Ἡ ἑνότης τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐν τῇ θείᾳ Εὐχαριστίᾳ καὶ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ κατὰ τοὺς τρεῖς πρώτους αἰῶνας (Αθήνα: Γρηγόρης 1965, 1990)

Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Transl. Elizabeth Theokritoff (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001)

This study examines and analyzes the Biblical and Patristic sources up to Cyprian in order to investigate the issue: what concept of the unity of the Church prevailed in these sources, so as to draw from them conclusions for systematic theology, and especially ecclesiology. These findings can be summarized in six original points:

a) The concept of the unity of the Church, introduced by Baur and the Tübingen School, according to which according to the well-known Hegelian scheme (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) these are ideological oppositions, which are finally synthesized in the era of "catholization" of the Church, cannot rely on the sources. The main axes of the unity of the Church were not initially the ideas or beliefs about the preaching and the person of Christ, but this very person of Christ and the assembly of the scattered Israel around it, and finally in Him ("ἐν αυτῷ"). This means that the original unity of the Church was mainly a unity "in the Eucharist", which embodied the personal presence of Christ in the Church.

b) This unity had a local The examination of the sources testifies that the term "church" usually meant the local community gathered together "in one place", to celebrate the Eucharist (Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Ignatius, etc.). It also proves that the term “catholic Church” («καθολική εκκλησία”) originally did not denote the universal Church, as it prevailed to be considered by Augustine et al., but every local Church united around its bishop and in the Holy Eucharist.

c) The bishop had as his main function the presidency of the eucharistic assembly of his local Church, which is why he quickly came to be considered as an “image of Christ” or “in the type or place of God” (Ignatius). The development of the episcopal authority of the bishop in the first centuries had as its starting point his leading position in the Eucharist and the Christological "typology" connected to it. Only after the fourth century does the bishop begin to be seen primarily as a "governor".

d) The presbyters originally constituted a “college,” which surrounded the bishop in the Holy Eucharist according to the type of the Apostles, who are expected to surround Christ in the Kingdom. Initially, their main task was not the presidency of the Eucharistic assembly, but the catechism and teaching of the faithful and the administration of justice together with the bishop. Only after the fourth century did they receive the title “priest,” which was previously used for the bishop and initially for Christ.

e) The problem of the relationship between heresy and schism is clarified by the analysis of patristic sources. The unity of the Church “in faith” is an essential and necessary condition for Eucharistic communion, but the concept of the universality of the Church is broader than that of Orthodoxy: the former includes the latter, while the latter does not necessarily include the former. This position has very serious consequences for certain modern perceptions of Orthodoxy, which tend to consider Orthodoxy as an ideology, that is, as a system of ideas, and not as a communion and community, as a Church.

f) Parishes as presbyter-centered units developed only in the fourth century. At this point, the sources are examined in an original way. And after the appearance of the parishes, the unity of the bishop is fully ensured by various means (the Fermentum, the Antimension, the commemoration of the local bishop at the time of the eucharistic petition, etc.). From the point of view of systematic theology this testifies that the term “church” or, much more, “catholic church,” cannot be applied to the parish, but only to the diocese (against Afanasiev, Schmemann, etc.). The center of the unity of the Church remains even after the appearance of the parish, the bishop.

g) This episcopocentric character of ecclesiastical unity creates the problem of the unity of the Church on a wider level. The local Churches do not cease to constitute one Church throughout the world. The key problem of Systematic Theology, to which this research answers, is whether unity at the level of the world saves or not the universality of the local Church. This problem was central to the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, and this caused the interest of Zizioulas’ positions internationally, and especially in the circles of Roman Catholic Theologians. The Revue d' histoire ecclésiastique (vol. 65, 1970, pp. 56-68) published a multi-page book review by P. C. Bori with flattering comments and interesting observations. From an Orthodox point of view, this study was also commented very positively (see Ρ. NELLAS, «Sur deux thèses d'ecclésiologie orthodoxe», Contacts 68 [1969] 329-338), while it is constantly referred to, and has already seen a second edition. Its influence in legal circles too has already been pointed out (Α. ΜΑΡΙΝΟΥ, Σχέσεις Εκκλησίας και Πολιτείας, 1984).

With this study, serious one-sidedness of the so-called "eucharistic theology" of the Afanasiev’s school is corrected, and it is demonstrated that: a) the Holy Eucharist is not enough for the unity of the Church, but the condition of correct faith (or Orthodoxy) is also required, and b) the unity of the Church on a universal, global level is equally necessary as the unity of the local Church.

The reception of this work internationally has been very positive. Apart from its lengthy presentation in the Revue d' histoire ecclesiastique, which was mentioned above, S. Parsons presents it in a ten-page book review in the English Sobornost, noting among others the following:

“The author, a distinguished Orthodox theologian ... puts forward some challenging ideas on one of the most central points in the contemporary ecumenical debate... The importance of Zizioulas' work is that he has taken up these insights ... and has placed them on a solid Scriptural and Patristic foundation, which hitherto had been lacking ... This book is of considerable importance to all students of Ecclesiology and in particular to those who seek an alternative to the scholastic concepts which even now underlie so much of the debate... Apart from the interest of the book as a document of modern... theology and thinking, it is to be hoped that the thesis propounded by this distinctly creative theologian may be of some assistance to all who are involved in the reading of Patristic theology” (vol. 1972, 270-79).

Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, ed. Paul McPartlan (London: T&T Clark, 2006). Pages, xiv+ 315.

