Dogma and dogmatics

Every scribe, having learned the Kingdom of Heaven, is like a housewife, who wears out of his treasure the new and the old. (Matthew 13:52). Dogmatic theology is a systematic presentation of dogmas, which in their totality express the completeness of Orthodox teaching. However, can such a dogmatic inventory really claim to be complete? Do all dogmatic questions have ready-made answers in the form of dogmas already formulated and proclaimed by the Church? - No. The number of dogmas is limited, and on many, if not most issues, dogmatics sets forth only theological doctrines, popular opinions, in any case, not dogmas, but theologemes. Dogmatics here is like a map of a not fully explored continent, where explored places are interspersed with voids, and the drawn lines are interrupted by pale and uncertain dotted lines. In fact, the indisputable dogmas of the Church relate only to a very limited number of definitions: the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (symbol of faith) and, mainly, of the God-Man (definitions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils). Already in the field of pneumatology we enter the soil of theologumens (Bolotov). In the vast majority of sections expounded in dogmatics, we remain on the shaky ground of theological doctrine. This includes such primary departments of dogma as the general doctrine of the world and man, of Divine Providence and predestination, of the Church, of grace and the sacraments (these are, in particular, all questions of Eucharistic theology), both history and eschatology. This entire area largely remains at the discretion of theological doctrine, although it is presented as church dogmas, but cannot lay claim to infallibility, accuracy and universality, and in any case, allows within itself differences in theological opinions (the limit of permissible differences in each case is questio facti) 1 So, the area of ​​dogmatics does not coincide with existing dogmas, it is much wider than them and, therefore, must inevitably be replenished from others sources, in addition to direct and mandatory dogmatic definitions. This replenishment is carried out on the basis of the living tradition of the Church, its dogmatic analysis, inventory and doctrinal processing. In this case, we are dealing, therefore, with the immediate life of the Church, which includes dogmatic facts of paramount importance. They must be revealed in their entire meaning and revealed in dogmatic content with the help of doctrinal theological interpretation, and through this transformed into dogmatic definitions. Here dogma is not so much given as something sought for by the dogmatist, and its very establishment presupposes the simultaneous effort of creative intuition, factual research, and dogmatic construction (i.e., religious philosophy, more precisely, metaphysics). The latter is generally irremovable when defining dogmas, as it was done in the presence of different theological schools and competing doctrines and opinions in the era of ecumenical councils, as it existed in all times of theology, and still exists today. For in the very heart of dogma there is a dogmatic quest, and to that extent the possibility of not only finding, but also not finding. The struggle and rivalry of opinions in the field of dogmatic doctrine are balanced in the life of the Church by the fact that before these differences and above them there is a single life of the Church, as an overwhelming force: the lex orandi in a broad sense is also the lex credendi. It is an inexhaustible source of tradition, feeding dogmatic thought and doctrine with its waters. Unity in this life also represents unity in theological thought, although the latter still requires the freedom of dialectics. Of course, this area of ​​dogmatic research with its problematics can be simplified and pragmatically replaced by some schematic presentation of quasi-dogmas that formally satisfy the needs of a given school type, which is done in a brief, catechetical, and extended, scientific presentation. In this form, dogmatics is often taken as an inventory of dogmas themselves, indistinguishable from theological opinions, which are confirmed by taking into account the corresponding church tradition and the data of the Word of God. And in this form, dogma is understood as something completely complete and unchangeable. From this she acquires a truly unusual, deathly, scholastic appearance that is frightening and repulsive to many. Of course, such pragmatic-pedagogical equipment has a sufficient basis for itself in the practical needs of training, and in this sense, the positive significance of such guidelines as Met. Macarius and his Catholic prototypes. You just have to keep in mind that this is an inventory description and diagram of something that is essentially still far removed from dogmatic crystallization. So, in dogmatics we have dogmas and dogmatic facts, which find their expression in preliminary dogmatic definitions, theologemes or theologumen, which have not received a final dogmatic definition for themselves. In relation to dogmas in the proper sense, the process of their ecclesiastical unmistakable identification has already been completed. On the contrary, in relation to theologemes or theological opinions, he is in a stage that corresponds to the time preceding the ecumenical councils, when there were only theological schools with their various opinions. The task of dogmatic theology here consists, first of all, in the most accurate and attentive determination of