Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Neacs
,u, Nathanael. 2024.
“Open Sobornicity” in Dumitru
Stăniloae’s Theology—Christian
Orthodox Creeds in the Context of
Contemporary Ecumenical
Relationships. Religions 15: 12.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010012
Academic Editors: John Jillions and
Razvan Porumb
Received: 22 September 2023
Revised: 30 November 2023
Accepted: 16 December 2023
Published: 20 December 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
religions
Article
“Open Sobornicity” in Dumitru Stăniloae’s Theology—Christian
Orthodox Creeds in the Context of Contemporary
Ecumenical Relationships
Nathanael Neacs
,u
Faculty of Orthodox Theology “Dumitru Stăniloae”, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Ias
,i, 700062 Ias
,i,
Romania; pr.nathanael@gmail.com
Abstract:
This study analyses several of the key principles of Father Dumitru Stăniloae’s conception
of Orthodox ecumenical theology. It considers the foundations, the possibilities, and the type of
ecumenical manifestation, specifically regarding the relationships between Orthodox Christians and
Christians of different denominations and traditions. This is a necessity as the result of the profound
actual theological crisis and the lack of clarity of principles of faith at the ecumenical level across the
whole Christian world. This study fills this gap by seeking to identify the doctrinal principles that
define Orthodox Christian life in an ecumenical context and the manner in which such theology can
be practically applied.
Keywords:
sobornicity; ecumenical relationship; unity; ecumenical winter; rebooting ecumenical
action
1. Introduction
This approach represents a response to what contemporary theologians refer to as
the “ecumenical winter” (Ola Tjørhom 2008;Rauch 2017, pp. 88, 91), a cooling of inter-
Christian, inter-religious, and even interpersonal relationships. It seems that the actual
Christian world is going through a crisis of faith principles and action. In this sense,
the present analysis aims to contribute to a general clarification of ecumenical Christian
relationships by delineating the most important doctrinal foundations for ecumenical
belief within Orthodox Christianity. This study also addresses various challenges of the
Orthodox ecumenical model, and offers some practical directions for Orthodox ecumenical
engagement in contemporary activities and relationships.
To achieve these goals, this text draws primarily (see for Stăniloae’s ecumenical
conception: Stăniloae 1963,1965,1967b,1969,1970,1971a,1973) upon two articles by the
Romanian theologian Dumitru Stăniloae: „Sobornicitate deschisă” (Stăniloae 1971b) and
„Coordonatele ecumenismului din punct de vedere ortodox” (Stăniloae 1967a). In fact, the
first part of this study is dedicated to a hermeneutical reading and systematization of the
doctrinal principles of Stăniloae’s ecumenical thought. In the second part, we will attempt
to provide brief responses to various challenges, objections, and questions related to the
topic, proposing several practical ecumenical solutions. Such an attempt is necessary for
two reasons. The first of these is that, within the Orthodox world, there is a general poverty
of understanding regarding the authentic Orthodox theological grounds for ecumenical
commitment. The second is that there is no precise definition for such an ecumenical
commitment that is mutually assented to by all Christian traditions.
Stăniloae’s ecumenical perspective has been researched in recent years in numer-
ous and significant studies (Sonea 2016;Jemna and Mănăstireanu 2023;Bordeianu 2013;
Turcescu 2002;Mosoiu 2020;Coman 2016;Noble and Noble 2019;Bara 2022). Often, these
studies have noted the specific expression “open sobornicity” as a phrase coined and uti-
lized by the Romanian theologian in various studies, particularly in the paper with the same
Religions 2024,15, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010012 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions 2024,15, 12 2 of 16
title mentioned above. This expression refers to an entire and complex theological edifice
with profound implications and consequences for the ecumenical–universal dimension of
the Christian life. The main elements and structure of this edifice will be presented here,
along with a contextualization and an update of the theme.
2. “Open Sobornicity” or Doctrinal Foundations for an Orthodox Ecumenical Model
According to Stăniloae’s theological thought, Christian life encompasses the entire
divine, human, and cosmic reality within Jesus Christ. He views Christianity as the mystery
par excellence of human and divine universality, a universality experienced and embraced
in Jesus Christ and His Church through the Holy Spirit. This universality of Christianity
is rendered by the syntagma open sobornicity. He argues that it is possible to participate
in this mystery of open sobornicity within the One Church of Jesus Christ as a divine
and human reality. Jesus Christ has already realized for humanity the mystery of open
sobornicity as Catholicity, encompassing and perfecting the whole world and the full
humanity in Himself. Catholicity, from the Greek kath’olon, means completeness/all-
inclusiveness, and sobornicity, from sobornuiu, is the Slavic translation of kath’olon but
with an emphasis on togetherness and fellowship (for a detailed definition of the terms
see: Stăniloae 2012, pp. 79–80). Thus, the Catholicity/sobornicity of the Church constitute
the foundation, calling, and the ultimate goal of all people. Through the Holy Mysteries,
Christians receive the power to become Catholic/sobornic beings in Jesus Christ. Hence,
the vocation and need for Orthodox Christians to be open to all people created in the image
of God.
2.1. “Open Sobornicity” or the Extension in the World of the Unity of the Divine Trinity
As can be inferred from Stăniloae’s theology, open sobornicity is a reality that is
ultimately founded on the model of the unity and tri-hypostatic being of the Holy Trinity.
Open sobornicity, as Catholicity of the Church, is grounded in the simultaneous distinction
and identity of the Essence and Persons of/within the Holy Trinity. The Three Persons
are the ultimate divine foundation of, and the Ones working to imprint/communicate,
the mystery of the unity and sobornicity of the Church (Stăniloae 1967c, pp. 44–45). The
Church teaches both the Unity/Unicity of the divine Essence and the Trinity of the divine
Persons, even though these two aspects may appear contradictory. The sobornicity of the
Church is determined by the simple yet complex reality of the divine Essence, through
which various theological aspects—complementary and/or paradoxical—can be held in
a unified conceptual framework. These antinomies ensure a balanced understanding of
the unity and being of the Holy Trinity; though, as Stăniloae points out, this equilibrium
retains the character of a mystery, as it encompasses contradictory aspects (Stăniloae 1971b,
p. 167). Therefore, open sobornicity is determined by the unity of the Essence of the Holy
Trinity or, in other words, by the unity of the Three hypostatic mysterious divine realities.
In other words, the Unity of the Trinity is enveloped in a trinitarian apophatic mystery.
Stăniloae considers the apophatic mystery of the Holy Trinity as a fundamental theological
reality, as it translates/transfers the Catholic state to a personal level. He understands God,
through the apophatic mystery, as being the Creator of the human person, both in body and
soul, and as the origin of his both Catholic consciousness and action. This is explained as
the result of the divine unity of the Holy Trinity which is the source of the infinite and the
unbroken sobornicity of all creation. The Christian can have and should acquire, through a
relationship of love with God—the Triune Divine Being—a Catholic, read universal/total
wholeness, existence.
