John Zizioulas’ ‘the one and the many’: a legacy to ecumenical ecclesiology.

Jesmond Micallef

Introduction

Ecumenism evolves within time and circumstances. It changes rapidly as society and
evolves mainly on two levels, global and local level allowing Christians hoping to witness a new
kind of ecumenism capable of redefining religious relationship. This new type of Ecumenism
emerging is more flexible because it stands on shared praxis and give less importance to questions
of dogmatic content. Ecclesiology complements Ecumenism in sharing many features with the
former, particularly as regards to its global perspective and interest in shared praxis, thus making
the two cooperative and mutually-enriching. 1 The shift to synodality in the Catholic Church has the
ability to turn towards discernment in the ecumenical sphere since it manifests similar theological
commitments and a common interest in cultivating participatory processes.

The theme of ecclesiology in recent years has caught the attention of many ecumenists who
no longer consider the area as problematic and contentious. At the 1950 Toronto meeting of the
World Council of Churches Central Committee, the Council drifted from abiding to a particular
ecclesiology or concept of church unity2. The subsequent agenda of the Faith and Order
Commission failed to arrive at a common agreement on ecclesiology. This hampered a wider
reception of the document about Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document (BEM)3 partly due to
differing views on the ecumenical task. The ecclesiological vision in the Lima document attracted
considerable criticism from some churches. The reason behind this criticism was mainly because
the document allows the churches to retain their identity even when they are It maintains that each
tradition and witness are enriched by the contribution of the other churches for it is through the
sharing of the truth in love that the deepest identity of a church becomes clear and manifest brought
together by the World Council of Churches in the persons of their representatives. It maintains that
each tradition and witness are enriched by the contribution of the other churches for it is through
the sharing of the truth in love that the deepest identity of a church becomes clear and manifest.
This ecumenical progress is the fruit of a common “reading” and “interpretation” of holy
scripture in view of recovering the visible unity which is the will of Christ. It is this application of
the ecclesial principle of conciliarity to theological research and of the listening together to what
the Spirit is saying to the churches that produces fruit towards unity. Although it is not a member of
the World Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic Church participates officially in the
theological work of the Faith and Order Commission, in which there are twelve Catholic
theologians as well as a number of Catholic consultants.

1
Ecumenical Ecclesiology in its New Contexts: Considering the Transformed Relationship between Roman Catholic
Ecclesiology and Ecumenism Kristin Colberg, p. 2.
2
The “Toronto Statement” includes five disclaimers under the heading: “What the W CC is Not.” The third and fifth
of these are as follows: (3) “the WCC cannot and should not be based on any one particular conception of the Church.
It does not prejudge the ecclesiological problem,” and (5) “membership of the WCC does not imply the acceptance of a
specific doctrine concerning the nature of church unity.” G.K.A. Bell, ed., Documents on Christian Unity, 4th series,
1948-57. (London: Oxford University Press, 1958).
3
World Council of Churches. Commission on Faith and Order, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. (Geneva: WCC
Publications, 1982). Commonly referred to as the Lima document.
1
1. The Ecclessiological Basis for Ecumenism

One of the key problems facing the ecumenical movement is the lack of agreement with regards
to the nature and mission of the Church. There is even disagreement about whether or how much
we need to agree about the nature and mission of the Church thus about diverse ecclesiologies that
lead to different conceptions of the same ecumenical goal to which we strive. The danger is that if
there is no agreement between the various parties, we can head into a situation of stalemate that
makes substantial progress impossible, at least until the questions relating to ecclesiology have
been fundamentally resolved
Ecclesiology is a reflection up on biblical teachings about the early community of Christ’s disciples
and their own followers. While ecclesiology should also be a reflection on our own experience of
community, it cannot be divorced from its biblical grounding. A variety of ecclesiological themes
can be found in Scripture, interwoven throughout the New Testament, and draw heavily upon
the Old Testament as well. The church is described, the temple, the new covenant, Sons of
Abraham, the people and twelve tribes of Israel, the servant people and slaves of God or Christ,
and those sanctified in Christ Jesus. It is also described as the body of Christ. And here is where
Ecclesiology and Ecumenism find their common ground to operate for the unity of this body
which it lost through the ages. Today however they seek to understand how the church can operate
in ways that are more efficient and more inclusive of a wider range of voices while remaining
consistent and loyal with theological commitments and the witness of tradition received.
The conviction that the Church is and must be one4 (John 17,21) has always been the basis of
Ecumenism. In his letter to the community of Corinth, St. Paul shows that Christian unity is based
upon Jesus, the one and only saviour. "Is Christ divided?" he asks. "Was Paul crucified for you? Or
were you baptised in the name of Paul?" (1Cor 1,13). St. Paul insists that the Church forms one
body, of which Christ himself is the head (1 Cor 12-14; also Rom. 12, 4-8; Eph. 4,13; Col 1,18). In
his encyclical letter Ut unum sint (UUS9) Pope John Paul II echoes this fundamental reason for
commitment to Christian Unity: «To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means
to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which
corresponds to the Father's plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ's prayer: Ut unum
sint »
Pope John Paul II reference to the expression “communion of grace” is fundamental in
unlocking the Catholic vision of the Church in view of the ecumenical movement because it
underlines that the Church is a “sharing” or a “communion” in the life of God (see 1 John 1,1-
3; LG 1). The novelty of Vatican II is in recognizing the damage that divisions cause to unity,
divisions between Christians over the course of the centuries which although divided the
community but did not succeed in completely destroying the “communion of grace” which remains
despite man’s fragility (see LG  15 and UR 3).  The document Lumen Gentium speaks infact of the
“many elements of sanctification and of truth which are found outside the visible confines” of the
Catholic Church (also UUS 12). These dogmatic elements include aspects of faith, such as belief in
the Triune God, in Jesus Christ as the incarnate Word of God: “For there are many who honor
Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal.
They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour”.
(LG 15; UR 20-21). Besides, the Council also recognized and acknowledged the celebration of
sacraments such as baptism in other Christian communities. Through baptism many Christians who
are not Catholics lived even heroically, the virtues of faith, hope and charity (LG  15; UR 3; 14; 23).
Pope John Paul writes: «Perhaps the most convincing form of ecumenism of the saints and of the
4
W. Henn, The reception of Vatican II’s teaching on ecumenism into the life of the catholic church. See
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-45_en.html

2
martyrs. The communio sanctorum speaks louder than the things which divide us» (Tertio
Millennio Adveniente, 37).

Vatican II described communion in terms of “the confession of the faith, the common celebration
of divine worship and the fraternal harmony of the family of God” (UR 2; see also UUS 9). This is
because of the communion that there exists between the Catholic Church and the other Christian
communities (see UR 3; UUS 11), which although not perfect yet is a communion in the right
based on what the Vatican Council II named as the three basic elements: “the confession of the
faith, the common celebration of divine worship and the fraternal harmony of the family of God”
(UR 2; see also UUS 9). 

In reality, Ecumenism is made up of precisely in these basic initiatives which promote growth
toward that full communion in faith, worship and fraternal harmony. This vision of the Second
Vatican Council found slowly found itself penetrating the Church official texts such as
the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (1993) and Ut Unum
Sint (1995). Besides the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) demonstrated clearly its
appreciation of these truths found in other Christian communities by specifically mentioning the
ecclesial values present in other Christian communities (817-819) and the encouragement given to
all believers to work for the achievement of full communion (820-822).