these dogmatic facts themselves in the life of the Church and taking them into account. (Such, for example, is such an important area as the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Orthodoxy, where the practical completeness of Mariology is combined with the absence of its dogmatic clarification. The theology of the sacraments is the same). At the same time, it is important to establish that the dogmatic facts of the life of the Church, its lex orandi and practical credendi have not only guiding, but also mandatory significance for the theologian. For him they are instead of dogmas, according to them he must build his theologemes. However, he must inevitably build them himself, theologically speaking about these facts as responsibly as creatively - for both are synonyms. That is why liturgical theology (including iconography, church building, ritual, etc.) is so important for dogmatics - the living breath of the Church, its prayerful inspiration and revelation. Therefore, the altars and the working cell of the theologian must be connected with each other, whose inspiration in its deepest sources must be nourished from the altar. Of course, liturgical sources must be subjected to comparative historical study, and even they should not turn into a “dead letter” or be equated with the Word of God, which remains unique and incomparable in its guiding meaning. It is necessary to point out how primary importance the Word of God has for dogmatics. It does not want to be simply human wisdom, “philosophy,” but takes its content from Revelation and in this sense is the philosophy of Revelation. The Word of God is the absolute criterion for testing theology. The latter should not contain thoughts that - directly or indirectly - could not be confirmed by the Word of God, or would be in conflict with it. The Word of God, as such, has an unsearchable depth and absoluteness for man. It is a genuine Revelation of God, which is comprehended by man at all times of his existence, in different turns of his thought. This does not mean that the Word of God is a kind of Summa Theologiae, but it potentially contains it in itself, as themes for theology and dogma, revealed in human creativity. The Word of God in this capacity reveals its divine-human character. It does not bind creativity in its free inspiration, but it defines it as a given, albeit hidden, Truth. Of course, the Word of God exists, as such, for the Church, and only in Her life and in Her spirit is it revealed to man (this idea is expressed in the fact that Holy Scripture must be understood in the light of tradition). It contains within itself the pure gold of Revelation. When constructing dogma, according to church tradition, of course, consideration must be made of its other monuments, which are available in church history, patristics, archeology, etc. with their horizons constantly expanding and changing. In the field of written tradition, the first place, of course, is occupied by the most authoritative church writers, called the Fathers of the Church. In dogmatics, it is a generally accepted position that one must theologize according to the fathers, in accordance with the patristic tradition. What could this mean? First of all, we must fully recognize the spiritual and theological authority of the patristic writings as monuments of church tradition, a kind of self-testimony of the Church. Hence the practical task for the theologian to subject the composition of the patristic tradition to the fullest and most accurate account, for which, of course, the data of both church history and the critical study of texts, which is so rich in modern science, must be fully involved. Based on the latter, firstly, the true opinions of church writers must be established, and, secondly, they must be understood in a historical context, taken in their specific conditionality and historical relativity. In this case, a fact is inevitably revealed, known to everyone who has come into contact with patristic writing, that even within the same issue there is often no single patristic tradition. On the contrary, very different, sometimes contradictory and in any case contradictory opinions are expressed here, from which it is inevitably necessary - on one or another basis - to make a choice, to give preference to some over others, which in fact is usually done. This means that the patristic writings by themselves cannot at all be accorded dogmatic infallibility. While they are authoritative testimonies, they cannot be converted into a special kind of infallible text. In some circles a rabbinic attitude has been established towards the writings of the fathers as “tradition”. But if the Talmudic interpretation was able to smooth out and mutually adjust the sayings of different rabbis, then a similar course of action is even more difficult to apply to patristics, since here different schools and opinions sometimes denied each other to the point of mutual anathematization (Alexandrian and Antiochian schools in Christology). The Church sooner or later made an actual selection and placed its emphasis on certain judgments of individual writers. But in general, to establish the infallibility of the writings of St. fathers as such, firstly, is sometimes impossible due to their actual disagreement, and even inconsistency, and, secondly, such an attitude does not at all correspond to the specific weight that is actually given to them by the Church itself. Moreover, the assimilation of infallibility to every statement of church writers and on all issues