In this sense, Orthodox Christians are called to participate in the open sobornicity of
the Church by working towards the transparency and continuous transcendence of their
spiritual state. In order to achieve this transparency, they are called to be one with all
humanity as God is One. Thus, they have to embrace, based on the fullness of divine reve-
lation, the theological pluralism of perceptions of God in the context of various Christian
confessions. The Romanian theologian explains this by stating that the divine mystery of
Religions 2024,15, 12 3 of 16
God’s unity is so profound that any approach to it, even by the humblest soul, constitutes
an act of theology (Stăniloae 1971b, pp. 178–79). Through participation in the mystery
of God and, implicitly, in the open sobornicity of the Church, every Orthodox Christian
is called to encompass and assume these multiple, complex, and pluralistic realities of
the religious phenomenon of their own growth. This involves showing openness to all
those who do not fully know God (Stăniloae 1971b, pp. 178–79). This is because the Holy
Trinity continues to work “beyond” the sacramental–canonical realm of Jesus Christ’s
Church (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 528). In fact, God acts as the Creator of the world and does not
“transgress” the “boundaries” of the Church, but works, insofar as it is possible, for Church
activation in the entire world. That is like a mysterious and free action of God that allows
Orthodox Christians to transcend the limitations of forms, rituals, words, and ecclesiastical
institutions (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 175). Open sobornicity is not only a possibility, but also a
de facto condition of the Church. It depends on the members of the Church, following
Jesus Christ’s example, to be open to all people without demanding a response. This is
about recognizing in all people the traces of God’s work, even if they do not wish to be
in communion with Him and the Church. This theological perspective about humanity
and the world, based on the unconditional divine work, makes the Church alive, infallible,
and certain in terms of salvation and sanctification of the faithful. This perspective also
prevents Orthodox Christianity from becoming rigid within narrow and legalistic confines
(Stăniloae 1971b, p. 175). Guided by this principle of the Orthodox faith, rituals, church
practices, acts of worship, and words, etc., can and should become transparent to God.
They should be opportunities for a living transcendence towards God, a vibrant experience
of connection with Him (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 175).
Understandably, this is possible because Orthodoxy, as open sobornicity, surpasses any
religious protocol of manifesting faith. It is not about the forms of religious worship, it is
rather about the divine life of God as shared, communicated, and present in all humankind.
Thus, the Orthodox Christians are called to live this life in communion with God and with
the entire world as a life in Christ, and not to focus exclusively on rituals and forms of
venerating God.
Open sobornicity, as highlighted by Stăniloae, protects us from absolutizing an idea,
concept, or a form concerning God and His work in the world, as might be found pre-
dominantly or exclusively in the various Christian confessional spaces. For instance, there
is a significant emphasis in the Evangelical Christian tradition of Scripture and in the
Roman Catholic tradition on ecclesiastical unity. Going beyond the Protestant or Catholic
experience, Orthodox Christians can actualize and give a greater importance to the fullness
of revelation expressed in the Church by the Scripture. Through the unity of the Church
and its administration from a historical perspective, Orthodox theology allows for this
holistic approach without making exclusive the various expressions of the faithful. In this
sense, Stăniloae states that: “it might be considered that God Himself guides us toward
this framing of everything that other Christian communities have experienced in such a
sobornicity” (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 175).
For the Romanian theologian, the Catholicity of the Church, as well as its unity and
holiness, are understood as being grounded and sourced in God, in Jesus Christ, who
resides in and works through the Holy Spirit (Stăniloae 2012, p. 80). In other words, the
unity of the Trinity of Persons is extended as an action of salvation through Jesus Christ
within the Church. Through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity imparts to
the Church and the faithful of every age the fullness of the holiness and unity of the Holy
Trinity. God reveals, in a way beyond comprehension, all the mysteries in and beyond the
Church and throughout all of creation. As a result, the open sobornicity of the Church is
paradoxically conditioned by the various ways in which God works in the world beyond or
activates in all of creation the sacramental–canonical space of the Church. The fact that the
divine work of the Holy Trinity is carried out throughout all of creation, and that this work
is personally perceived and uniquely received by the members of the human community,
opens up and activates the sobornicity of the Church at a pan-human level. Moreover, as
Religions 2024,15, 12 4 of 16
Stăniloae observes, the modes, acts, and forms of the divine revelation should not be seen
as ultimate realities, but rather as transparencies of God, modes through which acts of
God’s Existence and oikonomia (the work of salvation) are revealed and communicated
(Stăniloae 1971b, p. 173). We must acknowledge that, beyond the fullness of the divine
work and revelation, “the ways Christians have expressed God up until now have a value,
but also a certain awareness of incompleteness” (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 173). It is not the work
and presence of God that is incomplete, but rather the level of perception, assumption, and
expression of the divine mysteries shared with humanity in general and with Orthodox
Christians within the Church more specifically. It is not that the Church or the revelation of
God within the Church are incomplete, but rather that the forms of revelation are limited
due to the human condition of the Church’s members.
2.2. The Christ–Cosmological Dimension of Oikonomic Work and the “Open Sobornicity” of the
Orthodox Mission in the World
The fundamental oikonomic basis (from oikonomia or the salvific work of Jesus Christ)
of open sobornicity is none other than the divine and human Person of Jesus Christ. For
Stăniloae, the interconnectedness of people and God’s work within and beyond the Church
arises from the fact that “all things and all persons are held in the unified network of
rational principles (
λ
o
γ
o
ὶτῶνὄντων
) radiating like threads from the divine Logos, and all
are gathered, as they work and develop in accordance with those principles, into the unity
of the Logos, with all their amplified richness” (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 528).
Expanding and applying the theology of Saint Maximus the Confessor about the
eternal reasons/principles of creation (
λ
o
γ
o
ὶτῶνὄντων
) to the present context, Stăniloae
emphasizes the inter-relationship of all humans with creation in the unity of the Divine
Logos from Whom these reasons/principles spring. This means that, within the existential
substrate of humans, there is an array of uncreated reasons (
λ
o
γ
o
ὶτῶνὄντων
) that are
activated in their diversity and unity simultaneously when a person is connected to the
incarnate divine Logos, Jesus Christ. The Romanian theologian underscores the universal
dimension of cosmic reasons (
λ
o
γ
o
ί
) and general cosmic rationality as the foundations for
the spiritual and existential development of man as a rationality in himself and within the
broader reality of creation (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 530). This development occurs in connection
with Jesus Christ, the new Adam who fulfils the universal vocation of humanity to become
divine by grace and action. Thus, open sobornicity originates from the fact that Jesus Christ,
as the incarnate Logos, “came unto his own” (John 1:11), which is to say that He assumed
and perfected all things in Himself so that we “might receive the abundance of His grace”
(John 1:16). In other words, through a mystery beyond understanding, Jesus Christ is fully
present in creation and humanity, enlightening every person entering the world (John 1:9).
Open sobornicity aims at this “light within people”, that Jesus Christ is present latently in
every human being, whether they have chosen to unite with Him or not.
From the Pauline theology, which the Romanian theologian employs to support the
concept of open sobornicity, it emerges that God desires through His unique oikonomic
plan to share with all people the inexhaustible wealth of His divine life (Stăniloae 1971b,
p. 173). Therefore, His Son was sent into the world as the Savior of the entire cosmos
(
Σωτὴρ τ
o
ῦκ
ó
σµ
o
υ
/ John 4:42) as and through the divine human reality of the Church.
Jesus Christ died for all people so that all may be sanctified through Him. Jesus Christ, as a
Man, calls all people brethren and is not ashamed to do so (Hebrews 2:11).
