This research is about a theological ontology which is based on Zizioulas’ ontology of personhood. His ontological thought is manifested by a renewed view of God and the human person. Therefore, this thesis includes three parts. The first part examines the being of God as personhood. The second part examines the being of the human person as personhood. The third part analyzes and criticizes Zizioulas’ ontology of personhood. In Part I, I explore the background and source of Zizioulas’ ontology of personhood in the Cappadocian Trinitarian theology. Zizioulas claims that there has been an ontological revolution against Greek substantialism: based on the identification of hypostasis with personhood rather than ousia; the ontological principle of God is traced back to the person (hypostasis). It means that God first is God the Father rather than his substance or nature. This is a reversal of a view which has prevailed in Western theology. The Father is the personal cause of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. One of the significances of the Father as personal cause is that the personal Father generates personal otherness in the divine being. Zizioulas’ ontology of personhood is based on the concepts of communion and otherness. He excludes essence or ousia from his ontological categories. In Part II, I will explore the being of man as personhood. The Father as personal cause bequeaths us an ontology of personhood which also provides the metaphysical ground for the being of human persons. Personhood rather than human nature is the centre of anthropology. The mode of existence of the Trinity is the foundation for the transformation of human existence from a biological hypostasis to an ecclesial hypostasis. Personal otherness is constitutive of human person. Otherness as an ontological existence transforms the relationship between human beings in communion. The coexistence of otherness and communion in a Trinitarian model provides a foundation for the criticisms of Levinas’ concept of otherness without communion. In Part III, I will criticize the Western views of God and person, but also analyze and criticize Zizioulas’ ontology of personhood. The significance of the ontology of personhood is shown by its providing an insightful and radical critique of the substantialist Trinitarian theology which understands One God as substance foremost. At the same time, it provides strong criticisms of individualist understanding of the concept of personhood. I conclude that Zizioulas has reconstructed a new theological ontology and a new systematic theology which are significantly different from our customary thinking of theology. But because of his overlooking of the views of sin and justice in the ontological sense, I also criticize Zizioulas’ ontology of personhood for its lack of a critical reflection on the society.

Le champ disciplinaire qui occupe cette recherche est l’anthropologie théologique de l’orthodoxie contemporaine. Il s’agit de mettre en dialogue les angles d’approches de trois auteurs majeurs de la théologie orthodoxe moderne : le théologien russe Vladimir Lossky, le père roumain Dumitru Staniloae et le métropolite grec Jean (Zizioulas) de Pergame. Nous essayons d’analyser l’angle sous lequel chacun de ces trois auteurs développent leur vision anthropologique et dans quelle mesure ils restent fidèles à l’Écriture Sainte et aux Pères de l’Église, étant données les influences philosophiques de leurs écrits. Nous nous proposons d’examiner les éléments particuliers de leur réflexion, leurs rapports avec la théologie orthodoxe des générations passées et leur compatibilité mutuelle. Le plan comporte trois parties : la première partie se propose une incursion biographique et bibliographique. La deuxième partie, analytique, veut confronter la réflexion des trois auteurs sur la question anthropologique, en se concentrant sur la palette thématique suivante : l’homme comme image de Dieu, image trinitaire, liberté, communion et amour. La troisième partie inscrit les approches des trois théologiens dans une vision plus large, en essayant de faire émerger des possibles conséquences dogmatiques que leur anthropologie générerait. / The present thesis aims at studying and confronting different angles of approach of three major authors of modern orthodox theology : the Russian theologian Vladimir Lossky, the Romanian father Dumitru Staniloae and the Greek metropolitan Jean (Zizioulas) of Pergame. The main concern is to analyze the perspectives under which the three authors develop each of their anthropological visions, as well as measuring the extent to which they remain faithful to the Holy Scripture and to the Fathers of the Church, considering the philosophical influences of their respective writings. It is our purpose to examine the particular elements that define their reflections, their rapports with the orthodox theology of past generations and their mutual compatibility. The research is divided into three parts : the first is an overview of the biographical and bibliographical universe of each author. The next part, extensively analytical, confronts points of view of the three authors on the question of anthropology, while placing the center of attention on the following range of topics : man as image of God, trinitarian image, freedom, communion and love. The third part tackles the approaches of the three theologians from a wider perspective, by trying to reveal the possible dogmatic consequences generated by their anthropology. The present research paper closes with biographical appendices followed by an extensive and updated bibliography.

