Determination of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dated October 17/30, 1935 on the new teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov about Sophia - the Wisdom of God

Contents The teaching of Archpriest S. Bulgakov about Sophia - the Wisdom of God The definition of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dated October 17/30, 1935 about the new teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov about Sophia - the Wisdom of God The teaching of Archpriest S. Bulgakov about Sophia - the Wisdom of God Letter from His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony to His Eminence Metropolitan Eulogius. Your Eminence, Gracious Archpastor. In pursuance of the Council's decision, I hereby forward to you a copy of the report of the Commission appointed by the Council to discuss the teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov about St. Sophia, as well as the resolution adopted by the Council after hearing the above-mentioned report. This is not the first time that the teachings of Archpriest S. Bulgakov have attracted our attention. Your Eminence is aware of the message of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia published in 1927, which pointed out some deviations from Orthodoxy in his writings. The mentioned message did not examine the teachings of Archpriest Bulgakov in all details, but only pointed to its non-Orthodox and harmful direction. Archpriest Bulgakov not only did not try to free his theology from the thoughts that caused these justified criticisms, but on the contrary, he published a number of new works in which he sets out his views in even more detail. These views are analyzed in the recently published work of His Eminence Archbishop Seraphim, which was given to you during your time in Sremski Karlovci. Earlier, the teaching of Archpriest Bulgakov was subjected to very thorough criticism by the Most Reverend John (Maximovich), Bishop of Shanghai, in the book that I am sending you here. But besides these and other printed speeches, the teachings of Archpriest Bulgakov caused and are causing quite a bit of talk in church society. His very position as the head of the only Russian theological school in Western Europe gives the books of Archpriest Bulgakov such importance among readers of Russian theological literature abroad that one or another judgment of the hierarchy about his teaching has become urgently necessary. Starting again with such a judgment, no longer in the Synod, but in the Council, we found it unnecessary to ask for any explanation from the author, both because he is not under our subordination and because his the teaching is quite fully known to everyone from his printed works. Let Archpriest Bulgakov, referring to some of his other formulations, claim that he does not deviate from the generally accepted teaching of the Orthodox Church; let in his lectures, as you told us here, Archpriest Bulgakov not preach this teaching, but expound the Orthodox Faith as we have received it from the Holy Spirit. Fathers, - this does not change the essence of the matter at all, for the contradiction between Orthodox teaching and the thoughts contained in his printed works is so deep that before his renunciation of his heresy, Orthodox lectures to his students in terms of the content, without reducing the harm from his printed works, could not have been completely convincing to listeners, inevitably causing them bewilderment. The works of Archpriest Bulgakov are distributed as widely as possible for Russian theological works abroad, they represent a temptation for young people studying theology, and further silence from the church authorities would create the impression that the originality of Archpriest Bulgakov’s thoughts does not go beyond the limits within which new thoughts and interpretations are permissible for an Orthodox theologian. Within certain limits, there is such freedom, but every author who values ​​his unanimity with the Holy Church must take care not to exceed these limits. Every thought new to theological science, every interpretation, must proceed from the teachings professed for centuries by the Holy Church through the Holy Fathers and Teachers. Each of our theologumens must be tested and supported by their creations, and if in defending the latter we have to, as Archpriest Bulgakov does, enter into a dispute with the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Fathers, then from this it is clear that this teaching is a non-Orthodox innovation that can only sow temptation and division. Without doubting that you will fully agree with both our Council decision and the thoughts I expressed in this letter, I ask you to notify me about the future. Your Eminence's devoted brother November 27/December 4, 1935 No. 725 Sremski Karlovci. Determination of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dated October 17/30, 1935 on the new teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov about Sophia - the Wisdom of God On October 17/30, 1935, they listened to: a report, separated from the Council, by the Commission to consider the new teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov about Sophia the Wisdom of God, with the following content: “The teaching of Archpriest Bulgakov about Sophia the Wisdom of God, set out in his works: “The Light of the Evening”, “The Burning Bush”, “Lamb of God”, “The Burning Bush”, “Lamb of God”, “Hypostasis and Hypostasis”, “Friend of the Bridegroom”, does not have sufficient justification for itself either in the word of God or in the works of the Holy Spirit. Fathers of the Church. All attempts of Archpriest Bulgakov to base his Sophia teaching on the evidence of Divine Revelation and patristic teaching seem completely untenable. In place of such justification on the authorities recognized by the Holy Church, the author had to look for them in the philosophy of the pagan Plato 1 and in the Kabbalistic teachings 2 . But to an even greater extent he draws his thoughts from Gnosticism, long condemned by the Church, and especially from the teachings of the Valentinian Gnostics. This is his teaching about the two wisdoms 3, about the image of God 4, about Sophia as the essence of creation 5, and as the creator of the world and the mediating being between God and the world 6. We see the same thing in the same names of this intermediate being Sophia and Earth. Bulgakov on the one hand, and the Gnostic Valentinians on the other 7. Thus, it is not the teaching of the Church that is the basis of the teaching of Fr. Bulgakov about Sophia, and the Gnostic thought about a medium, without which, supposedly, God cannot have contact with the