On the other hand, the Orthodox Christian mission does not involve preaching a
gospel message “to every creature under heaven” (Colossians 1:23) in the sense of mere
religious information about the Person of Jesus Christ. Instead, it implies an open sobornicity
through which we discover Jesus Christ in one another and in all of creation. This is because
the Church and creation are full of Jesus Christ. He is active sacramentally through the
Holy Spirit throughout the ages in the Church, and He is also active in all of humanity
through the open sobornicity of the Church. In this sense, we understand how the human
Religions 2024,15, 12 5 of 16
aspect of the Church is built (Ephesians 4:12). It requires building because not all humans
have activated within themselves the gifts of Jesus Christ’s saving oikonomia.
Hence, those entrusted with the mission of the Orthodox Church do not preach a
Christ of their own, but they strive to identify His work in the world and in all people in
order to reveal His full presence in His Church. This Missionary dimension of the Church
prevents Orthodoxy from proselytism and from adopting a superior attitude towards other
Christians or other people. Non-Orthodox fellow persons may sometimes be recipients of
a less-than-perfect religious system of assistance, but they are nevertheless mysteries of
the work and presence of Jesus Christ. In other words, I, as an Orthodox Christian, need
the other so that Jesus Christ can fully work within me. In the context of the Orthodox
mission, Stăniloae believes that open sobornicity can be experienced and manifested even in
human creations of a cultural, technological, scientific, etc., nature. These creations can be a
challenge but also a platform for expressing and actualizing the sobornicity of the Church.
In this regard, the Romanian theologian affirms:
“It has become evident that deepening the higher meanings of the Gospel gains
much today through the enrichment of the human spirit, due to modern progress
that appreciably brings to life latent human potentials that were previously dor-
mant. On the other hand, this enrichment and actualisation do not occur in
human groups confined within narrow boundaries, but rather in a very exten-
sive circulation of ideas, modes of approaching nature, and life’s problems [
. . .
].
This means that the Church itself must maintain a vibrant connection with all
humanity, which, especially in the new era, enriches itself astonishingly through
its experience within the universal horizon” (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 530).
2.3. The Need for “Open Sobornicity” Stemming from the Apostolicity of the Church
Another theological characteristic of open sobornicity, as elucidated by Stăniloae, is its
Apostolic foundation. Catholicity, in the fullest sense of the word, is the active realization in
all Christians, in complete communion, of the entire treasure of truth and life, brought into
the world and in the Church by Jesus Christ on the foundation of the Apostles. Catholicity
or sobornicity is the perfect Christian unity in confessing and living the Apostolic heritage
of all Christians. For the Romanian theologian, the One Church, toward which every
ecumenical endeavor aspires, is the Apostolic and Catholic Church. Without Apostolicity,
he argues, sobornicity loses its significance. On the other hand, without sobornicity,
Apostolicity or the divine revelation in Jesus Christ cannot be fully known and actualized.
It cannot fulfil its purpose, develop all human dimensions, and fully perfect any believer
(Stăniloae 1967a, p. 516). The Orthodox Church considers the unity of Christians from
different Christian traditions achievable in the unity of faith and in the integral content
of the teaching of faith or divine revelation preached by the Apostles (Stăniloae 1967a,
p. 524). Apostolicity is not merely a judge/evaluator across time to the faith of the Church
and its conciliar work, but it is also the connecting point for all Catholic manifestations
throughout history. It is the basis of unity and the foundational stone of the Church. “Thou
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matthew 16:18) refers to the faith and
confession of faith in Jesus Christ, the God–Man crucified and resurrected on the third day
from the tomb. Open sobornicity is not a relativization of the Orthodox Christian faith in the
infinite realm of ideas and religious beliefs. It is not an assimilation of Orthodoxy within
the general space of religious creeds, but an identification of the revealed foundations of
Orthodox faith, taking into account the various Christian and religious contexts and placing
them on the rock of Apostolic faith.
What Stăniloae asserts is that sobornicity cannot exist without Apostolicity, and vice
versa. This reality implies that any ecclesial gathering and conciliar work must be estab-
lished on an in Apostolic foundation and place, respectively, on a basis and in a house
of faith, which is primarily that of the Holy Apostles. This House (which is the human
perspective of the Church) has grown and risen in many aspects, yet on the foundation of
the faith and the life of the Apostles.
Religions 2024,15, 12 6 of 16
Conversely, Apostolicity without the conciliar openness toward the world would
remain an enclave of peculiar people who witnessed a Man risen from the dead, keeping
this secret to themselves in order not to be deprived of the gifts due to the first participants
in such miracles. Such a stance would seriously call into question the reality of the mystery
of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The message and content of the resurrection mystery
must be shared with the entire world from all times, grounded in the Apostles, and this is
achieved as the open sobornicity of the Church of Jesus Christ.
2.4. The Providential and Oikonomic Catholic Work of God: The “Latent Church”
What constituted a topic of debate for many theologians (see Florovsky 1989, p. 34)
of the past century is the possibility that God works in the entire world through the
Church, including beyond the Church and through the Church in the whole of humanity
and creation. For the Romanian theologian, it is evident that God’s work transcends the
“boundaries” of the Church and Christianity (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 527). He even speaks
of a “Latent Church” hidden within each human person, waiting to be activated through
the work of Jesus Christ, and even through the activity of the members of the One Church
upon the world and humanity in general.
From Stăniloae’s perspective, the Church is a cosmic mystery that surpasses or/and
activates the sacramental–canonical reality tied to a specific space and time. It is connected
to the sacramental eternal presence of the Holy Trinity throughout the whole cosmos.
Thus, the Church is called to be open to the world and to the presence of God within it.
The Romanian theologian emphasizes that God works in the world not only through the
Church, but also through all and diverse people. He works in the world and in the Church
through human persons who may or may not be canonical members of the Orthodox
Church. For this reason, through the open sobornicity of the Church, He envisions the
universal redemptive and sanctifying oikonomia or the will of God that operates in all
mankind, in His Church, and throughout creation:
“The Church must always be open to the world and its movement, in order to
understand God’s work within it, to testify to the world about God’s consent
to its movement, and to wholeheartedly support it. Christ sent His disciples as
trusting lambs into the midst of the world, not to halt the world’s development,
but to testify to God’s love for the world. The Church is made up of people who
confess Christ in the midst of the world, upholder of everything that occurs in the
world (Pantocrator)[
. . .
].God works not only through the Church upon human
persons but also through human persons—within or beyond the Church—upon
the Church. Therefore, it (the Church) needs to be open to God’s will, both when
it is sent to work upon human persons and when asked to listen and see His work
within human persons” (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 531).
The theological principle on which Stăniloae bases his conception that God works
through the Church in His world and beyond the Church’s “boundaries” (which is not a
restrictive or non-inclusive perspective, but refers to the work of Jesus Christ to activate
His Church in the whole of humanity grounded on the free will of every human person to
be in communion with Him) is that the Son of God became incarnate, assuming “a human
nature that was not yet the Church” (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 528). This means that all of human
persons from all times, regardless of their respective social, cultural, or religious contexts,
are recapitulated in His human nature and in His unique Hypostasis, and are assumed
through enhyposthasis. That is to say that all humanity is Hyposthasized in His Hypostasis,
which is before ages and without beginning.
On the other hand, he points out that the New Testament presents cases where God works
directly upon particular persons without the mediation of the Apostles’
preaching—that
is,
without the mediation of the Church (the centurion in the Gospels, Saul, Cornelius, etc.).