The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, as well as other Christian communities, are faced with the challenges of postmodern thought, which calls into question some of the foundational theological and philosophical constructs through which Christianity has articulated the mystery of Eucharistic presence. Louis-Marie Chauvet, Alexander Schmemann and John Zizioulas, the interlocutors presented in this dissertation, recognize that for centuries, Eucharistic theology has been shaped within a metaphysical/Scholastic framework which confines, in many respects, the experiential/relational aspects of the divine/human dynamic as mediated in the Eucharistic celebration. An appeal for a paradigmatic shift is made evident in their respective works based on a renewed understanding of the various strata of the symbolic order and the paradigm of relationality as being the primary contexts within which the people of God celebrate his presence. This shift is necessary in order to correct the problematic of a causal, mechanistic, reductionist, overly-metaphysical, dualist framework as well as a static onto-theological construct, to which Eucharistic theology has been subjected to for centuries. There is a call for a re-thinking of Eucharistic presence in light of a theology which is rooted in the mutually supportive principles of lex orandi est lex credendi and of a Patristic theological landscape. The methodology of this dissertation is comparative and dialogical in nature in which each theologian articulates the need for a scholarship of Eucharistic presence to be established on new terrain and a new trajectory which will prove to be more appropriate in expressing the mystery of presence as it is grounded and expressed within the Apostolic faith and practice.<br>By appealing to and implementing the theologies here presented, we can develop a renewed vision of Eucharistic presence that may provide a common ground for an ecumenical enterprise, reaffirming the most essential component of faith: God's presence among humanity and in creation. This ecumenical enterprise must not remain within the realm of the abstract or theoretical, but needs to culminate in a true union of the churches born of a common unity in faith and eventual Eucharistic practice. In addition, these three theologians' contributions will continue to provide contemporary and future scholars in sacramental theology with an innovative approach to further articulate the mystery of presence through media which speak to the contemporary world while remaining rooted in antiquity. / McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts; / Theology; / PhD; / Dissertation;

Thesis (S.T.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 143-147).

Thesis (S.T.L.)--Catholic University of America, 2008. / Description based on Microfiche version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 143-147).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 69-80).

This study offers an ecumenical exploration of human transformation through the examination of this topic in the thought of Karl Barth (1888-1968), a Swiss Reformed theologian; Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), a Roman Catholic theologian; and John Zizioulas (b. 1931), a Greek Orthodox theologian. Describing and understanding human transformation stands as a crucial task for theology because no one is simply born a Christian—in order to be a Christian one must become a Christian. The first chapter introduces this topic, the three theologians (highlighting their commonalities), and the three questions that guide the analysis of each theologian and the thesis as a whole: What is the goal of human transformation? What is the basis of human transformation? How are humans transformed? Chapters 2, 3, and 4 treat the topic of human transformation in the theology of Barth, Ratzinger, and Zizioulas, respectively. All three understand the goal of human transformation to be the prayer of the children of God, and locate its basis in God’s reconciling act in Jesus Christ—an act itself based in the primordial divine decision to be God pro nobis. Even within this broad agreement, however, differences are evident, especially with regard to eschatology. Consideration of how this transformation occurs reveals significant differences concerning the agency of Jesus Christ in relation to the Holy Spirit and the church. The final chapter explores 1) the convergences and divergences between Barth, Ratzinger, and Zizioulas regarding human transformation; 2) the contributions of this study to the interpretation of Barth, Ratzinger, and Zizioulas; and 3) the relationship between human transformation and participation in God. Throughout, attention is given to the relationship between Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, the eschaton, and the triunity of God and human transformation. All three accounts of human transformation point beyond the transition between sinful and redeemed humanity to a dynamic anthropology in which the constant asking, receiving, thanking, and asking again is the very “ontological location” of the eschatological life of humanity: our being is in becoming.

