About the Parisian “theologians”

“The transgressors have told me mockery, but not like Thy law, O Lord” (Ps. 119:85). In No. 3839 of December 7, 1935, an article by Mr. V. Ilyin appeared in the newspaper “Vozrozhdenie” under the title “About St. Sophia of the Wisdom of God." The article is remarkable in some respects and deserves attention and consideration. It briefly sets out the now intensively disseminated teaching about St. Sophia, and for one thing it also contains an attempt, so to speak, to sully the former and future denouncers of this spiritually harmful and anti-Christian trend in human thought. It seems that the appearance of such a purely special article in a daily and widespread newspaper is explained by the publication of the excellent, detailed work of Archbishop Seraphim Bogucharsky “New Teaching about St. Sophia of the Wisdom of God." In pre-war times, the right reverend author would probably have been rewarded for his work with the degree of Doctor of Theology, but now let the gratitude of Orthodox readers serve as his reward for his skillful and convincing exposure of the attempt to overthrow the teaching of St. The Church, which has as its “one” Head and “one” Intercessor – Christ, God’s Power and God’s Wisdom. Now let us turn to the analysis of Mr. Ilyin’s article, having previously stipulated that we do not pretend here, bound both by the size of our present work and by the complexity, intricacy and inconsistency of the new teaching, to a full and comprehensive consideration of the entire issue that interests us, and we limit ourselves to considering only those provisions that are contained in this article. Archbishop Seraphim entitled his book: “New, etc.” - Mr. Ilyin begins by trying to prove (later, as we will see, he himself contradicts this) that this teaching is not new. “You can hear the old in your newness.” It really can be heard. But the question is, where does the audible sound come from? This teaching, of course in a cruder form that is currently unacceptable for educated circles, has been characteristic of almost all Gnostic sects since the first centuries of Christianity. Through the Rosicrucians in the family of Jacob Boehme, whose works were translated into Russian at the end of the 18th century and became quite widespread, they also penetrated into Russia, but then, due to the closure of the Masonic lodges at the end of the reign of Emperor Alexander I, they were forgotten, and reappeared in the works of V. Solovyov, Fr. Pavel Florensky and in various God-seeking circles in Petrograd and Moscow. Its root is ancient - these are the mystical teachings of the Jewish rabbis of the time after the captivity of Babylon. Antiquity is heard, but from sources that are by no means ecclesiastical. But further, Mr. Ilyin says: “it would be a fundamental mistake to believe that this thinker (Fr. Bulgakov) invents or invents something... no, this is not an invention, not an invention - but a vision and a finding.” It is obvious that Mr. Ilyin still believes that he saw something “new”, something “new” was found by Fr. Bulgakov. Here one involuntarily recalls the first foreign works of Parisian theologians, which said that in our time, when people have become able to understand Christianity more deeply, and not only to understand more deeply, but also to introduce new concepts into its teaching, it requires the emergence of new prophets, and that these prophets will inevitably appear. Here's about. Bulgakov is obviously one of the expected “prophets”. New “prophets,” however, are not a new phenomenon, nor is the trust they inspire in many. They bore the names of Simon the Magus, Montana in ancient times, were in various mystical sects in the Middle Ages, then there were John of Leiden, Boehme, Swedenborg, Martinets Poskvalis, and here we have Danilo Filippovich, Ivan Suslov, in the last years before the war - Lupov for the people, and people like Ekaterina Filippovna Tatarinova for the intelligentsia. These visions and discoveries smack of Khlystyism, and it is not for nothing that the Russian Holy Synod, in its resolution of April 8 - May 5, 1909, before admitting a suspect of Khlysty to St. Communion demanded from him a brief confession of faith, the first paragraph of which reads: “Do you recognize that, besides the Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition preserved by the Orthodox Church, there are not and cannot be other sources of doctrine and new revelations through uncalled and secret teachers and false prophets?” Further, Mr. Ilyin writes: “this source (the teaching about Sophia) is general Christian, or rather general church, but in a special sense of the word specially Orthodox (an incomprehensible phrase: are “Church” and “Orthodoxy” different concepts, and “Orthodoxy” is included in some kind of broader “Church” that embraces it?), and even specially Russian: special, rooted in the depths the national spirit experiencing the Mother of the Raw Earth (with a capital letter) in her mysterious connection with the Mother of God.” This is news in theology, and the news is undeniable: folklore also turns out to be the source of religious doctrine! And the folklore of the people who adopted Christianity after a thousand years of the existence of St. Churches. But the very veneration of the earth is an undoubted remnant of paganism, which worshiped creatures as gods. In this paganism lies the source of this very experience, and how a human, even folk, experience can serve as a source of a doctrine that can be based only on instructions from above from the Holy Spirit, I am perplexed, and I would gladly receive a detailed explanation on this issue from Mr. Ilyin. After all, you never know what can be found in folklore. If I had become a Sophian (from which, God, save me), I might have come up with