The most notable case is that of the Holy Apostle Paul (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 528). He re-
ceived the revelation and the entire Church experience “outside” the Church. Additionally,
Stăniloae argues that general experience confirms that God applies His judgment upon
Religions 2024,15, 12 7 of 16
those who are not part of the Church, as they have not fulfilled His will written in their
hearts (Romans 1:18–22; 2:14) (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 528). Based on this foundation, Stăniloae
speaks of a “Latent Church” of those who fulfil God’s will outside the ecclesiastical or-
ganizations (Stăniloae 1967a, p. 530). By this, he does not refer to the Protestant idea
of the invisible Church, but to the real presence of Jesus Christ in various Christian or
non-Christian believers who follow the “law of nature” (Romans 2:14). The “Latent Church”
implies that God is present potentially through Jesus Christ within the souls of all human
persons, and this latency is activated when the person in question seeks and encounters the
“Living Church” in Jesus Christ. This can be accomplished as open sobornicity, aiming at
the depths of every human person’s soul and the oikonomic presence and work of God
within them.
The “Latent Church” signifies that, from a human perspective, the Church of Jesus
Christ, though perfected in Jesus Christ, continues to be activated over time and in human
persons as God is sought by them. This means they do not convert as an act of joining the
Church but rather discover and activate the Church within themselves through the pursuit
of God’s will and its fulfilment in their own lives. They discover the “Latent Church” within
their own souls. It is more an act of actualization than one of conversion. Conversion,
rather, involves aligning one’s life with the life of the Church or of Jesus Christ.
2.5. Divine Revelation Is Contextually Activated as “Open Sobornicity”
For Orthodox theology, the realities of faith are not inventions or discoveries made by
any human person regarding the mystery of the Absolute Being. Orthodox Christianity
is the revelation that God Himself made and makes to humanity about Himself through
the sending of Jesus Christ into the world. Revelation constitutes the main pillar of the
righteous faith, a faith that is not verified “scientifically,” but rather through faith itself.
God has historically revealed Himself to all humanity and continues to reveal Himself
sacramentally to all human persons after His Ascension to heaven, assuring us that “I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20).
Stăniloae establishes his thesis about open sobornicity in this work of achieved rev-
elation, historically concluded through the Ascension of the Lord Christ, but still open
concerning its actualization in Christians of every era. Thus, open sobornicity is understood
as both a theological mystery, and the action of assuming and actualizing divine revelation
in the Church. This is understood from the perspective of general Christianity and the
universality of all people, beyond their confessional, religious, and social contexts.
In this regard, Stăniloae affirms:
“Sobornicity cannot be a theory but a practice. Sobornicity must actually be a liv-
ing communion of faith; it is the Christian universality in the form of communion.
It is not only the universal unity of Christians in the form of communion but
also the all-encompassing unity of the Christian teaching lived by the universal
and free community of Christians. It is equivalent to the universality of the
aspects of divine revelation, perceived by all human perspectives and made for
the common good of the universal human community. It must be the council of
the whole world, in which all Christians bring their understanding of the entire
revealed divine reality and the entire human reality seen in the light of integral
revelation, to share it with all and for everyone to partake in the understanding
of all” (Stăniloae 1971b, pp. 171–72).
In other words, from the human perspective, open sobornicity is the work of actualizing
the fullness of revelation in the Orthodox Church in relation to Christians of various
Christian denominations. As argued by Father Stăniloae, at the level of each Orthodox
Christian Orthodox sobornicity must be developed and be grown in accordance with the
spiritual values that other Christians have actualized through their faith in Jesus Christ. The
fact that they have emphasized certain aspects of faith allows these aspects to be further
explored, which can provide Orthodox believers with the opportunity to activate their faith
with already elaborated elements. For instance, Catholics have worked extensively on the
Religions 2024,15, 12 8 of 16
aspect of the Church’s unity, sometimes to the detriment of this unity (Stăniloae 1971b,
p. 171). This point of faith can be useful and critically embraced for the actualization of the
faith of the Christian Orthodox faithful. The unity of the Church in the human realm is
also discussed in the Orthodox Church, and can draw from what Roman Catholics have
accomplished. Therefore, the predominant development of certain elements of revelation
in the expression and manifestation of faith in different Christian denominations is not
just a discordant and different note from Orthodoxy but mainly an opportunity for the
Orthodox Christian to activate some aspects of faith that have already been worked on. For
sure, this must be done with full accuracy in accord with the fulness of revelation.
Thus, as highlighted by Stăniloae, the fulness of revelation in the Orthodox Church
requires sobornicity to be activated at the human level of Orthodox Christians. A true
Catholicity/sobornicity is the integrity of divine revelation of the Orthodox Church, fully
and continually actualized by the Christian Orthodox community in full communion
with the entire community of fellow human persons (Stăniloae 1967a, pp. 517–18). Open
sobornicity shields the Orthodox Faithful from attachment to a single aspect of revelation or
even to a select few of them. The Church of Christ practices an open sobornicity; that is to
say, a transparency to any concept or system, surpassing the narrow and unilateral level of
simple ideas of faith:
“She (Orthodoxy) is shielded from the absolutisation of an idea or form, through
the richness of her forms. Therefore, she has an easier possibility of achieving a
transcendence toward God, through all the ways in which He revealed Himself
and which the Orthodoxy applies in her worship and devout life. At the same
time, she has an easier possibility of incorporating among these modes, even
those modes retained or unilaterally emphasized in Protestantism or Catholicism,
while liberating them, of course, from the exclusive emphasis placed on them in
those confessions” (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 175).
Open sobornicity makes sense not only from an Orthodox perspective but also from the
perspective of the Christian world and of creation in general. Divine revelation discloses to
all Christians, to all humans, and even to creation in general, the significance accorded to
them by God Himself. This fact can be realized as open sobornicity and the full activation of
divine revelation of the member of the Church in Orthodoxy:
“In this open sobornicity or universality and in a continuous movement in a
vertical and horizontal sense, not only the types and forms in the Church or
in the Christian world receive importance, but all aspects of the world. The
words, acts, and images used in revelation highlight the purpose of all types,
forms, thoughts, and words of creation in interpreting the divine reality; the
human person appears in the light of revelation in all its breadth, in a continuous
movement of actualization and transcendence, as an expressive image of God”
(Stăniloae 1971b, p. 179).
As open sobornicity, according to the Romanian theologian, Orthodoxy shows itself
through its members to be free from any unilateral attachment to one single aspect of faith.
All external aspects of expressing faith, the symbolic nature of the teachings of faith, the
acts of worship, and the general forms of expressing faith are transcended and become
transparent to God. These are opportunities for living transcendence toward God through
the practice of open sobornicity (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 175).
Everything that people generally, and Christians of different confessions more specif-
ically, perceive and produce as spiritual meanings and senses of the divine are premises
for the continuous advancement of Orthodox Christians in the mystery of faith under the
operation of an open sobornicity toward all people: “Christians can make use of all human
acts and words in continuous progress to know God better” (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 180).
Embracing all modes of revealing and expressing God in the world would, in Stăniloae’s
view, lead Christians to an ongoing advancement toward the infinite spiritual richness of
God (Stăniloae 1971b, p. 178). Therefore, all Christians must strive to embrace all aspects
Religions 2024,15, 12 9 of 16
of revelation and thus reach their unity in God, alongside all Christians who seek and see
God beyond the forms of His revelation. This refers to individual Christians, not to the
Church which encompasses and holds within it the fulness of divine revelation and all the
possibilities of expressing God.
