Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Foarte Important Pentru Articol
Foarte Important Pentru Articol
Foarte Important Pentru Articol
edited by
Bogoljub Šijaković
Preliminary note
Preliminary note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Rodoljub Kubat
Allegoresis as a Method of Demythologization
The Bible and allegorical demythologization in the pre-Christian period 15
The Bible and the allegorical demythologization
of early Christian exegetes � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 20
Conclusion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 26
PRedRag dRagutinović
The Parables: A Theological Approach
Reading Parables in the Context of the Orthodox Church Today
1� What Is a Parable? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 29
2� A Brief Survey of Research on the Parables � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31
3� The Deficiency of Orthodox Biblical Scholarship to Accept
Western Research on the Parables � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 32
4� The Church Fathers’ Hermeneutics of the Parables � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 36
4�1� The Methodology� A Sketch � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 36
4�2� The Christological Approach: totus Christus � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 38
4�3� The Canonical approach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 42
5� Hermeneutical Considerations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 46
5�1� The Parables as Open Texts: Against Standing Metaphors � � � � � � � 47
5�2� The Parables as Theological Texts � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 50
6� Conclusion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 51
vladan tatalović
Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia
1� Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 53
2� Analyzing the context: Serbian theological education before the
opening of the FOTB � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55
3� Orthodox New Testament scholarship in Serbia after the opening
of FOTB � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 65
3�1� Ilarion Zeremski (1865-1931) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 67
3�2� Dimitrije Stefanović (1882-1943) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 70
3�3� Emilijan Čarnić (1914-1995) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 75
3�4� Irinej Bulović (1947-) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 82
4� Concluding remarks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 87
8 Table of ConTenTs
vladan PeRišić
Can Orthodox Theology Be Contextual?
What is Contextual Theology? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 89
Hermeneutical Problems of Interpretation� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 91
Theological Context � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 95
The Case of Orthodox Theology � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 98
aleKsandaR djaKovac
Apocatastasis and Predestination
Ontological Assumptions of Origen’s
and Augustine’s Soteriologies
Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 103
1� Augustine’s acquaintance with Origen’s works and their soteriologies � 104
2� Apocatastasis� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 108
3� Predestination � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 111
Conclusion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 114
MiKonja Knežević
The Order (τάξις) of Persons of the Holy Trinity
in Apodictic Treatises of Gregory Palamas
1� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 117
2� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 125
3� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 128
4� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 138
bogdan lubaRdić
Orthodox Theology of Personhood
A critical overview of currents, models and ideas
in the 20th century
I� Contextual orientation � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 146
II� Theory of personhood: structures and history of development � � � � � 148
1� Turns of theology � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 149
2� Modelling personhood � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 155
3� Transmission and development � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 162
3�1� Theoretical paradigms and markers of personhood � � � � � � � � � � 162
III� Critical assessment� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 166
1� Consequences � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 166
2� Problems and issues � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 174
3� The nascent of the age of personhood � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 182
Excursus� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 184
Table of Contents 9
MaKsiM vasiljević
What Does “Rising from the Dead” Mean?
A Hermeneutics of Resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
The relationship between the truth and human culture � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 191
Dogmas in and of themselves and their relation to us � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 193
Truth and the Resurrection of Christ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 199
Implications of a hermeneutics of resurrection � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 204
daRKo djogo
History as Identity:
Contribution to the Orthodox Consciousness of Historicity
Fact, history, identity � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 210
Apologia historiae � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 214
bogoljub šijaKović
The Great War, Vidovdan Ethics, and Memory of Serbian Sacrifice
— On the History of Ideas and Memory —
1� Diagnosis of the times � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 220
2� Expansionism as overture � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 222
3� Spiritual situation before the Great War � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 224
4� “Ideas from 1914” etc� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 228
5� Instigation to war � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 234
6� On responsibility for the war � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 239
7� Young Bosnia and Vidovdan ethics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 244
8� Sacrifice, memory, identity � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253
9� “A cry and a graveyard are my people�”
– To whom is the Vidovdan Temple to be erected? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 256
10� Memory of the sacrifice victim � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 271
vedRan golijanin
Paul Tillich’s Theory of Religious Symbolism:
Meaning, Significance, Potential
The context of Tillich’s theory of religious symbolism � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 275
Understanding symbols and myths � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 278
God and Christ as symbols � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 282
Deliteralization and demythologization � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 287
Evaluation of Tillich’s theory of religious symbolism � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 289
10 Table of ConTenTs
andRej jeftić
Andrew Newberg’s Model of Neurotheology:
A Critical Overview
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
1� Definition and basic tasks of neurotheology � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 304
2� Practical level of neurological research � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 307
3� Theoretical level of neurotheological research � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 310
4� Critique of (Newberg’s) neurotheology� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 313
Concluding remarks� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 318
ZdRavKo jovanović
Towards a Nonjuridical Understanding
of Episcopal Succession
1� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 326
2� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 327
3� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 330
4� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 331
5� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 336
ZlatKo Matić
On Some Questions of Contemporary Liturgical Practice:
The Altar Bell in the Liturgy
(Regarding Documents from the 19th Century)
Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 341
1� Presenting the document � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 343
2� Historical circumstances � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 347
3� Theological frame � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 350
Conclusion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 359
bogdan lubaRdić
Theologians”) was presented on 2 Sept 2010 in Christ Church, Oxford within the plena-
ry proceedings of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Di-
alogue (ICAOTD). Subsequently it was revised and published under the following title:
Bogdan Lubardić, “Orthodox Theology of Personhood: a Critical Overview. Part One”,
The Expository Times (International Theological Journal) 122:11 (2011) 521-530; idem, “Or-
thodox Theology of Personhood: a Critical Overview. Part Two”, The Expository Times (In-
ternational Theological Journal) 122:12 (2011) 573-581. In regard to the latter, this version is
sомеwhat re-edited: expanded and updated, with the excursus at the end added. I render
deep gratitude and sincere respect to Professor John Riches from the School of Divinity
of the University of Edinburgh who as editor of Expository Times kindly encouraged me
to contribute my study essay, and no less to Dr Alison Jack for proof reading the said text.
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 145
are given according to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (© 1946, 1952, and 1971).
146 bogdan lubaRdić
I. Contextual orientation
Orthodox theology thematizing the reality of human personhood, par-
ticularly in regard to the ‘modern’ situation, in part, is a result of its dia-
logue with analogous concerns in the western tradition of thought. This
has an important implication in terms of contextual orientation. Name-
ly, it must be viewed not as self-enclosed, remote or exotic but as open
to critical dialogue with other thought forms — precisely in the act of
realizing its own inner dialogue as well. This helps us remember that
Orthodox theology is an inalienable part of a common Hellenic-Euro-
pean spiritual legacy shared by Christians. This is most apparent in its
attempt to meaningfully conceptualize the reality of personhood. Both
Russian and Greek Orthodox theologians of the 20th century, theolo-
gians belonging to other Orthodox localities notwithstanding, critically
engage western philosophy and theology on the matter of personalism.