the following reasoning: in Russian folklore, the wise Tsar-Maiden is often mentioned - she obviously has some connection with the heavenly maiden Sophia, while Sophia “akhamot” has its reflection in Baba Yaga’s bone leg, with the help of a mortar and a broom (a symbol of the necessary purification) striving to break away from our spheres and rise to the top, to meet the Tsar-Maiden - Sophia. “The truth of the Lord endures forever! But created man, in whom this truth is imprinted, changes. And at the same time, a great Something – the truth of the Lord in him, remains forever.” Notice the way you use the scripture. King David in Psalm 116 says: “The truth of the Lord endures forever.” The word “truth” is also spoken of in some other psalms, for example. in 110, which ends with the words: “His praise endures forever.” - Mr. Ilyin adds the word “in him”, that is, in man, and begins to base the existence of the great “Something” (with a capital letter) on this, identifying it with the words “the truth of the Lord.” We know what this truth of the Lord is, which endures forever, from the words of the Lord Himself: “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). In the 1st letter of the Apostle John it is said that the Spirit is truth (1 John 5:6). Simply: God is truth, and the great “Something” has absolutely nothing to do with it. Let us skip further discussions on the topic of tertium datur, for this tertium, the great “Something,” is derived completely arbitrarily from the position “created in the image of the Uncreated.” You just have to think about it, and you will understand. In my opinion, this is not enough - we must provide at least some evidence. If you have thought about it, but we haven’t, then state the course of your thoughts, and do not demand faith at our word. “It begins in man, at the pinnacle of creation in the crown of creation, and most of all in the Mother of God, as the most perfect creature, there is some mysterious - Third - some Divine, abiding with God and in God. Because of this, we can say: there is some great Something in the Creator that can and has become His image in creation, due to which creation itself could not only become the image of God, but also give birth to God.” “This means,” again, as well as “due to this,” are hanging in the air and are completely unfounded by the previous provisions, but let us still consider Mr. Ilyin’s final conclusion. What is this Third? It abides with God and in God. In the essay by Fr. Bulgakov’s “Lamb of God” (p. 125) this third is directly defined as God’s “ousia,” the nature of God. This is the teaching of Damian, Patriarch of Alexandria (late 6th century), according to which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are united in the “ousia” that exists separately from the three phases. It turns out, according to Ilyin, that the great Something, the presence of God, is fragmented, partially residing in each individual person. From here the inevitable conclusion is that Something is not a limited creature, but God, for only God can not be limited by space and be everywhere, without losing either separation or damage from this. Thus, it turns out that we were created not only in the image of God and in likeness, but partly also in identity. A particle of the Divine abides in us no longer by grace and infinite mercy (“We will make an abode with him” - said in the future tense), but in essence, regardless of our personal relationship with God and His teaching. I don’t know how to reconcile the church teaching about the eternal death of sinners with such a view, for in this case this particle of the Divine cannot be sent to hell, and it is not appropriate for it to be present at the trial as an accused. It is also unclear how sin can defeat a being that has a particle of the Divine in itself. I hope that Mr. Ilyin does not allow the possibility of damage to this particle. And in general, all this is fraught with such consequences and conclusions, at least in relation to a practical view of the very path of salvation and the whole relationship of man to God, that a detailed consideration of this requires a separate, extensive study. We hope to try to do such a study, God willing, in a special work, and now let’s move on to the next one. “Your womb gave birth to God in our image (i.e., Your womb gave birth to God in our image). It is precisely by virtue of the existence of this Divine Something that not only man is created in the image of God, but also God is incarnate and born in the image of man. There is something in the Creator that can become and has become its image in creation, and there is something in creation that can become a container and, therefore, an image of the Creator.” It talks about the incarnation of the Lord and indicates the conditions that made this incarnation possible. In order to understand the full meaning of what has been said here, it is necessary to know the view of the Sophians on the One who became incarnate, on the God who, having used the great Something - Sophia, descended to earth and was born in our image. For this purpose, due to lack of data in Mr. Ilyin’s article, we are forced to turn to the teachings of Fr. Bulgakov. On page 210 of the book “Lamb of God” we find: “Logos is a demiurgic (sic) hypostasis, the face of which is sealed in the Divine world, as in the Divine Sophia, by the self-revelation of Flight through the Logos. The fast of the Logos is directly related to Sophia. In this sense, He is Sophia, as the self-revelation of the Divine, her immediate posture (although not the only one). Logos is Sophia in the sense that He has Sophia as His own content and life, for Sophia in the Divine is not only a collection of ideal lifeless images, but an organism of living intelligent essences that in themselves manifest