created world. Accordingly, Archpriest Bulgakov poses the question: “is it possible for a direct, immediate relationship between God and the world, the Creator and creation, and the Absolute and the relative? Is there and can there be some kind of mediation between God and the world (metaxi), the need for which is not eliminated even with the trinity of the Divine?... Here, he continues, the question arises about Wisdom, as the eternal foundation of the world in God, as the eternal world, the created image of which, a projection in time, is the created world” 8. “The usual opinion is to say about. Bulgakov, is such that there can be no mediation between God and creation: tertium non datur. But in reality, between God and creation there is this mediation - tertium datur, and this tertium is Sophia, the Existing Wisdom of God, eternal and created" 9 . This Gnostic thought about mediation, as the initial one, is found in Bulgakov’s teaching about creation 10, about the incarnation 11 and about the ascension 12 of the Savior. It permeates all Sophia’s definitions and his entire teaching about Sophia the Wisdom of God and, above all, this false thought is the Gnostic basis of the teaching of Fr. Bulgakov is the cause of a great many contradictions inherent in his teaching about Sophia. Thus, declaring in one of his works that the Divine Sophia is not a hypostasis, but a hypostasis 13, in another he asserts something completely different, saying that Sophia is a hypostasis and even a fourth hypostasis 14. In his essay “Hypostasis and Hypostasis,” he says that “The Wisdom of God must be strictly distinguished from the essence of God or the nature of usia or fisis” 15 . And in the book “Lamb of God” Sophia and usia (the essence of God or the Divine nature) are identified by him 16. Further, in the book “The Never-Evening Light” we read his testimony that Sophia is not a creature 17, but it also says that she is “a creation and daughter of God” 18. Similarly, in the same “Non-Evening Light” he expresses the position that “Sophia does not have its own power, but receives it from God” 19, while on the next page, as well as in his other works, he defines the same Sophia as a creative or peace-making principle 20. The same contradiction is seen in those of his definitions, where he either claims that Sophia is not God 21 or gives her names that are applicable only to God alone, without stopping even to call her “goddess” 22. We find many of the same contradictions in his disclosure of the doctrine of Sophia as ousia, and of the incarnation 23. We see the same deviation from the teachings of the Orthodox Church in the errors of Fr. Bulgakov, if we begin to look at them from the ideological side, and the reason for them is the same false Gnostic basis of his Sophian teaching. From this point of view, in general, his entire teaching about Sophia cannot but be recognized as carrying out a renewed dualism, for in this teaching he, along with our church teaching about the Holy Trinity, proposes in the person of Sophia the teaching about some other God 24. At the same time, his desire to reveal and substantiate in the same Sophia the unity that embraces all things, calling it the old term “soul of the world” 25, reveals in him an equally non-Orthodox pantheistic worldview. In the doctrine of the creation of the world, by introducing the assistance of Gnostic mediation, it is distorted by Fr. Bulgakov's Orthodox doctrine of creation up to its rejection. For the Holy Church teaches that God created the world through His Hypostatic Word and through the Holy Spirit, without thinking and certainly not allowing any intermediaries and assistance here (which, as ministering forces, are already allowed in the ways of God’s providence for the created world - Heb. 1, 7, 14), and Fr. Bulgakov states: “in the beginning, that is, in Sophia, through Sophia, on the basis of Sophia, God created heaven and earth in Sophia” 26 . With these words, introducing such a gnostic medium during the creation of the world, he obscures with it the Divine medium of the Son and the Spirit, leaving no room for the activity of One and the Other. Therefore, we must recognize his designated teaching as heretical, as a revival of ancient Gnosticism, adjoining the Arian heresy and for all this falling under the condemnation of the Holy Church at the 1st and then at the 6th Ecumenical Councils, along with other heretical false teachings? 27 Further, in the definition of Sophia, where she is called “the energy of God” and where Sophia, as the action of God, is identified with God himself 28, the heresy of the Barlaamites is repeated, which, in contrast to the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas identified the energy of God with God Himself 29, for which they were condemned by the definitions of the local councils of Constantinople in 1347 and 1351 30. Likewise, in the name in which Sophia is defined by the name of God, through which she comes closer to the degree of identification with God Himself 31 , we find features similar to the heretical teaching of one of the extreme representatives of Arianism - Eunomius, who also identified the name of God (Unborn) with God Himself 32 , which heresy was condemned by the definition of the Second Ecumenical Council, in its first rule. Renewed in the form of name-worship on Mount Athos, it was condemned both by the Synod of the Church of Constantinople headed by Patriarch Herman in 1913, and by our All-Russian Synod 33 . An even more crude heresy, contrary to the very essence of the Christian faith, is introduced by Fr. Bulgakov in his already mentioned definition of Sophia as Usia, the being of God, which he calls an original principle along with the Divine Hypostases 34 for this gives us the concept of Sophia-Usia as some kind of second God, contrary to the teaching of the Holy Church. The latter, as we all know well, looks at the Being of God and the Divine three Hypostases not as two, but as one original, that is, the Divine principle. Both in the Old Testament, and in the words of the Savior Himself - “the first of all commandments: Hear Israel: the Lord our God is one God” (Mark 12:29; Deuteronomy 6:4), and all Divine Revelation, starting with the 1st commandment, most strictly forbids the admission of any other gods: “there is no one but one God,” we know, precisely emphasized and St. Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 8:4). And that’s why “this is the Catholic faith, so that we honor one God in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity, below merging the Hypostases, below dividing the Being.” After all, it is absolutely certain that the original principle can only be God, as a single Divine Being, which in our Christian teaching is both the Divine nature in the entire Holy Trinity, and each Hypostasis separately, which was also noted by St. Abba Thalassius: “Hypostasis defines a nature with personal properties, so that each Hypostasis has both that which is common to nature and that which is proper to the Hypostasis” 35. But, defining Sophia as a kind of original Usia, Fr. Bulgakov places her, despite all his reservations, in the position of a special Divine Being. If on the one hand we find Fr. Bulgakov’s expressions in which this Usia is identified with the being of God to the degree of fusion, in which the very nature of God is interpreted and viewed as Sophia 36, then on the other hand in Sophia he has not only “God loves Himself in His self-revelation, loves HIS being in itself, objectified and materialized, but also Sophia, this self-revelation, loves the hypostatic God-Love reciprocal love; she not only belongs to God, but also is God, that is, she loves the Trinitarian God” 37. Here Sophia is interpreted as another Divine being, next to the being of God, which contradicts the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity 38. Let us now move on to consider the teachings of Archpriest Bulgakov on the incarnation. In revealing this dogma, Fr. Bulgakov inevitably had to face the definition of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, which established with such clarity that the union of two natures in Christ, divine and human, occurred for both of His natures “unfused, indivisible and inseparable.” Of course, with such a teaching, there can be no talk of any Sophianism at this moment, because with a direct, true and clear perception of it, there is no place for either the Divine or the created Sophia, and therefore Archpriest Bulgakov, one might say, has a calm conscience. as much as he can, he tries to weaken and belittle him. According to him, this definition “is incomplete and unfinished is by no means a theological achievement, and in theological thought it remained an unexplained scheme that requires additional understanding (of course, in the spirit of the Sophianism imposed by it), and without it it remains like a “clanking cymbal” 39. He even states that “the dogma of Chalcedon is limited to a general establishment of the fact of the presence of two natures in Christ, in one person, but does not at all concern the manner of their union” 40 . And since in general there is no Sophian understanding of this dogma in the teaching of the Holy Church, he transfers his complaints in general to the teaching of all the holy fathers of the Church. “Within the framework of patristic theology,” he says, “the question remains unanswered and not even truly noticed” 41, and thus only to him, Archpriest Bulgakov, belongs the honor of both posing it this way and properly answering it... Thus devaluing the teaching of the Church about the union of two natures in Christ into a single Divine Hypostasis and many times speaking in passing about the incarnation of the Logos in forms acceptable to us, Fr. Bulgakov simultaneously expresses his own teaching “about the positive correlation” 42, or the union of two natures in one Hypostasis, 43 which is also Sophia in the Gnostic sense, since the basis of the incarnation seems to be the same Sophia, without whose mediation, according to Fr. Bulgakov, it could not have happened 44. At the same time, expounding his doctrine of the “hypostatic union” 45 and clarifying the question of how it happened, he says: “The Logos for the human nature of Christ, one might say, simply and naturally replaced the created hypostasis.” By the latter he here means “the highest part of human nature – the spirit.” “What is in a person,” explains Fr. Bulgakov, “is his human spirit emanating from God, then in Christ there is the Eternal Logos, the Second Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity” 46. Thus, here Archpriest Bulgakov shares the heretical views of Apollinaris, condemned by the VI and VI Ecumenical Councils. Expressing this completely non-Orthodox thought with sufficient certainty, Fr. Bulgakov speaks in his teaching “about natural union”, no longer about the incarnation of the Logos, but about the incarnation of Sophia. According to him, the Divine nature of the Logos is the Divine Sophia, and human nature is also Sophia, only created, with which the Divine Sophia was united or incarnated 47. True, Rev. Bulgakov, in accordance with Orthodox teaching, kenosis or humiliation of the Lord, expressed in the famous words of St. Apostle Paul (Phil. 11, 6–8), on pp. 241–245, refers to the “Lamb of God” as the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. But then he again contradicts this: “From the side of his natural nature,” we read from Fr. Bulgakov, “man is created Sophia, and it is precisely thanks to the sophic nature of her nature that she can be the receptacle of Divine Sophia, which has been reduced to the image of created Sophia, the image of a slave” 48. It is not difficult to see that, by virtue of these words, his Christian teaching about the Incarnation is completely distorted, for it was not God who was reduced to the form of a servant, but only Sophia, and that the Most Pure Virgin Mary thus became the receptacle not of the Son of God, but of the same Divine Sophia, about whom he more than once asserted that she was a different being in comparison with the second Divine Hypostasis. But from here it is also clear that Archpriest Bulgakov, as a result of his teaching about natural union, is subject to the condemnation of the much-criticized Fourth Ecumenical Council, which does not allow anyone “to pronounce, or write, or compose, or philosophize, or teach others a different faith,” in comparison with that which was expressed by the voice of the entire Church in the definition of this Council about the union of two natures into one Divine Hypostasis Savior. The attitude of Fr. does not seem to be the best. Bulgakov and to the authority of the VI Ecumenical Council in the further, arising from the examined question of two wills and actions in Christ. With rare arrogance and a tone of complete disdain for the voice of this Council, he declares regarding the issue of two wills being decided at it: “To us now this dispute seems scholastic. Essentially both sides are wrong. Both will and energy are a manifestation of the life of the spirit, contained within itself and revealing itself... but the spirit is a living and indivisible unity of person and nature” 49. Needless to say, by this “life of the spirit,” “as the unity of face and nature,” Archpriest Bulgakov again means