represents a real patrolological heresy, which established itself in the Middle Ages and was widespread in the era of the XII-XV centuries, in the east and especially in the Catholic west (at the Council of Florence, patrolological writings through the mouth of Cardinal Vissarion were directly equated with Holy Scripture, i.e. they were declared divinely inspired). Such an attitude could be considered consigned to a collection of historical rarities, if it were not sometimes proclaimed today as the guiding principle of theology. But Orthodox theology is not the Talmud, and true veneration of the fathers should be done not in letter, but in spirit. Patristic writing should have the meaning of guiding authority, however, applied with reasoning. Therefore, firstly, with all the guiding significance of patristic writing, it is subject to the criterion of historical relativity and is characterized by inevitable limitations. Who, in fact, would think of attaching ecclesiastical authoritative significance to the teachings of St. John of Damascus about the zodiac and so on, although it found a place in the Brief Exposition of the Orthodox Teaching (Part II, Chapter VII-X), or “dialectics”, where he simply expounds the teaching of Aristotle? But the influence of this limitation is much stronger, of course, on patristic exegesis, which was completely deprived of the tools of modern biblical science in the study of the text and its history, and in this area is often simply outdated for us, although it retains a certain guiding value in the dogmatic and teaching interpretation of the Word of God. The patristic writings in their dogmatic statements must also be understood in all their historical conditionality. They should not contain content that is not inherent in them due to the nature of the problems that are actually inherent in them. It is impossible to see in the writings of one era answers to problems characteristic only of the next, and in any case they are not characterized by such a universality of meaning that could, in its inexhaustibility, be equally revealed to all eras. The writings of the fathers are historically conditioned and therefore limited in their meaning, which does not prevent them from receiving enduring value, since they are woven into the dogmatic self-consciousness of the Church. But it must be firmly established that the writings of the fathers are not the Word of God, and cannot be compared or equated with it. In principle, no one now asserts such an equation, as it was asserted before, but in fact it is being made, and as such it is a harmful, rabbinic abuse. We say this not to belittle patristic authority, but for the sake of its sincere recognition. In fact, the claim to theology “according to the fathers” is a kind of patristic exegesis, in accordance with its own doctrine, or simply an illustration of thoughts according to - sometimes tendentiously - selected patristic texts. From this comes the practical conclusion that the patristic writings are subject to comparative critical analysis and cannot be accepted for dogmatic guidance blindly, without prior examination. To this we must also add that the authoritative patristic tradition generally does not have precisely defined boundaries for itself in time and space. The general principle which applies here is that this authority increases with the antiquity of the writings, or in inverse proportion to their novelty. Of course, this principle cannot find universal application, since church writers who sin against the truth are found in all eras of church life, starting from the apostolic and post-apostolic centuries. Equally, it is impossible to precisely delimit the era to which patristic writing would have been dated. Rather, we can say that different centuries are classic in the history of church writing for one or another problematic (logology, Christology, Trinitarian dogma, etc.). etc.), and, what is most important here, the tradition of authoritative and in this sense paternal writing continues and never ends. In other words, every historical era, not excluding ours, is fundamentally involved in the theological inspiration that establishes the special authority of the patristic writings. We observe this in our days, when some of the writings of church leaders receive it before our eyes, for example, Fr. John of Kronstadt, bishop. Theophanes, St. Tikhon, St. Demetrius of Rostov, as well as theological works of individual writers and hierarchs. In other words, the patristic writings do not and cannot have a complete canon for themselves. The patristic tradition is not confined to a specific historical framework. It is not only the past, but also the present and the future. And if different eras in history have their own specific tasks, then not one is offended before the Lord. And the patristic tradition, with all its sacredness, as well as with all the necessity and obligation of its most accurate accounting, cannot be for us only a matter that has already been done before us, for us and in our place, for acceptance into leadership with passive obedience. On the contrary, it necessarily enters into our own activity: having this gift, we must not bury it in the ground, but multiply it through our own creative effort. And what prompts us to do this is not some pretentiousness of ours, but direct necessity, as it is not difficult to show. The fact is that the patristic tradition of the past is a historical conglomerate of different parts, which owe their origin to different historical reasons. It is by no