They agree that the human person is of paramount importance for
understanding the fundamentals of the natural, historical and social
life-world of humanity. However, they mostly disagree with the claim
that the results of western philosophical and theological development
do full justice to what is implicit, and explicit, in the revealed truths of
Christianity about what it is to be a ‘human being’. One illustrative in-
stance is the attempt by Russian Orthodox theologians (later followed
by their Greek colleagues) to overcome the speculative subject of Ger-
man philosophical idealism. The philosophy of ‘consciousness’ of the
latter, it is argued, with its emphasis on the speculative ‘Ego’, fails to
think and appropriate the ontological content of personhood as given
in Christ by the Spirit to the Christian Church. The discursive explica-
tion of this ‘ontological’ content, then, coincides with the re-affirmation
of Orthodox theological alternatives in theory and practice. It also en-
tails an attempt to further develop Christian doctrine on the matter it-
self. As stated by Vladimir N. Lossky: “… it is by the fact, by the event of
Incarnation that the creation of man in the image of God receives all its
theological value, which remained unperceived (or somewhat impover-
ished) in the letter of the sacerdotal narrative of the creation…”.3
But it was the pre-Losskyean ‘sophiological’ school of theology and
religious philosophy, founded by Russian thinkers like Soloviev, Flo-
3 Vladimir Lossky, “The Theology of the Image”, in idem, In the Image and Likeness, SVS
opagite, T & T Clark, London 2005 (the Greek original appeared in 1967 [²1986]). Hence-
forth we refer to the Serbian translation = Hristos Janaras, Hajdeger i Dionisije Areopagit,
tr. S. Jakšić (proofreading: hierodeacon Maksim Vasiljević), Bratstvo Svetog Simeona
Mirotočivog, Vrnjačka Banja ¹1997 — original in Cyrillic.
148 bogdan lubaRdić
and 18th century.8 This was then transposed into a programme by a mul-
titude of thinkers, most notably Florovsky, Lossky, Afanasiev, Meyen-
dorff and Schmemann. Amongst other things, this programme implies
emancipation from the domination of essentialist, rationalist and mor-
alist construals in matters theological, as well as from apologetic and
confessionalist attitudes. The methods (form) of Orthodox theology, it
is argued, should be intrinsically adequate to the substance (content) of
its living spiritual experience.9 This was not the case in the 17th and 18th
centuries, nor was it so at time of the ending of the 19th and beginning of
the 20th century. Since, it is stated, the methods of theology, then, were
overly casuistic, speculative and moralistic: ‘ossified’ and not authenti-
cally in tune with ‘true’ Orthodox thought and life.
1.2. Apophatic ‘turn’. This brings us to the second important
change of Orthodox mind set which may be labelled as the ‘apophatic’
way of theology. The return to the living experience of the Church is the
other side of returning to the living God: this side of speculative Chris-
tian metaphysics. Thence emerges another major ‘postulate’ of Ortho-
dox personalist theology. Namely, the primordial context for theology is
divine-human communion. This implies encountering Christ the God-
Man from ‘within’ the being of the Church, the Church being the histor-
ical extension of His body incarnate. As suggested by Lossky: “The idea
of the ‘Image of God’ is attached here to the hypostasis of the Son who,
in becoming man, makes visible in the human nature which he assumes
His divine Person, consubstantial with the Father”.10 The only way to re-
appropriate our likeness to that, then, is by entering the body of Christ
— the Church where, ultimately in a face to face deifying vision,11 our
personhood is re-discovered and elevated to that of God by the grace of
the Spirit. The primacy of this experience is reflected in the insistence
that theology should shift from a ‘positive’ mode to a ‘negative’ mode.
This does not entail a suspension of thought. Negative theological dis-
8 George Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology (in Russian), YMCA Press, Paris 1937,
30-56, 57-81.
9 Following in the footsteps of Florovsky, John Zizioulas underlines that point in exem-
course is itself positive on a different level (saying what God ‘is not’ is
still saying something). What it means is that theology is a discursive
symbolization of the spiritual experience of an encounter with a living
God. Therefore, what is properly ‘apophatic’ is this personal experience
of inter-communion with a personal God: a God who is One yet Three,
transcendent yet immanent, uncreated yet ecclesially incarnate in his-
tory. No rationalistic construal, in itself, can capture this spiritual event,
nor can it do justice to the paradoxical nature of ‘revelations’ respective
to it. That is why, note, the neo-patristic movement of thought warrants
a most immanent connection between an apophatic and a personalist
approach in theology. According to Yannaras: “... apophatism as effec-
tive renouncing of the consolidation of knowledge in rational definitions
represents a cognitive attitude which leads to the dynamic of the ontol-
ogy of person, that is, to making meaningful both the subject and the
fore-placed reality which cannot be subdued to any a priori necessity”.12
In other words, the apophatic turn properly understood implies the re-
discovery of personhood on both sides: the side of uncreated divinity
and the side of created humanity respectively.13 One more point. The
living God is not a solitary entity. God is Himself a communion of di-
vine persons. Accordingly, Christ as transformative agency and experi-
ence is present in us, and we in Christ (en Christou), by the co-action of
the Spirit (Pneuma) in the name of the Father (Pater). This has two pro-
found consequences. The first underscores the apophatic point. Name-
ly, God is discovered to be not only God-Man (which is itself antinomi-
cal to the reasoning ‘brain’). He is also discovered to be a triune God. He
reveals Himself as three persons sharing one self-same nature (physis).
Moreover, such a God is a union of self-sameness (one) and particulari-
ty (three). This is another reason why ‘reason’ (dianoia), trapped in anti-
nomical impasse, fails to render sufficient spiritual and theoretical jus-
tice to such a God. But an apophatic experience of this triune mystery,
granted to the experiencing person, may be symbolized theologically by
an adequate – apophatic – mind (nous). To put it in a nutshell: dogmat-
ic statements are, in fact, theological formulations of this primordial ex-
12 Christos Yannaras, On the Absence and Unknowability of God, Athens 1967 (= Hris-
the Many. Studies on God, Man and the Church and the World Today, Sebastian Press,
Alhambra CA 2010, 33.
152 bogdan lubaRdić
Edinburgh 1991 (we refer to the Serbian translation = Hristos Janaras, Azbučnik vere, tr.
S. Jakšić Beseda, Novi Sad 2000, 83 — original in Cyrillic).
16 Christos Yannaras, Truth and Unity of the Church, Athens 1977 (we refer to the Ser-
bian translation = Hristos Janaras, Istina i jedinstvo Crkve, tr. S. Jakšić, Beseda, Novi Sad
2004, 26 — original in Cyrillic).
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 153
cause Christ is in communion with the Father and Spirit — and with our
humanity invited to commence becoming the Church.