3. Open Sobornicity: Current Diagnoses, Challenges, and Responses—The Possibility
of an Ecumenical Theological Project
It seems that, based on the above, we could gain an understanding not only of the
possibility of ecumenical action and relations from an Orthodox perspective but more im-
portantly, of the theological need for such an endeavor (Yeftici 1972;Sauca 2004). However,
this possibility remains sensitive and a challenge to Christians. An important challenge in
particular is to fulfil one of the most central Gospel commandments: “Love your neighbour
as yourself” (Mark 12:31). In Christ’s Evangelical meaning, the neighbor is “the other”,
beyond their social, cultural, or religious condition. Yet, this commandment and task
has been subject to numerous interpretations and implementations, involving continuous
struggles leading to confusion, misunderstandings, and crises.
3.1. Ecumenical Relations at a Standstill? Current Diagnoses
Since the 1970s, ecumenical relations have faced challenges and crises, many of which
persist to this day. In one of his studies, Stăniloae commented on observations made by
Cardinal Jan Willebrands regarding ecumenical Christian themes. The latter pointed out
three sources of these ecumenical crises: the problem of contesting official Church structures,
the problem of hermeneutics, and the problem of secularization (Stăniloae 1970, p. 296). Stăniloae
argued—at least at the time he wrote his reflections—that these three challenges were not
as prevalent within Orthodoxy and that Orthodoxy could offer solutions to overcome the
ecclesial contestation within Roman Catholicism, the hermeneutical issues of Scripture in
Protestantism, and the secularization present especially in the Western world (Stăniloae
1970, pp. 298–99).
Although these three issues used to be primarily identified in the Western context,
they have now significantly affected Orthodox spaces as well. Additionally, contemporary
challenges propagated by the “new world” include the destabilization of moral, ecclesiasti-
cal, and social principles, virtual “reality”, transhumanist anthropological drifts, artificial
intelligence, and others. All these challenges pose threats to humanity in general, particu-
larly concerning the fulfilment of human nature as a communitarian reality in a relationship
of faith with others.
The ecumenical crisis continues, therefore, both within the frameworks of the differ-
ent Christian confessions, but also in terms of the bilateral and multilateral relations of
Christians. This is because human societies face assaults not only on their communitarian
identities but also on their personal identities. Multiple factors contribute to the confusion
of human persons who struggle to attain real fulfilment.
Within the broader context of Christian life, the desire for an ecumenical Christian
identity, unity, consciousness, and action has often been fragmented and interrupted by
the societal scourge of individualism and by the religious shallowness and complacency of
various Christians. In the collective Christian world, the awareness of the need for Christian
unity has been treated in widely diverse manners. Sometimes, it has been marginalized
and overshadowed by confessional and personal individualistic expressions and enclaves.
Other times, the desire for faith unity has been intentionally transferred or restricted to
ecclesiastical hierarchical factors, actions, and decisions, approached administratively by
ecclesial authorities. The desire for faith unity has not represented a constant in under-
standing, living, and practicing Christianity, as Stăniloae emphasized.
This process has involved numerous emotions and predominantly human aspirations
after centuries of separation and conflict. The underlying issue of the ecumenical reality, its
foundations, challenges, and goals, have rarely been understood by many. For example, in
the early decades of the last century, the desire for unity and Eucharistic intercommunion
Religions 2024,15, 12 10 of 16
was often quickly pursued under the banner of “love” (Stăniloae 1973, p. 169), sometimes
exclusively. However, as Stăniloae pointed out, “the contemporary impasse of ecumenism
comes from separating love from the knowledge of God, from the knowledge of the truth”
(Stăniloae 1967b, p. 290). Unity built on love devoid of truth is destined to fail. Thus,
Stăniloae somewhat prophetically stated nearly half a century ago:
“Contemporary ecumenism places a more serious task upon theologians and
representatives of the Churches, and all Christians, than that of academic discus-
sions, very general diplomatic formulas, or sentimental declarations of love that
do not translate into actions. It requires abandoning the pride of imposing a truth
without love or the pride of refusing a truth or coddling it in the name of love”
(Stăniloae 1967b, p. 290).
On the other hand, it has been challenging to recognize the truth that Eucharistic
intercommunion arises from a shared and identical faith rooted in the Church of all times.
Intercommunion can only be established and founded upon the unity of faith. As the goal of
ecumenical actions, the unity of faith has been a more or less well-founded concern based
on the theology of the Church Fathers as the Romanian theologian and notable Stăniloae
hermeneut Anca Manolache underlines: “The origin of the Church’s unity lies in the One
God in Trinity of Persons, in the incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son, and then in the
source and symbol of unity, the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist” (Manolache 1969, p. 576).
Frequently, there has been a premature and superficial transition to dialogues that
have often hindered and blocked the inner search for unity in Christ Himself. Ecumenical
relations have been confined to concerns more related to the societal comprehension of faith
or the phenomenology of faith. As Stăniloae observed many years ago, ecumenical relations
have been marked by facile enthusiasm and a predominantly diplomatic spirit, leading
to the creation of numerous ecumenical institutions and structures, but more importantly,
to confusion:
“The ecumenical movement has the undeniable merit of bringing heightened
concern for unity in the lives of the Churches and encouraging them to engage in
dialogue for this purpose. However, among the many ideas and expressions it
has sparked, there are some that can produce confusion and sometimes relativize
certainties of faith, even the most fundamental ones. The will for unity has some-
times given rise to facile enthusiasm, which believes that it can easily soften and
shape realities through its sentimental warmth, or sometimes to a transactional
diplomatic spirit, which believes that it can reconcile certain positions or realities
through compromise that keeps the Churches divided” (Stăniloae 1971a, p. 561).
The conception presented by Stăniloae and systematized in the above pages could
propose a predominantly “non-institutional” and un-orchestrated Christian ecumenical
action, which should animate all those who believe in Jesus Christ based on the existence
and vocation of their Catholic/sobornic nature and faith. Every Christian should delve
into the divine oikonomia of Jesus Christ and then attempt to identify it in others, under
the banner of an “open sobornicity”. This perspective, which is rarely encountered in
contemporary theology, can lay the groundwork for an organic ecumenical action rooted in
Jesus Christ and be embraced and followed by all who believe in Him and follow Him. It is
not merely an emotional openness but a theological–spiritual process regarding the Church.
Only the Church, in its extension and the ongoing human actualization of its Catholic
quality in Jesus Christ, can encompass all within itself. However, not all perspectives
mentioned above might be positively received and interpreted by all Christians. At least
two criticisms could be raised against Stăniloae’s vision: Orthodox-centrism and correlative
ecclesiology/interconfessional relativism.
3.2. “Open Sobornicity” or Orthodox-Centrism?
The first criticism that could be raised against Stăniloae’s theological–ecumenical
vision might come from all non-Orthodox Christian traditions. The open sobornicity is,
Religions 2024,15, 12 11 of 16
unequivocally, an open sobornicity of the members of the Orthodox Church toward other
Christians. According to Stăniloae, the consciousness of Orthodox believers is that the Or-
thodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ throughout
all times (Stăniloae 2012, p. 66).