means exhaustive; on the contrary, it is limited in its content, and therefore may turn out to be insufficient for a satisfactory and, even more so, an exhaustive solution to the problems that arise again before dogmatic thinking, and even their formulation itself. It must be definitely said that for a whole series of problems that powerfully and even painfully possess us at the present time, either there is no patristic tradition at all, or it is insufficient. And the reason is not that these problems are alien to the Church and therefore non-ecclesiastical as such, but simply because these problems remained alien to the patristic era. More precisely, she was busy with other problems that were peculiar to her. Therefore, we have to admit that there is no sufficient and clear paternal teaching on a number of issues (for example, regarding the teaching about the Church in connection, of course, with pneumatology, about the sacraments, especially in the field of Eucharistic theology: about the transfusion of the Holy Gifts, about the Eucharistic sacrifice; about grace and freedom, providence and predestination, to a large extent about history and eschatology and Christian sociology). Of course, on these issues there are certain judgments of guiding significance that should not remain outside the attention of dogma, but should be taken into account and revealed by it. However, this cannot abolish the historical fact that in the patristic age the problems of modern times, arising from the era of the Reformation to the present day, simply did not exist, and where there is no question, there can be no answer. Historical justice forces us to admit that the guiding significance for Orthodox theology actually still belongs to Western theology here - the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. The self-determination of Orthodox theology, unfortunately for it, here is much more polemical than positive. The place of the patristic tradition, in fact - thanks to the state of necessary self-defense - was occupied by heterodox opinions, some of which were accepted, others rejected, and this amalgam is characteristic of the doctrinal monuments of this era (“Orthodox Confession”, “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs”). This fact once again testifies to the historical limitations of the patristic tradition and hence the resulting inevitability for theology to continue it creatively. Of course, this only applies to theology. The Church is always full of her grace-filled life, but this fullness corresponds to varying degrees in its fulfillment in the Church. From this it follows that the field of dogma is wider than the patristic tradition. Hence the incorrectness and certain historical naivety of the requirement to think in all problems “according to the fathers” and to reject or suspect the problem itself, unless it is absent from the fathers. If we turn to the history of dogma in creative eras, we will see that each century brings its own and - in relation to the past - new problems, although taking care not to break with tradition, but also not being afraid of this novelty. To suspect or even prohibit a new problematic, and accordingly a new doctrine, would mean falling into ahistorical Talmudism, and at the same time into a kind of patristic heresy. The absence of a known issue or teaching in patristic writing does not at all make it non-existent or even non-church, as is sometimes thought. The latter would be true only if patristic writing in general constituted the only and exhaustive source of church tradition, but in reality it is not. In a certain sense, this is only the Word of God, revealed in its meaning in the Church, and, what is most important, is its prayerful and mysterious, mystical life. It conceals within itself the potential for dogmatic revelation, and it also demands fidelity to itself during this revelation. New theologemes or theologumen are not human, mental constructions, but a testimony to the life of the Church, a revelation expressed in theology (just as it is expressed in an icon, hymn, ritual, sacrament), from the fullness in Christ. “See to it that no one captivates you with philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:8-9). In fact, such theology according to human traditions begins in Orthodox dogma approximately from the era of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, when it falls under the influence of the West and in reality theologizes not so much according to the fathers as according to the Tridentine and Western theologians in general, preserving the appearance of the paternal tradition, but lacking its power. The entire department of teaching about the Church, grace, sacraments, is painted in one or another protective color and is not so much positive as polemical theology, depending on Western tradition, first of all, and most of all precisely in the problematic. This polemical character of modern theology, which is accepted by many or passed off as patristic, must be overcome. Thanks to it, dogmatic definitions arise, polemical in their origin and content: Orthodoxy is actually defined as non-Catholicism or anti-Catholicism, non-Protestantism or anti-Protestantism, or, finally, and most temptingly, as Catholicizing anti-Protestantism or Protestantizing anti-Catholicism. One cannot reject or diminish the positive value of the Christian achievements of Catholic and Protestant theology, which can and does contain the direct truths of Christianity. And it is even less possible to think that an Orthodox