the life of the Divine. Sophia is both heavenly humanity, as the prototype of the created, and as pre-eternally postatized in the Logos, she is the pre-eternal God-manhood.” But how can we understand this very complex construction? The Logos “not” is the only aspect of Sophia, uniting with the great Something, Sophia, who lives partially in the created earthly man. It is obvious that the omnipotence of God was not enough for the Logos to perceive human creation, or, which is actually indifferent, human creation would not have been able to perceive the Logos without the presence of a great Something in it. But Logos, according to Bulgakov, is the pre-eternal man, as the Prototype of created man. “The Logos Himself is Sophia, for it has Sophia as its own content and life.” Logos, Sophia, the organism of living intelligent beings - all this is somehow mixed and united. Logos is the heavenly man, Sophia is the heavenly humanity and at the same time, as we see above, the “ousia” of the Triune God Himself. After all, it turns out that heavenly humanity also has the right to be called the “ousia” of God. Philosophize - your mind will spin! “There is some great, bright and reverent mystery in the identification of the Mother of God and the Mother of the Raw Earth, as well as in the symbolic consonance of “mother” and “matter”... The Mother of God, being the appearance of the Heavenly Virgin, is at the same time the Spirit-bearing appearance of the Mother of the Raw Earth.” Consequently, the Mother of God, before Her birth, pre-existed in two separate beings, the Heavenly Virgin and the Mother of the Damp Earth (Ahamoth), both of whom were incarnated in Her. The absurdity is obvious. But maybe I misunderstood this whole phrase? But then you need to be offended by the author and say: “if this is not so, then why do you write in such a way that from your words it is impossible to draw anything other than such a strange conclusion?” From the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books it is clear that neither the Mother of God Herself nor the Archangel Gabriel (see the service for the Annunciation) knew the teachings of Mr. Ilyin. The Mother of God considered Herself a humble servant of the Lord, according to ancient legend, she fervently desired to be worthy of being at least the last servant of the Great Virgin predicted by the Prophet Isaiah, and obviously did not even suspect that She was at the same time both the Heavenly Virgin and the Mother of Cheese-Earth. The Gospel story about the Annunciation (Luke 1, 26-38) not only does not make it possible to substantiate the provisions preached by Mr. Ilyin, but clearly and definitely says something completely different: Archangel Gabriel is dealing with the same servile person to us, although he has a purity and holiness unattainable for other people, otherwise the question of the Holy Virgin: “how will this be, even if I have no husband,” he could not give the answer: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You and the power of the Highest will overshadow You,” speaking in the future tense and explaining this unknown miracle solely by the action of the omnipotence of the Holy Spirit. If the teaching of the Sophians were true, then the Archangel would have to answer something like this: “But You are the incarnation of the Heavenly Virgin and the Mother of the Raw Earth, and therefore the birth of God by You is not at all surprising.” If they tell us: “But the power of the Most High is the Heavenly Virgin,” then even then it turns out that this Virgin did not incarnate in the Mother of God, but inhabited Her in collaboration with the Holy Spirit already a certain number of years after birth. As for the mysterious consonance “mother” and “matter,” there are more mysterious consonances where the genetic connection is more difficult to discern, for example, “bug” and “encyclopedia.” “Those who die in Christ, although they go to the earth, according to the word of God, which was not canceled until the general resurrection of the dead, they are no longer received by the cursed, but by the blessed earth, the holy land, the land sanctified by the spirit-bearing burning of the Burning Bush. This is why the intercession of the Mother of God at the hour of death is so important. The entire sacrament of funeral and burial, as it were, takes the deceased under the roof of the Heavenly Virgin, and this is his osophia, that is, the return of the Divine Image to him.” I cited this excerpt to show once again how strangely Mr. Ilyin theologizes. I don’t know where it can be seen that the earth, “consumed by fire” (2 Peter 3:7), is osophie, and what this osophie means and how it is manifested. The Apostle Peter speaks very clearly about the fate of the earth, and it does not follow from his words that the earth itself, or even the visible heavens, would be especially sacred, for he clearly points to their destruction, caused by the same reasons as the flood in ancient times. Yes, if the land is sophisticated, then, perhaps, a new one is not needed. In any case, the destruction of the deified, the osophic, also somehow does not fit well into the mind. It should not be forgotten that the Mother of God (Burning Bush) is a “spirit-bearing manifestation of the Mother of the Raw Earth.” In fact, the earth, cursed after the fall of Adam, remained the same, for all the unpleasant consequences of life on it, indicated in this part of Scripture, persist even now; but not as a result of confusion, but as a result of the coming of Christ, “who tore up the handwriting of our sins, the sheep of the chosen flock, depicted in the kindness of old, who appeared before the Lord undefiled and blameless,” will be given a new land, after destruction or transformation by the present fire (2 Peter 3:10-13). To support