1.4. Eucharistic ‘turn’. The encounter with a triune God revealed
through life in Christ is made possible, by the Spirit, by entering the
Church in baptism. As stated by Zizioulas: “[in] the sacrament of bap-
tism […] the structure of the Trinity is made the structure of the hy-
postasis of the person being baptized, a fact which makes Paul summa-
rize the sense of baptism with the phrase, ‘Spirit of adoption, in which
we cry Abba, Father’ (Rom 8:15)”.17 The potential of the so-called ‘per-
son of baptism’ is fully realized and consummated in the eucharist: ac-
tualized, as it is, in the so called ‘eucharistic person’ (to use Zizioulas’s
idiom). The eucharistic event, taken as communion with the life-giv-
ing being of God, not only reveals but realizes the communional and
relational structure of personhood. “Man corresponds to his being cre-
ated in the ‘image of God’ to the extent he realizes his being as erotic
self-transcendence and self-offering, that is, to the extent his being cor-
responds to the personal (hypostatic) way of existence”18 — that is, let
us add, to the eucharistic way of existence. The Orthodox theology of
personhood implies an ontology of the personal way of being God is for
us and conversely. It is not to be regarded merely as a psychology or so-
ciology of Christian personhood. Moreover, for this reason the Ortho-
dox theology of personhood grounds itself not in a ‘revelational’ mod-
el of Christianity but in a ‘eucharistic’ or ‘liturgical’ model. This should
not mean that biblical foundations of the teaching on personhood are
marginalized, at least not so on purpose. Finally, divine-human and tri-
une structures of personhood are not merely projected (‘also’) through a
eucharistic ecclesiology of personhood. As we said, more is at stake. Ec-
clesiology, with its ‘heart’ in the eucharist, is the most central point of
reference for the theology of the person. This is so because the eucha-
rist (being the manifest life of God Himself) allows both the re-discov-
ery of the communional being of one’s otherwise naturalized and indi-
vidualized personhood (‘self ’) and, simultaneously, the experience of its
17 Let us note the coinciding here of biblical and ecclesial premises of the theology of
icism (including its mystical texture and its apophatic attitude) is not a
remote exotic idiosyncrasy modo Oriente. It is a deeply concrete, real-
istic and socio-historically relevant manifestation of the quest for dei-
fied personhood in an ecclesial Christ by the Spirit. Such a view of as-
cetical effort entails primarily the transformative effects of the Church
event viewed eucharistically. Putting it sharply, to live eucharistically is
ascesis par excellence.
A promising way to see the intertwining of these theological ‘turns’,
on one hand, with the conceptualization of personhood, on the other
hand, is by looking into what we call the model of personhood. As we
shall see, this model presupposes the liturgical or eucharistic model of
the Church as such.
2. Modelling personhood
One of the problems an unaccustomed reader of western provenance
might encounter when trying to assess the Orthodox currents of the
theology of personhood is that it is still not systematic enough. Anoth-
er considerable difficulty is terminology — imbued, as it is, with Greek
and Byzantine-Greek philosophical idioms. These are steeped in rather
abstruse technical discourse presupposing centuries of Eastern Ortho-
dox mediation and transformation of Aristotelian, Platonic and neo-
Platonic concepts (especially in and through intellectual cultures domi-
cile to Alexandria and Constantinople). We therefore propose to make
the necessary clarifications by offering a synthetic but simple model of
the newer Orthodox ‘ontology of personhood’. Again we assume that
the mentioned four theological authors – Lossky, Yannaras, Zizioulas,
Horuzhy – are in consensus on the basic features of the model. Cita-
tions from the respective four, on that level, affirm the general thrust of
this personalist current of theology. Of course, they do differ, at times
strikingly.
2.1. Person and personhood. The person, it is argued, is not to be
regarded merely as a highly important ‘part’ of the human being. It is
much more. Namely, it is the way our being is as such. As explained by
Zizioulas: “… from an adjunct to a being (a kind of mask) the person be-
comes the being itself and is simultaneously – a most significant point
– the constitutive element (the ‘principle’ or ‘cause’) of beings”.20 Hence,
20 John D. Zizioulas, op. cit, 39.
156 bogdan lubaRdić
evoke. Strictly speaking, the human person is not ‘within’ a hypostasis or conversely —
for, the hypostasis is the human person (viz. prosopon) and conversely. For the same rea-
son, ‘being-carried’ suggests not a metaphor of space locality (i.e. under vis-à-vis above;
within vis-à-vis outside etc) but, rather, signifies a conceptual reality in terms of desig-
nating an ontological modality (tropos, modus, way of existence).
29 Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith, Edinburgh 1991 (= Hristos Janaras, Azbučnik
vere, 90-91).
30 Vladimir Lossky, “Image and Likeness”, in idem, The Mystical Theology of the East-
rational freedom of the will (freedom from and freedom for someone
or something). Since the human being is hypostatic this means that the
image as freedom (eleuthereia) is personal. That is to say, the image al-
ways belongs to someone in terms of personal responsibility. The im-
age, then, is hypostatic or simply personal. This allows for freedom to
be non-abstract and concrete. There is no person ‘in general’ and there
is no freedom ‘in abstracto’. If rational freedom and self-governance are
the formal conditions of the prosopic or hypostatic image of God in the
human being, then the likeness of that image to God is the essential con-
dition. For it is achieving the likeness (homoiosis) of the image of God to
God that makes the image actualized or properly energized. (Otherwise
it remains formally a potentiality or, in reality, a mere travesty.) This is
done by the free and willing ascetical acceptance of deifying grace (cha-
ris), which is communicated by the Spirit in and through the life with
Christ the God-Man in the Church. As underlined by Lossky: “Man cre-
ated ‘in the image’ is the person capable of manifesting God to the ex-
tent to which his nature allows itself to be penetrated by deifying grace*.
Thus the image – which is inalienable – can become similar or dissimilar,
to the extreme limits: that of union with God, when deified man shows
in himself by the grace of God what God is by nature, according to the
expression of Maximus the Confessor; or indeed that of the extremity
of falling-away…”.31 Hence, actualizing the image through likeness leads
to (3) deification of the human person (theosis) in cooperation (synen-
ergeia) with God. But this cooperation presupposes an ‘ontological’ lev-
el of the act of repentance. As stated by Horuzhy: “Repentance is syn-
ergy [with God] in the state of passion. That is the ‘starting’ or ‘negative’
activity of synergy which has for its goal the decomposition of the glob-
al this-worldly configuration [i.e. the fallen world’s configuration] of the
multitude of energies”.32 Let us note that another reason for using the
syntagm ‘ontology of personhood’ issues from the fact that personhood
is actualized through divine energies of the personal being of God. In
biblical terms, “… we all, with unveiled face (prosopo), beholding the
31 Vladimir Lossky, “The Theology of the Image”, 139.
32 Sergei Horuzhy, Dyptichon on Silence. The Ascetical Teaching on Man in Theological
and Philosophical Light (in Russian), Centre for Psychology and Psychotherapy, Mos-
cow (¹1978) ²1991 (we refer to the Serbian translation = Sergej Horužij, Diptih o tihovan-
ju. Asketsko učenje o čoveku u bogoslovskom i filozofskom tumačenju, tr. M. Ivanović, Bri-
mo, Beograd 2002, 87 — original in Cyrillic).
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 159
glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness (ten auten eiko-
na metamorphoumetha) from one degree of glory to another; for this
comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2Cor 3:18).
