John D.

Zizioulas
The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity:
The Significance of the Cappadocian
Contribution
Introduction
Cappadocia, which lies in the heart of Asia Minor, became an important centre of
Christian theology in the fourth centuryad. Already at the time of St Paul there was
a small Christian community in Cappadocia where Christianity spread so rapidly as
to produce a number of martyrs and confessors in the second century, and to
contribute seven bishops to the Council of Nicaea inad325. But it was mainly in the
second half of the fourth century that Cappadocia became famous for its theological
thought. This wasdue to four leading figures whose theological and philosophical
originality sealed the entire history of Christian thought: St Basil the Great, bishop
of Caesarea in Cappadocia (ca. 330-79); St Gregory of Nazianzus, known as
theTheologian(ca. 330-89/90), at first briefly bishop of Sassima in Cappadocia and
later on, also briefly, Archbishop of Constantinople; St Gregory, the younger brother
of Basil, bishop of Nyssa (ca. 335-94?); and, finally, their friend St Amphilochius
(340/45-?), bishop of Iconium.The first three of these left behind them a
considerable number of writings (dogmatic treatises, exegetical works, ascetic
writings, orations, sermons, and letters), which allow us to appreciate their thought,
while St Amphilochius' work survives only in alimited number of homilies and
letters, some of them only in fragments.
Although the theological contribution of these Cappadocian Fathers is universally
recognised and acknowledged, its importance is by no means limited to theology. It
involves a radicalreorientation of classical Greek humanism, a conception of man
and a view of existence, which ancient thought proved unable to produce in spite of
its many achievements in philosophy. The occasion for this was offered by the
theological controversies of the time, but the implications of the Cappadocian
Fathers' contribution reach beyond theology in the strict doctrinal sense and affect
the entire culture of late antiquity to such an extent that the whole of Byzantine and
European thought would remain incomprehensible without a knowledge of this
contribution.
How does the doctrine of God appear, if placed in the light of Cappadocian
theology? What problems concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and its
philosophical integrity could be overcome with the helpof this theology? What
consequences does this theology have for our understanding of the human being
and of existence as a whole? These kinds of questions are the essential concerns of
this paper. Needless to say, however, such vast and complex questions cannot be
dealt with in an exhaustive way in such a limited space. Only some suggestions will
be put forth and some central ideas underlined. The Cappadocian contribution still
awaits its comprehensive and exhaustive treatment in theologicaland
philosophicalresearch, in spite of the considerable number of words devoted to
its individual representatives.
In order to understand and appreciate correctly the contribution of the
Cappadocians to the doctrine of the Trinity we must first set the historical context.
What were the Cappadocians reacting against? Why did they take the view they
took, and how did they try to respond to the challenges of their contemporaries?
After trying to give an answer to these questions we may consider the lasting
significanceof these Fathers' theology for other times.
I. The Historical Context
If we try to single out the sensitivitieswe might call them obsessionsof the
Cappadocian Fathers vis--vis their contemporaries, we may locate them in the
following areas:
A.Sabellianism
Sabellianism represented an interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity which
involved the view that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit were not full persons in an
ontological sense but
roles