theologian could or should shun Western theology; on the contrary, theology has long gone beyond the boundaries of deliberate confessionalism and in certain parts constitutes the common property of the entire Christian world. This is the area of ​​biblical science, patristics, church history, archeology, etc., and only ignorance can avoid this cooperation. Nevertheless, or rather, even more so, Orthodox theology, being in fraternal cooperation with all Christian theology, must remain itself, feeding on the well of truth entrusted to it. But for this, of course, new efforts of theological creativity are needed, since the writers of, say, the first 1000th anniversary are in some respects no longer able to orient us in the problems and life of the second 1000th anniversary. It is in this area of ​​polemical (“accusatory”) theology that most imaginary dogmas or quasi-dogmas arise, the provisional and relative nature of which is not always sufficiently recognized. The fact that dogma is deliberately given a completely categorical form, thanks to which supposedly dogmas are obtained on all issues, creates this false impression. In fact, a significant part of Orthodox dogma still needs responsible and serious development. In the latter, the true and living tradition of the Church, not obscured by confessional-scholastic prejudices, but subjected to objective study and evaluation of its data, must find theological expression for itself, and thereby, in the end, an authoritative church judgment on dogma is prepared. Unfortunately, we have a whole series of dogmatic prejudices that are accepted as ready-made dogmas, and the most important of them is that all theological opinions set forth in dogmatics, as such, already represent complete church dogmas. This practically violates the principle of in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas. Hence the lack of healthy mutual tolerance in the field of dogmatic opinions (which, of course, would be completely inappropriate in the field of dogma). In one dogmatic manual you have creationism proclaimed as an Orthodox dogma, in another traditionalism. In one case, the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is rejected, in another it is precisely recognized as a sign of true Orthodoxy, etc. In particular, such simplification becomes unbearable in the field of eschatology, where the absence of genuine dogmatic definitions gives full rein to theological prejudices with which they want to abolish and even prohibit research in this area. We have not yet matured to that dogmatic maturity in which we understand the difference between the basic and already accepted for mandatory guidance dogmas and dogmatic doctrine with all its variability and instability in particulars, and this non-difference hinders the normal development of theological thought, the dogmatic quest, which is irreducible here, and in every area of ​​thought, as it actually was in the patriotic era. For the “church fathers,” before becoming such, were also theologians who sought the truth. Thus, in dogmatics it is necessary to give place to dogmatic research, i.e., firstly, the search for what is truly contained in tradition on a particular issue, and the dogmatic processing of this material in a theologem or hypothesis. In this process of research, new dogmatic problems inevitably arise, dictated by the true dialectics of church thought. Therefore, we need to put an end to the prejudice according to which the new is synonymous with the unchurch. Of course, not everything new in dogmatics is truly ecclesiastical, but to the same, if not more, non-ecclesiastical degree, or, I will say, anti-ecclesiastical, is the desire to fetter thought and tie up problematics with repetition of the old, rabbinic legalism or immovable guarding, which in fact turns out to be active reactionary and in this sense an innovation. Stillness is impossible; it is only a mask of backward movement. Such protection is essentially non-Orthodox, for Orthodoxy is a living, therefore growing and developing tradition, and it was such in the flourishing eras of the history of dogmas. This leads us to the main question about dogmatic development in Orthodoxy: is it possible, and is it permissible, and in what sense? If they ask about this in relation to the fullness of that divine life that is characteristic of the Church, then there cannot be two opinions. It is given in the incarnation of the Lord Jesus, in Whom dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily, and in the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, in which He came hypostatically into the world and poured out all the fullness of His gifts in divided tongues of fire. And just as Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8), and as “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:4), so in the Divine foundation of the Church lies all the fullness of Revelation and all the fullness of life—divinely. But in the theanthropic consciousness of the Church, insofar as temporality and relativity are included in it, this fullness enters only consistently and partially, thanks to which the history of dogmas is possible and exists, as we observe it in reality, new dogmas arise, and in this sense there is dogmatic development. How else can we understand the work of the Ecumenical Councils in relation to the previous era? And one cannot think that this matter is unique in the history of the Church and cannot continue. On the contrary, it continues and must continue. One of the darkest prejudices in dogmatics