Quote of the day

Christ without His body is not Christ but an individual of the worst type.

John D. Zizioulas. Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church. London, DLT, 1985 (2004). 182.

More substantial posts on Being as Communion will follow in a couple of days, but this seemed worth sharing!

 

The ultimate purpose of human existence

“The Word became flesh”: in this is the ultimate joy of the Christian faith. In this is the fullness of Revelation. The Same Incarnate Lord is both perfect God and perfect man. The full significance and the ultimate purpose of human existence is revealed and realized in and through the Incarnation. He came down from Heaven to redeem the earth, to unite man with God for ever. “And became man.” The new age has been initiated. We count now the “anni Domini.” As St. Irenaeus wrote: “the Son of God became the Son of Man, that man also might become the son God.” Not only is the original fullness of human nature restored or re-established in the Incarnation. Not only does human nature return to its once lost communion with God. The Incarnation is also the new Revelation, the new and further step. The first Adam was a living soul. But the last Adam is the Lord from Heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). And in the Incarnation of the Word human nature was not merely anointed with a superabundant over-flowing of Grace, but was assumed into an intimate and hypostatical unity with the Divinity itself. In that lifting up of human nature into an everlasting communion with the Divine Life, the Fathers of the early Church unanimously saw the essence of salvation, the basis of the whole redeeming work of Christ. “That is saved which is united with God,” says St. Gregory of Nazianzus. And what was not united could not be saved at all. This was his chief reason for insisting, against Appolinarius, on the fullness of human nature assumed by the Only Begotten in the Incarnation. This was the fundamental motive in the whole of early theology, in St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Maximus the Confessor. The whole history of Christological dogma was determined by this fundamental conception: the Incarnation of the Word as Redemption. In the Incarnation human history is completed. God’s eternal will is accomplished, “the mystery from eternity hidden and to angels unknown.” The days of expectation are over. The Promised and the Expected has come. And from henceforth, to use the phrase of St. Paul, the life of man “is hid with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3)

Georges Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, Volume Three in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, (Nordland, 1976). 95-96.

 

A recapitulation to God

The incarnation of the Logos is the blessed end on account of which everything was created. This is the divine purpose, which was thought of before the beginning of creation and which we call an intended fulfilment, and yet the fulfilment itself exists because of nothing that was created. Since God had this end in full view, he produced the natures of things. This is truly the fulfilment of providence and of planning. Through this there is a recapitulation to God of those created by him. This is the mystery circumscribing all ages, the awesome plan of God, superinfinite and infinitely preexisting the ages. The Messenger, who is in essence himself the Word of God, became man on account of this fulfilment. And it may be said that it was he himself who restored the manifest innermost depths of the goodness handed down by the Father; and he revealed the fulfilment in himself, by which creation has won the beginning of true existence. For on account of Christ, that is to say, the mystery concerning Christ, all time and that which is in time have found the beginning and the end of their existence in Christ. For before time there was secretly purposed a union of the ages, of the determined and the Indeterminate, of the measurable and the Immeasurable, of the finite and Infinity, of the creation and the Creator, of motion and rest – a union that was made manifest in Christ during these last times.

Maximus the Confessor, Questions to Thalassium 60, quoted in Joel C. Elowsky (ed), John 1-10, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament IVa (InterVarsity Press, 2006) 34.

 

Zizioulas on the implications of the synthesis for Ecclesiology: I

In the third section of this third chapter of Being as Communion, Metropolitan Zizioulas proceeds to discuss four implications of the synthesis between Christology and Pneumatology for ecclesiology.

The first of these, the importance of the local Church in ecclesiology, has been emphasised in the “eucharistic ecclesiology” associated with N. Afanasiev, but has not yet been justified in terms of Pneumatology, a task which Zizioulas proceeds to attempt.