2. The contribution of the Orthodox Church to the ecumenical reflection on ecclesiology.

It is correct to ask: what kind of contribution does the Eastern Orthodox give to Ecumenism? In
order for us to answer this question it is necessary to keep in mind that the Orthodox contribution
to the WCC always underlined the fact that the fundamental decision on the part of the Orthodox
churches was always aimed to assume a leading role in giving shape to the modern ecumenical
movement, a commitment kept up to this day. It is interesting to note that when Dr Willem A.
Visser 't Hooft who was WCC general secretary from 1948-1966 composed his account of “The
Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches” (1982), he began with an analysis of the
great encyclical issued by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in
1920 entitled “Unto the Churches of Christ Everywhere”. This encyclical remained one of the
foundational documents of the ecumenical movement and of the World Council of Churches in
particular. Infact it was here that the proposal to establish a “league (fellowship) between the
churches” was formulated for the first time.

The Orthodox churches took a very important role in establishing the WWC, an initiative which as
expected was met with reserve and even resistance in many of the Orthodox churches. It is
important to remember the arguments formulated by Fr Georges Florovsky, one of the eminent
Orthodox ecumenical pioneers, when he wrote about “The Orthodox Contribution to the
Ecumenical Movement” a year after the Amsterdam assembly: “I understand the act of taking part
in the ecumenical movement as an act of participation in ecumenical conversation or colloquium,
and I consider such a participation as not only allowed and possible for all Orthodox people, but
furthermore as a direct obligation which stems from the very essence of Orthodox consciousness”
And he continues to say: “Faith in Christ as God and Saviour truly unites those who keep and
confess it; it does so in a psychological manner but also at a depth which goes beyond psychology

3
and is incomprehensible. We cannot express this unity in a single logical adequate formula; the
very fact of unity is beyond doubt and protest.” 5

Besides the 1991 WCC’s Assembly in Canberra, Australia, the council initiated a study process
towards an articulation of ecumenical ecclesiology noting that there was a growing need to study
the ecclesiological assumptions that the churches bring to the dialogues in which they participate. It
emphasised that the present challenge in the ecumenical movement was to achieve reconciliation
and renewal towards full visible unity. This could be done by:

 recognizing each other's baptism on the basis of the BEM document;

 moving towards the recognition of the apostolic faith as expressed through the Nicene-
Constantinopolitan Creed in the life and witness of one another;
 considering wherever appropriate, forms of eucharistic hospitality on the basis of
convergence in faith in baptism, eucharist and ministry to;
 moving towards a mutual recognition of ministries;
 endeavouring in word and deed to give common witness to the gospel as a whole;
 recommiting to work for justice, peace and the integrity of creation, linking more closely
the search for sacramental communion of the Church with the struggles for justice and peace;
 helping parishes and communities express in appropriate ways locally the degree of
communion that already exists.

The topic which centers around the “church as communion” left its mark in all major bilateral
dialogues and helped in achieving a good level of convergence, consensus and common
agreement 6. However it is in the Orthodox theology and ecclesiastical discipline that this topic
found its particular clarity 7. The significance of this theme becomes clear when one explores the
5
Fr Georges Florovsky, The Orthodox Contribution to the Ecumenical Movement, in: Ecumenism I, A Doctrinal
Approach. Collected works, Vol. 13, Vaduz 1989, 160ff.
6
Of particular interest are the Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission’s Church as Communion (1992),
Life in Christ (1994) and The Gift of Authority (1999). Each reflects a consensus among Roman Catholics on the
nature of the church as communion and teases out the implications of this consensus in particular areas of theology and
church practice. The Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity has also taken up the theme in its Church and
Justification (1993) where it explores the implications for ecclesiology of their subsequent Joint Declaration on the
Doctrine of Justification by Faith (1999). The Methodist-Roman Catholic International Dialogue, the Anglican-O rt
hodox International Commission and the Joint Working Group of the World Council of Churches and the Roman
Catholic Church have all taken up the theme to their benefit. A more recent dialogue to consider the theme of “church
as communion/ koinonia” is the World Evangelical Alliance-Roman Catholic Church Conversations. This group is
currently studying the theme but has not yet issued any agreed statements.
7
Herein we try to examine the Orthodox articulation of koinonia by paying particular attention to its ecumenical
implications while seeing its basis and origins Here we refer to the document entitled Churches respond to BEM
Official responses to the "Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry text, Vol. I and edited by Max Thurian. Here we find some
points for further clarification 1. We Orthodox recognize many positive elements in BEM which
express significant aspects of the apostolic faith. Having affirmed this initial appreciation of BEM, we offer some
examples among the issues which we believe need further clarification and elaboration. There are also issues which are
not addressed in the text. 2. In the section on baptism, we note: a) the relationship between the unity of the church and
baptismal unity (§6); b) the role of the Holy Spirit in baptism and consequently the relationship between baptism and
chrismation (confirmation), linking water and the Spirit in incorporating members into the body of Christ (§§5,14); c)
the role of exorcism and renunciation of the Evil One in the baptismal rite (§20); d) the terms “sign”, “sacramental
sign”, “symbol”, “celebrant” (§22), “ethical life” and other terms throughout the text. 3. In the section on eucharist, we
note: a) the relationship of the eucharist to ecclesiology in the light of the eucharistic nature of the church and the
understanding of the eucharist as “the mystery of Christ” as well as “the mystery of the Church” (§1);
b) the relationship between participation in the eucharist and unity of faith; c) the role of the Holy Spirit in the
eucharist, with special reference to anamnesis in its relation to epiklesis (§§10,12); d) the relationship between the
eucharist and repentance, confession, and reconciliation to the eucharistic congregation; e) the meaning of sacrifice
4
trinitarian dimensions of ecclesiology and its implications for theological anthropology, the
sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, and the relationships between the local and universal
churches.
In recent years the Orthodox churches have challenged the WCC, accusing it of a liberal bias and a
failure to hear the voice of Orthodoxy in formulating its agenda or issuing its public statements. A
number of Orthodox churches (Russian) threatened to withdraw from membership in the Council.
The Orthodox churches have always given a greater degree of support and interest to the work of
the Faith and Order Commission, which might naturally result in the alleged failure of the Council
to hear their concerns within the other sections and commissions. Since the Harare Assembly in
1998, the Council has engaged in a process of discernment along with various other ecumenical
bodies and the Christian World Communions. The process is intended to develop a forum in which
democratic processes alone do not determine the result while the Orthodox churches and others
who have remained outside of the Council, will find it more compelling to participate in the new
forum. The Orthodox churches conceive their role within the broad panorama of churches as those
who hold and conserve the apostolic and patristic faith. If this is true, then the continuing
participation of the Orthodox in ecumenical circles is essential and the western churches should
be open to receive its contribution.

3. John Zizioulas Ecumenist

Speaking of Ecumenism and the Orthodox Church, we cannot not mention John Zizioulas, a
central figure and one of the best known theologians of the contemporary Orthodox Church. His
field of work rages from theology, philosophy and the Church. Zizioulas presents contemporary
thought with an unrivalled expression of Christian theology basing his views mainly on three
points.

3.1 Ecumenism in time. This is an expression frequently used by Fr. Georges Florovsky. Such
an expression refers to the effort by the divided Christians to unite on the basis of their common
Tradition, the teaching of the Bible and the Church Fathers. Such themes are the object of the
theological dialogues which are taking place in the Ecumenical Movement of our time and it seems
to be the predominant form of ecumenism.

3.2 Ecumenism in space. Such kind of ecumenism is practiced through various international
institutions, such as the World Council of Churches and similar ecumenical bodies aiming at
bringing together the divided Christians in order for there to be an expression of the universality
of the Christian Church.

3.3  Existential ecumenism. This consists in an effort to bring together and to tackle the most
profound existential problems that preoccupy humanity in its entirety  among other justice,
equality and ecology.

(§8), real presence (§13), ambassador (§29), and the implications of “for the purpose of communion” in regard to the
reservation of the eucharistic 4. In the section on ministry, we note: a) the link between ordained ministry today and the
ministry of the apostles and apostolic succession (§§10, 35), b) the distinction between the priesthood of the entire
people of God and the ordained priesthood, especially in light of Pauline teaching on the different functions of the
members of the one body of Christ (§17 and commentary); c) issues related to the ordination of women to the
priesthood (§18), including the way in which the problem is formulated in the text of BEM; d) the relation between
bishop, presbyter and deacon ; e) the relation between episkope, the bishop, and the eucharist.