Sophia. Thus, here too, rejecting the definition of the above-mentioned Ecumenical Council, he replaces it with his own Sophian teaching of a newly invented type. A teaching completely unknown to our Holy Church is proposed by Fr. Bulgakov and regarding the ascension of the Savior to heaven, and it must be said that in this teaching of his about the ascension all the main features of his Sophian errors were revealed with particular brightness and completeness. And at the same time, they are presented in such a condensed, concentrated form that we allow ourselves to quote these three pages (423–425) of his book “The Lamb of God” verbatim, so that everyone can see that here we have not an exaggeration, not a one-sided coverage of his teaching, but an accurate transfer of his positions and thoughts. And we immediately see here how far the teaching of Fr. Bulgakov from the beliefs and established dogmatic teachings of our Holy Church. After all, all historical Christianity has always recognized that the Lord ascended into heaven not by His Divinity, in which He always dwells in heaven with God the Father, but by humanity, and that in His humanity He ascended precisely as a complete man - in his soul and in his body, and in this, glorified in His resurrection and ascension, flesh and soul, He sat down and abides at the right hand of His Father, as the One Head, Intercessor and The High Priest of the human race redeemed by Him, for which He became the New Adam (see Eph. 1:29; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 8:1; 1 Cor. 15:22,45–49). And this belief and understanding of ours is not only changed and directly, literally denied by Fr. Bulgakov, but in principle it is not allowed by him. But let us turn to the text of his work itself. “In his Ascension into heaven, the Lord truly REMOVED from the world, but at the same time retained His CONNECTION with it. It is precisely because of this connection that Ascension is not disembodiment.” This logic, vague for us, has the meaning that the disincarnation of Christ the Savior in His ascension is not allowed. Bulgakov in relation not to Himself, in His human nature, as all of us believers do not allow in accordance with the teachings of the Church, but only in relation to His position in the created world, again understood sophically. In the very personality of the God-man, as we will see, this disincarnation is directly preached by Fr. Bulgakov. “On the contrary, it is a temporary removal of the Lord from the world, after which He will come again in the same way as you saw Him ascending into heaven (DA 1:11), that is, He will again take on a bodily human form.” Italics are ours. This one brief expression definitely and accurately expresses the idea that, in essence and from the point of view of the positive Christian doctrine, Rev. Bulgakov here affirms precisely disembodiment, for “only one who has previously abandoned this carnal image can take on a bodily human image, as if taking it off from himself like clothing...” of course, at the same time remaining at the right hand of the Father. But at the same time, the ascension, as a removal from the world, is still a new change in the physicality of Christ, compared with the Resurrection. It is tantamount to leaving the earthly body, the flesh, which has no place in the Divine Kingdom of the Spirit.” Italics are ours. This, as they say, dots the i. The fundamental inadmissibility of the resurrected and glorified flesh of the God-Man ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father (which is meant here by the words Divine Kingdom of the Spirit) could not be formulated more clearly and forcefully. “This is least of all a separation from the body, which took place in death, forever conquered by the Lord. At the same time, this is not such a new state of the glorified body, by virtue of which this latter could enter the depths of the Holy Trinity, for no amount of spirituality of the body still makes it a spirit, and to allow such a substitution as in Luther, according to which the ascended body simply becomes a spirit, means in any case to fall into an ontological misunderstanding. The earthly glorified body of the Lord belongs to the world, although it is in a state in which it is inaccessible to man. If in the Resurrection the body of Christ was in a supermundane state, but retaining the ability to APPEAR to the disciples, then in the Ascension it is already in a supermundane state, although not supermundane. Transmundaneity is not yet heaven, it is turned to the world, it is its limit and peak. Here a staircase, so to speak, is established between earth and heaven, which has been passed down and up and has already united heaven and earth forever. This supra-peaceful physicality existing in the world invariably BELONGS to the Lord." And yet, as we have already seen, the flesh does not at all participate with Him in His sitting at the right hand of God the Father. And this is all the more incomprehensible and strange because for His spiritual sojourn in heaven, His bodily ascension there, transmitted to us in three New Testament books (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50; D.D. 1:9), would have no need or real meaning at all, for the Spirit, for its arrival to God, does not need the process of bodily ascension - not to the Father in heaven, but to God knows where. ... “and He will reveal it through His return to earth. She is in the world being in CONNECTION with His Divine Spirit, as an obedient and completely transparent body for the Spirit. When comprehending the Ascension, our thought runs into an antinomy: at the same time we must recognize that the body of the Ascension belongs to the world and remains in it, but at the same time it also belongs to the Ascended Christ, seated at the right hand of God. The same antinomy. in essence, it is secretly outlined in the Gospel story, as has already been indicated above: on the one hand, it ends with the Ascension (Mark and Luke) and on the other (Matthew and to a certain extent John) - with the promise of Christ to always be with us on earth.”... Needless to say, for the Orthodox Christian understanding, the dogma of the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ does not represent any antinomy. For our faith and consciousness, the dogma of the ascension is no less light and acceptable than any other dogma of our faith. And in particular, what contradiction should we see in the fact that at the Ascension of the Savior, the visible co-presence with the earthly Church ceased with His body and His human nature in general, but His spiritual invisible co-presence was preserved and will remain until the end of time, which is so clearly expressed by the Church in the kontakion of the Feast of the Ascension? ...