his thought, Mr. Ilyin here also refers to Orthodox worship, but the reference is unsuccessful. In the entire rite of burial of worldly people there is nothing useful for him, and the entire sequence of this burial is built according to the general type of divine services of the Orthodox Church, and in it there are no more and no less appeals to the Mother of God than in any other sequence. It seems that Mr. Ilyin confused the rite of burial with the canon for the exodus of the soul, which in fact, with almost all of its troparions, is addressed to the Mother of God. But even here we will not find anything favorable for the new teaching, for in this canon not a word is said about the body or the earth, whether osophic or simple, it makes no difference, and the matter is always exclusively about the fate of the soul of the dying person. The reason for such a composition of the Canon is also indicated there: “Having bowed to the Lady and Most Pure Mother of God, pray (appeal to the Angels) that He may kneel with you and bend Him to mercy. The Mother of Being and the Nourisher will be heard.” The Son will be heard as Mother and Nourisher, which is completely understandable and sufficient, and it is absolutely impossible to substantiate the Heavenly Virgin or the Mother of the Raw Earth on this canon. “The Mother of God is called the second Eve and came from the first Eve. Therefore, there is a certain God’s plan for Eve-life, and therefore there is a Heavenly Eve, a personal being - for God cannot have an imperfect, impersonal, and even more so an impersonal plan for the All-One Existing, for He Himself is an existing and Personal Being.” Not to mention the fact that here, as before, “therefore” and “consequently” are again not substantiated at all by either the beginning or the end of the phrase; this whole reasoning is very strange. Firstly, one must think that the Lord God has in his plans everything that was and that will be, from which it does not at all follow that what is in the plan has already been fulfilled, and certainly as a person. A personality is a personality, and a plan before its execution is a plan. In this way, one can recognize the coeternity with God of both matter and everything that exists, starting from the Archangel and ending with Kokhov’s comma. It is interesting that the teacher of the Sophians, V.S. Solovyov, did not recognize it as possible to accept the doctrine of the creation of the world from nothing, as can be seen from his “Three Conversations about the Antichrist” (vol. 8 p. 560). It is obvious that the recognition of the existence of Sophia is inextricably linked with the denial of the Church’s teaching on creation, which, however, is indeed the case, and one false teaching inevitably confirms another. As for the All-One Existing One, I resolutely refuse to understand by this name anyone other than the glorified God Himself in the Holy Trinity, and therefore I think that the end of the phrase does not deserve objection. But the most interesting thing is that the very name Eve is not a life of divine origin at all, and therefore cannot have any relation to the indicated plan and the Heavenly Virgin. The fact is that the name “Eve” was given not by God, but by Adam, and was given after the Fall (Gen. 3:20). Up to this point, our foremother does not have a name, and everywhere she is not called “isha” - wife. Not even a woman, but a wife, because the word “isha” is feminine from “ish” - husband. It is clear that by calling his assistant the name Eve (Havva - the beginning, the source of life), Adam meant only that all future humanity would receive life by having her, that is, a wife, as the first mother in a long line of births. However, the indicated verse 20 ends with the words: “like she is the mother of all living.” “You cannot be love and love without having an object of love.” The question of Divine life before creation is raised here. Only the existence of a Divine being coeternal with God, which is also the “usia” of God Himself, does not at all resolve this question, for God’s love for His “ousia” is again love for Himself. But St. The Fathers also resolved this question, as far as it is generally possible to resolve and comprehend to the core what is inaccessible to the weak and limited human mind, the essence and inner being of God. In brief words, the solution is as follows: for God there is no time, no past, no future. “Every past is no longer existing, and every future is not yet existing, therefore both the past and the future are a lack of being. But there is nothing lacking in God. Therefore, God has neither past nor future - but only present” (Blessed Augustine). You will find the same idea in other fathers, for example. at St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory the Great. When trying to comprehend God, the Fathers also used this technique: everything that is good in a person, in its absolute power, we have the right to attribute to God, and some ability to love those who do not yet exist is characteristic of man: thus, one can love descendants that do not yet exist, which, regarding immediate children, is inherent in a very large number of women. “The Mother of God is called being. So, the Church teaches about the Existing God and the Existing Mother of God, and this means that the Most Holy. The Mother of God is the image and manifestation of the Divine Being, who is Sophia the Wisdom of God.” Doesn't mean that at all. There is no talk here of any manifestation of the Existing Divine, and the word “existent” is used here in the true sense and is aimed at refuting the heresy of Nestorius. In general, it is better not to refer to the divine service of the Sophians. One can cite a large number of Theotokos, where Wisdom in the sense of God the Word is indicated as born of