5
 John Zizioulas is most often associated with the Christian doctrine of the person. The
concept of the person holds together two important issues namely that of communion and
freedom. Zizioulas argues that if there is one person there must be many persons: the concept
is intrinsically plural, relational and yet safeguards our particularity. Communion and freedom
are not opposed, for freedom is enabled, not restricted, by the relationships with other persons .
Thus God who is intrinsically communion and freedom extends this communion and freedom to us
in the body of Christ, the communion of the Church. The persons gathered into this communion
will come to participate in the freedom of God, and through them all creation will share this
freedom. The freedom promised to humanity and inaugurated in Christ is being perfected in each
person so that in this communion the diversity and very existence of creation will have no limits.
Man is not an isolated unit, separable from all other beings where he must assert himself against
others, and against society as a whole. Although the individual struggles against the many it cannot
ultimately secure his or her own identity. It is not even certain whether the otherness and plurality
of the world will survive in the long run.
Zizioulas has applied his theological nous to his lifelong work on ecumenism8. His initial
two and a half years spent as a permanent member of the WCC’s Faith and Order Commission in
Geneva gave him the opportunity him to meet Protestants, Catholics and even members of the pre-
Chalcedonian Churches9. The late 1960s was a time of strong grounding in the ecumenical
movement for Zizioulas. He helped the WCC draft some of its papers on the sacraments 10 while in
the seventies and early eighties, Zizioulas continued to engage with the different Orthodox
Churches11 and in ecumenical discussions with the Protestant 12 and Roman Catholic Churches.
Later in 1975 while teaching at Edinburgh and Glasgow he was appointed a delegate of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate on the central committee of the WCC and the Faith and Order
Commission13 and also member of the Ecumenical Patriarchate based in Istanbul, Turkey. In 1980,
Zizioulas was actively involved in the international Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue where
he collaborated with other members of this commission to produce its foundational agreed
statement that elucidated an integrative vision of the Church entitled “The Mystery of the
Church and of the Eucharist in the Light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity14.”
Zizioulas published numerous articles during this decade of ecumenical work (1975-1985) 15 which
8
The One and the Many, 309-413.
9
G. Baillargeon, Perspectives Orthodoxes sur L’Eglise-communion, 43.
10
Zizioulas helped to prepare many Faith and Order documents such as “The Eucharist in Ecumenical Thought,” in
Study Encounter, vol. 4, no. 3 (1968). He has also published “The meaning of Ordination,” in Study Encounters 4
(1968) 191-93. The latter was also a study paper of the Faith and Order Commission. He has also published “Some
Reflections on Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist,” which was prepared for the Study Commission on Worship
of the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches. It was published originally in Sobornost 5
(1969): 644-52.
11
He published “Ecclesiological Issues Inherent in the Relations Between Eastern Chalcedonian and Oriental Non-
Chalcedonian Churches,” in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16 (1971) 144-62.
12
J. Zizioulas, “Orthodox-Protestant Bilateral Conversations: Some Comments,” in The Orthodox Church and the
Churches of the Reformation: A survey of Orthodox-Protestant Dialogues, Faith and Order Paper 76 (Geneva: World
Council of Churches, 1975), 55-60.
13
P. Fox, God as Communion, 5. For a more detailed account of Zizioulas’ ecumenical work until he became
Metropolitan of Pergamon, see G. Baillargeon, Perspectives orthodoxes, 35-58.
14
This was form the second plenary meeting held from 30 June to 6 July 1982 in Munich. The full text can be found at
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820706_mu
nic h_en.html (last accessed 31 Mar 2017).
15
Zizioulas has published at least 13 papers on Ecumenism over the years. Those published between 1975 and 1985
were written in the most fertile period of writing for Zizioulas before he was made Metropolitan of Pergamon in 1986.
In total, there were no fewer than twenty-eight articles published between 1975 and 1985. A further six unpublished
papers were also written in this period. Most significant was the publishing of a collection of articles written in 1969-
81 in two books, one in French – L’être Ecclesial (1981) with an introduction, and the other in English – Being as
6
 testifiy his commitment to the ecumenical cause even in the face of many difficulties and
challenges. Many of these challenges came not only from other church denominations but also
from within Orthodox circles, and especially from the Greek Orthodox Church. Despite facing
huge challenges, Zizioulas never lost sight of his ecumenical witness by pointing us to the fact that
communion was the central aspect of the Church’s nature. In his early years as a lay theologian,
Zizioulas made his key concept of communion the ultimate ontological category for his theology.
The application of this ontological category of communion to ecclesiology is the distinctive feature
of his theology16. He maintains that the being of the Church is deeply bound to the Being of God
who is communion17 which makes the Church herself an image of the trinitarian God.

4. The one and the many

Zizioulas’ approaches the study of ecclesiology around the principle of communion in otherness a
theory which he bases on the unique concept of ‘the one and the many18.’

Together with the concept of communion, Zizioulas adds also the concept of otherness which
features prominently in his ontology19. Zizioulas has stated, “The theme of otherness is a
“fundamental aspect of theology. Being ‘other’ is part of what it means to be oneself, and therefore
to be at all, whether reference is made to God or to humanity or to anything that is said to exist”20

We can summarize his ecclesiology in three points:

1)His ecclesiology is a synthesis of the ideas of the Church Fathers Ignatius, Irenaeus, Hippolytus,
the Cappadocian Fathers and Maximus, all of whom Zizioulas cites extensively tin trying to argue
persuasively that the central act of the Church is the Eucharist which constitutes the Church which
is in turn simultaneously constituted as the Body of Christ.

Communion (1985).
16
J. Zizioulas, “The Church as Communion,” in The One and the Many, 49-60. The Second Vatican Council had
already introduced a theology of communion into ecclesiology but had not made it the central aspect in ecclesiology.
See also J. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 141. Here, Zizioulas expresses his utmost desire for the notion of
communion to be pushed to its ontological conclusions. He writes,” We need an ontology of communion. We need to
make communion condition the very being of the Church, not the well-being but the being of it.”
17
J. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 15-17.
18
Zizioulas confirms the essential importance of the concept of otherness and dedicates a whole chapter “On Being
Other: Towards Ontology year of Otherness” in his work Communion & Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and
the Churchp. 13-98. Zizioulas addresses the more post-modernist themes of identity andotherness, and he said that for
Maximus, otherness is constitutive of the whole created universe, just as it is constitutive of the being of God as Trinity
(Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, p. 26-27). The universe is ontologically grounded personally, that is, in a
person, the person of Christ, the Logos. Otherness and communion coincide in Christ, and this conjunction triumphs
over death. Also, the Palamite “essence/energies” distinction is another way of trying to resolve this problem of the
relationship between God and Creation (Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, p. 28-29; see also: Zizioulas, “The
Doctrine of the Trinity: The Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution”Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays on
Divine Being and Act, ed. Christoph Schwoebel, 44-60.

19
J. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 1-12. See also J. Zizioulas, “On Being Other: Towards an Ontology of
Otherness” in Communion and Otherness, 13-98. This is where Zizioulas expounds his ontology of otherness.
20
J. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 13. This is the opening statement in J. Zizioulas, “On Being Other:
Towards an Ontology of Otherness,” in Communion and Otherness, 13- 98. In this chapter, Zizioulas argues that
otherness is constitutive of the Being of God and of the being of man. He uses Maximus’ theological anthropology to
defend an ontology where otherness and communion coincide. See J. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness, 23-26.