is the idea that the seven Ecumenical Councils generally exhaust their entirety, and dogmatic thought cannot and should not move further. This does not correspond, first of all, to the actual state of affairs, since vital necessity has long since taken dogma far beyond these limits (it is enough to review its actual content at the present time in order to be convinced that the Christology of the 7 Ecumenical Councils constitutes only one of its chapters). But, most importantly, such a limitation would contradict the very essence of the dogma, because it would measure its divine completeness by human limitations. Dogma is not only static in its givenness, but also dynamic in its determination or in its development. And this (the dynamics of dogmas is expressed in their vital revelation in history, as well as in their understanding in dogmatics. Although they are given in living church experience, they are realized, crystallized in dogmatic thought and dogmatic creativity, outside of which dogmatics does not exist, otherwise it turns into a dry and dead inventory. This creative task of dogmatic theology is now often replaced the pseudo-apologetic task of confessionalism, the defense and clarification of Orthodox dogmas in contrast to or in contrast to non-Orthodox ones. Instead, theology should turn to the positive and active disclosure of church teaching contained in church life, in other words, it should become mystical, liturgical, life-historical. It should not be afraid of new dogmatic problems, but, on the contrary, give them full attention with all the power of creativity. boldness. Of course, theology is only theology about dogmas, and not the dogmas themselves revealed to the Church. In theology, theological opinions are deposited, from them theologemes or theologumen crystallize, which for some - sometimes long - time practically acquire the meaning of quasi-dogmas, without being them in the strict sense of the word. From the theologumens, who for the time being satisfy the needs of dogmatic teaching, by the will of God, dogmas in the precise sense of the word may or may not arise. Now, in our indifference, everything that is set forth in dogmatic theology is considered dogma. In fact, dogmatic consciousness is satisfied with theological doctrine accepted as dogmas. There is nothing abnormal about this. On the contrary, this may be in the order of things, but one should not exaggerate the importance of dogmatic doctrine in its inviolability and infallibility. It is subject to clarifying revision, to which dogmas are not subject; in fact, this revision is continuously carried out by dogmatic thought. And in this revision, in the criticism of dogmatic doctrine, precisely creative and constructive, and not destructive, lies one of the tasks of dogmatic research. Dogmatics is a theological science that testifies to the content of religious life, its internal facts and self-determinations. To that extent, it must keep up with the development of life and its needs. She cannot help but respond to her creativity, to the new things it contains. For the nature of history is that it does not repeat itself, the present recedes into the past, but enters the future, its novelty is predetermined from the past. Intimate, mystical life provides themes for theology that It must hear, perceive and respond to. Thus, new dogmatic themes, new problems and theologemes arise, new not in the sense that they displace, or replace, or deny the old ones, but they are revealed in a new way. And if we are experiencing a tragic and turbulent, but also great in its aspirations and daring era, then the great effort of theology must correspond to this greatness, if it is worthy of its name and is needed by people as meeting their genuine needs. It must not remain in unfeeling stupor or pharisaical arrogance. And in truth, our time, in its problems, is a great era in theology, and the latter must prove worthy of its calling. After centuries of torpor, Christian thought again faced the problems of life, which are dogmatically united in the doctrine of the Church, and this, in turn, leads to the revelation of the dogma of God-manhood. The latter also includes all modern problems of history and eschatology: Christian culture, social Christianity, church and state, the unification of Christian confessions in a single Church, all these issues must receive dogmatic understanding in order to overcome the unprincipled practicality in the spirit in which they are - so far - considered. They knock on the Christian heart and question dogmatic consciousness, but have not yet found an answer in the body of dogmatic laws that replace the living dynamics of dogma in our country. Dogmatics is, or at least should be, a living and always moving thought. Moreover, it is the most alive of all branches of human thought, since it deals with the most vital needs of the integral human personality, questions of faith, that is, worldview. Those pitiful surrogates with which humanity, which has lost faith, is now content, testify not only to the vitality of these needs, but also to their dissatisfaction. Dogmatics is called upon to lead both thought and life, to be a banner and inspiration, a world-contemplative winner. But for this, dogmatics must be dogmatic, i.e. living and modern thought, filled with Christian inspiration, as the most creative thing in the work of true, i.e. Christian culture. From the need to be modern, that is, to express the religious thought about eternity in time, about the supertemporal in the modern, the