“(this, of course, also includes the Eucharistic presence, praesentia reatis). Ascending with His body into the supermundane sky, ON the brink of the world, the Lord lifts BEYOND its borders, into the supermundane “sky,” his IDEAL IMAGE, or truly SPIRITUAL BODY, expressing all the POWER of the accomplished incarnation in all its indelibility. This “spiritual” ascended body is no longer a body in the sense of earthly incarnation, it is the ideal form or image of the body, its energy, with which the body was formed during the incarnation and which lives and acts in the world through this body of incarnation.” The question arises: where did Archpriest Bulgakov get his sophisticated teaching about the division of the existence of the created world to the edge of it, on the edge of it and beyond it? And how is it - to the brink and on the brink of Christ in the Body and with His Body (nothing is said about His soul, which is different from the spirit rising beyond the bounds), and then beyond the brink - already without a body, but without disembodiing?... ... “The Ascension, like passing the very EDGE of the world, unites both the world and the sky, belonging to both at the same time. This heavenly Spiritual “body” is truly spirit (as Luther correctly felt, although he did not give his thought a consistent and correct revelation). This is the very POWER of incarnation - the connection with the created world, as a special quality, of the Divine Spirit of the Logos. What does this quality consist of? This can only be explained with the help of the initial concepts of sophiology. God has the Divine Sophia, as the Divine, uncreated world, the Divine All in unity, the All-Unity, with the Holy Trinity directly addressed to her as the Second Hypostasis - in a Word, by Him all things were. This unity, in a certain sense, can also be called the Spiritual Body of the Divine, as His Glory. The created world, or created Sophia, at its core and at its limit, in its entelechy, is the same Sophia, however, posited by the act of creation in the extra-divine self-existence of the world. In Christ, in His God-Humanity, the complete sophization of creation is achieved and, in this sense, the identification of created and uncreated Sophia. Therefore, the ascended Christ has Sophia as His Spiritual Body, or Glory, in two ways: not only as the Logos in eternal pre-created and extra-created existence, but also as the God-man in relation to creation, and the heavenly image of Sophia in Him through the incarnation is identified with the created. That. The “spiritual body” in which Christ dwells at the right hand of the Father is nothing other than this LINK OF IDENTIFICATION of the premium and created Sophia. Therefore, the SPIRITUAL BODY is a created image of the eternal Prototype in their identification.” .. All these “original concepts of sophia,” due to their darkness, are such that it is too difficult to clearly perceive them, and it is positively impossible to connect them with our Christian teaching. In fact, to assert here that “the spiritual body... is nothing more than... the identification of the premium and created Sophia” and at the same time “is the created image of the eternal First-Image” means speaking in the language of Neoplatonism or Gnosticism, in general some kind of peculiar religious philosophy, but by no means in the language of the Gospel, the New Testament, and the Christian Church in general. ... “whereby this SPIRITUAL IMAGE can be realized in the flesh of the world, its spiritual reality can become a reality for the world. By the power of this spirituality of the ascended body of Christ, his perfect energy, and his MYSTERIOUS presence in the world is possible. It is the Church, and it is also the Eucharistic Body of the Lord. The Lord is SPIRITUALLY present on earth in His Church and this is His true “omnipresence.” And He returns to earth in the Divine Eucharist, clothed with His glorified Body, for spiritual-physical communion. This is the meaning of the Ascension. In it, not the flesh of Christ, as belonging to this world, is introduced into the bowels of the Holy Trinity, but all the energy of the incarnation, his spiritual image, a truly spiritual body. We can say that this is the BODY of the BODY, as the ideal image of the Divine Sophia in unity with the created, their connection and identity. So definitely and clearly rejected Fr. Bulgakov, the dogmatic teaching of our Church that Christ ascended to the Divine Father with His glorified Body of Incarnation, being replaced here by an invented, Sophian one. On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that such ideas of his and a categorical statement about the inadmissibility of any “body of flesh” into the heavenly world also rejects the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the future bliss of holy people after the Last Judgment of Christ with their resurrected and glorified bodies in the heavenly kingdom of the Holy Trinity, for the essence of this bliss will consist in the fullness of communion with God, as it is said in Apocalypse: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them” (Chapter 21, 3), which means they are with Him. The equally non-Orthodox teaching of Fr. Bulgakov, emerging from his understanding of the Ascension, seems to be a similar newly invented doctrine of his about the Eucharistic body of Christ. You should pay attention to the fact that Archpriest Bulgakov in the above excerpt says that the Lord, at the moment of the sacrament of Communion, “returns to earth in the Divine Eucharist, puts on His glorified Body and mysteriously includes the Eucharistic elements in it, St. Gifts for spiritual and physical communion.” Is it necessary to say that there is not even a shadow of such ideas in the teaching of our Holy Church? And what kind of strange, to the point of anti-Christian, doctrine about some kind of separateness existed in the God-man of His glorified body, from His Spirit who was present with the Father, so that He needs to again put on this body, somewhere and somehow left by Him, as if reincarnating in it, and just as strangely including here the Eucharistic elements? All this seems possible, and, if you like, natural for the inventions of the Sophian, in the creativity of his Gnostic constructions, and all this is certainly unknown to the Church of Christ and unacceptable in the sound way of her beliefs and teachings (Tim. 1:13). True, Fr. Bulgakov declares that the doctrine of disincarnation is a blasphemous heresy 50, but isn’t it clear that the division of human nature