the Holy One. Virgin, and not a single one where this word would mean anything else. For example: “Wisdom and the Word were conceived in Your womb, without burning, Mother of God, you gave birth to the world, the Container of the world, and in your arms you bore the whole Bearer, the Nourisher of all and the Creator of creation” (Mineaion. April 5. Theotokos according to the 3rd song of the canon). And, I repeat, there are many of them. In order not to go far, the same Mother of God is repeated on the 16th and 30th of April. We meet unambiguous ones on March 6th and 31st, April 28th, etc. Further, Mr. Ilyin argues that the text from the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (1, 24), where the Lord Jesus Christ is called God's Power and God's Wisdom, is cited illegally by opponents of Sophianism: “If we leave aside the base, vulgarly political goals of polemics with sophiology, then we will have to explain the appearance of such an argument by the reluctance to think through the texts to the end and abandon banal literalism (nominalism), more suitable for left-wing Protestants, for example. Batians and Baptists than Orthodox theologians." Let's make a small digression. What a disgusting way to conduct polemics! To sully dissent and deny in advance the possibility of sincerity on their part. And this is characteristic not only of Mr. Ilyin, but also of other Parisian theologians. Mr. Ilyin at the very beginning of the article says that those who object to him, Fr. Bulgakov and Kartashev are objected to in such a way that their interpretation turns out to be a “stone on the neck” of poor, clearly unscrupulous opponents. This should be supported by something, i.e., the fact that the “materials on the basis of which” the above-mentioned adversaries base their accusations of heresy are missing, or are incorrectly interpreted, and not be limited to just an unfounded “indication.” As for the stone, this is not very scary, for the stone is indicated in Scripture as a punishment too light for the seducers of these little ones, and not at all for bad polemicists. Mr. Kartashov, praising one of the reports of Fr. Bulgakov, announced that any objection would undoubtedly be caused either by envy or politicking. But I think that it is unlikely that envy forced the Right Reverend Seraphim of Bogucharsky, and earlier John of Shanghai, to analyze the Sophian teaching. Rather, there was an impulse expressed anciently by King David: “I have received sorrow from sinners who forsake Thy law” and “It is time for the Lord to do: I have destroyed Thy law” (Psalm 119:53.126). As for the political motives allegedly guiding these authors, this accusation is simply dishonest; the accusers themselves cannot believe it, due to its obvious absurdity and inapplicability to these two hierarchs, who enjoy universal respect. The matter is much simpler. Anyone who seeks to introduce a new teaching must be prepared in advance that not everyone will agree with him, that objections are inevitable; defense by unsubstantiated mudslinging and attributing base motives to opponents is a technique, to put it mildly, unscientific, and not very convincing. Now let’s talk about the text itself (1 Cor. 1:24), trying to “think through” this text “to the end.” The question to be resolved is whether the Apostle Paul here accidentally called Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? I think this is no coincidence. The Apostle Paul was a student of Gamaliel, about whom it is known that he taught not only the teachings of the rabbis, but also Hellenic wisdom. (See about this in the Talmud). Therefore, St. The Apostle knew the rabbinical teaching about Memra (in Kabbalah - Metatron) - the main power of God, a being different from God Himself (the Word of God). This Memra was attributed to many things that, according to the teaching of the Church, relate to the Messiah. And so one can, not without reason, assume that the Apostle Paul gave the Lord Jesus Christ the name of Power and Wisdom in order to put the concept of Logos (Memra and Logos in Philo of Alexandria are united into one being) to the right point. I, of course, cannot insist on the unconditional correctness of this assumption of mine, but in any case it has more credibility behind it than Mr. Ilyin’s unfounded assertion that the reference to our text “does not stand up to criticism from the point of view of Orthodox Church realism.” What is certain, however, is that St. The Apostle Paul did not share the teachings of either the Rabbis or the Greek-Jews about God’s Power and Wisdom, otherwise he, of course, would have given Christ some other names, if only so as not to introduce ambiguity and uncertainty into the teaching he preached. “We can say about the Second Fast of the Most Holy Trinity that it has a countless number of attributes (properties), each of which expresses an eternal and infinite essence, and all of them together are a living personal Unity. Among them, the attribute of Sophia precisely expresses the eternal, infinite essence and living personal concrete All-Unity.” Let us note that here the definition of the Second Poststasy and Its attitude towards Sophia is somewhat different than that of Fr. Bulgakov, cited above, but we will not dwell on this, because the reconciliation of numerous contradictions in the Sophian teaching, sometimes found in the same author, is not part of our task, but we will analyze only this particular construction of Mr. Ilyin. From this construction it follows, firstly, that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is a complex Being, for it consists of a set of attributes, and precisely consists of them, and does not have them as actions of His simple and uncomplicated nature (together they are a living personal Unity). Sophia also consists of the same