7
2) The Church is not of the world because her true being is derived from the eschaton even if it is
historically in the world and deeply involved in the world. The reason is because she is the
eschatological community of the Holy Spirit and of Jesus Christ in whom humanity finds its
everlasting being and its true image.
3) His ecclesiology which is not short of criticism is developed on the eucharistic ecclesiology of
Afanasiev’s whereas it offers a blueprint for the re-unification of all episcopal churches under one
primate through conciliar structures modelled after Zizioulas’ theological concept of ‘the one and
the many.’ This concept can be applied to the local church, the regional synods comprising of
bishops and a universal synod comprising of all the patriarchs, provided that the concept of
communion and autonomy is respected in every local church In Zizioulas’ structure of the
Church, the bishop stands out as the indispensable icon of Christ in the Eucharist. Through him as
the ‘one,’ the local church is constituted by the ‘many’ members, the ‘one’ local church remains in
communion with the ‘many’ other churches to constitute the one Church, and the ‘one’ (protos) can
exercise synodical primacy over the ‘many’ episcopal churches.

Zizioulas bases the theory of the One and the Many on the historical fact that in the Last
Supper, Jesus identifies the bread and wine with his body and blood, “This is my blood of the
covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mk 14: 24). According to him, these words are linked to
the “Servant of God,” the one prefigured to take upon himself the sins of the “multitude” (Is 40:
55), thus identifying himself with the “many.” Zizioulas bases his theory of the “one” who
represents the “many” on the Eucharistic tradition in Pauline’s writings where Paul writes that
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we
break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are
one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:16 – 17). We also find a reference of this
in St. John’s Gospel where the “Son of Man” incorporates the “many:” “Those who eat my flesh
and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them” (John 6: 56).
Zizioulas highlights that the Synoptic Gospels, together with the writings of St. Paul’s and
St. John’s share the same basic belief that in the Eucharist the “many” become “one” and the “one”
incorporates the “many”. He adds that it is not correct, as some scholars hold, to interpret
Johannine theology as a tendency towards individualism in the Eucharistic community. In this
context St John actually speaks of the communicant as an individual within the community. There
is also a “curious philological phenomenon” here when Jesus says, “Very truly, I tell you, we speak
of what we know and testify to what we have seen; yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have
told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about
heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the
Son of Man” (Jn 3: 11 – 13). Here Zizioulas points out the mixing of the first person singular with
the first person plural – the “I” and the “We” – the “one” and the “many.”

Zizioulas articulates an ecclesiology of communion in otherness based on his unique concept of

the one and the many. This is clearly seen in his work “The one and the many” where he proposes a
an innovative structure of the Church where the bishop stands out as the indispensable icon of
Christ in the Eucharist. Through him as the ‘one,’ the local church is constituted by the ‘many’
members, the ‘one’ local church remains in communion with the ‘many’ other churches to
constitute the one Church, and the ‘one’ (protos) can exercise synodical primacy over the ‘many’
episcopal churches.
This contrasts with the Western theology which gives priority to being, making the particular
less important than the universal and thus the universal Church has priority over the particular
churches or better that the one Church stands over the rest of the local churches, and the Pope over

8
the rest of the bishops, an idea which was expressed by the First Vatican Council’s (1869-70)
teaching on the infallibility of the pope.
Zizioulas critically proposes a change of emphasis based on a “consequence of placing essence
before existence, the one before the many21.” In his ecclesiology, Zizioulas avoids giving priority to
either the universal or the particular church. He shows two different view points regarding the
primacy of the universal church22 and acknowledges that the balance between the Councils and
churches is not easy to maintain23.
He teaches that local churches are related to one another, since they are bounded together by
the seven Ecumenical Councils, which express the teaching of the entire Church. As a consequent,
in the East, no ordinary church council is allowed to interfere with the affairs of the local churches
based on the principle articulated in the third century by St. Cyprian that states: “every bishop is to
lead his own diocese, ordain whomever he wishes, and be responsible directly to God.24” In
Orthodox ecclesiology, there are patriarchates and autocephalous churches, which are seen as
expressing the conciliarity of the church. Tradition accords the Bishop of Constantinople as first in
honour among all25. It is not him personally but the Patriarchate of Constantinople that holds
honour or primacy, and this is only honour of being seated as the first among the equals. It carries
no administrative privileges or jurisdictional powers. The Church is considered “healthy” if there is
consultation between him and the other churches, and vice versa. In other words, the Patriarch of
Constantinople does not hold absolute power over the other churches. Zizioulas points out that this
is very different from Roman Catholicism where the pope has the authority to intervene in any
local church without consulting the local authority: the pope makes the final decisions alone. While
in the Orthodox Church there is no such “papal element” in its ecclesiology, 26 the West looks at
the Vatican II which teaches that each local church is the whole church in each place, while it has
not officially repudiated the teaching of Vatican I thus creating a dilemma.

5. The theological anthropology of John Zizioulas. Biological and ecclesial hypostasis.

The notion of hypostasis in the thought of Zizioulas has a series of developments because it
passes through several stages. Infact every next stage in this process is identified as transcending
the false identity, which Zizioulas calls as the mask. These stages have the following levels: the
biological hypostasis, ecclesial hypostasis and eschatological hypostasis to which he then applies
the following synonyms to the level of ecclesial hypostasis: Eucharistic, sacramental, baptismal,
ascetic and Trinitarian. Zizioulas identifies the core problem of the human existence in the
difficulty at maintaining together a balance between hypostasis and ecstasy. The nature of
human beings leads to a conflict of these two important aspects of true personhood
The anthropological approach of Zizioulas correlates itself directly to the concept of freedom
together with the idea of humanity created in the image of God. Taking from the Fathers of the
Church especially from Gregory of Nyssa, Zizioulas points out that in speaking of an image of
God, it is necessary to refer to Freedom as an exclusive characteristic of god’s being. However
since human beings are creatures and thus created limited we are not absolutely free. In this
equation we find the significance of the relationship between freedom and the Fall. The latter
came as a consequence of the freedom. The Fall is perceived as turning created existence into an
absolute point of self-referentiality where human personhood became perverted and where it
21
Mong, Di Ambrose, Purification of Memory: A Study of Orthodox Theologians from a Catholic, 68.
22
Ibid., 142.
23
“Conciliarism” is the term used in the West to express the supreme authority of the council.
24
John D. Zizioulas, Lectures in Christian Dogmatics, 142.
25
John D. Zizioulas, Lectures in Christian Dogmatics, edited by Douglas Knight (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 141.
26
Ibid., 145.
9
exists now only as ‘individuals’. This distinction between ‘two modes of existence’ the
hypostasis of biological existence (individuals) and the hypostasis of ecclesial existence
(persons) is adopted
from patristic theology and stands as the foundation, not only of Zizioulas’s anthropology, but
also of his Christology and ecclesiology. In his book, Being as communion, Zizioulas
distinguishes between the biological and the ecclesial hypostasis of the human being.
The human person as described by Zizioulas consists of two modes of existence which he
calls the hypostasis of biological existence and the hypostasis of ecclesial existence. The
transformation from biological to ecclesial hypostasis produces the realization of personhood
which leads to salvation: «The eternal survival of the person as a unique, unrepeatable and free
hypostasis, as loving and being loved, constitutes the quintessence of salvation, the bringing of
the Gospel to man»27.
Zizioulas understanding of the use of communion as a theological category was first
introduced into a theological reflection centered around the Eucharistic theology by Ignatius of
Antioch, Irenaeus and Athanasius who then developed the reflection into a ontological revolution
subverting the being-in-itself of Greek substantialist philosophy28.