The Church as the Body of Christ is instituted through the Christological event and owes her being to the one Christ. This could mean that there is first one Church and then many Churches, as Rahner has argued, seeing the “essence” of the Church in the universal Church. However, if we view Pneumatology as constitutive of both Christology and ecclesiology, then we cannot speak in these terms, for

The Pentecostal event is an ecclesiologically constitutive event. The one Christ event takes the form of events (plural), which are as primary ontologically as the one Christ itself. The local Churches are as primary in ecclesiology as the universal Church. No priority of the universal over the local Church is conceivable in such an ecclesiology. (133)

However, there is also a danger of prioritising the local Church over the universal, a danger resulting from the lack of a proper synthesis between Christology and Pneumatology. This mistake – made by Afanasiev and some Orthodox theologians – is a mistake

because the nature of the eucharist points not in the direction of the priority of the local Church but in that of the simultaneity of both local and universal. There is only one eucharist, which is always offered in the name of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” The dilemma “local or universal” is transcended in the eucharist, and so is any dichotomy between Christology and Pneumatology. (133)

This leads to the question of what ecclesial structures help to maintain this balance between the local and the universal, and hence to the second implication, namely, the significance of conciliarity.

While Orthodoxy does not have a  pope, it is a mistake to see it as having councils instead of a pope. Instead, conciliarity is rooted in the idea of communion, which is an ontological category in ecclesiology and Zizioulas sees this as rooted in the Trinitarian theology of the Cappadocian Fathers.

One of the striking peculiarities of St. Basil’s teaching on God, compared with that of St Athanasius and certainly with that of the Western Fathers, is that he seems to be rather unhappy with the notion of substance as an ontological category and tends to replace it – significantly enough for our subject here – with that of koinwni/a. Instead of speaking of the unity of God in terms of His one nature, he prefers to speak of it in terms of the communion of persons: communion is for Basil an ontological category. The nature of God is communion. This does not mean that the persons have an ontological priority over the one substance of God, but that the one substance of God coincides with the communion of the three persons. (134)

In the same way, while there is one Church, “the expression of this one Church is the communion of the many local Churches. Communion and oneness coincide in ecclesiology.” (135) It therefore follows that the institution that expresses the oneness of the Church must also express communion and that “the institution of universal unity cannot be self-sufficient or self-explicable or prior to the even of communion; it is dependent on it.” (135) In the same way, however, communion cannot be prior to the oneness of the Church and “the institution which expresses this communion must be accompanied by an indication that there is a ministry safeguarding the oneness which the communion aims at expressing.” (135)

Instead of viewing the synod as a democratic alternative to “monarchical” Rome, as is sometimes thought, the significance of the synod for in Orthodox tradition can be found in canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions. This insists on the principle of one head in each province. The local bishops-Churches cannot do anything without the “one” but, at the same time, the “one” cannot do anything without the “many”. Thus “There is no ministry or institution of unity which is not expressed in the form of communion. There is no ‘one’ which is not at the same time ‘many’”. (135-136)

Orthodox ecclesiology requires an institution that expresses the oneness of the Church. However,

the multiplicity is not to be subjected to the oneness; it is constitutive of the oneness. The two, oneness and multiplicity, must coincide in an institution which possesses a twofold ministry: the ministry of  prw=tov(the first one) and the ministry of the “many” (the heads of the local Churches). (136)

 

Zizioulas on the Synthesis between Christology and Pneumatology

(Being, the second section of chapter three of Being as Communion ).

While few would question that Christology and Pneumatology belong together, the question that arises is that of the relationship between them and, in particular, the questions of which has priority of what their content is.

With regard to priority, Zizioulas points out that differing priorities can be traced back to the New Testament itself – one the one hand, the Spirit is given by Christ and, on the other hand, it is the Spirit who announces Christ and constitutes His very identity – and this continues to be seen in the varying practices regarding baptism and confirmation in the early centuries. He argues that such variation in priority should not necessarily constitute a problem, but that

The problem arose only when these two aspects were in fact separated from each other both liturgically and theologically. It was at this point in history that East and West started to follow their separate ways leading finally to total estrangement and division. Not only baptism and confirmation were separated liturgically in the West, but Christology tended to little by little dominate Pneumatology, the Filioque being only part of the new development. The East while keeping the liturgical unity between baptism and confirmation, thus maintaining the liturgical synthesis on the liturgical level, did not finally manage to overcome the temptation of a reactionary attitude to the West in its theology. The atmosphere of mutual polemic and suspicion contributed a great deal to the situation and obscured the entire issue. What we must and can see clearly now, however, is that so long as the unity between Christology and Pneumatology remains unbreakable, the question of priority can remain a “theologoumenon.” (129)

The differing tendencies of West and East are rooted in their differing contexts – in the former’s concern with history and ethics and in the latter’s meta-historical and liturgical approach. This should not be a problem if the content of Christology and of Pneumatology is the same, but the question remains as to what this content is. “From what exactly does ecclesiology suffer if the content of Christology or Pneumatology is deficient?” (129)

While the activity of God ad extra is one and indivisible, “the contribution of each of these divine persons to the economy bears its own distinctive characteristics which are directly relevant for ecclesiology in which they have to be reflected.” (129-130) Here Zizioulas notes the two central themes of eschatology and communion, which allow us to see the relationship between Christ and the Spirit at work in the Church.