2.3. Nature. Furthermore, the human being has a common nature
(physis) shared with others. Nature is what is (1) common, but (2) es-
sentially, to all humankind and what makes it specifically different from
all other kinds of being. That is to say, the human being is ‘part’ of na-
ture, but the nature of the human being is not identical to ‘nature’ as
such (physis, natura). Moreover, the nature of human nature is deter-
mined specifically by – personhood. As pointed out by Lossky: “Man is
not merely an individual of a particular nature, included in the generic
relationship of human nature to God the Creator of the whole cosmos,
but he is also […] a person not reducible* to common (or even individ-
ualized) attributes of the nature which he shares with other human in-
dividuals. Personhood belongs to every human being by virtue of a sin-
gular and unique relation to God who created him ‘in His image’”.33 It
is precisely the ‘prosopic’ or personal hypostasis which, by en-hyposta-
tizing human nature, prevents human nature being conceptualized as
‘bare’ (gymne): that is, prevents it from being ‘impersonal’. “This cre-
ated nature exists only* as the personal hypostasis of life…”.34 It is also
the agency which, in principle, prevents the human being from becom-
ing biologically or sociologically individualistic (atomon). “The crea-
ture, who is both ‘physical and hypostatic’ at the same time, is called
to realize his unity of nature as well as his true personal diversity by*
going in grace beyond the individual limits which divide nature and
tend to reduce persons to the level of the closed35 being of particular
substances”.36 Most importantly, the personal (or ‘prosopic’) hypostasis,
or the human person as image of God, allows humanity to be or become
free from fallen nature (2Pet 2:4), not necessarily without or against na-
ture. The reason for this lies in the fact that the personal hypostasis is
a divine-human structure. This is memorably underlined by Yannaras:
“The all-embracing power of eros, which is in opposition to the tendency
33 Vladimir Lossky, “The Theology of the Image”, 137.
34 Christos Yannaras, Elements of Faith, Edinburgh 1991 (= Hristos Janaras, Azbučnik
vere, 91).
35 An echo of this may be heard in the title of the study by Nikolaos Loudovikos, Closed
Spirituality and the Meaning of Self (in Greek), Ellinika Grammata, Athens 1999.
36 Vladimir Lossky, “The Theological Notion of the Human Person”, 122.
160 bogdan lubaRdić
hovanju, 40).
42 Sergei Horuzhy = Sergej Horužij, op. cit., 90.
162 bogdan lubaRdić
ficiality) modes of the person transcending its given and fallen nature.
However, ecstasis (ekstasis) is conceptually synthesized as (1) eros, and
relationality is meticulously explicated in categories of (2) enpersonal-
ized energies of human nature ‘ecstasizing’ erotically and inviting com-
munion. He says much more on the triune aspect of the image as well,
not refraining from identifying the human image – analogically – as
image of the Trinity. Furthermore, he suggests that the image of God
in man or women is the image of the Church potentially. Therefore the
imago Dei is in fact (3) imago Trinitatis and imago Ecclesiae. He also
radicalizes Lossky’s critique of the Latin and modern West, at moments
reaching an irrevocable ideological negation of things western.
John Zizioulas does have a fundamental debt to both. However, he is
willing to acknowledge Yannaras rather than Lossky, whom he suspects
of jeopardizing the interpersonal moment in divine-human communion
by releasing the Triunity of divine Persons into a transpersonal apophat-
ic of ‘triadicity’. This explains Zizioulas’s reserve not only to Lossky, but
towards Dionysius the Areopagite (fl. c. 500), and also one of the rea-
sons for his reluctance to endorse Palamite theology more explicitly. He
makes his turn to the apostolic45 and Cappadocian church fathers and to
Maximus the Confessor ([580–662] the latter features prominently in ear-
ly Yannaras as well). In fact, he tries to overcome the top-to-bottom ap-
proach (of Lossky) by commencing from the ecclesial presuppositions of
personhood (thus the ‘vertical’ conception of personhood, i.e. God + hu-
manity, is interiorized and historicized from within ecclesial thinking as
it springs fort from tradition [paradosis]). Zizioulas criticizes Yannaras,
too, for ‘flirting’ with Heideggerean ontology (and borrows some parts of
his criticism from Emmanuel Levinas46) viz. the danger of temporalizing
God, ontologizing death, and projecting Trinitarian description through
‘panoramic’ ontology at the expense of a more traditional understanding
(which he, perhaps problematically, binds to the idea of ‘monarchy’ of the
Father) etc.47 Zizioulas is more attentive to the (1) ecclesial and (2) eucha-
45 An exemplary instance is his doctoral dissertation. It draws upon the genius of Igna-
tius of Antioch as it reconstructs primordial ecclesial, eucharistic and episcopal horizons
of theology of the early Church; vide: John D. Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The
Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop during the First Three Centuries
(the original appeared in Greek 1965), Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline MA 2001.
46 John D. Zizioulas, “Personhood and Being”, 44 n. 40.
47 It seems that Zizioulas is not entirely fair to Yannarasean readings of Heidegger, who
may be usefully introduced into the debate. Moreover, Yannaras’s, say, ‘theo-ontology’ or
164 bogdan lubaRdić
Lossky and simultaneously beyond Lossky, for his (1) method of phe-
nomenological description of personhood is fruitfully innovative and
different from that of Lossky (for instance in thematizing the aesthet-
ic consequences of personhood synergetically regarded). He displays a
fully fledged theory of (2) synergetic ontology of personhood and a con-
ception of (3) theurgy concepualized as the cooperation with God in
universalizing the activity of the Church cosmically. This is his specif-
ic contribution (although he does shy away from acknowledging Bul-
gakov on the theurgic point). Horuzhy’s contribution is acutely person-
alist yet committed strongly to the energetic and synergetic sides of
human ascetical activity. He does justice to Gregory Palamas without
ensnaring himself in Lossky’s overly apophatic emphasis. He seems to
make peace between what we could call the ‘energological’ and ‘pro-
sopological’ strands of personalistic Orthodox anthropology. Like the
others, he remains strict in the critique of the sophiological strand (be-
ing very reserved towards pantheistic tendencies of sophiological49 sub-
stantialist ‘in-rooting’ [Russ. ukornyenie] of the divine into the world).
Orthodox theology of personhood thus displays at least three
strands of one major movement: the (1) sophiological,50 (2) energolog-
ical and (3) prosopological strands. Of course, there are more lines to
the movement, and the borders between most of them overlap to a de-
gree at certain levels. The four authors mentioned represent two gen-
erations of the transmission process in the 20th century, with Lossky
belonging to the first (terminus a quo in the 30s and 40s) and Yan-
naras, Zizioulas, Horuzhy belonging to the second (terminus a quo
in the 60s and 70s). The third generation of theologians made its ap-
pearance in the 90s. They made their marks by trying to overcome, or
signal, neuralgic theoretical points of the newer Orthodox movement
for personhood. Nikolaos Loudovikos (*1959)51 and Aristotle Papan-
49 Sergei Horuzhy, Dyptichon on Silence, Moscow 1991 (= Sergej Horužij, Diptih o ti-
hovanju, 129-133).
50 Hence the early ‘sophiological’ current of thought is not to be counter-distinguished
from a supposedly later ‘personalist’ current. Both are anchored in theologically under-
standing personhood as one of the eminent characteristics of Orthodox theology per se.
It is better to think of neo-sophiological, post-sophiological and non-sophiological per-
sonalist tendencies within Orthodoxy.