combined attributes, although at the same time she is one of them and expresses them all together. Secondly, it is absolutely inevitable from what Mr. Ilyin said earlier that God cannot have an imperfect, impersonal, and even more so an impersonal plan for the All-One Existing One, it follows that there cannot be an impersonal plan for each attribute that expresses the eternal and infinite essence. They, according to this teaching, must all be postasized. Here you have an endless pantheon of derivative, but coeternal gods with the One God, with the Tabor light of the Barlaamites and the name “Jesus” of our name-worshipers, inclusive. Here I remember that the defense of the teaching of the head of the name-worshippers, Schemamonk Bulatovich, against his denunciations made by the now living Metropolitan Anthony and S.V. Troitsky, and the late Archbishop Nikon of Vologda, came from the same circles from which the teaching about St. Sofia. We don’t understand the next few lines of the article, it says that the Tabor light is the manifestation of the uncreated Glory of God in created beauty, and that light is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, is the posture of the Holy Spirit, that the flesh of our Lord, although of created origin, is rooted in eternity. No evidence has been provided, which gives us the right to move on to conclusions from all of the above. It is absolutely clear that the sources of this teaching cannot and do not serve as St. Scripture, nor St. Tradition, nor the creation of the Fathers and teachers of the Church. There is nothing in Scripture about St. Sophia cannot be found, and there is even a lot against her existence. Throughout all Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, a red thread runs through the idea that the Lord God acts on earth directly and immediately without any tertium, and this idea is so inherent in all Scripture that we will find confirmation of it on any page. It talks about the servants of God invisible to us, St. The angels, it is said clearly and definitely, are told about many cases of their activity in fulfilling the commandments of God on earth, and it is so clear that the silence about something higher, but much more necessary for humanity, becomes completely inexplicable. Meanwhile, it is completely unacceptable to introduce into the teaching of the Church something of which there is not a hint in St. Scripture. Such theologizing deprives the teaching of the Church of that stability, without which the unanimity of Her members, dead, living and those still on their earthly path until the second coming of Christ, becomes impossible. Without this same unanimity, a body cannot live, which has a Single Head, i.e., the Church itself cannot exist, the belief in which existence is taught to us by the Symbol of Faith. The teaching about Sophia is not even an explanation, or an in-depth understanding of the original teaching of the Church, but is a “different” teaching, for it, introducing a previously unknown being into the life of the body of Christ, changes the very concept of the Triune God Himself. Then I believe that in St. There is more to the Scriptures than silence about Sophia. After all, the Lord Jesus Christ conveyed to the apostles “all” the truth accessible to the human mind, for the teaching of which he sent the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, from the Father. So if, on the basis of “visions” and “findings,” we introduce new views on this truth, then we will undoubtedly discredit the activity of the Holy Spirit Himself, recognizing it as incomplete and insufficient. In a word, we admit that we can know more and understand better than St. apostles after Pentecost. To explain the undoubted fact of silence in Scripture about tertium, one of four must be admitted: 1) Christ did not know about the existence of Sophia; 2) Christ knew, but found the people contemporary with His earthly feat incapable of accepting this teaching, and therefore kept silent about it; 3) Christ conveyed this teaching to the apostles under the condition of maintaining secrecy, and therefore they initiated only a select few into it; 4) there was and is no Sophia, no tertium. The first position, of course, does not exist for a Christian, and only those who do not believe in the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ can dwell on it. The second is incorrect because the teaching about Sophia in the person of Memra and the Word of God in the Kabbalah and Targums, as we have already said, was spread among the Jews, and the apostles Paul and John undoubtedly knew the teachings of Philo and Cerinthus, where the mediation of the Power of God between God Himself and the created world was in one form or another. The Apostle John, in the first verses of his Gospel, as well as in his first letter, precisely refutes this concept of Sophia-Logos, and directly and definitely says: The Logos is the One who became incarnate. He is also the true God, one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity (John 1, 1–3; 1 John 1, 1–2). The same can be said about those places in the epistles of the Apostle Paul where, speaking about Christ, St. The apostle adds the word “one,” as for example: “For there is one God, and one Advocate for God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). The polemical side in these books of Scripture, however, is recognized by many learned exegetes. The third assumption is refuted by the fact that in St. The Church has preserved the uninterrupted succession of ordinations, as well as the impossibility for the infallible Church to lose the truth inherent in It from the beginning, and, therefore, only the fourth remains, which should be recognized as the only correct one. In St. In the tradition (decrees of the Councils, divine