in Christ at the moment of the Ascension, united in his Gnostic-Sophian images, and its tripartite fullness restored at the moment of the Eucharistic Translation, is essentially nothing more than that disincarnation, that re-incarnation of the God-man, that is, such fantasies of an over-wise new theologian, which have absolutely nothing in common with the teachings of all historical Christianity. The same extreme subjectivism and arbitrariness, completely unacceptable in spirit in an Orthodox writer, much less a theologian, characterize the other fabrications of Fr. Bulgakov, for example, about the sinlessness of the Mother of God, as the perfect manifestation and revelation of the Third Divine Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit 51 and about the Mother of God being 52. Especially typical in this case is his downright fantastic teaching about two natures in St. John the Baptist - human and angelic 53, and, according to the assurances of Fr. Bulgakov, the Forerunner, as supposedly the greatest and first among the angels, allegedly occupied in heaven “the anciently empty place of the fallen first angel” 54... Of course, this is also the teaching of Fr. Bulgakov was taken by him exclusively from his Sophian fabrications alone, and not from the Holy Scriptures, nor from the patristic works 55. In general, it is necessary to pay attention to the attitude of Fr. Bulgakov to St. To the fathers and teachers of our Church - these main authorities in all matters of our Orthodox Christian doctrine and moral teaching. Ignoring, as we have seen, the same authority of our very Ecumenical Councils, he treats with amazing disdain the teaching of St. Fathers, including such of our luminaries and authorities as Saints Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John of Damascus. Prot. Bulgakov is so critical of their authority that he attributes all sorts of errors to them. So he blames St. Maximus the Confessor, due to his teaching about two wills in Christ, in anthropomorphism. The latter, according to Fr. Bulgakov, manifests itself in the fact that he speaks in parallel about the Divine will and the human will. According to Fr. Bulgakov: “this anthropomorphism, still relatively imperceptible when it speaks of two actions, becomes completely obvious when it comes to two wills... This one-sided anthropomorphism, introducing psychologism into the depths of St. Trinity constitutes a weak side in the formulation of the dogma” 56. In this case, it is overlooked that the Savior Himself speaks in parallel about both the Divine will and the human will: during His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Savior said: “Neither is My will, but Thine be done” 57 . In its teaching about the union of two natures in Christ, the Church expresses the belief that the complete human nature, consisting of body, soul and spirit, was united with God the Word, but in such a way that the result was one Divine Person. Such a union, according to the word of God, is “a great mystery of piety, 58 inaccessible to our minds. But Rev. Bulgakov does not share this faith of our Church, which is why he does not hesitate to accuse Sts. Fathers in the Nestorian heresy. “What,” he asks, “did his opponents (i.e., the Holy Fathers of the Church) oppose to the teaching of Apollinaris, and how did they themselves understand the Orthodox teaching about the God-Man?” And he answers: “Reproaching him for the belittlement of human nature in the God-Man, through the replacement of the human spirit with the Divine Logos, they themselves asserted that man is fully present in the God-Man... The imaginary Orthodoxy of anti-Apollinarianism thus understood represents the purest Nestorianism, because it affirms in Christ two souls (or spirits), therefore two hypostases, with two natures” 59 . Doesn't leave the priest. Bulgakov is beyond his accusations and the greatest of St. Fathers of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, whom the Holy Church calls the thirteenth Apostle and Great. O. Bulgakov believes that the Apollinarian teaching is basically shared by St. Athanasius the Great, for, pointing to his word about the incarnation, he says: “Flesh most closely designates the body... hence incarnation is defined primarily as the perception of the body. We find this teaching especially in St. Athanasius, who is content for the doctrine of sarcosis (incarnation) with the concepts soma - body and sarx - flesh" 60. It should be prot. Bulgakov take into account the fact that St. Athanasius wrote two books to refute Apollinaris, in which he testifies that full human nature was united with God the Word 61, and where he calls this heretical teaching blasphemous 62. But more than all other saints. Archpriest Fathers Bulgakov accuses St. of heresy. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John of Damascus, extremely humiliating their theology. He blames the former for Apollinarianism and Monophysitism, saying: “Humanity is impoverished in him to a set of attributes that do not have a hypostatic substrate for themselves, or it is sarx - flesh; ...he does not distinguish between two natures in Christ, but only the Divine, which has assumed the properties of the flesh... one can even say that his (Cyril’s) theology failed, because it all rests on the ambiguities and contradictions of terms and concepts and thought itself, obscured by repetitions and verbosity" 63 . These are the accusations of Prof. Bulgakov throws it in the face of St. Cyril, despite the fact that the latter always and invariably taught about the Lord’s perception of full human nature, and that, according to his teaching, in Christ, as the one Divine Hypostasis, there are not one, but two natures - Divine and human. Consider the theology of St. Cyril’s failure means going against the entire Orthodox Church, which looks at him not only as the greatest confessor and fighter for Orthodox truth, but also as the greatest teacher of all believers, which was so clearly witnessed at the 7th and 2nd Ecumenical Councils. Fr. is accused of the same heresies, Monophysite and Apollinarian. Bulgakov and St. John of Damascus, referring to his teaching about the feandric - godly action of Christ. “This one,” says Fr. Bulgakov, - so kind to the Monophysites and truly akin to them, he accepted the idea of ​​feandric energy, in the development of the general idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe communion of properties in Christ by St. John of Damascus." To prove that the latter is allegedly involved in Monophysitism and Apollinarianism, Fr. Bulgakov quotes the following words of St. John of Damascus regarding the divine action: “What is characteristic of man, Jesus Christ did not do as a person usually does, since He was not a simple man. Equally, he did what was characteristic of God not as God did only, because there was not only God, but together God and man... each nature acts with the participation of the other, and Divine actions were performed through the body, as if through an instrument.” “Isn’t this Apollinarianism?” exclaims Archpriest. Bulgakov 64. Only in that case, we say, could one blame St. John of Damascus in the Monophysite heresy on the basis of his doctrine of divine action, if his above words spoke of the presence in Christ of only one divine nature. But here, as in general in the teaching of St. John's act of godly action testifies to the truth that in Christ Jesus there are two natures and two actions. And to the most godly action of St. John looks not at one, but as two actions, only united in one person of Christ 65. This is how St. looks at the act of God. Sophrony, Patriarch of Jerusalem 66. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to talk about any similarity between the teachings of St. John of Damascus on the divine action and the Monophysite teaching. Extremely humiliating prot. Bulgakov theology of St. John of Damascus. speaking of this theology as a “conciliatory scholastic compilation” 67, and when regarding his teaching about the two wills and actions of Christ he declares: “the main question of the two wills remains here unexplained and, perhaps, even more obscure” 68. This is how Rev. has a negative attitude. Bulgakov to the theological authority of St. John of Damascus, and this at a time when the entire Orthodox Church looks at him as the greatest representative of Orthodox dogmatic theology, the teaching of which explains to us in all clarity the truth of our faith and is not a scholastic dead word, but a living one, illuminating us with its gracious, saving light. How much about. Bulgakov disparages the theology of St. Cyril and St. John of Damascus, so praised is the theology of the heretics Apollinaris and Nestorius. Despite the fact that the doctrine of the union of two natures into one Divine Hypostasis was in the Church even before Apollinaris and was found in all ancient symbols, starting with the so-called Apostolic, as well as in the works of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer and Tertullian, Fr. Bulgakov puts Apollinaris in first place in the history of dogmatic teachings among all the teachers and fathers of the Church. “Apollinaris,” he says, “is the first in the history of dogma to pose the problem of God-manhood, or the so-called. Christological and left the stamp of his thought on the entire church Christology... This problem was posed by Apollinaris, and this is his exceptional significance... The merit of Apollinaris is that he understood the Christological problem as an anthropological one and connected them inextricably... In particular, the question arises about the composition of man, two-part or three-part... For the first time, the real question arose only with Apollinaris, who develops a certain anthropological and together Christological doctrine about the tripartite composition of man (spirit, soul and body). ...Apollinaris is the only one of all the representatives of Greek and Latin Christology (except perhaps Origen) who poses for himself the question of the relationship between the primordial Logos and man, or, what is the same, about the primordial God-manhood as the basis of the incarnation... The merit of Apollinaris is that he saw here a special problem, which he expressed in the correlation of heavenly and earthly man, i.e. about God-manhood. In this he stands alone, misunderstood, and obviously he himself has not thought through this significant idea to the end” 69. To the above words of Fr. Bulgakov must also add those words of his in which he repeatedly declares that the teaching of Apollinaris is unclear and, we would add, completely false. Just like Apollinaria, he praises Archpriest. Bulgakov and Nestoria. Bearing in mind the words from Nestorius’s work “The Book of Heraclides”, Prot. Bulgakov says: “It was impossible to come closer in anticipation to the message of Pope Leo and to the future Chalcedonian formula than in these silent expressions” 70. “The theological merit,” he says, “is the awareness of the very problem of the unity of the Hypostasis in the duality of natures, which we, except Nestorius, do not encounter with such clarity in anyone - neither before nor after him in the entire patristic era” 71. This is how Fr. is praised. Bulgakov’s theology of Nestorius, while the latter’s writings testify that he taught not about the union of two natures in one Divine Person of Christ, but about the moral union of two persons, or two sons - the Logos and the Man Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, and to which teaching he remained faithful until his death. In conclusion, we consider it our duty to say that Rev. Bulgakov tries to present his teaching as supposedly not contradicting the teaching of the Church and expresses in his writings quite a few completely different thoughts on the same issues and especially mitigating reservations, which are often acceptable from an Orthodox Christian point of view, but this does not change the essence of the matter. The non-Orthodox views we have cited are typical of his theological system. O. Bulgakov never directly renounced them, and therefore his responsibility for them remains with him in full and force. What about. Bulgakov does not at all doubt the truth of his Sophia teaching, but on the contrary sees in it a new word in theology, giving it special credit to himself, which was especially clearly reflected in the speech of Fr. Bulgakov delivered a speech on the day of the 10th anniversary of the Paris Theological Institute, entitled “By the River Chebar,” in which he placed himself with like-minded Parisian theologians on the same plane with the ecumenical teachers of the Church and even with St. prophets. In this speech, he declares that in emigration “a miracle happened. Sergius - a theological school arose in Paris... a special school of Parisian theology was created... It, this theology, was not and did not want to be not remembering kinship and disdainful of tradition, but it was torn out of its rut ​​and torn from its native soil. It grew in a spiritual foreign land, like the leaders of Israel in Babylonian captivity. For they not only wept on the rivers of Babylon, but also had great prophetic visions, like Ezekiel at the river Chebar and Daniel at the court of the kings... Before those problems of theological thought and life self-determination, which