51 Especially relevant for comprehensive insight into the position of Loudovikos on Or-
thodox theology of personhood, grounded in his readings of Maximus the Confessor, are
the following works: idem, Eucharistic Ontology, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, Brookline,
166 bogdan lubaRdić
in thematized topic is brought to light well and helpfully in Aristotle Papanikolaou, “Per-
sonhood and Its Exponents in Twentieth-Century Orthodox Theology”, in: M. B. Cun-
ningham and E. Theokritoff (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian
Theology, CUP, Cambridge 2008, 232-245.
53 More on this in what follows in III.2.3.
54 Or, alternately, a category which we detract, take away or, as it were, ‘peel off ’ of being,
as is the case in metaphysical abstraction and speculative inference to absolute being (BL).
55 John D. Zizioulas, “Personhood and Being”, 39.
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 167
al, necessary, indifferent being in itself (on he on). The truth of person-
hood is then reduced (equally so in various domains: from epistemolo-
gy to sociology). Zizioulas expresses the main insight well: “Entities no
longer trace their being to being itself—that is, being is not an absolute
category in itself—but to the person, to precisely that which constitutes
being, that is allows entities to be entities”.56 More still, these Orthodox
thinkers argue that truth is an intrinsic extension of experiential know-
ing of the event of participation in interpersonal energetic presences
of our others (the latter taken as beings in communion). For Florovsky
(and by transitivity for the here chosen four Orthodox personalist theo-
logians), “Truth makes itself accessible to thought only through witness.
Further, since Truth is personal (it is Christ Himself, Jn 14:6), witness
to Truth must also be personal, i.e. provided by witnesses, and these
testes Veritatis, are none other than the Church Fathers”.57 Truth is not
(not only, nor primarily) an analytical ‘adequatio’ of concept and thing,
nor merely a coherent logic of formal statements etc, but consequent to
experiencing the way of being which, by definition, is the way of per-
sonhood (= free transcendence of ‘being’ by persons being for others).
Let us note that we now may observe how the ‘apophatic turn’ (II 1.2)
and theology of personhood converge, inasmuch as both are meta-onti-
cal and meta-logical in their grounding. As Yannaras explains: “Before
anything else apophatism represents an attitude towards knowledge and
towards making knowledge true. It represents a negation of ‘intellectu-
al idols’, a negation of psychological strongholds of egocentric security
and emotional self-protection furnished by rationalist propositions”.58
All things considered, this personalist epistemology leads to a critique
of naturalized epistemology in favour of an existential and spiritual re-
assessment of the latter.
1.2. Metaphysics and ontology. If it can be demonstrated, as far as
human reality is concerned, that there is no being ‘outside’ the event of
persons in communion (which entails radical freedom, openness and
incessant surges of possibilities of meaning), if being is ‘enhypostatized’
primordially, if being is – for lack of a better word – ‘a priori’ inter-per-
56 John D. Zizioulas, “Personhood and Being”, 39.
57 Sergei Horuzhy, “Neo-Patristic Synthesis and Russian Philosophy”, St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 44:3-4 (2000) 318.
58 Christos Yannaras, On the Absence and Unknowability of God, Athens 1967 (= Hris-
gards being as the ‘ground’ of beings: «Ontology and theology are ‘-logies’ because they
get to the bottom (ergründen) of beings as such and ground (begründen) them as a whole
(im Ganzen, lit. ‘in the whole’)» (ID, 56/59). Hence Hegel called metaphysics ‘logic’; it is
Onto-Theo-Logik. How does God become a being, the highest entity, rather than simply
Sein, ‘being’? Being and beings are distinct but inseparable. Being ‘grounds (gründet)’ be-
ings, and conversely beings ‘beground (begründen)’ being. But beings can beground be-
ing only in the form of a single supreme being, a cause that is causa sui, ‘cause of itself ’:
«This is the appropriate name for the god of philosophy*. Man cannot pray to this god,
nor offer sacrifices to him. Man cannot fall to his knees in awe before the causa sui […]»
(ID, 70/72). Heidegger thinks that «god-less thinking», in rejecting this god of philoso-
phy, is «perhaps closer to the divine god» (ID, 71/72): «the ontotheological character of
metaphysics has become questionable for thinking, not on the basis of any atheism, but
from the experience of a thinking which has seen in onto-theo-logy the still unthought
unity of the essence of metaphysics» (ID, 51/55). In thinking about this unity, and about
the difference that metaphysics discerns only hazily, Heidegger goes beyond metaphys-
ics”. Vide: Michael Inwood, “Ontotheology”, in: A Heidegger Dictionary, Blackwell Pub-
lishers, Oxford 1999, 149-150: 150 (ID = M. Heidegger, Identität und Differenz, Pfullingen,
Neske 1957 = idem, Identity and Difference, tr. J. Stambaugh, Harper & Row, NY 1969 [cf.
especially: “The Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics”, 42-74 i.e. Heidegger’s
interpretive exposition of Hegel’s Science of Logic, given on 24 Feb 1957] BL).
60 According to Heidegger: “What differs shows itself as the Being of beings in gener-
al, and as Being of beings in the Highest. […]. … the thinking of metaphysics remains
involved in the difference which as such is unthought*…”, cf. idem, Identity and Differ-
ence, NY 1969, 70-71.
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 169
ly, the newer Orthodox theologians allow for a revision of this tradition-
al type of metaphysical ontology. They are informed by the Heideggerean
type of critique. However, they suggest that ‘ontotheological’ approaches
to being need to shift from their traditional metaphysical and essential-
ist modes (as found in Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel etc) into a perspec-
tive offered by the post-metaphysical ontology of concrete personhood
(which is where they depart from Heidegger at the same time). Or, more
exactly, the ontology of concrete personhood is transposed into a theol-
ogy of personhood taken to be the ontology proper. This may be re-stat-
ed in comparison to modern speculative metaphysics as well. Namely, if
the ontological reality of the human person, on the level of ‘structure’, is
fundamentally determined by the image of the triune God, and if the
reality of the human person (created, contingent and — fallen), on the
level of ‘content’, ultimately, is determined by the capacity of reception
of (and response to) divine energies or sanctifying grace: as of pure in-
calculable61 gift,62 then the immanentist ontology of the self-absolutized
‘subject’ (despite or because of it voracious interiorization of what is di-
vine [an act which, ultimately, collapses the distinction between divine
– uncreated and human – created]), especially as conceived by the mod-
ern tradition of philosophy of consciousness,63 needs to be discarded for
it is inadequate in regard to understanding what truly comes to pass in
the salvific drama of human personhood in and for Christ. Let us note
that here, too, we may observe how the ‘apophatic turn’ (II 1.2) and the-
ology of personhood converge, inasmuch as speculative ontology is de-
constructed by displaying the precedence and irreducibility of personal
relationality (of each iconic concretum) as opposed to the speculative all-
absorbing ‘Subjectum’ or ‘Absolute’. The said relationality involves an un-
foreclosed dialogue of the created and the uncreated Other (a dialogue
grounded in the glorified Body of the Godman Jesus Christ: that is, in
the Church) addressing us as irreducible persons of unfathomable scope
61 This in itself precludes a ‘calculus’ of ‘absolute knowing’ (viz. speculative epistemol-
God to his Church (e.g. revealed truths, scriptures, articles of faith, doctrine, sacraments,
liturgical activity, theologoumena, Christian arts and crafts, Christian social forms and
practices of polity etc). These themselves, in turn, presuppose grace and are manifesta-
tions of it, both at the same time.