While the Father and the Spirit are involved in history, it is only the Son who is incarnate and becomes history. “The economy, therefore, in so far as it assumed history and has a history, is only one and that is the Christ event.” (130) However, the contribution of the Spirit is precisely the opposite, namely, to liberate the Son from the bondage of history.

If the Son dies on the cross, thus succumbing to the bondage of historical existence, it is the Spirit that raises him from the dead. The Spirit is the beyond history, and when he acts in history he does so in order to bring into history the last days, the eschaton. Hence the first fundamental particularity of Pneumatology is its eschatological character. The Spirit makes of Christ an eschatological being, the “last Adam.” (130)

More over, it is through the Holy Spirit’s contribution to the economy that Christ receives a “corporate personality” and is not “one” but “many”.

It is not insignificant that the Spirit has always, since the time of Paul, been associated with the notion of communion (koinwni/a). Pneumatology contributes to Christology this dimension of communion. And it is because of this function of Pneumatology that it is possible to speak of Christ as having a “body,” i.e. to speak of ecclesiology, of the Church as the Body of Christ. (130-131)

While there are also functions such as inspiration and sanctification associated with the work of the Spirit, and while sanctification has been particularly important in Orthodoxy and especially in the monastic tradition, it has not been a decisive aspect of ecclesiology.

Ecclesiology in the Orthodox tradition has always been determined by the liturgy, the eucharist; and for this reason it is the first two aspects of Pneumatology, namely eschatology and communion that have determined Orthodox ecclesiology. (131)

Indeed Zizioulas argues that these aspects are not only normative but are constitutive of ecclesiology in that they qualify the very ontology of the Church.

The Spirit is not something that “animates” a Church which already somehow exists. The Spirit makes the Church be. Pneumatology does not refer to the well-being but to the very being of the Church. It is not about a dynamism which is added to the essence of the Church. It is the very essence of the Church. The Church is constituted in and through eschatology and communion. Pneumatology is an ontological category in ecclesiology. (132)

 

Zizioulas on Christ, the Spirit and the Church: Introduction

The third chapter of Being as Communion is entitled “Christ, the Spirit and the Church”. In the introduction to this chapter, Metropolitan Zizioulas begins by outlining the different emphases on Chistology and Pneumatology in recent Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology. In broad strokes it might be said that Catholics emphasise the former and Orthodox the latter, and yet both face unresolved issues in this regard. This is illustrated by Orthodox criticism of the ecclesiology of Vatican II in which “it was observed that the Holy Spirit was brought into ecclesiology after the edifice of the Church was constructed” on a Christological basis, and which had important consequences for issues such as “sacraments, ministry and ecclesial institutions”. (123) However, the proposal of two Orthodox observers to the Council that a focus on the Holy Spirit and on “Christian man” was sufficient is, in the eyes of Zizioulas, “a clear indication that Orthodox theology needs to do a great deal of reflection on the relationship between Christology and Pneumatology”. (123)

Zizioulas proceeds to note the contribution of Khomiakov, which was paralleled by that of Möhler in a Catholic context, who injected such a strong dose of Pneumatology into ecclesiology that it effectively made the Church a “charismatic society” rather than the “body of Christ”. This led later Orthodox theologians such as Fr Florovsky to emphasise the Church as “a chapter of Christology” leaving the relationship between Christology and Pneumatology as a question to be addressed.

The Orthodox theologian who addressed this issue in the most thorough way was Vladimir Lossky. Zizioulas sees two aspects of his thought as worth noting. Firstly, there is a distinct “economy of the Holy Spirit” alongside the economy of the Son. Secondly, Pneumatology involves the “peronsalisation” of the mystery of Christ, or what one could call the “subjective” aspect of the Church in contrast to the “objective” aspect that is found in the sacramental structure of the Church. However, Lossky does not pursue the problem of how the institutional and charismatic aspects of the Church are to be worked out and his views are not without problems.

