovsky... backed away from the essay which was written early in his career, in 1933.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Well, first you have to read the rest of his writings from his later period and you can detect a definite shift in perspective, I think.

Secondly, this is what Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna has related that Fr Florovsky said in his later years, as the two knew each other at Princeton. He could be lying or misprepresenting him, though, so that evidence is probably not "conclusive."

anastasios

[Justin Kissel]

I remember reading such remarks by Archbp. Chrysostomos about Fr. Georges as well, so I went back and briefly scanned some of the documents at Orthodoxinfo. Here's one of the quotes I found:

As for Father Florovsky's article from 1933, unless I knew a Florovsky whom his present "friends" in the OCA did not, the best response to his article is his own thinking on ecumenism. If you will look at the back of Orthodox Tradition, you will find that we have published an excellent summary of his thinking by Constantine Cavarnos (Father Georges Florovsky on Ecumenism [Etna, CA: The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1992]), drawn not from one article written early in Fr. George's career, but from a number of his writings. As for his personal testimony about this article, it was offered not just to me, but to many of those in the OCA who now exploit the article in question. I attended not just one theological conference, when we were both at Princeton, where this was the case. He saw this as a heuristic piece and presented it as such. Those who make more of it than that are guilty of academic dishonesty. - Source

[cparks]

Fr Florovsky... backed away from the essay which was written early in his career, in 1933.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Well, first you have to read the rest of his writings from his later period and you can detect a definite shift in perspective, I think.

Secondly, this is what Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna has related that Fr Florovsky said in his later years, as the two knew each other at Princeton. He could be lying or misprepresenting him, though, so that evidence is probably not "conclusive."

anastasios

Re 1: I have, and while it's clear that he became quite disappointed in the direction and fruits of the ecumenical movement, I haven't seen anything that spoke to his views on what the reception practices of the Russian Church "say" about Christians outside the canonical boundaries of the Church. That's the part I'm interested in, since it's a matter for Orthodoxy independant of the failures of the ecumenical movement. The Church still has something to say, one way or the other, about non-Orthodox Christians. IOW, I haven't seen anything that clarifies or corrects an eariler view which this piece represents (it's also posted on the WCC website, which states at the bottom that he reiterated these views in a 1950 essay). I have most all of his Collected Works, so if there's a particular piece you have in mind, you could just point me to it.

Re 2: I've heard the same and agree that it's not conclusive; it's more hearsay. What I'm interested in, if such a thing exists, is some sort of response to the content of the article. If Abp C or anyone else has written a substantive critique/correction of his expressed views, I'd like to see that, too.

Thanks for your input.