63 For instance, the Fichtean absolute Ego and-or the Hegelian speculative Subject or
dialectical Absolute.
170 bogdan lubaRdić
Mangnum (ed.) The New Faith-Science Debate, Fortress Press, Minneapolis – WCC Pub-
lications, Geneva 1989, 165.
172 bogdan lubaRdić
al integration of the life of the triune God with ecclesial practice.70 This
becomes the control instance for ‘theology’ which is thus deconstruct-
ed and in fact ‘liberated’ from its position of a priori intellectual dom-
inance over the Church event: “… ecclesial being is bound to the very
being of God. From the fact that a human being is a member of the
Church, he becomes an ‘image of God’, he exists as God Himself exists,
he takes on God’s ‘way of being’”.71 Their integration of the ontology of
triune personhood with ontology of divine-human communion with-
in the context of ecclesiology, thus, allows for and leads to understand-
ing that the primary value of knowing is appropriated as a function of
salvation. In other words, knowledge is ontologically and existentially
potentialized as a dynamic function of salvific communion with God.
It is for these reasons that they introduce Trinitarian thought in a key
of dynamic personhood. It serves as the regulative ‘norm’ for other do-
mains of theology, often clogged up with static, essentialist and legalis-
tic understandings of both God and man. Let us note that now we may
observe how the ‘Trinitarian’ (II 1.3) and ‘eucharistic’ (II 1.4) turns con-
verge with the theology of personhood, inasmuch as the triune way
of being of God is reflected as the way of being of the human being
living eucharistically in and as the Church. In the name of the Father,
Christ eucharistically communes with us inter-personally by the Spir-
it: in free ecstatic relationality and pure self-sacrificial (kenotic) love
of his others as brothers and sisters by grace. As powerfully stated by
Zizioulas: “Jesus Christ does not justify the title Saviour because he
brings the world a beautiful revelation, a sublime teaching about the
person, but because He realizes in history the very reality of the per-
son and makes it the basis and ‘hypostasis’72 of the person for every*
man”.73 All things considered, anthropology is founded personalisti-
cally, and is futurative in an eschatological key. Which is to say, with
70 Cf. Alan Torrance’s very appreciative yet lucidly critical account: “Triune Personhood.
John Zizioulas”, in idem, Persons in Communion. An Essay on Trinitarian Description and
Human Participation, T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1996, 287 et passim.
71 John D. Zizioulas, “Personhood and Being”, 15.
72 Let us not forget in this context that one meaning of the Old Greek term hypostasis
is ‘that which lies underneath’ or ‘the under-laying thing’ or ‘the under-carrying thing’.
When the under-laying ‘thing’ is the Person of the Son of God, Jesus Christ — implica-
tions are nothing less than revolutionary (BL).
73 John D. Zizioulas, “Personhood and Being”, 54.
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 173
— all things were created through him and for him” (Col 1:16).
76 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”
(Rev 22:13).
77 Actually, being for others here coincides with being for Christ, i.e. with a thirsting
Christ-bound eros which in loving others loves Christ, and conversely. For instance, such
a being-for-an-other is indicated in the cry Maranatha! (“Our Lord, come!” 1Cor 16:22).
(Of course, this follows if we leave aside the perfective past sense of the term, and opt
for the futurative vocative sense of the same Aramaic expression, which in fact was fa-
voured in eucharistic dialogues of the early Church).
78 Christos Yannaras, Truth and Unity of the Church, Athens 1977 (= Hristos Janaras,
implies a failure to be in accord to the proper way of being,79 the latter re-
vealed as the way of Christ or the communional and sacrificial way of the
Church of Christ. Let us note that we now may observe how the ‘asceti-
cal turn’ (II 1.5) and theology of personhood converge, inasmuch as the
re-conceptualization of ascetical endeavour demands a re-structuring of
one’s way of being into a mode of ecclesial personhood. Ethics is pre-
opened by ecclesial-communional ethos: especially by the eucharistic
way of being of the Church community, where substantial transforma-
tions of the whole human being come to pass, through dynamics of sac-
ramental grace. The fulfillment of biblically secured moral precepts fol-
lows this movement but does not precondition it, nor can it supplant it.80
Ethics is released from a self-sufficient and autonomist moral grounding
as of the moral law regarded formalistically. Another quintessentially im-
portant consequence, apart from the meta-moralistic gain mentioned, is
the defense of the absolute value of the human person in view of its di-
vine-human potential and calling. We can only but most briefly add that
this defense of divine-human status of personhood has repercussions in
the domains of bioethics (viz. genetic engineering, euthanasia, abortion,
suicide etc), human rights (viz. various types of instrumentalization of
the human person for ends of profit, submission, technocratic and cor-
poratist control etc), rights of biospheric nature (viz. the desacralization
and ‘rape of nature’ – since nature is also called to commune with God in
Christ through our humanity in Christ [Rom 8:19-22], etc) and in terms
of culture-creativity. As regards the latter, again, the ethical encompass-
es not only bringing oneself to an other in a morally acceptable form,
but creating something good and beautiful in the world for one’s other:81
one’s ecclesial personhood to begin with.
– by selflessly reaching-out to God – stands as first in the ecclesial assembly (for the mor-
ally self-sufficient and self-content members are not really ‘reaching-out’).
81 John D. Zizioulas, “Introduction: Communion and Otherness”, 10.
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 175
project in the said sense. To this he adds a critique of neo-patristics as a project ‘unaware’
176 bogdan lubaRdić
movement. Namely, in Florovsky’s statement which claims “In the Church Hellenism
has been eternalized* (Russ. vyekovyechen): introduced into the very texture of churc-
hood (Russ. cerkovnost), as an eternal category of Christian existence”; vide: George
Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology (in Russian), YMCA-Press, Paris (¹1937) ²1983, 509.
85 This is a tentative suggestion. Still, it is potentially fruitful to critically distinguish be-
tween monistically ‘Hellenizing’ theology, on one hand, and the colossal importance of our
Greek fathers, on the other hand. In fact, what is ‘monistic’ falls into both (a) monopolizing
the Greek fathers at expense of (all) others and (b) viewing their own immanent diversity of
thought and practice as more uniform than it actually is in historical practice, text and context.
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 177
Communion, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame 2006, 106 et passim. We
found this study very helpful in our effort to overview recent prospects of personalist
Orthodox theologizing.
178 bogdan lubaRdić
‘person’ over and against ‘nature’. For instance, the distinction of person
(prosopon, hypostasis) and nature (physis) tends to be overly ‘sharp’ and
too ‘vertical’ at the expense of what is human nature, ‘opened-up’, as the
case happens to be, in intricate incarnate historical experiences and net-
works of contexts. In fact, this rather rough distinction is possible only on
the level of ‘ordo cognoscendi’, but not as an expression of ‘ordo essendi’.