According to Zizioulas Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Athanasius approached the being
of God through the experience of the ecclesial community or better through the ecclesial being.
Thus the being of God could only be known through personal relationships and personal love
which lead to communion. Based on this type of ontology of communion, Zizioulas concludes: «In
summarizing this attempt at a synthesis of Greek patristic thought concerning truth, we can say that
the Greek Fathers’ main success in this area rests in the identification of truth with communion» 29.
Applying this point of view to created existence, Zizioulas describes the fallen existence as the
rupture between being and communion 30 while oppositely salvation brings a recovery of the
relation between being and communion.
Looking at the perspective of the relationship between God and man, one can conclude that
God created the world so that it would participate in his own glorious life. The responsibility of
man was to bring the world into a living relationship or communion with him. He was created at
the end of creation to enjoy all that God had prepared for him. While playing the role of mediator
between the material world and God he was also given the privilege to enjoy God’s own freedom
and the capacity for self-government. However this freedom of man could also lead to his
downfall. «Man has the freedom which every other created being in the material world lacks, and
he exercises it by accepting or rejecting each given event or situation» 31. Infact when man decided
to exercise his freedom by saying no to God and makes himself God, the Fall took place: «Adam
succumbed to the temptation to declare himself ‘God’ and set out to redirect creation from the
uncreated God to his own, created self. In deciding that everything should refer to him, his fall was
also the fall of creation»32. And When created beings deny their ontological reference to God the
difference becomes a division which leads to a lack of communion.
Zizioulas lists three consequences that this rupture brought between being and communion,
consequences which are all implicit in the act itself when man denies his communion with God.
The cause of the Fall is brought about by man’s abuse of freedom and not by God’s angered
judgement. The end result of the Fall is a perverted humanity which produces men who exist

27
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 49.
28
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 83.
29
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 101
30
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 102.
31
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 98.
32
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 58.
10
only for themselves as individuals. This distinction between person and individual is the
foundation not only of Zizioulas’s anthropology, but also of his Christology and ecclesiology. The
Fall revealed the humanity’s limitations and potential dangers inherent in his creaturely existence33.
The first consequence of the Fall is idolatry. Zizioulas says that idolatry is the elevation of
created existence into an ultimate point of reference. When man realized how weak he is, he
started regarding nature as a god, or indeed as many gods. He began to divinize and worship the
forces of nature causing a tragedy for mankind because it defies creation and leads to a dissolution.
Zizioulas amplifies this when he says: «When man took God’s place and turned himself to nature,
all creation became victim to man’s delusion. Man and creation have together become confined to
a life determined by the laws of nature. Though biological life seems to point towards life without
limit, it only takes them in the direction of eventual dissolution»34.
The second consequence is that truth became linked with the nature or substance of things.
The substance or ousia of things became the ultimate content of truth. The being of things has
been recognized before a relationship, and every single being acquired an ontological status on its
own merit. The world consists of objects while the known and the knower exist as two opposite
partners. «Since the being of things is ultimate and prior to communion, and everything that exists
posits its own being as something given to man the world ultimately consists of a fragmented
existence in which beings are particular before they can relate to each other: you first are and then
relate»35.
The third consequence is a death or the dying being. One biological fact is the reality of
death which takes place at the end of life. Biologically we know that death is a process that begins
at birth. Life bears death within itself. From the perspective of the ontology of communion,
Zizioulas believes that the biological hypostasis as a natural life is determined by the laws of nature
which lack communion with God. Only the ecclesial hypostasis as new life is in communion with
God. The ecclesial hypostasis does not exclude the existence of the biological body.

5.1 Biological hypostasis

Zizioulas distinguishes between the biological nature and the biological hypostasis. The
biological nature is not bad in itself, but only when hypostasis exists solely in harmony with nature,
and not as the ecclesial hypostasis. He explains the failure to attain the true hypostasis in ecstasy as
the inevitable result if human nature is taken alone. Human being has no resources by which he can
exist as hypostasis and ecstasy at the same time. Zizioulas claims that hope in true personhood
remains possible and depends on the commitment of the world that is created by God. He states
that only theology may explain an authentic personhood, and that the absolute ontological freedom
must be uncreated.
Hypostasis is ontologically realized in Christ, who brings humanity into relationship with
God. Thus, in the biological hypostasis the human being firstly becomes, and then enters into
relationships, while in the ecclesial hypostasis the human being exists only through and by his
relationships, and thus, it may be possible to realize both hypostasis and ecstasy at the same time.
The biological hypostasis may achieve hypostasis and ecstasy at the same time only by means of
ecclesial hypostasis, which is rooted in God, who is a community of Three Persons.
Zizioulas maintains that it must be clear that even in the ecclesial hypostases nature is absolutely
essential and by being essential it is also realized through a relationship with God. He concludes
that the Eucharistic mode of existence does not mean an hypostasis, which is constituted by both
ecclesial and biological hypostases, but it indicates actually a way of being in which the human
33
J. ZIZIOULAS, Communion and Otherness, 103.
34
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 98.
35
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 98.
11
being exists in both the biological and ecclesial mode. In other words, the Eucharistic hypostasis is
ecclesial hypostasis insofar as it is determined by its ontology. It continues to exist in a way that
does not deny the biological nature, but transforms it. According to Zizioulas, this transformation
takes place in the Eucharist. The biological hypostasis is the product of the human biological
nature: Zizioulas comments: «The hypostasis of biological existence is constituted by a man’s
conception and birth. Every man who comes into the world bears his hypostasis, which is not
entirely unrelated to love. He is the product of a communion between two people»36.
This biological hypostasis can be traced back to two passions.
The first so called passion is tied to the natural instinct which Zizioulas calls ontological
necessity. Because the natural instinct or impulse is subject to necessity rather than freedom the
person as a being subsists not as freedom but as necessity.
The second passion is distinguished by two stages: one is called individualism, which
means the separation of the hypostases; the other is death. The earlier stage means the self-
affirmation without an ontological relationship with his parents: «The body, which is born as a
biological hypostasis, behaves like the fortress of an ego, like a new ‘mask’ which hinders the
hypostasis from becoming a person, that is, from affirming itself as love and freedom»37. Death is
the final stage of biological hypostasis of which Zizioulas distinguishes between two kinds of
death: one is in the sense of biology which belongs to the nature of what is created; the other is the
opposite of real life in our fallen existence38 as the outcome of the Fall.
The first death means the abrupt and real cessation of existence of a concrete and particular
person. It is tragic self-negation of its own hypostasis (dissolution and annihilation of the body and
of individuality). From the perspective of this world we can only speak of a person as continuing
to exist through their work or through the memory of their life after they have died. In a certain
sense this is a continuation of the concrete and particular individual. It does not matter how
successful a person may be in transcending the givenness of their being because in the end it is
their concrete and individual existence which through death renders them no longer a person.
«This identity can never be fully realized in history as long as nature still dictates its laws to man,
particularly in the form of death»39.
The second aspect of death regards the condition of death in the sense that we all die alone.
Love dies with us and this is why death is so tragic. The love (or ekstasis) of a person does not
continue to exist after the individual has died. Even if a person has managed to live in a way where
his existence truly transcends the givenness of his being, in the end his death proves that he is an
individual. Zizioulas calls this «the cession of time and space to other individual hypostases» 40.
Thus he denotes that death is truly the final expression of the individual’s ability to continue to
transcend the givenness of their existence.
Zizioulas thinks that there is a probable misconception about biological death. Death is the
consequence and punishment for disobedience and the fall41. It means that an ethical relationship
between God and the world determined the death of man. It seems that God introduced death as
part of creation and imposed it on man. Salvation has often been set out in moral and judicial
terms. For Zizioulas however, biological death has not been caused by man’s act of disobedience
but he regards death as the natural condition of created beings, and death is inevitable for
creation42. Because the world came from nothingness, death is only a return to nothingness. But