However, this belief and witness about the Church is practiced by almost all the
various Christian denominations in their own respective traditions. This raises a series of
questions: Can open sobornicity be practiced within other Christians ecclesiologies? What is
ultimately the One Holy Church? What would be the contribution of such a vision since
it can only be founded on Orthodox theology? How can ecumenical relations between
Christians be re-established, revitalized, and developed based on the open sobornicity of the
Orthodox Church?
The theological debates aimed at identifying the One Church have already taken place
and will continue to unfold. These debates have arisen either from the desire to impose a
particular denomination’s belief about the One Church on the entire Christian world or
from the sincere desire to discover the true One Church. The Orthodox response is that
the Church of Jesus Christ cannot be discerned and identified except through the complete
reference of all Christians throughout all times to the fullness of the revelation and the
salvific oikonomia of Jesus Christ. Undoubtedly, whoever embarks on the quest for the
One Church in relation to Jesus Christ will find it.
Regarding the practice of open sobornicity by each Christian denomination in relation
to their ecclesiology, this can be both a challenge and a significant point of convergence. If
all Christians were to practice open sobornicity in the sense proposed by Stăniloae, then each
Christian, regardless of denomination, would relate to the presence of God in the other.
Until all Christians universally assent to the Catholic Church, the One Church, and until
all agree how open sobornicity can be theologically applied considering the multitude of
ecclesiological concepts, all Christians will be able to identify, for Christ’s sake, the divine
mystery of God’s love for humanity in each other. This sincere pursuit could contribute to
the unity of faith—a unity not based on different confessional notions, but on Jesus Christ
Himself. As Stăniloae would argue, any denomination, and specifically any Christian
of different traditions entering into dialogue and ecumenical relationships with others,
should primarily aim to see God’s work in them and in their traditions. Therefore, beyond
identifying the One Church, every Christian living and acting in the spirit of open sobornicity
will seek Jesus Christ and His presence in the other. Each Christian is called to do this
while considering Jesus Christ in the fullness of His salvific and sanctifying work within
His Church, all people, and the world. Open sobornicity does not promote a platform for
exchanging ideas and beliefs between each Christian tradition or religion; rather, it seeks,
from a human perspective, to activate in each Christian through their relationship with
other Christians, the One Church with all the gifts and teachings that Jesus Christ shared
within humanity.
In conclusion, the Church is and will remain One, belonging to and being one with
Jesus Christ. Orthodox theology firmly professes the Orthodox Church as the One Holy
Church. Nevertheless, based on the foundation of open sobornicity proposed by Stăniloae,
all Christians, beyond their beliefs and those of their respective denomination, should seek
signs of the presence and work of Jesus Christ in each other. This convergence, which
emphasizes “the other”, ultimately places the emphasis on Jesus Christ Himself, the only
One who can lead Christians to the unity of faith and to His Church. Through the mystery
of His oikonomical action, the “other” is in fact Christ Himself (Mt. 25, 45). Thus, as St.
Maximus affirms, to be Christian is to be “Christ”. Therefore, for being Christian we have
“to make ourselves partakers of God in His fulness, and to become, through
Grace, gods in our own fulness, such that we may be considered to be Him in
every sense, without an identification with Him in essence” (Maximus 1865b,
coll. 376B).
In other words, the principle that has been outlined concerning Orthodox Christians
could be applied by all Christians who believe in Jesus Christ and believe that they are
Religions 2024,15, 12 12 of 16
inheritors of the One Church, whether this holds true for all or not. Only Jesus Christ
guarantees the sobornicity of the Church and its quality of being One, as well as guarantee-
ing the full participation of the Christian in His Church. In this sense, it should be noted
that Orthodox believers, although affirming the fullness of the Orthodox faith, should not
confess or present Christian doctrine as a possession of their Orthodoxy. They are not
possessors of the truth; rather, they participate in Orthodoxy to the extent that they follow
Jesus Christ in His salvific and sanctifying work within His Church, all people, and the
world. This sensitivity to the presence of Jesus Christ in the other and in the world, even if
it is perceived to varying degrees and not fully realized in all, can lead to an ecumenical
relationship in which partners are more than just Christians among the other religious
beliefs, as has been attempted in theological dialogues.
Rather, they are to be understood as Christians in a relationship with each other that
they establish through or in Jesus Christ Himself. It is a theological relationship in three,
with Jesus Christ as the Head. This is not a human understanding among Christians based
on their faith (which will never happen), but an ecumenical relationship in Jesus Christ,
with each person seeking Jesus Christ in the other and allowing themselves to be led by
Jesus Christ to the other. By maintaining and following the same principle of participation
rather than the adherence or ownership of the Mystery of the Church, all Christians can
meet, discern, edify, and grow in the open sobornicity of the salvific work of Jesus Christ and
the One Church.
Certainly, this perspective is not to diminish the heresy or the unrevealed elements of
one Christian tradition or another. But, if we focus on heresy it is quite difficult to move
beyond it, and furthermore we can only be healed by Jesus Christ, the Savior. That is why
an authentic ecumenical relationship could be realized when all Christians seek to find the
Face of Jesus Christ in the other. The shortcomings and heresies of others will be addressed
by the One who alone can say: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6). This does
not mean that heresies and schisms will cease, or that they will not need to be identified as
such, but in relationships between people in general and between Christians in particular,
they should be motivated by the love they have for God and the quest to become more
like Him in the way He loves. For Christians, this Love is not merely a sentiment, but
carries the name of Jesus Christ. Orthodox Christians, even though they testify that the
Orthodox Church is the One Holy Church, do not constitute the Church by adhering to
it; rather, the Church makes them Orthodox Christians through sacramental participation
in God’s oikonomia and love for humanity, in the Mysterious Body of Jesus Christ—the
Church. Therefore, the quality of the Church is not determined by its members but by her
Head—Jesus Christ. They participate in the Body of Jesus, but do not determine or possess
the Church of Jesus Christ.
Thus, as it is seen by Stăniloae from the Orthodox perspective regarding the personal
quality of each Christian, it is unknown who participates more in Jesus Christ’s mystery and
work, the Orthodox or the non-Orthodox. This is understood from the fact that Saul was
outside of the community of the Church when he saw and spoke with Jesus Christ in Light
on the way to Damascus. This is not to say that the Orthodox Church is a transconfessional
or unhinged reality; rather, it is about every faithful individual living in relation with Jesus
Christ. As Saint Maximus the Confessor writes, by imitating that One in all things as
Master and Lord, you have made yourself another Him/
ἄλλ
o
ν᾿Εκεῖν
o
ν
(Maximus 1865a,
coll. 624D). Yet, the personal quality of one’s relation and participation in Christ is not equal
to the quality of the presence of Christ in His Church. Nevertheless, there is a difference
in the presence of Jesus Christ in Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians because of the
Sacrament of Baptism grounded in the One Church of Christ, the Orthodox Church. It was
after the great vision of Jesus Christ that Saul was baptized and received the Holy Spirit in
the One Church of Christ (Act 9: 17–18).
On the other hand, to be Orthodox, as Stăniloae mentioned, one must see God in “the
other”. The experience of Christ’s contemporaries has proven that even those who were
waiting for Jesus Christ ended up missing Him. In the Christian context, an Orthodox
Religions 2024,15, 12 13 of 16
Christian is “better” than a non-Orthodox Christian only when they can follow Jesus
Christ to the Cross, to death, and can die for sinners or heretics, just as Jesus Christ did.