That is, it may be posited on the level of intellectual analysis and distinc-
tion-making, but not substantially. The concept of personhood, it is sus-
pected, thus draws uncomfortably near to a mysticistic remnant of an il-
licit neo-platonism, where the hypostasis ‘ecstasizes’ – escapes – from the
bonds of a negatively conceived nature. In his poignant arguments against
Yannaras, Nikolaos Loudovikos makes a series of such remarks.87 More re-
cently, he states that “…nature was created to be deiform and not at all in-
exorable and monstrously inimical to the person, who is supposedly free
by definition (and the fall happened not because of the existence of nature,
but precisely on account of Man’s self-serving personal choices – it is tell-
ing that because Yannaras identifies nature and the fall, he rejects the lat-
ter as an ontological event). Our personal-gnomic ek-stasis should aim
87 Cf. Nikolaos Loudovikos, The Apophatic Ecclesiology of Consubstabntiality. Limits of
Eucharistic Ecclesiology (in Greek), Armos, Athens 2002, 22, 50, 150. As of recently he ques-
tions Zizioulas, too, on similar charges. To our mind he is successful in virtue of the fact
that this, in itself, invites more theological reflection and critical discursive articulation. As
minimum, his criticisms are indicative of the fact that both Yannaras and Zizioulas need
to readdress their notion of created nature (viz. the person/nature distinction): for, even if
it proves to be non-problematic, it does seem to provoke misunderstanding or theoretical
reserve. However, we are not entirely convinced that what he considers as errings of Yan-
naras and Zizioulas (particularly à propos the person/nature distinction) correspond to
what is actually intended by the two. On the other hand, Loudovikos is more convincing
when criticizing, say, Zizioulas’s understanding of Lacanian desire, or when he deconstructs
possible idealistic sedimentations in the Metropolitan’s conception of ‘nature’ (cf. Nikolaos
Loudovikos, “Person Instead of Grace and Dictated Otherness: John Zizioulas’s Final Theo-
logical Position”, Heythrop Journal 48 [2009] 1-16). Be that as it may, they are thus instigated
to make the necessary clarifications of their positions respectively. It is gladdening to find
that Zizioulas responded rather swiftly. At the conference on Maximus the Confessor, held
in Serbia, he made his statement through the paper titled: “Person and Nature in the The-
ology of Saint Maximus the Confessor”, tr. B. Lubardić, in Maxim Vasiljević (ed.), Knowing
the Purpose of Creation Through the Resurrection, Proceedings of the Symposium on St Maxi-
mus the Confessor, Belgrade October 18-21, 2012, Sebastian Press The Faculty of Orthodox
Theology – University of Belgrade 2013. In the said paper Zizioulas states clearly that his
study essay, in part, may be regarded as offering necessary “clarifications” (sic). He is con-
cerned by the criticism he received from several authors, but he dedicates his answer most-
ly to J.-C. Larchet (one can discern that he is indirectly speaking to N. Loudovikos as well).
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 179
ture and spirit are totally identical in the ontological sense — nor, for that matter, are they
totally different in the ontological sense. Rather, spirit is conceived as the non-natural
end of nature. It is out of nature, in and through the historical process (a process which
is dialectically shown to be ‘necessary’ and ‘rational’), that emerges spirit, or, the succes-
sively increasing self-awareness of freedom as the goal of spirit. Hence, freedom of spirit
is displayed as the ‘non-natural goal of nature’ (Benjamin Berger), etc.
92 Cf. Christos Yannaras, Six Philosophical Sketches (in Greek), Ikaros, Athens 2011, 126.
93 A view different from, to wit, what Loudovikos sees as the “anthropology of a psy-
chosomatic sanctification and participation in God”, which flows from the Christology
discussed in Loudovikos’s essay, and which was “a constant throughout Eastern theolo-
gy, from Macarius and Maximus through to Gregory Palamas”.
180 bogdan lubaRdić
which is the person. Yannaras writes: ‘Man is created, and his given mode
of existence (his nature or essence) is by necessity that of individual ontic-
ity, of the instinctive urges of self-preservation, domination, perpetuation.
It is that of self-completeness at the opposite pole to the good; that is, it is
evil’, an evil ‘which destroys a personal human being with the same even-
handed indifference with which it destroys any animate existence’94”.95 All
of this is closely tied to a new awareness of, possibly, problematic relapses
into secular philosophical viewpoints at the expense of, as is argued, prop-
er patrological hermeneutics, notwithstanding the according theology. Of
course, it is an entirely different matter whether this is, or is not, doing full
and tactful justice to Yannaras and Zizioulas who are primarily targeted,
notably by Loudovikos96 and, as of lately, by Jean-Claude Larchet97 in his
intensely polemical approach to Zizioulas and Yannaras.
94 Loudovikos refers to: Christos Yannaras, The Enigma of Evil, Holy Cross Orthodox
Both presuppose a “Christology of escape” (cf. idem, Terrors of the Person and the Ordeals
of Love, 58 [he makes the remark whilst discussing Zizioulas, but he repeats the same
and holds the same in regard to Yannaras as well]). Loudovikos rests his case upon his
claim that both theologians, in one way or another, derogate created nature in favour of
a natureless human being or ‘person’ — predestined to hypostatize the natural energies
of God, nothing else: “Nature has no future in eternity, remains soteriologically unaffect-
ed, simply checked and controlled, like an infection, and in the end is totally abrogated,
in an ecstatic delirium wherein without nature the created being hypostasizes the natu-
ral energies of God — the creature is flooded by the divinity”: cf. idem, “Hell and Heav-
en, Nature and Person. Chr. Yannaras, D. Stăniloae and Maximus the Confessor”, 24. Pa-
panikolaou’s assessment of the theology of personhood expounded by Zizioulas is more
positive and empathetic than that of Loudovikos. What is more, Papanikolaou comes to
Zizioulas’s defense in answering Turcescu’s criticism of Zizioulas. At least inasmuch as he
claims that Turcescu’s argumentation does not succeed in backing his (Turcescu’s) main
thesis or standpoint — which, Papanikolau seems ready to concede, might be correct af-
ter all: namely, a relational ontology of (trinitarian) personhood, as such, might not be
found in the referential Cappadocian fathers. Cf. Aristotle Papanikolaou, “Is John Zizio-
ulas an Existentialist in Disguise? Response to Lucian Turcescu”, Modern Theology 20:4
(2004) 601-607: 602 (viz. Lucian Turcescu, “‘Person’ versus ‘Individual’ and Other Mod-
ern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa”, Modern Theology 18:4 [2002] 527-539).
97 Cf. J.-C. Larchet, “Personne et nature. Une critique orthodoxe des théories person-
ford University Press, Oxford 2006. Of course, alongside Russell, others could be named
as well: most probably Andrew Louth (this is inferable, say, from his review of Larchet’s
more recent works and, more generally, from his own writings).
100 Lucian Turcescu, op. cit., 536.
182 bogdan lubaRdić
Paul writes: ‘We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our origi-
nal conviction [‘hypostasis’] firmly to the very end’ (Heb 3:14). In this pas-
sage it is clear that the hypostasis is regarded as being in the image and
likeness. This is the so-called ‘hypostatic principle’. But when the hypos-
tasis-person is interpreted only as being in the image without being the
likeness, then there is a problem. Modern Western philosophy used the
term ‘person’ for human beings too. But this is viewed according to the
principle of personalism (in the philosophical, psychological and existen-
tial sense) and humankind’s fall from the theological concept of being in
the image and likeness of God. Unfortunately this Western personalism
has been brought into Orthodox theology by some”.101 Earlier statements
by Kallistos Ware, and some recent ones as well, it could be argued, may
be taken to represent a meta-critique of such views proposed by Vlachos,
not least because the latter might be misrepresenting the case for Ortho-
dox personalism, or, better said, Orthodox theology of personhood (espe-
cially with regard to the dimension of likening to God in Christ, which is
therein considered as a crucial aspect of the human being as person, etc).