36
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 101.
37
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 50.
38
J. ZIZIOULAS, Communion as Otherness, 102.
39
J. ZIZIOULAS, On being a person, 44.
40
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 51
41
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 102.
42
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion 51; J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 102.
12
death is not only a biological phenomenon. Zizioulas discusses death as the opposite of the real
life. We can call this spiritual death: «Life is always understood as relationship and as
communion»43. Death also means that the being is deprived of the benefit of existing forever.
Death as the state of corruption, destruction and perdition must be understood in relation to the
definition of life. It is an ontological problem for human beings. Zizioulas claims that the problem
cannot be put right simply by our obedience: «Athanasius pointed out that if the problem could be
solved simply by forgiving Adam his sin, God could have done so. Adam could have repented,
and indeed he did weep and regret what he had done. God could have forgiven him, and all would
have been well. But Athanasius shows that the heart of the problem was not obedience or
disobedience, because this was not a moral but an ontological problem» 44. The ontological problem
determines the significance of death and resurrection of Jesus:
«This victory is achieved in the Resurrection, without which there can be no talk of salvation,
because death is the problem of creation. “If Christ has not been raised”, says St Paul, “your faith is
in vain” (I Cor. 15.14). Christ is the Saviour of the world not because he sacrificed himself on the
Cross, thereby wiping away the sins of the world, but because «he is risen from the dead having
trampled death by death»45.
It is very correct thus to emphasize that the themes of death and life are the main categories
in Zizioulas’ theology. Sin is a moral consideration while death is ontological. However he does
not begin the discussion of salvation by talking about Sin. His starting point is the distinction
between divine being and created being46.

5.2 The ecclesial hypostasis

The hypostasis of ecclesial existence47 is according to Zizioulas the new mode of existence
formed in the Church from which the authentic person emerges as a result of an evolution of the
human race whether biological or historical. This ecclesial hypostasis comes only through Christ
who offers not just the revelation but also the realization of true personhood in this present world
and also the participation in Christ’s own hypostatic existence. The ecclesial existence exists truly
in unbroken relationship with God. Man’s true definition can be summoned up as the creature who
participates freely in the life of God - not a creature who lives from some resources of his own 48.
According to Zizioulas, «the hypostasis of ecclesial existence» 49 is produced from the new birth of
man through baptism50 which leads to a new mode of existence, to a regeneration (I Peter 1. 3, 23)
and to a new hypostasis. Zizioulas defines the essence of baptism in the following way: «This
adoption of man by God, the identification of his hypostasis with the hypostasis of the Son of God,
is the essence of baptism»51. The new hypostasis of man is realized through the Church, infact in
the early patristic literature the image of the Church as mother is often employed to underline that
43
J. ZIZIOULAS, Communion and Otherness, 264.
44
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 102.
45
J. ZIZIOULAS, Communion and Otherness, 261.
46
D. KNIGHT, The theology of John Zizioulas, 18.
47
«Patristic theology was concerned with the person precisely as an “image of God”. It identified two “modes of
existence”, namely, the “hypostasis of biological existence” and the “hypostasis of ecclesial existence”. The hypostasis
of biological existence is constituted by conception and birth and as such is the product of communion between two
people. Such erotic love is an astounding mystery of existence and conceals a tendency to the ecstatic transcendence of
individuality through creation. However, it suffers from two passions, namely ontological necessity because of its tie to
natural instinct, and individualism in which the body becomes a new mask. “The body tends towards the person but
leads finally to the individual». J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 51.
48
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 53.
49
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 50.
50
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 56.
51
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 56.
13
man is born as hypostasis, as person.
The consequence of Baptism is the transformation of personal identity. This understanding
is based on the personal identity of Jesus. It means an ontological or personal principle which has
been applied from God to man: «As an ecclesial hypostasis man thus proves that what is valid for
God can also be valid for man: the nature does not determine the person; the person enables the
nature to exist; freedom is identified with the being of man»52. Baptism is the adoption of man by
God, the identification of his hypostasis with the hypostasis of the Son of God.
Zizioulas then discusses the case of the Divine Incarnation. What makes Christ a person is
the relationship with the Father through which all his other relationships exist and by which they
are determined. In the Incarnation, Christ took on other relationships such as relationships with his
mother, his disciples, and the entire people of Israel. «All these relationships belong to his personal
identity, and they are all judged by the decisive relationship that Christ has with the Father»53. This
statement provoke in us a question: Where does Christ get his consciousness of himself from?
Zizioulas claims that the consciousness to be a self has been produced in a relationship. According
to this logic, Christ has a single self-consciousness which he draws from his relationship with the
Father and which is determined by this single relationship. Zizioulas claims that the answer to this
question came very late: «After many centuries, some twentieth-century philosophers have made
the discovery that there is no ‘I’ without a ‘you’» 54 . Using the art of byzantine iconography, he
affirms that the Jesus is defined by his relationship with the Father. In the West, Christ is portrayed
as a baby alone with his mother, the Virgin Mary, which means that the maternal relationship gives
the identity to the baby. In the Byzantine art,however, the painter shows us that the child is God,
and so the baby is not defined by the Virgin but by his relationship with the Father55.
Zizioulas claims that a person is an identity formed through a relationship. «We are persons
because our distinct identity is given by our various relationships, biological relationships with our
parents, natural relationships with our environment, and a vast complex of other social and political
relationships»56. Our personhood is received from the whole vast community. When we accept
baptism, it means that there is a relationship between us and God. This relationship will eventually
determine all other relationships and becomes the most important and ultimate for us. This
relationship makes me myself rather than someone else.
Zizioulas speaks about Personal identity in two aspects: one is that through the Church man
transcends exclusivism. When man loves as a biological hypostasis, he inevitably is excluding the
others. For example the family has priority in love over strangers. However this is not the case in
the ecclesial hypostasis because this constitutes a transcendence of this exclusiveness. «The
ecclesial hypostasis is the capacity of the person to love without exclusiveness, and to do this not
out of conformity with a moral commandment (‘Love thy neighbor,’ etc.) but out of his ‘hypostatic
constitution,’ out of the fact that his new birth from the womb of the Church has made him part of a
network of relationships which transcends every exclusiveness»57.
The other aspect regards the concept of catholicity. Catholicity permits the person to
become a hypostasis without falling into individuality. In the Church two things are realized
simultaneously: the world is presented to man not as mutually exclusive portions but as a single
whole. Man is called upon to unite every concrete being while at the same time he expresses and
52
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 57.
53
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 112.
54
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 113.
55
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 11:«But in a Byzantine icon, the painter wants to
show us that the child is God, so the baby is not defined by the Virgin. Although the
relationship with his mother is real enough, his identity comes from another relationship, the
relationship he has with the Father».
56
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 111.
57
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 62.
14
realizes a catholic presence in the world, a hypostasis which is not an individual but an authentic
person in communion. Zizioulas defines this characteristic on an ontological level rather than a
moral level where the ecclesial hypostasis is not a moral perfection or an improvement of nature or
a new hypostasis of nature, but a new creation58.

5.3 Eucharistic hypostasis as a relational expression between biological and ecclesial

hypostasis
Zizioluas addresses another important point with regards to the relation to our existential
experience and he does this by asking the question: «What happens to the biological hypostasis of
man when that which I have called the ecclesial hypostasis is brought into being?» 59. In spite of the
existence of the ecclesial hypostasis, man does not cease at the same time to be born and to die in
accordance with his biological hypostasis. In fact, the encounter between the ecclesial and the
biological hypostases creates a paradoxical relationship in human existence. While Baptism gives
man a personal identity determined by his relationship with God, the ecclesial hypostasis is not
entirely realized in his historical existence: «Man appears to exist in his ecclesial identity not as
that which he is but as that which he will be; the ecclesial identity is linked with eschatology, that
is, with the final outcome of his existence» 60. But «What kind of experience of authentic
personhood is it that the ecclesial hypostasis offers?»61. Here Zizioulas introduces a new
ontological category of Sacramental or Eucharistic hypostasis in order to express the authentic
personhood which is offered historically and experientially by the holy Eucharist.

