Ethics & Alterity

 Patristic Relational Ontology: A Theological Framework

Fr Symeon Agiomicheltites                                             St Maximus Centre For Agaposofia Philosophy

Patristic relational ontology is a key concept in Orthodox theology that emphasizes the relational and communal nature of existence, grounded in the Trinitarian understanding of God. It posits that true being is found in relationships, rather than in isolated individuality. This ontology is deeply rooted in the writings of the Church Fathers, particularly in their reflections on the nature of the Trinity, the human person, and salvation (theosis). Below, we explore its key aspects and implications.

1. The Trinitarian Foundation of Relational Ontology

The relational nature of being finds its ultimate expression in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, where the three persons (hypostases) share one essence (homoousian), perfectly united in love as had been articulated by the Cappadocian Fathers.

Unity and Distinction:

In the Trinity, each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is fully distinct yet united in essence and love. This unity without confusion or division is the archetype for all relational being (St. Gregory of Nyssa, On Not Three Gods).

St. Basil the Great notes that the persons of the Trinity exist “in perfect communion,” illustrating that relationality is not accidental but essential to divine existence (On the Holy Spirit).

Perichoresis (Mutual Indwelling):

The concept of perichoresis, or mutual indwelling, describes the intimate relationship among the Trinity’s persons. Each person exists in and through the others, underscoring that relationality is foundational to divine and, by extension, human existence.

2. The Human Person as Relational Being

Created in the image of God (eikon theou), the human person reflects this relational ontology. The Church Fathers emphasize that personhood is fully realized in communion with God and others.

St. Maximus the Confessor:

St. Maximus articulates that the human person is a microcosm, uniting the material and spiritual realms through their relational nature. Humanity’s vocation is to bring creation into union with God, reflecting the relational unity of the Trinity (c.f., Ambigua). This klēsis (calling) or vocation continues Adam’s original call to be Mediator and Steward of all creation for God. Not that God has any need or necessity rather humanity is given this role of participation for the life of the world.

Relational Ontology of Personhood:

Personhood (hypostasis) is not defined by autonomy or self-sufficiency but by relationship. Christos Yannaras (2007) expands on this by arguing that the prosōpon (person) achieves authentic existence only through relational communion, mirroring the relational nature of the Trinity. As we move from Inauthenticity to Spiritual Maturity we are moving in our Personhood from prosōpon to hypostasis.

3. Relationality and Theosis

The ultimate goal of human existence, as articulated by the Church Fathers, is theosis—union with God. This union is not an absorption of human identity or individual existence nor a dissolution of the person but a co-existence, a co-indwelling with God a sharing in Divine Nature while never possessing Divine Nature, that being: the perfection of their unique identity through relational communion.

Union Without Absorption:

Theosis reflects the Trinitarian model of relationality, where unity does not erase distinction. St. Gregory Palamas emphasizes that divine grace enables the person to participate in God’s life while preserving their unique identity (c.f., Triads).

Synergy in Relational Ontology:

The relational nature of salvation is synergistic, requiring human cooperation with divine grace. St. Athanasius states, “God became man so that man might become god” (c.f., On the Incarnation), highlighting the reciprocal, relational dynamic of theosis.

4. Ethical Implications of Relational Ontology

Patristic relational ontology also shapes Orthodox ethics, emphasizing the relational dimensions of morality and community.

Love as the Fulfillment of Being:

Love (agape) is central to relational ontology. St. Maximus teaches that love unites the person with God and others, fulfilling their nature as relational beings (c.f., 400 Chapters on Love).

Ethics of Communion:

Relational ontology rejects individualistic or transactional ethics, advocating for an ethics of communion. St. John Chrysostom emphasizes Care (especially for the poor and marginalized) as essential expressions of relational love, reflecting the interconnectedness of all people (Homilies on Matthew).

Alterity and the Other:

Relational ontology underscores the ethical responsibility to recognize the Other as a bearer of the divine image. This aligns with Emmanuel Levinas’ emphasis on the Other’s face as a call to ethical responsibility, deeply resonating with the Patristic vision of relationality.

Orthodox theologian Oliver Clement has likewise built an alterity based on Patristic teaching of man’s being the image of God: Clément sees the Other as a unique expression of God’s presence, making ethical responsibility a divine imperative. In relational ontology, this echoes the call to recognize the Other as an icon of God, where loving the Other becomes an act of loving God Himself (Matthew 25:40). This is deeply aligned with Clément’s vision of human beings as relational creatures destined for communion.

There is also the alterity concepts of Martin Buber and Jean-Luc Marion.

For Buber, the I-Thou encounter is a relational event where one is called to see the Other as a unique being, not as a means to an end. This resonates deeply with the Patristic vision of relational ontology, where communion with the Other reflects the divine relationality of the Trinity. In both frameworks, the relational dynamic is transformative, fostering personal and communal growth.

In Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology, The Face of the Other is understood as a “saturated phenomenon”—a reality that exceeds our capacity to fully grasp or categorize it. The Face reveals the Other as a gift and summons, overflowing with meaning and calling for an ethical response (c.f., Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, 2002).

5. Contemporary Contributions to Patristic Relational Ontology

Christos Yannaras:

Yannaras bridges Patristic theology with contemporary philosophy, arguing that relational ontology is the key to understanding personhood and freedom. For Yannaras, freedom is found not in isolation but in self-transcending communion (cf, Relational Ontology, 2007).

Metropolitan John Zizioulas:

Zizioulas develops the concept of being as communion, asserting that existence itself is relational. Drawing on the Cappadocian Fathers, he argues that the person cannot exist apart from relationships (cf., Being as Communion, 1985).

Relational Ontology and Modern Ethics:

Recent scholars have integrated Patristic relational ontology into discussions of social justice, ecological ethics, and personalist philosophy, emphasizing its relevance for addressing contemporary challenges.

Conclusion

Patristic relational ontology offers a profound vision of existence as inherently communal, grounded in the Trinitarian nature of God. This framework challenges individualistic paradigms, emphasizing that true being and morality are realized in relational communion. By integrating the insights of the Church Fathers with contemporary thought, relational ontology provides a rich foundation for understanding personhood, ethics, and theosis in both theological and philosophical contexts. Its implications extend far beyond theology, offering a relational paradigm for addressing the deepest existential and ethical questions of our time.

References

Athanasius. (1996). On the Incarnation (J. Behr, Trans.). St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Buber, M. (1923/1970). I and Thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Scribner.

Buber, M. (1965). Between Man and Man (R. G. Smith, Trans.). Macmillan.

Clément, O. (1993). The Roots of Christian Mysticism: Texts from the Patristic Era with Commentary (T. Berkeley, Trans.). New City Press.

Clément, O. (1993). The Human Person: According to the Orthodox Christian Tradition (C. P. Ranson, Trans.). St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Gregory of Nyssa. (1978). On Not Three Gods (C. Browne, Trans.). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume V. Eerdmans.

Lossky, V. (1974). The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Marion, J.-L. (2002). Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness (J. L. Kosky, Trans.). Stanford University Press.

Marion, J.-L. (2007). The Erotic Phenomenon (S. E. Lewis, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

Maximus the Confessor. (1985). Selected Writings (G. Berthold, Trans.). Paulist Press.

Palamas, G. (1983). The Triads (J. Meyendorff, Trans.). Paulist Press.

Yannaras, C. (2007). Relational Ontology. Holy Cross Orthodox Press.

Zizioulas, J. (1985). Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

______