Евхаристиjска ипостасологиja у богословљу митрополита пергамског Joвана Зизиуласа

Резюме:

A loyalty to the Fathers and teachers of the Church provided an opportunity for Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamum to demonstrate in neopatristic way their active and creative influence on modernity. By relating to the Church Fathers in the context of hypostasiology, Zizioulas claims that the Fathers have yielded the most precious concept for human existence and thought – the concept of personhood. For example, in the study ‘From Mask to Person’ all three key notions of Zizioulas’ hypostasiology are present: the definition of personal identity (ὑπόστασις, πρόσωπον, φύσις, οὐσία), the development of the personhood-Church relations and the development of relations between the Church and personhood. The development of the notion of hypostasis passes through several stages in the theological thought of the Metropolitan of Pergamon. Every next stage in this process is identified as transcending the false identity, i.e. mask. These are the following levels: biological hypostasis, ecclesial hypostasis and eschatological hypostasis. Zizioulas applies the following synonyms to the level of ecclesial hypostasis: Eucharistic, sacramental, baptismal, ascetic and Trinitarian. Zizioulas does not support the idea of a romantic relationship or ecstasy in which the problems of the world, especially individualism, were solved if we simply accept or adopt the concepts of healthy relationship. Instead, Zizioulas identifies the core problem of the human existence. The problem of maintaining together hypostasis and ecstasy is the paradox of humanity. The nature of human beings leads to a conflict of these two important aspects of true personhood. In his description of the biological hypostasis, Zizioulas clearly explains the failure to attain the true hypostasis in ecstasy as the inevitable result if human nature is taken alone. He intends to present as clearly as possible that human being has no resources by which he can exist as hypostasis and ecstasy at the same time. However, 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. The article scrutinizes Zizioulas’ position that a new way of being that is mode of ecclesial hypostasis must somehow be free from the neces211 sity that led biological hypostasis to the loss of personhood. 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. The article discusses further the important issue related to the study of personhood and nature, and their interrelation in the theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas: whether human nature is revoked or deleted in favour of ecclesial hypostasis? By adopting Staniloe’s position one may conclude that in Zizioulas’ thought the human being is obliterated as psychosomatic unity, since the physical or biological existence is denied or put aside in favour of the ecclesial existence. Does, then, Zizioulas perceive the physical existence in the negative light as a major obstacle to the proper or the eternal life that Christ offers? It may be noted that Zizioulas is very careful in stating that the two main components of biological hypostasis, Eros and the body should not be destroyed. To deny them would mean to deny the fact that there is connection between the ecclesial hypostasis and the biological nature. Zizioulas is eager to point that the hypostatic change is not a loss of constituents of the biological nature, but it is rather a change in the mode of existence. Thus, 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. Restrictions of the biological nature then become a problem. However, according to Zizioulas, 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. Zizioulas 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 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, but 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.

Ключови думи:

Изтегляне