The recent contributions of both Nikos Nissiotis and Fr Boris Bobrinskoy have stressed that the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit belong together and should never be seen in separation, although both give a priority to Pneumatology.

The question, however, remains still open as to how Pneumatology and Christology can be brought together in a full and organic synthesis. It is probably one of the most important questions facing Orthodox theology in our time. (126)

Thus, Zizioulas argues, while it is often thought that Orthodox theology can help to correct the West excesses in ecclesiology – and this is not untrue – Orthodox theology also has work to do in this regard and this is the challenge that this chapter will address.

 

Zizioulas on the Body of Christ formed in the Spirit

The fourth section of this chapter on “Truth and Communion” (67-122) is entitled “Truth and the Church: Ecclesiological Consequences of the Greek Patristic Synthesis” (110-122) and begins with the subsection “The Body of Christ formed in the Spirit” (110-114).

Zizioulas begins this subsection by outlining two possible Christological approaches. The first sees Christ as an individual who exists objectively and historically and who presents Himself to us as the truth. The distance between Him and us is bridged by certain means such as His spoken words which are transmitted and realised under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the second approach Christ, while a particular person, cannot be conceived as an individual but rather His truth includes His relationship to His body the Church.

In other words, when we now say “Christ” we mean a person and not an individual; we mean a relational reality existing “for me” or “for us”. Here the Holy Spirit is not one who aids us in bridging the distance between Christ and ourselves, but he is the person of the Trinity who actually realizes in history that which we call Christ, this absolute relational entity, our Savior. In this case, our Christology is essentially conditioned by Pneumatology, not just secondarily as in the first case; in fact it is constituted pneumatologically. Between the Christ-truth and ourselves there is no gap to fill by means of grace. The Holy Spirit, in making real the Christ-event in history, makes real at the same time Christ’s personal existence as a body or community. (110-111)

Drawing on the biblical witnesses Zizioulas argues that Christ exists only pneumatologically “whether in His distinct personal particularity or in His capacity as the body of the Church and the recapitulation of all things.” (111) Thus to speak of Christ means speaking at the same time of the Father and the Holy Spirit and the mystery of the Church is rooted in the entire economy of the Trinity.

In the context of a Christology constructed in this pneumatological manner, truth and communion once more become identical. (112)

This occurs on both the historical and anthropological levels.

In the description of Pentecost in Acts 2, the significance of the event seems related as much to history as to anthropology: through the outpouring of the Spirit, the “last days” enter into history, while the unity of humanity is affirmed as a diversity of charisms. Its deep significance seems to lie in the fact that this takes place in Christ, viewed both historically and also anthropologically , as a here and now reality. The objectivization and individualization of historical existence which implies distance, decay and death is transformed into existence in communion, and hence eternal life for mankind and all creation. In like manner, the individualization of human existence which results in division and separation is now transformed into existence in communion where the otherness of persons (“on each of them separately,” Acts 2:3) is identical with communion within a body. (112)

This application of Christ’s existence to our existence does not occur abstractly but through a community which is formed out of the radical conversion from individualism to personhood that occurs in baptism. Through the new birth of baptism – in the Spirit – we are incorporated into the community “so that each baptized person can himself become ‘Christ,’ his existence being one of communion and hence of true life.” (113)

This truth of existence is an eschatological reality but it is given to us sacramentally as an “eikon” to provide us with a foretaste of eternal life which makes us aspire to the “transfiguration of the world within this communion which the Church herself experiences.” (114) In history, it is realised most fully in the Eucharist and the next subsection will deal with the Eucharist as the locus of truth.

 

The point of Christology

‘Christology, in the definitive form which the Fathers gave it, looks towards a single goal of purely existential significance, the goal of giving man the assurance that the quest for the person, not as a “mask” or as a “tragic figure,” but as the authentic person, is not mythical or nostalgic but is a historical reality. Jesus Christ does not justify the title of Savior 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 person and makes it the basis and “hypostasis” of the person for every man.’

John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church. London, DLT, 1985 (2004) 54.