This Evangelical principle applies to every Christian of any Christian tradition. If this
Evangelical (John 15:13) and Pauline (Romans 5:8) principle is followed by all Christians,
it can lead to convergence precisely because it leads to Jesus Christ. Therefore, if we
were to conventionally label these relationships “ecumenism”, then an ecumenism of the
relationship of each individual with Jesus Christ and of each Christian with the Orthodox
Christians could be established; an ecumenism of seeking Jesus Christ that could unite
us and bestow upon us the mystery of true faith’s unity. Until then, practically, we are
all called to metanoia and transformation: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come
near” (Matthew 4:17), and to follow Jesus Christ “wherever He goes” (Luke 9:57). This is
the primary disposition; the forms of these relationships will emerge through the search,
pursuit, and common deepening into the mystery of Christ: “Christ, who is your life”
(Colossians 3:4).
3.3. Open Sobornicity or Correlative Ecclesiology/Interconfessional Relativism?
Another criticism that could be raised regarding Stăniloae’s perspective on open sobor-
nicity, this time by some Orthodox believers, is the potential for a vague or correlative
ecclesiology. It might be inferred from what Stăniloae stated that, through the theology
of „open sobornicity”, he supports a syncretic, globalist, collective–impersonal ecclesiol-
ogy. Some could compare his principles to the ecclesiological theory of branches within
Protestantism (Cunningham 2009, p. 8). In other words, the Romanian theologian might be
seen as suggesting that parts of the Church form the Church through association—a kind
of “federative” Church.
For some Orthodox believers, the fact that Stăniloae perceives God’s work as also
being carried out outside the Orthodox Church, along with his insistence that we should be
receptive and participate in this outside divine work, could suggest a relative constitution
of the Church and Orthodoxy. It might seem that Orthodox believers need others to
identify and present themselves as members of the Church. This could be termed correlative
ecclesiology, which defines itself in relation to the various Christian denominations that also
call themselves churches. This Orthodox sensitivity is ancient and tied to the canonical
character of Orthodox ecclesiology. In fact, God’s action is not outside the Church. It is the
dynamic activation of His Church in different people from the perspective of communion
with the Holy Trinity which leads them to a full participation in Jesus Christ’s Church. The
Church is governed by canons, but especially by the foundations of faith or dogmas. The
Christological dogma of Chalcedon speaks about the homoousios of Jesus Christ with human
persons, but also about the homoousios of human persons with Jesus Christ (Stăniloae 1974,
p. 574), without specifying that this homoousios concerns only the “inside” canonical limits
of the Church. According to the perspective of the Romanian theologian, this homoousios
can be activated within the Church through the practice of open sobornicity.
Sensitivities related to the canonical boundaries of the Church have recently been
highlighted, especially following the Pan-Orthodox Synod in Crete (Marcu 2023, p. 8). The
reference alone to certain “Christian” traditions during the Crete Synod, to non-orthodox
Christian traditions—without explicitly naming them as churches—has led to numerous
debates, conflicts, and even schisms. The major accusation against the Synod, which
interchangeably uses the term “church” with the Orthodox Church and with the different
churches and Christian traditions, led to the interpretation that this practice diminishes
the quality of the Orthodox Church as Una Sancta Ecclesiae. This approach could be seen to
argue for a relativistic ecclesiology of synthesis and reciprocity.
In the broader Christian world, most denominations claim to be churches. Similarly,
most people believe that everyone should unite in one Church, which some identify
with their own church, while others suggest a confederative church. Clearly, this cannot
happen. It would lead to interconfessional relativism and the absence of an Evangelical
and theologically sound ecclesiology. The Church is One because it is identical to the
Religions 2024,15, 12 14 of 16
Body of the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ, built on the faith and foundation of the
Apostles. This criticism can be addressed by noting that Stăniloae does not consider the
Church of Christ to be an open reality in the sense of ecclesiological pluralism, but rather
a manifestation of the homoousios character and sobornicity/Catholicity of Jesus Christ
in relation to the world and humanity. His perspective does not imply the existence of
multiple churches or that the Orthodox Church will find its identity in relation to various
denominations and Christian traditions. Open sobornicity is the mysterious identification
of the Church with the “latent Church” or the cosmic–universal ecclesial reality that St.
Maximus the Confessor speaks of in his Mystagogy (Maxim, ch. II–IV). In other words,
after completing and perfecting the oikonomia, Jesus Christ transferred the gifts of His
work to the Church and, through the Church, to the whole of created reality. From a human
and contextual perspective, these gifts, which are like potentialities shared with all human
persons, are activated through Baptism and ongoing participation in the sacramental life of
the Church. For every Orthodox Christian, activating the gifts received at Baptism means
following Jesus Christ and having the potential to sacrifice oneself for all people and God.
This following of Christ also entails assuming and living all of humanity, just as Jesus
Christ did. This theological principle and its ascetic–mystical implications were extensively
discussed by Saint Sophrony of Essex, following in the footsteps of Saint Silouan of Mount
Athos (St. Sophrony 1977, pp. 87–90).
Therefore, the open sobornicity presented by the Romanian theologian implies several
crucial doctrinal precepts:
1. It presents Orthodox ecclesiology in a balanced manner, emphasizing both its static
doctrinal foundation as the Una Sancta Orthodox Church and its spiritual and human
dynamics manifested as open sobornicity;
2. It highlights the authentic and applied Catholic character of Orthodox ecclesiology;
3. It emphasizes the obligatory significance of “the other” for practicing Orthodox
Christians and the ecumenical vocation of Orthodoxy;
4. It actualizes itself through all the positive and constructive experiences of non-
Orthodox Christians gained through revelation.
Thus, Orthodox ecclesiology, as seen by Stăniloae, is far from approaching ecumenical
realities superficially; it presupposes and implements them through active Christians in all
services and forms. The most comprehensive ecumenical ethos and works are accomplished
by the Saints. For instance, the contemporary Saint Silouan of Mount Athos, through his
prayers for “all Adam” (St. Sophrony 1991, p. 222) and his participation in the human
tragedy following the Fall, significantly resembles Jesus Christ as the bearer and sufferer
on behalf of all humanity. In general, the Saints practiced open sobornicity similarly to how
Jesus Christ practiced it, not merely for the sake of partaking in the divine work with
everyone but also for giving each person their due place and importance within the plan of
redemptive oikonomia. Therefore, Orthodox ecclesiology does not exclude human persons;
it only excludes a lack of divine truth that should be based on revelation. It does not
differentiate between human beings in terms of quality, nor between Orthodox believers
and Christians of different confessions. The only difference is made by Christians who
earnestly follow Jesus Christ.
4. Conclusions
This study has aimed to provide a contribution to the understanding of Orthodox the-
ological thought regarding the ecumenical vocation of Christians in the world. It attempts
to bring valuable insights regarding the process of embracing and living ecumenically with
“the other”, which is to say, with all of humanity in general.