assumed by the one God. Sabellius seems to haveused

the term person in the singular, implying that there isone personin God.
1
Thismodalisticinterpretation made it impossible to understand how the Son, eternally
or in the Incarnation had a relation of reciprocal dialogue with the Father, praying to
Him, etc., as the Gospel stories require us to believe. It would also make it
impossible for theChristian to establish a fully personal dialogue and relationship
with each of the three persons of the Trinity. Furthermore, it would appear that God
was some how acting in the Economy, pretending, as it were, to be what He
appeared to be, and not revealing or giving to us His true self, His very being.
For these and other reasons, the doctrine of the Trinity had to be interpreted in such
a way as to exclude any Sabellian or crypto-Sabellian understanding, and the only
way to achieve this would be by stressing the fullness and ontological integrity of
each person of the Trinity. The Cappadocians were so deeply concerned with this
that they went as far as rejecting the use of the term
prosopon or person to describ the Trinity2a term that had entered theological
terminology since Tertullian in
the West and found its way into the East probably through Hippolytusparticularly
since this term was loaded withconnotations of acting on the theatrical stage or
playing a role in society, when used in the ancient Graeco-Roman world. In their
attempt to protect the doctrine from such connotations, the Cappadocians were at
times ready to speak ofthree beingsin referring to the Trinity. For the same reason,
they preferred to use images of the Trinity that would imply the ontological fullness
of each person, such asthree suns,three torches, etc., thus introducing a
fundamental change in the Nicaean terminology whichwas inclined towards the use
of images indicating one source extended into three (light of lightetc.). By doing
this, the Cappadocians came to be known as being interested in the Trinity more
than the unity of God. (Cf. the well-known textbook thesis that the West began with
the unity of God and then moved to the Trinity, while the East followed the opposite
course.) This stress on the integrity and fullness of the persons was full of important
philosophical implications, as we shall see later on.
Out ofthis concern for the ontological integrity of each person in the Trinity came
the historic revolution, as I should like to call it,
3
in the history of philosophy, namely
the identification of the idea of person with that of
hypostasis
. It would lead us too far
to discuss here the history of these terms. Suffice it to recall that only a generation
before the Cappadocians the term
hypostasis
was fullyidentified with that of
ousia
or
substance
4
(indeed, the Latin term
substantia
would literally translate into Greek
as
hypostasis
). St Athanasius makes it clear that
hypostasis
did not differ from
ousia
,
both terms indicatingbeingorexistence. The Cappadocians changed this by
dissociating

hypostasis
from
ousia
and attaching it to
prosopon
. This was done in order
to make the expressionthree personsfree from Sabellian interpretations and thus
acceptable to the Cappadocians. That this constitutes an historical revolution in
philosophy we shall have an opportunity to point out later, when we discuss the
philosophical significance of the Cappadocian contribution.

Now, the Cappadocians seem to have done well with pointing out and defending the
fullness and integrity of each person, but what about the unity or oneness of God?
Were they not in danger of introducing tritheism?
To avoid this danger, the Cappadocians suggested that
ousia
(substance)
or
physis
(nature) in God should be taken in the sense of the general category which
we apply to more than one person. With the help of Aristotelian philosophy, they
illustrated this by a reference to the one humannature or substance which is general
and is applied to all human beings, and to the many concrete human beings (e.g.
John, George, Basil) who are to be called
hypostases
(plural), not natures or
substances.
5
In this way, they removed all apparent illogicality from their position,
since it
is
logically possible to speak of one substance and three
hypostases
(or
persons), as the above example shows. But thetheological difficulty was there, since
in the above example of the one human nature and three (or more) human beings
we have to do with
three men
, whereas in the Trinity we do not imply three Gods, but
one.

In order to meet this theological difficulty, the Cappadocian Fathers posed the
question of what accounts for the difficulty in reconciling the one and the three in
human existence. This was of paramount significance anthropologically, as we shall
see later. The reason why human beings cannot be one andmany at the same time
involves the following observations.
(a) In human existence, nature precedes the person. When John or George or Basil
are born, the one human nature precedes them; they, therefore represent and
embody only
part
of the human nature. Through human procreation humanity
is
divided
, and no human person can be said to be the bearer of the totality of human
nature. This is why the death of one person does not automatically bring about the
death of the restor conversely, the life of one such person the life of the rest.
(b) Because of this, each human person can be conceived as an
individual
, i.e. as an
entity independent ontologically from other human beings. The unity between
human beings is not ontologically identical with their diversity or multiplicity. The
one and the many do not coincide. It is this existential difficulty that leads to the
logical difficulty of sayingoneandmanywith the same breath.
Now, if we contrast this with God's existence, we see immediately that this
existential and hence logical difficulty is not applicable to God. Since God by
definition has not had a beginning, and space and time do not enter His existence,
the three persons of the Trinity do not share a pre-existing or logically prior to them