La synodalité paraît être aujourd’hui un thème très actuel, tant pour le dialogue théologique bilatéral entre les Églises catholique et orthodoxe, qu’à l’intérieur de chaque Église. Le pontificat du pape François a mis l’accent sur la synodalité et l’Église orthodoxe vient de réaliser son Grand et Saint Concile (Crète, juin 2016). Le Concile Vatican II en 1964 a promulgué la doctrine de la collégialité épiscopale (les évêques constituent un collège qui succède au collège des Douze Apôtres), doctrine qui devait rapprocher les ecclésiologies catholique et orthodoxe. Cependant, les théologiens orthodoxes ne se sont pas retrouvés dans cette doctrine. Cinquante ans après sa promulgation, on remarque par ailleurs que la mise en œuvre de la collégialité épiscopale dans l’Église catholique est plutôt limitée. Cette étude a tenté de confronter les notions de collégialité épiscopale et de synodalité épiscopale, en vue d’une compréhension commune, entre catholiques et orthodoxes, de la place des évêques au sein de l’Église entière. Partant du constat que la synodalité épiscopale, comme l’entendent les orthodoxes, ne coïncide pas avec la doctrine de la collégialité épiscopale comme elle a été formulée au concile Vatican II, le présent travail s’est penché sur les fondements de cette dernière, afin de rechercher comment la tradition commune originelle des deux Églises conçoit la synodalité épiscopale. Le retour aux sources communes, à savoir bibliques, patristiques et dogmatiques, est proposé comme la base d’une entente sur les questions du ministère épiscopal et de la synodalité des évêques. Une telle entente s’avère indispensable afin d’aborder d’autres questions controversées, notamment celle de la primauté romaine. / Synodality seems to be a very current topic, both for the bilateral theological dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and for each individual Church. The pontificate of Pope Francis has emphasized synodality and the Orthodox Church has just convened its Great and Holy Council (Crete, June 2016). The Second Vatican Council in 1964 promulgated the doctrine of episcopal collegiality (the bishops are organized in a college which succeeds the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), a doctrine which was to bring closer Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies. However, the Orthodox theologians did not appreciate the value of this doctrine. Fifty years after its promulgation, it is also noted that the implementation of episcopal collegiality in the Catholic Church is rather restricted. This research attempts to compare the notions of episcopal collegiality and episcopal synodality, exploring a common understanding between Catholics and Orthodox of the place of the bishops within the whole Church. For Orthodox theologians, episcopal synodality does not coincide with the doctrine of episcopal collegiality, as it was formulated during the Second Vatican Council. This research focused on the common tradition of the two Churches regarding episcopal synodality. The study of common sources, namely biblical, patristic and dogmatic, is proposed as the basis for an agreement on the issue of episcopal ministry and the synodality of bishops. Such an agreement is essential to address other issues, especially that of the Roman primacy.

This essay discusses different ways of understanding inclusion from the perspective of existential experiences in the church with the help of communion ecclesiology. The aim is to analyze other ways of creating inclusion that are not founded on the principle of consensus which has been a preferred method in the broader church community trough the ages. As a contrast, this essay looksat an ecclesiology of communion as another way to be inclusive from the idea of unity through diversity and differences. By comparing the theology of Elisabeth Johnson and John D. Zizioulas and their views of the other through Paul Jones theory of theological worlds this essay tries to answer the question: How can an ecclesiology of communion contribute to a broader church inclusion from the perspective of existential pluralism? After looking at how these theologians view inclusion in relation to Christian tradition, high and low ecclesiology and their relationship to different theological worlds the conclusion is that an ecclesiology of communion can create a more genuine form of inclusion by focusing more on the sensus fidei fidelis rather than the consensus fidei. By looking at the church more as a vessel of a multitude of experiences and personhoods combined by the relationship and narrative of Christ which find the community in the eschaton, rather than tradition, the church as a community can be a more inclusive place.

Thèse--Pontificio Ateneo antoniano, 2001. / Bibliogr. p. [393]-418. Notes bibliogr.