services) Messrs. Sophians will not find anything other than, sometimes indirect, and sometimes direct, refutations of their teachings, just as in the works of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church. Does this not explain the completely non-Orthodox attitude of the new teachers towards these sources of Church teaching? To clarify this relationship, we have to turn to the view of the Sophian Pope Bulgakov on this subject. His look at the Fathers is from top to bottom. They all get it for insufficient thought, excused only by the time of their activity. Sometimes, like for example. St. Cyril of Alexandria is accused of heretical opinions. Strongly hits in the book “Icon and Icon Veneration” by St. Theodore the Studite and St. John of Damascus. But heretics, like Apollinaris and Nestorius, are presented to readers as people who are undoubtedly deeper, and, if they were not able to finally resolve the Christological question, which is only now being fully understood by Parisian theologians, then, in any case, they are closer to the Fathers recognized by the Church and have come closer to its correct understanding. In general, the fathers are outdated, and from reading the works of Fr. Bulgakov, and partly other persons of the same group, it is clear that their significance at the present time is only historical and new theologians have absolutely nothing to learn from them. The Ecumenical Councils, especially the Chalcedonian and 7th Ecumenical Councils, are also not authoritative for the Sophians: their decisions, due to a lack of understanding of the depth of the issues they discussed, are either completely insufficient or self-contradictory. But, from the point of view of the Sophian, it could not have been otherwise. Not knowing about the existence of Sophia and St. The Fathers and Councils acted and thought in darkness, blindfolded. Since Sophia touches and invades the entire teaching of St. Church, it is obvious that all conclusions made subject to the exclusion of the concept of it must be either incorrect or insufficient. Orthodox worship is not used, at least by Fr. Bulgakov, with due respect: but this is a very authoritative source of religious doctrine. Liturgical books, except for a small number of the latest sequences and akathists, are accepted by the “whole” Church. And therefore, in the fair opinion of our famous liturgist A. A. Dmitrievsky, who complained about the insufficient use of them by our dogmatists, they occupy in St. Tradition has a place ahead of the Church Fathers, in whose teaching there can still be and are, of course, minor disagreements and errors. Let's give an example: in the service on Maundy Thursday, Fr. Bulgakov is offended by the unfair, in his opinion, attitude towards Judas, and he, defending the innocently offended, declares: “With such a stylization of Judas, whatever its ecclesiastical and pedagogical motives, the dissonance becomes even more acute. Judas, with his presence near Christ, introduces incomprehensibility and incoherence into the history of Christ’s passion. Both the mind and the heart are equally exhausted by this contradiction...” “And it is precisely this kind of disintegrating and poisonous contradiction that the story of Judas contains, and only habit, combined with indifference, dulls its caustic edge in us” (Path, No. 26, pp. 4–5). Now we can say: Parlez pour vous. This service is very ancient, originally appearing in the Jerusalem Church (Dmitrievsky), and for many centuries now the Orthodox Church has been listening to it with heartfelt tenderness, not noticing absolutely any dissonance, incomprehensibility and incoherence. But in the 20th century there is one not “indifferent” shepherd who boldly and decisively condemns it, without noticing, obviously, that by doing this he is psychologically disconnected from all of the Holy Spirit. The Church represented by its living and deceased members. Let's move on to the attitude of Fr. Bulgakov to St. Scripture. Alas, it is such that it is difficult to find strong enough words to describe it. Mr. Ilyin did not carefully accuse his opponents of using St. Scripture suitable only for left-wing Protestants, Barthians and Baptists. Here there is something reminiscent of a pickpocket's trick, when he runs after an innocent passer-by and shouts: “Stop the thief!” This is the attitude towards the writings of St. Evangelist John the Theologian. I provide exact extracts. “In the Fourth Gospel we constantly feel both this polarity and this silent opposition. It is even expressed in that special shade of intransigence that is inherent in the depiction of Judas in the Gospel of John.” “John and Judas - this opposition is wordlessly woven into the narration of the Gospel of John, in which - a remarkable feature - there is not a single reproachful word about Judas.” “The evangelist John, faithful to his stylization of Judas, did not fail to add: “he said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and had a box, and accepted contributions” (John 12, 6)” (Way No. 26, pp. 22, 29). “In the Gospel narrative about Judas, two types are sharply distinguished, synoptic and Johannine, which in their combination represent an obvious antinomy.” (Path No. 27, page 3). Read these lines and tell me what Fr. dares to do. Bulgakov to blame the Great Evangelist? Yes, no more and nothing less than slander! The meaning is that the Apostle John hated Judas so much that in his Gospel he systematically tried to present him not as he really was, but as incomparably worse and vile. This is about the Gospel of the Apostle John. But then we learn another thing. It turns out that St. The Apostle Peter did not know how to interpret, or deliberately misinterpreted St. Scripture. Quoting the words of St. Apostle (Acts 1, 1–20) and his reference to psalms 68, 2 