Firstly, Zizioulas gives us valid information as regards to the differences in the liturgical
traditions between East and West with regards to the Eucharist. He explains that due to the
influence of scholasticism, the Eucharist in the West is seen differently from Eastern Orthodoxy:
«The Eucharist is first of all an assembly, a community, a network of relations, in which man
‘subsists’ in a manner different from the biological as a member of a body which transcends every
exclusiveness of a biological or social kind»62. It means that the Eucharist provides a locus where
man experiences the transcendence of the ontological necessity and exclusiveness entailed by the
biological hypostasis: «The Eucharist is Being the only historical context of human existence
where the terms ‘father,’ ‘brother,’ etc., lose their biological exclusiveness, and reveal, as we have
seen, relationships of free and universal love» 63. The Eucharist is the ecclesial identity in its
historical realization where man becomes an authentic person. «[Eucharist] has as its object man’s
transcendence of his biological hypostasis and his becoming an authentic person»64 The Eucharist
means that man ultimately exists only within Christ65.
Secondly, Zizioulas underlines the eschatological character of the Eucharist which
expresses the relationship between the ecclesial and the biological hypostasis. The ecclesial
hypostasis is not simply a historical being but points to an eschatological being transcending
history: «The ecclesial hypostasis reveals man as a person, which, however, has its roots in the
future and is perpetually inspired, or rather maintained and nourished, by the future. The truth and
the ontology of the person belong to the future, are images of the future»66. In the light of the
Letter to the Hebrews, Zizioulas explains this hypostasis as «the assurance of things hoped for, the
58
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 58.
59
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 58.
60
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 59.
61
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 59. See also page 8
62
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 60.
63
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 60.
64
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 61, footnote 61.
65
J. ZIZIOULAS, Lectures in Christian dogmatics, 116.
66
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 62.
15
conviction of things not seen» (Hebrews 11:1) and this in light of the eschatological character of
the Eucharist. There is thus in the latter this eschatological character of the ecclesial hypostasis of
the already but not yet. This provides a perspective to man to understand that his true home is not
in this world, but in the future: «The ecclesial hypostasis, as a transcendence of the biological,
draws its beginning from the being of God and from that which it will itself be at the end of the
age»67.

6. Church: Local and Universal

Zizioulas notes that there is a further distinction in how the east and west approach the Trinity.
In the western churches, there is a tendency to avoid the pneumatological implications of various
theological affirmations as a result of Christological priority given by the west. The east on the
other hand has a better balance.
Also, while the eucharistic notion of the church in the west carries an obvious Christological
flavour. The eastern eucharistic theology carries pneumatological and eschatological flavours as
well. Zizioulas insists that the Pneumatology implied by the filioque manifests itself directly in an
“ecclesiological filioquism68.” By prioritising the Christological over the pneumatological, western
theology breaks down the fundamental equality between the Son and the Spirit. As a result the Son
becomes, with the Father, the source of the Spirit’s procession, and thus superior to the Spirit. “If
Pneumatology is not ontologically constitutive of Christology, this can mean that there is first one
Church and then many churches69.” The Christological ecclesiology of the west emphasizes the
priority of one church, Rome, over other churches elsewhere and thus the Church of Rome
becomes the very principle of ecclesial unity, just as - by the filioque - Christ becomes the principle
of Trinitarian unity. This tendency is at the root of the Orthodox objections to the current practice
of papal primacy.
As regards to ecclesiology, Zizioulas notes that in the New Testament, the term “ekklesia” is
normally accompanied by the genitive “of.” Infact Paul “speaks on the one hand of the ‘church of
God (or Christ),’ and on the other hand of the church or churches ‘of a certain place’ (Salonika,
Macedonia, Judea, etc.)70”. Zizioulas draws the conclusion that: “There is no church which can be
conceived in herself, but only in relation to something else – in this case to God or Christ and to a
certain locality, i.e. to the world around her71.” Here we find one of Zizioulas’ main contributions.
The relative priority of the local and universal churches points clearly to the local church in Nicolas
Afanasiev’s theology, and to some extent in Georges Florovsky’s. Zizioulas offers a more
balanced view in which neither local nor universal takes priority. He articulates an Orthodox
perspective on the local church that typically follows from the trinitarian conception of the church.
According to Zizioulas, the local dimensions of ecclesiality have a certain experiential priority.
However, this does not translate into a church that is merely local, because a church that does not
give expression to its catholicity is not truly apostolic and thus is not truly ecclesial. Apostolicity
and catholicity are are not contrary but correlatives since together they mean unity and holiness.
Here the term “catholic” denotes “opposition to any ‘particularity.’ In early documents it was used
to emphasize the integrity of her faith and doctrine, the loyalty of the Great Church to the original
and primitive tradition.

In Zizioulas’ perspective, eucharistic ecclesiology contributes to the “localism” of the church.

It is not incorrect to understand the eucharist in Christological terms. “The Church is the Body of
67
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 62.
68
J. ZIZIOULAS, The church as communion, 107.
69
J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as communion , 132
70
J. Zizioulas, The church as communion, 105.
71
J. Zizioulas, The church as communion, 105.
16
 Christ, which means that she is instituted through the one Christological event: she is one because
Christ is one and she owes her being to this one Christ 72.” Localism of the church occurs when the
eucharist is understood exclusively in a Christological sense, and thus without a well-developed
Pneumatology to inform it. Because Zizioulas understands Christology in the context of
Pneumatology, he sees Pentecost itself as “an ecclesiologically constitutive event.” Challenging
Afanasiev’s localism, Zizioulas says: 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 Pneumatology73.

In ecumenical theological discourse, there is a tendency towards cross-fertilisation. While

many critics of the ecumenical movement would caution that this will lead to hybrid theology and a
loss of historic identity, ecumenists see this as a sign of the growing catholicity in the theological
reflection that is the gift of the ecumenical movement to the churches. One symptom of the
prevalence of “theological borrowing” from other traditions is the failure to give appropriate
credit to one’s sources. Ecumenical dialogue statements and individual theologians regularly
build upon the contributions proposed by their dialogue partners. While this leads to a certain
fecundity in the ecumenical soil, it makes it difficult to point to particular areas where
theologians have learned from their dialogue partners. An illustration of an ongoing dispute in the
Roman Catholic hierarchy gives some indication of the actual adoption of eastern perspectives by
some Roman Catholics.
In recent months, a public dispute has arisen between two prominent Roman Catholic theologians,
both cardinals and curial officials, Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper 74. Their dispute is
characterised by a fundamental difference regarding the status of the local church. For Ratzinger,
the universal church is both historically and ontologically prior to the local, or particular, church.
Though he does not say it, Ratzinger leaves one with the impression that the church of
Rome is the archetype to which all other particular churches are related. For Kasper, the local
church is the fundamental expression of the church of Christ, but only when it is bound together in
bonds of communion with all other local churches in every time and place. The universal church is
the visible expression of this communion. Communion is manifest in the bonds between each
bishop and the bishop of Rome, in the episcopal conferences, and in the synods and ecumenical
councils. Each of these expressions of communion is marked by collegiality and subsidiarity.
Kasper’s position is close to the eastern perspective with one significant distinction. Where Kasper
repeats the traditional Roman claim of the pope as visible guarantor of unity (primacy), the
Orthodox invest this role in the metropolitans and patriarchs.
The Orthodox tradition is similarly diverse with respect to ecclesiology. In fact, when
contrasted with Catholic ecclesiologies, Orthodoxy’s distinguishing feature is its greater
accommodation of diversity. Kasper’s position appears much closer to Zizioulas’ than to Ratz
inger’s, though Zizioulas’ has a distinctively Orthodox flavour.