we faced from the very beginning of our existence. our ancestors did not stand, they were entrusted by Providence to us, as our business, as our tasks. Our work in Paris is not only local-provincial, but also global... Parisian theology wants to be and is modern in relation to its modernity, just as those whom the Church pleases as universal teachers were contemporaries of their modernity, and therefore the leaders of their era... And without false pride, but also without excessive modesty, we can say that the theological work of the past 10 years represents a special page in Russian Orthodox theology, opening, as it were, a new chapter.” It would seem that once prot. Bulgakov himself says about his theology that it is new in relation to the traditional theology of the Orthodox Church, then he could not even begin to talk about the fidelity of this new teaching to the church tradition or its tradition. But no, as we saw both in this “Khovar” speech and in his books, he deliberately emphasizes his imaginary loyalty to church tradition (we need to think in some special, Sophian understanding of this latter). “There is,” he declares, “the main coefficient or multiplier by which our Orthodox work is multiplied and integrated: this is its churchliness... We call our leader and patron Rev. Sergius... His creative feat at the dawn of the 14th century - in another place and in other conditions - we want to continue in our days, churchly, nationally, universally" (Bulletin of the Russian Student Christian Movement IV-V, 1935, Paris, pp. 20-23). Having praised the works and merits of “Parisian Theology” and connecting it with the name of our great ascetic, Rev. Sergius of Radonezh, Fr. Bulgakov characteristically states: “The stamp of the era clearly lies on our theological creativity. Since the new is synonymous with creativity, this is our “modernism”, for which we are powerlessly reproached by people who are trying to stop the sun and abolish history. But this modernism is and wants to be a living tradition, which we serve to the best of our ability in fidelity to the Church. The miracle of creativity does not happen without creative daring, and its inspiration seeks its own paths.” This is the view of Fr. Bulgakov for himself and for his business. And of course, we must recognize this proud self-similarity of his reverend as the greatest audacity. Sergius of Radonezh, the humblest of the ascetics of the Holy Church. There is no doubt for us that in his monastic obedience to the Church and in complete fidelity to its true tradition, he would have condemned the heretical “boldness” of Fr. Bulgakov than the strictest of us.” After hearing the above report of the Commission and after previous judgments, it has been decided: 1) Recognize the teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov about Sophia the Wisdom of God as heretical. 2) Report the present resolution of the Council to Metropolitan Evlogii, with a request to make an admonition to Archpriest Bulgakov to encourage the latter to publicly renounce his heretical teaching about Sophia and to subsequently inform the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. 3) In case of unrepentance, Rev. Bulgakov, the decision of the Council on the condemnation of the Sophia heresy should be brought to the attention of the heads of all Autocephalous Churches. 4) To entrust the Synod of Bishops with the further conduct of the matter of combating the Sophian heresy of Archpriest. Bulgakov and other similar misconceptions. 5) Further refutation of the false teachings of Archpriest. Bulgakov is entrusted to His Eminence Tikhon of Berlin, His Eminence John of Shanghai, His Eminence Demetrius of Hailar and member of the All-Russian Council Count Pavel Mikhailovich Grabbe. 6) Express gratitude to His Eminence Seraphim, Archbishop of Bogucharsky, for his valuable and useful work in studying and exposing the errors of Archpriest Bulgakov. Non-Evening Light, pp. 212–214, 216, 219–221. Non-Evening Light, p. 216. approx. 1. Hypostasis and hypostasis, p. 360; Non-Evening Light, pp. 212. 214; Burning Bush, p. 253. Non-Evening Light, p. 216. Non-Evening Light, pp. 219, 214, 216, 222, 262, 213–215; compare Hypostasis and hypostasis. pp. 363–364; Burning Bush, pp. 281–282. Non-Evening Light. pp. 239. 215; compare Burning Bush, pp. 190. 239. 252. Non-Evening Light. pp. 339–340; Hypostasis and hypostasis. pp. 363–364. Burning Bush, pp. 268–269. Burning Bush, pp. 263–264. 269; Non-Evening Light, pp. 215,240,239. Lamb of God, pp. 222,249. Lamb of God, pp. 422,424,425. Hypostasis and hypostasis, p. 369. Non-Evening Light, pp. 212–213. Hypostasis and hypostasis. page 360. Non-Evening Light, pp. 212,214. Non-Evening Light. pp. 219. 239–40; Burning Bush, pp. 190, 239, 252. Non-Evening Light, pp. 212.214. Lamb of God, pp. 457–484. Non-Evening Light, pp. 203, 210, 212–216, 218, 219, approx. 1, 221–225. 239–240. 262; Hypostasis and hypostasis, pp. 358, 360, 363–365,368–369; Burning Bush, pp. 190, 239. 246,429. Non-Evening Light, 221–225; Hypostasis and hypostasis, pp. 368–369. Non-Evening Light, pp. 203,239. Yi is right. Trullian Cathedral. Non-Evening Light, p. 210. Bishop Porfiry Uspensky. East Christian, Athos, dept. Ch), page 251, St. Petersburg. 1892. Church Ved. No. 20, 1913. p. 895, compare. Ep. Porfiry. History of Athos – 3, 260 Council of 1352 anathema 4. Non-Evening Light. pp. 210, 216. Works of Gregory of Nisskago, part 6 pp. 388, 289, 305–306, 374, 315–323, 324, 335, 414, 452, 472, 478, cf. You. Vel. Refutation of the defensive speech of the evil Eunomius, part 3. book 1 page 340, book. 2 p. 120, book. 3 pp. 153 and 155. Prof. Troitsky: Athos Troubles; added to the Church Ved. for 1913 pp. 883, 885; Church Ved. [1913], pp. 277–286 and add. to No. 20 for 1913, pp. 853–909. Lamb of God. pp. 120,125. Philokalia, vol. 3 p. 339, Moscow 1888 Lamb of God. p. 120, approx. 2. Lamb of God, pp. 220–221. Ibid., pp. 207, 209,210,211, 249. Friend of the Groom, pp. 187–188,191.196–198, 200, 203.207–208. Ibid., p. 10. 200; there, excursion 1, page 240. See Dogmatic Theology of Met. Makaria, vol. I, paragraph 63. pp. 377–382, ed. VII SPB. 1868; Blessed is the Evangelist. Theophylact, part 1 Evangel. from Matt. Ch. 2. page 157. Lamb of God. pp. 212–213. Creation Afanas. Vel. Part III against Apollinaris. book 2. page 340. Ibid., n. 1. vs. Apollinaris, p. 336. Lamb of God, pp. 40–41; compare 48–49.46. Accur. exposition rights, faith, book. III. Ch. 14, oh man of God. action, pp. 182–183, cf. there about the actions that. take place in the Lord Jesus Christ, ch. 15, pp. 162–173. Acts of the Universe. Soborov. vol. VI, pp. 138–163. Ag. Divine, pp. 9,14, 20, 25,28.