and 108, 80, Bulgakov says: “In this very sense, the indicated texts of the psalms are interpreted, not without violence to their direct meaning” (Ibid, no. 27, p. 5). The Apostle Paul was also not abandoned. Bulgakov without appropriate assessment. The following is said about him: “The psychological image of a pious Jew in this regard (fear of idolatry) is shown to us by the Apostle Paul, who, being in Athens, face to face with the highest achievements of Hellenic art, was only troubled in spirit at the sight of this city full of idols (Acts 17:16). He saw nothing except idols.” Isn't that a strong word! Strongly, but also simply untrue. You only have to read the story to the end to throw up your hands in amazement that Fr. Bulgakov has nothing in him except the fanatical blindness of St. I didn’t see the Apostle. Thus Fr. Bulgakov builds on St. The Apostles have approximately the same accusations of bias, incorrect use of texts and a fanatical reluctance to think about them, with which Mr. Ilyin awarded the opponents of the Sophian teaching. It goes without saying that such an attitude towards the holy writers cannot be approved by any Orthodox, but for the Sophians it is necessary for a more free construction of their teaching. Only this is what. Of course, St. The apostles, as people subservient to us, in their lives and private judgments could, however, to an immeasurably lesser extent than we sinners, be mistaken, but they wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In their writings, therefore, they “could not have been mistaken,” otherwise, if this is not so, then all Christian truths, including up to the Resurrection of Christ, can be called into question. Holy Scripture is the voice of the Holy Spirit, and Fr. Bulgakov is nothing more than blasphemy against the Spirit Himself, which is not even characteristic of all heretics. A few more words about the fact that Mr. Ilyin, in response to the accusation of pantheism, throws this accusation back at his opponents. The fluctuation of human thought between pantheism and anthropomorphism is a completely natural thing and, due to the imperfection of our mind, inevitable. It is easy to deviate in either direction, which is why accusations of various writers of one bias or another are so frequent. This is one of those aspects of theological thinking where strict church teaching acts as a particularly necessary criterion that keeps us from sometimes involuntary errors. But one who has read deeply into the Fathers and Teachers of the Church (maybe with the exception of Tertullian) will be protected from anthropomorphism; against pantheism, the most reliable guardian is liturgical books, which radically destroy the very possibility of thinking about God as something impersonal and not having the most direct and close relationship to us. The words of the Lord that a hair will not fall without His will receive more comprehensive and comprehensive expression here. Anyone who has perceived the contents of these books with his mind and heart is already psychologically protected from any pantheistic bias, and, however, as with the fathers, pantheism, so here anthropomorphism, is decisively excluded. In general, in this matter it is useful to always remember the rule of St. Hilaria: “We should not speak of God otherwise than as He Himself spoke of Himself for our understanding” (de Trinit). Let us finish our too-long work with the following reflection, or rather, a warning to people who do not look at the new teaching seriously enough and do not want to see its danger and destructiveness. The doctrine of Sophia in its new form is currently in a period of development and development. From V.S. Solevyov with his Sofia Petrovna, through Blok’s beautiful lady and various God-seeking circles in Petrograd and Moscow, through the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Fr. Pavel Florensky, it is still being clarified. Sophia is expanding her field of activity more and more, the Lord God is moving more and more away from us. God is already defined by the Sophians as the “Nothing” of the Gnostics, and the concept of Him comes closer to the Zohar’s concept of “Ensof the non-existent.” His direct manifestation in the world is almost definitely denied, and one Great Something acts everywhere - Sophia. What's next? The first and main commandment says: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength” (Mark 12:30; Deut. 6:4–5). Don’t the new “prophets” see that their teaching makes the fulfillment of this commandment psychologically impossible? It is impossible to love with all our soul and all our mind a being that is somehow separated from us, has no direct relation to us, and whose direct invocation cannot be justified by the teaching about Him. I affirm with confidence that since the idea of ​​God’s immediate proximity to us is fundamentally discredited, then fervent prayer to Him is also impossible. It is impossible to cry with all your heart: “Come and dwell in us,” once you know that He is far away, that only a being different from Him, some kind of “Something” (the definition itself is characteristic) can act in the created world. If we accept this teaching, then, instead of the one God worshiped in the Trinity, we will receive for this worship and prayer a great “Something”, and He will already turn out to be the Great “Nothing”. And since the great “Something” does not exist, then we will be left with only darkness, darkness and despair with not the Great, but simply an empty, faceless “nothing” with a small letter. “Take heed of the false prophet, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruit you will know them; you will gather food from thorns, or from figs” (Matthew 7:15-16). “The transgressors have told me mockery, but not like Thy law, O Lord” (Psalm 119:85).