Conclusion
In this article I have attempted to indicate the contributions of the Orthodox churches to the
ecumenical reflection on ecclesiology. Although the major contribution of Orthodoxy may have
been the notion of koinonia or communion, the significance of this theme does not become clear
72
J. Zizioulas, Being as communion, 132.
73
J. Zizioulas, Being as communion , 133.
74
Walter Kasper, “On the church: a friendly reply to Cardinal Ratzinger,” America 184:14 (2001): 8-14.
17
until one explores the trinitarian dimensions of ecclesiology and its implications for theological
anthropology, the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, and the relationships between the local
and universal
churches.
In recent years the Orthodox churches have challenged the WCC, accusing it of a liberal bias
and a failure to hear the voice of Orthodoxy in formulating its agenda or issuing its public
statements. A number of Orthodox churches have threatened to withdraw from membership in the
Council, and indeed the Romanian Orthodox Church has already done so. The Russian Orthodox
are the most vociferous critics, although they have remained at least partial participants in the
Council’s work. The Orthodox churches have always given a greater degree of support and interest
to the work of the Faith and Order Commission, which might naturally result in the alleged failure
of the Council to hear their concerns within the other sections and commissions. Since the Harare
Assembly in 1998, the Council has engaged in a process of discernment along with various other
ecumenical bodies, and the Christian World Communions. The process is intended to develop a
forum in which democratic processes alone do not determine the result. It is hoped that the
Orthodox churches, and others who have remained outside of the Council, will find it more
compelling to participate in the new forum.
It has been said that Orthodox churches conceive of their role within the broad panorama of
churches as the repositories of the apostolic and patristic faith. Their role is to preserve for future
generations a faith that has survived for centuries. If this is true, then the continuing participation of
the Orthodox in ecumenical circles is essential. Now is the moment when western churches are
most open to the contributions of the east.

Bibliography
Bria, Ion. The sense of ecumenical tradition: The ecumenical witness and vision of the Orthodox.
Geneva: WCC Publications, 1991.

Bulgakov, Sergei. Father Sergius Bulgakov: 1871-1941. London: Fellowship of St. Alban and St.
Sergius, 1969.

. The Orthodox Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1988.

Crow, Paul A., Jr. “The legacy of four world conferences on Faith and Order” in Lausanne to
Santiago de Compostela: 1927-1993. Faith and Order Paper, no. 160. Geneva: WCC Publications,
1993:
1-14. Also published in Ecumenical review 45 (1993): 13-26.
Dictionary of the ecumenical movement. Eds. Nicholas Lossky et al. Geneva: WCC Publications,
1991. Florovsky, Georges. Collected works of Georges Florovsky. 14 vols. Vaduz, Liechtenstein:
Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989.

. “The doctrine of the chur ch and the ecumenical problem,” Ecumenical review 2
(1950): 152-161.

Gassmann, Günther. “From Montréal 1963 to Santiago de Compostela 1993: issues and results of
Faith and Order work” in Lausanne to Santiago de Compostela: 1927-1993. Faith and Order Paper,
no. 160. Geneva: WCC Publications , 1993: 15-31. Also published in Ecumenical review 45
(1993):
27-43.

18
Gassmann, Günther and John A. Radano, eds. The unity of the church as koinonia: ecumenical
perspectives on the 1991 Canberra statement on unity. Faith and Order Paper, no. 163. Geneva:
WCC Publications, 1993.

Hay, J. C. Koinonia in the New Testament: a study of the word. Toronto: Canadian Council of
Churches, n.d.

Heim, S. Mark. “What is the church?,” Christian century (October 23, 1996): 1000-1002.

Joint International Commission for Theological Di alogue between the Roman Catholic Church
and
the Orthodox Church. “The mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the light of the mystery of
the Holy Trinity (Munich, 1982),” Origins 12 (1982): 157-160. Also published in St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 26 (1982): 251-258.
Kasper, Walter. “On the church: a friendly reply to Cardinal Ratzinger,” America 184:14
(2001): 8-14. Khomiakov, Alexei. “The church is one” in Russia and the English church during
the last fifty years. Ed.
W.J. Birkbeck. Vol. 1. London: Rivington, Percival & Co., 1895, 192-222.

Kinnamon, Michael and Brian E. Cope, eds. The ecumenical movement: An anthology of key texts
and voices. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1997
[Koukoujis], Archbishop Iakovos. “The contri bution of Eastern Orthodoxy to the ecumenical
movement,” Ecumenical review 11 (1959): 394-404.

Larentzakis, Grigorios. “The unity of the church as koinonia: some reflections from an Orthodox
standpoint,” Ecumenical review 45 (1993): 69-71.

Limouris, Gennadios. “Being as koin onia in faith: challenges, vision s and hopes for the unity of
the church today,” Ecumenical review 45 (1993): 78-92.

Limouris, Gennadios, comp. Orthodox visions of ecumenism: statements, messages and reports
on the ecumenical movement, 1902-1992. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1994.

Lossky, Vladimir. In the image and likeness of God. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1974.

McPartlan, Paul. The Eucharist makes the church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in dialogue .
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993.

Meyendorff, John. “‘The hope that is in us’ A comment on the document: ‘The mystery of the
Church and the Eucharist in the light of the my stery of the Holy Trinity’ (Joint Orthodox-
Roman Catholic Commission) Munich, June 1982,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 27
(1983): 294-298.

Patelos, Constantin G. ed. The Orthodox church in the ecumenical movement: documents and
statements, 1902-1975. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1978.

Puglisi, James F., ed. Petrine ministry and the unity of the church: Toward a patient and
fraternal dialogue. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999.
19
Schmemann, Alexander, ed. Ultimate questions: An anthology of modern Russian religious
thought .
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1977.

Skira, Jaroslav Z. “Ecclesiology in the internat ional Orthodox - Catholic ecumenical dialogue,”
The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 41 (1996): 359-374.

Staniloae, Dumitru. Theology and the church. Trans. Robert Barringer. Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary, 1980.

Tataryn, Myroslaw. “The Munich document and the language of unity,” Journal of Ecumenical
Studies
26 (Fall 1989): 648-663.

Volf, Miroslav. After our likeness: the church as the image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998.

Ware, Kallistos. “The church of God: our shared vi sion.” Paper presented to the first consultation
of the Kievan Study Group, Oxford, August 1992. Logos 34 (1993): 10-29.

Ware, Timothy [Kallistos]. The Orthodox church. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1963.

20
Webster, Alexander F. C. "Split decision: The Orthodox clash over Estonia," The Christian
Century
113, no. 19 (1996): 614-623.

World Council of Churches. Signs of the Spirit: Official Report of the Seventh Assembly of the
World Council of Churches, Canberra, 1991. Ed. Michael Kinnamon. Geneva: WCC Publications,
1991.

. Commission on Faith and Order. The nature and purpose of the church: a stage
on the way to a common statement. Faith & Order Paper, no. 181. Geneva: WCC / Faith and
Order, 1998.

. Orthodox Task Force. The New Valamo consultation: the ecumenical nature of
the Orthodox witness. Report of the consultation at New Valamo, Finland (September 24-30,
1977). Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1977.

. Orthodox thought: reports of Orthodox consultations organized by the World

Council of Churches, 1975-1982. Ed. Georges Tsetsis. Geneva: World Council of Churches,
1983.

Zernov, Nicolas. The reintegration of the church: a study in intercommunion. London: SCM Press,
1952.

. Three Russian prophets: Khomiakov, Dostoevsky, Soloviev. London: SCM Press,

1944.

Zizioulas, John D. Being as communion: studies in personhood and the church. Crestwood, NY:
St.
Vladimir’s Seminary, 1985.

. “The church as commun ion: a presentation on the world conference theme,” in

On the way to fuller koinonia: official report of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order,
Santiago de Compostela, 1993. Eds. Thomas F. Best and Günther Gassmann. Geneva: WCC
Publications,
1994.

21