3. The nascent of the age of personhood
The potentials of such Orthodox triadological, Christological and an-
thropological description of personhood, its hermeneutical and socio-
cultural critical potential, but most of all the revelation of the event of
God and man in communion leading to spiritual deification, by virtue
of personhod ‘on both sides’, theoretically executed in the newer Ortho-
dox personalism — remain revolutionary and radical in their implica-
tions. The prima facie extravagance of it all (to an unprepared mind) is
due to the light of such insight being eschatological, not only theoretical
or historical. The tidings of the biblical kerygma are in analogical sta-
tus to the former. Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) points this out himself:
“History does not incarnate nor does it always confirm the Gospel, no
matter how revolutionary it is, and simply because we are dealing with
a truth which is eschatological in its nature […]. The same goes for the
notion of person, which is nothing else but a borrowing from the escha-
tological way of our existence”.102
101 Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and St Vlassios Hierotheos, op. cit. (a. ii. Person and
human being).
102 John Zizioulas, “The being of God and the being of Man” (in Greek 1991, re-edited
but shortened in English 2010). We quote according to the non-abridged Serbian edition
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 183
thropology) has become the main area of interest for the ICAOTD. This is document-
ed In the Image and Likeness of God: A Hope-Filled Anthropology, The Buffalo Statement
Agreed by the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue
(ICAOTD), Anglican Consultative Council, London 2015.
104 ICAOTD, In the Image and Likeness of God, 5.
105 Brought to our attention by Sergei Horuzhy.
106 Nicolas Zernov, The Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century, Harp-
T.: “In the fact of salvation, apart from the two mysteries about God and
Christ another, third mystery is contained, the one on Man. This reli-
gious mystery has not been revealed through the work of the Ecumeni-
cal councils… Theology and Christology have been developed, but an-
thropology remains undeveloped, and that is the great task for the future*
[…]”. Bishop Sergius responded:
S.: “Are you saying that within Christianity there is no revelation as to
what Man is?” The religious philosopher replied:
T.: “Yes”.
In this sense, it is remarkable to find this anticipative if not pro-
phetic voice echoed not only in the mid 20th century, through Vladimir
Lossky, but in the 21st century as well, through Kallistos Ware (*1934).
Most likely taking his cue from Lossky (viz. “… until now I have not
found what one might call an elaborated doctrine of the human per-
son in patristic theology, alongside its very precise teaching on divine
persons or hypostases”107) the Metropolitan of Diokleia, Kallistos, states
bindingly: “The key question in Orthodoxy today is not only ‘What is
the Church?’, but also and more fundamentally ‘What is the human per-
son?’ What does it imply to be a person-in-relation according to the im-
age of God the Holy Trinity? What does it mean to attain ‘deification’
(theosis) through incorporation into Christ?”.108
Excursus
[Note on the patristic Christological roots of the term ‘enhypostatized’.
The term ‘enhypostatized’ (‘enhypostatization’ etc) is a technical deriva-
tion from the Chaledonian Byzantine theological tradition. Its origin is
usually ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium. The doctrine that it strives to
express, at least the general aspects of it, however, is found in others as
well, notably in Leontius of Jerusalem. I here leave aside the debate on
the identity of the two Leontii (one from Byzantium, and one from Jeru-
salem). As A. Grillmeier says (AG 1, 271, 271 n. 3 et passim), F. Loofs
considered that the two names refer in fact to the same person, arguing
107 Vladimir Lossky, “The Theological Notion of the Human Person”, 112.
108 Kallistos Ware, “Orthodox Theology Today: Trends and Tasks”, International Journal
for the Study of the Christian Church 12:2 (2012) 116. (Metropolitan Kallistos has made sim-
ilar statements on other occasions as well: notably, during the reception of his doctorate
honoris causa from the Faculty of Orthodox Theology at Belgrade University 10 May 2002).
Orthodox Theology of Personhood 185
that Contra monophysitas (CM: CPG 6917) and Contra Nestorianos (CN:
CPG 6918) were “adaptations of a lost original by Leontius of Byzan-
tium*” (AG 1, 271). This has now been convincingly disputed, in favour
of Leontius of Jerusalem’s* authorship of the aforecited tracts. Having
said that we can still consult Leontius of Byzantium’s treatise Contra
Nestorianos et Eutychianos (in MPG 86, 1267–1396) where the terminol-
ogy and conception of ‘enhypostaton’ and-or ‘enhypostasia’ are laid out
in a clear and classical, equally groundbreaking fashion. Therefore, in
terms of its terminological and conceptual roots the technical idiom ‘en-
hypostatized’ can be traced back to Leontius’s distinction between a ‘hy-
postasis’ and something being ‘enhypostasized’ (in-subsistent) in a hy-
postasis (cf. Ph. McCosker, op. cit., 76 viz. B. Gleede, op. cit., 185). The
two are thus not the same: as the Latin translation would have it, “non
est idem hypostasis et enhypostaton” (Leontius of Byzantium, Contra
Nestorianus et Eutychianos, in J. P. Migne, PG 86, 1278 D). It has been
shown (C. dell’ Osso; B. Gleede et alii) that the term ‘enhypostatos’ (in-
subsisting), including the ideas it entails, has passed through a wide
branching of theological development, connecting figures such as Ori-
genes, Leontius of Byzantium, Leontius of Jerusalem, Maximus the
Confessor and John Damascus, whence it passed on into later Christo-
logical thought: East and West (Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Barth
and others). The basic idea underpinning the said distinction may be ar-
ticulated as follows: Humanity as a nature ‘in general’, i.e. humanity ‘as
such’, cannot have a ‘person’ (hypostasis) of its own in abstracto. Howev-
er, humanity is not because of this ‘anhypostatic’ (deprived of a hypos-
tasis: anhypostasia, impersonalitas), nor is it on account of that non-ex-
istent. For, (a) humanity finds its concrete instantiation (enhypostaton;
enhypostasia) in the hypostases of particular human beings — persons
(prosopa); or, (b) as in the special case of Jesus Christ’s human nature (a
theme of particular interest to Leontius of Byzantium, together with the
status of the hypostasis of the pre-eternal Logos), humanity finds its hy-
postasis ‘in’ the hypostasis of the incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ. In wider
doctrinal terms this would mean, in words of Ivor Davidson, “the con-
tention that the humanity of Jesus Christ has no independent subsis-
tence of its own but is hypostatic, or personally real, only as the human
nature of the Son of God” (idem, op. cit, 225 cit. acc. Ph. McCosker, op.
cit., 72). (Davidson goes on to articulate the doctrine laying behind the
enhypostasia–anhypostasia distinction [which, because of the presence
186 bogdan lubaRdić