Similar to Zizioulas, John, The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

Communion and Otherness - Metr. John Zizioulas

The Dialectic of Communion and Otherness in St Maximus Understanding of the Will

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

John Zizioulas, Ontology and Ethics, Sabornost Vol. 6, 2012

Unity of the Church During the First Three Centuries (Zizioulas)

BEING AS COMMUNION

Dogmatica Zizioulas

Triads- Saint Gregory Palamas

Chryssavgis -- Tribute to Sherrard.doc

Christos Yannaras - Postmodern Metaphysics

A. Mong - Purification of Memory

The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation 2013

Fr. Adrian Fortescue - The Lesser Eastern Churches

Saint Day Book Daily Readings of Orthodox Saints

John Zizioulas, Eucharist, Bishop, Church, (1965)

LOUDOVIKOS-on-Zizoulas

Chryssavgis -- Beauty and Sacredness in Sherrard.doc

Jesus Christ (Chrestos Yannaras)

John Zizioulas, 'The Existential Significance of Orthodox Ecclesiology',

UNIVERSITATIS BABE-BOLYAI, THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA, LIV, 1, 2009)

(STUDIA

John D. Zizioulas, Luke Ben Tallon Eucharistic Communion and the World 2011

St Symeon the New Theologian

Jacobs Theosis

(Christian Theology in Context) John Behr-Irenaeus of Lyons_ Identifying ChristianityOxford University Press (2013)

Pr. John Meyendorff - Teologia Bizantina

The Palamite Doctrine of God

Christos Yannaras, Person and Eros, (1987, 2007)

Christos Yannaras - Against Religion

Icons From the Orthodox World

Florensky Pavel - Reverse Perspective

2009_4_3_Zizioulas

Zizioulas, John, The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

More From This User

Georges Florovsky, Christianity and Culture, vol 2, (1974)

Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, And Tradition, An Eastern Orthodox View, vol. 1

Erwin Panofsky, Arhitectura Gotica si Gandire Scolastica, 1999.pdf

Sfantul Chiril al Ierusalimului, Cateheze, (2003)

Robert Taft, Ritul Bizantin, scurta istorie, (2008)

Dumitru Staniloae, Teologia Dogmatica Ortodoxa, Vol. 1, (2003)

Andrew Louth, Dionisie Areopagitul, 1997

Egon Wellesz, Words and Music in Byzantine Liturgy, 1947

John Meyendorff, Theology in the Thirteenth Century

Doctrinele partidelor politice, Prelegeri publice, Institutul Social Roman (1922-1923)

David Bradshaw, The Concept of the Divine Energies, (2006)

Liviu Voinea et al, Romania and the Europe 2020 Strategy

Daniel Daianu et al, Romania si Agenda Lisabona (GEA Nov 2004)

Annemarie Mayer, Ecclesial Communion

Nicolas Loudovikos, HELL AND HEAVEN, NATURE AND PERSON. C. YANNARAS, J.

ULAS, D. STANILOAE AND MAXIMUS

Thomas Fisch (ed.),

Schmemann, (1990)

Liturgy

and

Tradition.

Theological

Radu Bordeianu 2009, Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue

Peter Brown, The End of the Ancient Other World

Alkiviadis Calivas, The Divine Liturgy

Jacques Le Goff, Intelectualii in Evul Mediu, (1994)

Andre Vauchez, Spiritualitatea Evului Mediu, (1994)

Francis C. Burkitt, Church and Gnosis

Reflections

of Alexander

Robert Browning, 'Literacy in the Byzantine World', Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies,
No.4 (1978)

David Bradshaw, The Presence of Aristotle Within Byzantine Theology

Augustine Casiday (ed.), THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WORLD - Alexander Treiger,

DIVISIONS OF MIDDLE EASTERN CHRISTIANITY; Andrew Louth, THE GREEK TRADITION;
Vera Shevzov, THE RUSSIAN TRADITION
Become an expert in anything
Join Scribd, the membership for readers
Read Free For One Month
Cancel anytime.

scribd