08 — The Critique
The longest section of this collection, and the one it exists for. Zizioulas attracted a critical literature larger and sharper than that of any other Orthodox theologian of his generation: a book-length refutation from Jean-Claude Larchet, a sustained attack from his own former student Nikolaos Loudovikos, a patristic challenge from Lucian Turcescu, a christological corrective from Alexis Torrance, an Athonite-traditionalist objection from Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and a Belgian patrologist’s verdict that the whole controversy rests on a bad question. It also attracted a serious defence. This section names every position precisely, quotes fairly, and adjudicates nothing.
Tradition: Greek Orthodox (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Files in This Section
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| The Patristic Question | Did the Cappadocians teach what Zizioulas says they taught? Turcescu, de Halleux, Panagopoulos and Agouridis; the de Régnon paradigm; Zizioulas’ replies; and the defences of Papanikolaou, Alan Brown and Norman Russell |
| Person, Nature, and Grace | The theological objections: Larchet’s Personne et nature; Loudovikos on grace and “dictated otherness”; Alexis Torrance on christology and personhood; Metropolitan Hierotheos from the Athonite side; and the counter-defence |
Why the Section Is Structured This Way
The criticism divides cleanly into two questions, and confusing them makes the whole debate unintelligible.
The historical question — is this what the Fathers said? — is in principle answerable by scholarship. It concerns the exegesis of St. Basil, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa; the meaning of hypostasis and prosopon in fourth-century usage; and whether the person/individual distinction can be found in the texts or has been read into them.
The theological question — is this true, and is it Orthodox? — is not settled by exegesis alone. It concerns whether nature may be associated with necessity; whether grace is displaced by personhood in Zizioulas’ scheme; whether the ascetic and christological center of Orthodox anthropology is preserved; and whether the whole enterprise is a domestication of patristic language by modern existentialism.
A reader can answer the first question against Zizioulas and the second for him, or the reverse. Several of the principals do exactly that.
The Cast, in One Table
| Critic | Position | Principal text |
|---|---|---|
| Jean-Claude Larchet | The fullest Orthodox refutation: the person/nature opposition is unpatristic and distorts trinitarian, christological and anthropological doctrine alike | Personne et nature: La Trinité – Le Christ – L’homme (Paris: Cerf, 2011) |
| Nikolaos Loudovikos | A former student: Zizioulas substitutes person for grace, and the otherness he grounds in the Father is “dictated” rather than dialogical | “Person instead of Grace and Dictated Otherness,” Heythrop Journal 52:4 (2011): 684–699; A Eucharistic Ontology (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2010) |
| Lucian Turcescu | St. Gregory of Nyssa does not distinguish “person” from “individual”; Zizioulas projects modern insights onto him | “‘Person’ versus ‘Individual’,” Modern Theology 18:4 (2002): 527–539; Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons (OUP, 2005) |
| Alexis Torrance | Modern Orthodox personalism severs anthropology from christology; the corrective is the humanity of Christ | “Personhood and Patristics in Orthodox Theology,” Heythrop Journal 52:4 (2011): 700–707; Human Perfection in Byzantine Theology (OUP, 2020) |
| Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) | From the Athonite-traditionalist and neptic side: “person” belongs to the Trinity; applied to human beings it imports existential personalism | The Person in the Orthodox Tradition; his interventions at Crete, 2016 |
| André de Halleux | The personalism/essentialism opposition in Cappadocian studies is “une mauvaise controverse” resting on a misreading | Revue théologique de Louvain 17 (1986): 129–155, 265–292 |
| J. Panagopoulos; S. Agouridis | The Greek-language charge, made early: Zizioulas attributes to the Fathers what he has imported from philosophical personalism | Synaxi 13–14 (1985); Synaxi 33 (1990) |
| Defender | Position | Principal text |
|---|---|---|
| Aristotle Papanikolaou | The relational-personal ontology follows from divine-human communion; answers Turcescu directly | Being with God (Notre Dame, 2006); “Is John Zizioulas an Existentialist in Disguise?”, Modern Theology 20:4 (2004): 601–607 |
| Douglas H. Knight | Editor of the standard critical volume, which places admirers and critics between the same covers | The Theology of John Zizioulas: Personhood and the Church (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007) |
| Alan Brown | A long, combative reply to the Anglophone Orthodox critics, Turcescu included | “On the Criticism of Being as Communion in Anglophone Orthodox Theology,” in Knight, ed. (2007), 35–78 |
| Norman Russell | The measured verdict: modern philosophy “influenced his thinking but not determined it” | “Modern Greek Theologians and the Greek Fathers,” Philosophy & Theology 18:1 (2006): 77–92 |
| Paul McPartlan | The standard comparative study; editor of Communion and Otherness | The Eucharist Makes the Church (T&T Clark, 1993) |
The Rule of This Section
Per METHODOLOGY §4.2, this is an intra-Orthodox dispute that the Church has not adjudicated, and neither does this collection. Every position is attributed by name; every text is cited so that a reader can check it; the strongest form of each argument is given rather than the most convenient. Where a critic is wrong on a matter of fact, the fact is corrected; where a critic is making a judgment, the judgment is reported.
One further point of fairness. Zizioulas answered his critics, repeatedly and at length — in Greek in Synaxi in 1991, in English in Communion and Otherness in 2006, and in occasional pieces throughout. A presentation of the criticism that omits his replies would be a misrepresentation, and this section includes them.
See Also
- Personhood and Being and The Monarchy of the Father — what is being criticized
- The Argument of the Book — the theses in their original setting
- A Provisional Assessment — the weighing, offered as provisional
- The Church Fathers — how the Church reads the Fathers, stated as hers
- Holy Tradition — the framework within which the dispute is a dispute
References
- Larchet, Jean-Claude. Personne et nature: La Trinité – Le Christ – L’homme. Paris: Cerf, 2011.
- Loudovikos, Nikolaos. “Person instead of Grace and Dictated Otherness: John Zizioulas’ Final Theological Position.” The Heythrop Journal 52, no. 4 (2011): 684–699.
- Turcescu, Lucian. “‘Person’ versus ‘Individual’, and Other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa.” Modern Theology 18, no. 4 (2002): 527–539.
- Torrance, Alexis. “Personhood and Patristics in Orthodox Theology: Reassessing the Debate.” The Heythrop Journal 52, no. 4 (2011): 700–707.
- Halleux, André de. “Personnalisme ou essentialisme trinitaire chez les Pères cappadociens? Une mauvaise controverse.” Revue théologique de Louvain 17 (1986): 129–155, 265–292.
- Knight, Douglas H., ed. The Theology of John Zizioulas: Personhood and the Church. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007.
- Papanikolaou, Aristotle. Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006.
- Russell, Norman. “Modern Greek Theologians and the Greek Fathers.” Philosophy & Theology 18, no. 1 (2006): 77–92.