This book was praised as “a great book and a converting one”, in fact “a comprehensive model for the whole of Christian theology,” by the then archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (Zizioulas 2006: xi-xii), whose comments further witness to the remarkable ecumenical impact of Zizioulas’ thought.

“Only a theologian of John Zizioulas’s stature would attempt to reconcile the polarities of communion and otherness,” remarks Gill Κ. Gοulding (Theological Studies, Sep 2008; 69, 3, p. 725). What has distinguished Zizioulas as a theologian has been not only his command of the Orthodox theological tradition, but also his knowledge of Western philosophical and theological literature, especially in the contemporary period.

This work builds on his Being as Communion (1985), where Zizioulas highlighted the significance of communion for Christian life and unity. In what is de facto a companion volume, Zizioulas focuses on communion as the foundation for otherness and true identity. The life of the Trinity is the focus for the reality of otherness that originates in the distinctions of the persons and unity of the Godhead. Otherness is thus ontological. Since human beings are made in the divine image, they reflect this reality. Zizioulas understands communion as generating otherness.

The book is a collection of previously published but updated articles with some significant new material, notably the opening, lengthy chapter, “On Being Other,” where Zizioulas explores the ontology of otherness. In particular he asserts that the divine gift of human freedom refers not merely to the will but also to "the freedom to be other in an absolute ontological sense” (11). God, Christ, church, nature, esthetics, and ecclesial existence are all foci for exploration culminating in a eucharistic ethos where “faith is an act of gratitude to every other” (98).

The eight chapters of the book deal with an ontology of otherness, an ontology of personhood, a theology of personhood, three chapters on aspects of the Trinity, a chapter on some questions of Chalcedonian Christology, and a final reflection on ecclesiology. It is the first three chapters mentioned especially that can contribute much to our current thinking about otherness, cultural plurality, and interaction in a pluralistic world. Zizioulas offers the outlines of an ontology of culture that can deal with both modern and postmodern senses of culture in a way that few have.

In a very useful introduction to the volume, Zizioulas notes how otherness, and the sense of the Other has been considered in the West as something oppositional to the self, and hence potentially inimical to it. Arguing from the Cappadocians’ and Maximus the Confessor’s understanding of hypostasis or person, he maintains that the very nature of personhood is relational. Hence, there can be no self without the other. He is careful to distinguish this sense of person from the Western, modern, and psychological sense of the person as an individual with a collection of attributes. He founds his notion of person on the concepts of relationality, uniqueness, and freedom. “Person” in this sense is not a specification derivative from substance or nature (ousia or physis) but the enactment of these in a way that only makes them real at all. Nonetheless, there is in human beings a tension between substance and person, whereas in God these coincide.

To Zizioulas, a necessity for understanding communion and otherness, one must understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The Introduction of the work focuses on this discussion and its implications for understanding ecclesiology, morality and anthropology. The chapters that follow then approach the subject in different ways, moving from otherness and its absolute ontological significance (Chapter One) to the concept of the person in the following chapters. This section is dependent on the teachings of the Greek Fathers, especially the Cappadocians, on the Trinity. Chapters six and seven focus on the “Divine Economy,” with an emphasis on the doctrine of creation resulting in otherness as “natural otherness.”

Α final original gem in this masterly work is a consideration of ecclesial mysticism, where Ζizioulas focuses the eschatological dimension of Eucharist and the vibrant trajectory of divine love that illumines "a mysticism of communion and relationship through which one is so united with the ‘Other’ as to form one indivisible unity through which otherness emerges clearly” (307).

The theological problems of otherness and freedom, and how this relates to communion, must be considered on various levels: that of otherness as part of creation, of relationship to the Creator, of relationship to other human beings, as well as an understanding of interecclesial relationships. The concept of communion also pertains on these levels.

It was noted that Zizioulas’ work is rather difficult to read without a basic understanding of the philosophical and theological concepts being discussed, but it is an important and rewarding study, nonetheless. A basic grounding in the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers would be of value, but the author’s explanations of their teachings is very understandable. See, for example, his explanation of asymmetry and causation in God's Trinitarian existence in Chapter Three. The book will be of great benefit to those who do make their way through it. It is exemplary of what the Orthodox tradition in theology can offer the world church today.

Asked in The Tablet, if his “ontological system likely to convince secular philosophers?”, Zizioulas answered: “Convincing others about my position is too high an ambition for me to have: I am fully aware that secular philosophers operate with an ontology different from the one I am proposing in my book—or, in many cases, with no ‘ontology’ at all. My aim is to give a response to the fundamental existential questions that have pre-occupied philosophy from its inception, such as the meaning of being human, of being «other», of love, freedom, death etc., drawing from the theological tradition of the Greek Fathers, in particular. In so doing I try to take into consideration what secular philosophers have said and to be in some kind of dialogue with them.”

This is the first volume of Zizioulas’ University lectures in Dogmatic Theology. In this volume, apart from the introductions, the concept of dogma, the author presents the definition and history of Dogmatics, the methodology of Dogmatics as Systematic Theology, the epistemological conditions of Dogmatics (about knowledge and about faith) and the doctrine about God (mainly "Theology" according to the Patristic understanding). His particular contribution is that the doctrines of the Church are not simply set forth, as formulated in the past, but interpreted in relation to the fundamental subject problems of man and the world.

This volume was supposed to be complemented by a second one, which would include the other doctrines of the Church (the “Economy,” according to the patristic terminology).

Ecclesiological Issues - Θέματα ἐκκλησιολογίας

These include Zizioulas university lectures. In all these the same method of interpretation of doctrines is followed.