To conclude, several doctrinal principles defining the concept of open sobornicity can
be identified in Dumitru Stăniloae’s thinking:
1. The Holy Trinity created humanity and the world, governing, foreseeing, and
fulfilling them on the basis of absolute divine unity;
2. Jesus Christ is the guarantee and source of divine and human unity;
Religions 2024,15, 12 15 of 16
3. The unity of the Church is activated in Jesus Christ through the assumption of “the
other” in the mystery of open sobornicity;
4. The ecumenical nature of the Church and the world originates in the mystery of
humanity recapitulated and assumed in the unique Person of Jesus Christ;
5. The “mystery of the brother” opens the path for the Orthodox Christian to assume
and live Jesus Christ’s universal work in the world.
Therefore, open sobornicity is the foundation of and invitation for Orthodox Chris-
tians to hold in their consciousness and soul the entire world, and all of humanity and
creation (see on this point the Orthodox Liturgy and its prayers for the whole cosmos/
τ
o
ῦ
σύµπαντoςκóσµoυ(Mικρóν῾Ιερατικóν2023, p. 86).
This recapitulates and affirms the Christian purpose and dynamic through which
the entire world is called to be gathered in a council and a synaxis of God the Father,
Who will be “all in all” at the second coming of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:28). Open
sobornicity has a solid Orthodox theological foundation and should be one of the most
important aspects of the Orthodox Christian creed. Open sobornicity, although referring to
Orthodox believers and their action of embracing both non-Orthodox Christians and the
world, can be practiced by all Christians. This can be accomplished on the condition that
everybody understands that “the other” is a gift from God necessary for activating their
Evangelical–universal Christian consciousness and identity. It is important to understand
that “the neighbour” possesses divine gifts that pertain to oneself and are embraced by
oneself through the open sobornicity advocated by Father Dumitru Stăniloae. This is also
one of the practical ways to advance along the path of Christian ecumenical unity.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
All related theological sources known to me have been referenced in
this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Bara, Zoltán. 2022. La Santissima Trinitàcome fonte e modello di sinodalitàdella Chiesa secondo Dumitru Stăniloae/The Most Holy
Trinity as the source and model of synodality of the Church according to Dumitru Stăniloae. Studia Koszali´nsko-Kołobrzeskie
29: 41–70. [CrossRef]
Bordeianu, Radu. 2013. (In)Voluntary Ecumenism: Dumitru Staniloae’s Interaction with the West as Open Sobornicity. In Orthodox
Constructions of the West. Fordham: Fordham University Press, pp. 240–53.
Coman, Viorel. 2016. Le Saint-esprit Comme Liaison De L’amour Éternel Entre le Père et le Fils: Un cas de «sobornicitéouverte» dans
la théologie orthodoxe moderne. Irenikon 89: 25–51.
Cunningham, Lawrence. 2009. An Introduction to Catholicism. Cambridge: University Press.
Florovsky, Georges. 1989. Ecumenism I: A doctrinal Approach. Nordland Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt.
Jemna, Dănu
t
,
, and Dănu
t
,
Mănăstireanu. 2023. Reimagining Ecumenism for the 21st Century. Staniloae’s Theology as a Source and
Inspiration. Religions 14: 725. [CrossRef]
Manolache, Anca. 1969. Recenzie la Igino Giordani, „Ecumenismul la Părint
,ii greci. Ortodoxia 4: 576.
Marcu, Doru. 2023. Orthodoxy and Ecumenical Dialogue after Crete Synod (2016) and Social Ethos Document (2020): History, Critical
Positions and Reception. Religions 14: 936. [CrossRef]
Maximus, Confessor. 1865a. Epistolae. In Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J. P. Migne. Paris: vol. 90, coll. 363–648.
Maximus, Confessor. 1865b. Mystagogia. In Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J. P. Migne. Paris: vol. 91, coll. 657–718.
Mosoiu, Nicolae. 2020. Open Sobornicity/Conciliarity as a Paradigm for the Orthodox Approach of the Ecumenical Movement. In
Ökumene ist keine Häresie. Paderborn: Brill Schöningh, pp. 529–561.
M
ικρ
ó
ν῾Ιερατικ
ó
ν
. 2023.
῾Η θείαΛειτ
o
υργία τ
o
ῦ ἐν᾿Αγι
o
ῖςΠατρ
ó
ςἡµῶν᾿Ιωανν
o
υ τ
o
ῦ
X
ρυσ
o
στ
o
µ
o
ῦ
.
᾿Αθήνα
:
῎Εκδ
o
σις
Aπoστoλικῆς∆ιακoνίας.
Noble, Ivana, and Tim Noble. 2019. Open Sobornicity and Apophatic Anthropology: Modern Romanian Hesychasm and the Theologies
of Fr Dumitru Stăniloae and Fr AndréScrima. In Meeting God in the Other. Studies in Religious Encounter and Pluralism in Honor of
Dorin Oancea on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica 16). Edited by Alina Pătru. Berlin, Münster and
Wien: LIT Verlag, pp. 423–35.
Religions 2024,15, 12 16 of 16
Ola Tjørhom, Ola. 2008. An ‘ecumenical winter’? Challenges in contemporary catholic ecumenism? The Heythrop Journal 49: 841–59.
[CrossRef]
Rauch, Thomas. 2017. The Present State of Ecumenism, Perspectiva Teologica. Belo Horizonte 49: 87–100.
Sauca, Ioan. 2004. The Church beyond our boundaries. The ecumenical vocation of Orthodoxy. The Ecumenical Review 56: 211–25.
[CrossRef]
Sonea, Cristian Sebastian. 2016. The open sobornicity. An ecumenical Theme in the Theology of the Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae. Roczniki
Teologiczne 58: 133–47. [CrossRef]
St. Sophrony, Sakharov. 1977. His life is Mine. New York: St. Vladimir s Seminary Press.
St. Sophrony, Sakharov. 1991. St Siluan the Athonite. New York: St. Vladimir s Seminary Press.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1963. Note ecumenice. Glasul Bisericii 21: 773–79.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1965. Conceptia Bisericii Romano-Catolice despre celelalte Biserici si atitudinea ei fata de acestea în conditiile
ecumenismului actual. Ortodoxia 17: 267–82.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1967a. Coordonatele ecumenismului din punct de vedere ortodox. Ortodoxia 19: 495–540.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1967b. Iubire s
,i adevăr pentru o depăs
,ire a dilemei ecumenismului contemporan. Ortodoxia 2: 283–92.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1967c. Sfântul Duh ¸si sobornicitatea Bisericii. Ortodoxia 19: 42–47.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1969. Problema uniatismului în perspectivăecumenică.Ortodoxia 4: 616–25.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1970. Problematica ecumenica actuala. Ortodoxia 22: 296–99.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1971a. În problema intercomuniunii. Ortodoxia 4: 561–65.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1971b. Sobornicitate deschisă.Ortodoxia 23: 165–80.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1973. Relat
,iile ecumenice ale Bisericii Ortodoxe Române în ultimul sfert de veac. Ortodoxia 25: 166–75.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 1974. Hristologia Sinoadelor. Ortodoxia 26: 573–79.
Stăniloae, Dumitru. 2012. The Experience of God. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Translated by Ioan Ioni
t
,
ă. Brookline: Holy Cross
Orthodox Press, vol. 4.
Turcescu, Lucian. 2002. Eucharistic Ecclesiology or Open Sobornicity? In Dumitru Staniloae. Tradition and Modernity in Theology. Ia
s
,
i and
Oxford: The Center for Romanian Studies, pp. 83–103.
Yeftici, Athanasie. 1972. Tradition et Renouveau dans L’institution du Concile Oecumenique. Geneve: WCC.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