following necessary feature in its development arises: in connection with the development of dogmatic thought, the emergence of dogmatic opinions, and then theologumens, there appears the need for revision and, as it were, testing of already existing, frank dogmas, of course not for the purpose of verifying them, but for a new, complete perception. The dynamics of dogma are realized here in the fact that it is not only a given - in the form of a certain dogmatic crystal or formula - but also a prerequisite for limitless life and mental revelation. We must also remember that dogmas are mutually transparent. They are given not in external juxtaposition, as if in some kind of catalog or inventory, but in internal organic coherence, so that in the light of one dogma the strength and content of another is revealed. Therefore, dogmatic theology is constantly renewed, not only in what concerns the accounting and inventory of church tradition, where it has to take into account the development of historical science, which studies its sources, but also in its explanation. For example, the understanding of the idea of ​​​​God-manhood and its power, which is the property of our days, reveals for us in a new way the meaning of the Chalcedonian dogma, as well as the VI Ecumenical Council. Issues of social and cultural creativity reveal for us the teaching about the Church in a new way. Dogmatics, as a set of dogmas, is not likened to a philosophical system, which seeks to reduce its individual parts to a responsible, logical unity, but is an organic whole in which each part lives the life of this whole. Everything is revealed in her, just as she is revealed by herself. In the history of philosophy, one system displaces another, even if it is in dialectical conjugation with it. In dogmatics, each part is embedded in one whole, which is alien to the evolving dialectics, but can be involved in antinomics. Nevertheless, dogmatics is also characterized by a systematic approach to dogmas; Dogmatics, “as a science,” is precisely defined in the manuals as a “system of dogmas.” In other words, it is also a special type of philosophy, namely the philosophy of revelation, as a system of religious metaphysics, which in turn, of course, presupposes a certain epistemology. She has absolutely nothing to shy away from this connection with philosophy only because the latter is a purely human search and comprehension of truth, natural theology, where lies and error are mixed with truth, and where even atheism is possible, where everything is a problematic or a search, a hypothesis or human speculation. Theology, as a philosophy of revelation, being infallible in content, as revelation, however, belongs to the field of human creativity, as philosophy. Therefore, philosophy and theology are closely related to each other. Dogmas are the truths of religious revelation, having metaphysical content and therefore expressed in the language of philosophy, as the only one suitable for this purpose. Dogmatics, therefore, is also religious philosophy. Philosophy is also not without presuppositions. It draws its content from the self-revelation of life: primum vivere, deinde philosophar 2 (even if it limits itself to pure, self-thinking thinking, its dialectic, which is the life of thought). And theology proclaims the principle: primum vivere, deinde theologizari 3 And to the extent that the difference between philosophy and theology is not formal. They differ in the nature of the life experience from which they proceed: in one case, something human and all too human (albeit concealing a “natural revelation”), in the other, the divine-human, the voice of God in the human mind, the “mind of Christ.” We know that the patristic era theologized in the language of ancient philosophy, which for us now, no matter how highly we value its unique, unsurpassed value, is no longer our philosophical language, and in any case is alien to us in the form in which it is in St. fathers. It can and should be considered a fact, not accidental, but a matter of deliberate choice, that the dogmas of triadology and Christology are expressed in the language of Plato and Aristotle. But from this does not arise the possibility for us now to think according to Aristotle, or to express our modern philosophical constructions in this language (as is actually done to this day in Catholic dogmatics due to the oppressive, although enriching it, Thomism with the heritage of Aristotelianism). From here comes the voluntary or involuntary inevitability of the influence of modern philosophical thought, which dogmatists cannot avoid, as if translating into a modern language the vocabulary that was characteristic of the ancient church. Of course, with such a translation, what is obtained is not a new dogmatic definition, which essentially remains unchanged, but a philosophical interpretation of it, which is, however, essential for the philosophically sincere perception of dogma in our era. Otherwise, the latter sounds like a formula alien to thought, suitable for memorization, but not for life perception. Thus, in this, the theologian, by the force of things, is also a philosopher, who must have the appropriate weapons. So, the life of the Church is a continuing revelation of the full truth that is contained in it. This revelation, expressing the human historical side of the divine-human process, is perceived not as a passive mechanical act, but as a creative revelation of truth in response to the calls of life and the interrogations of thought. This very possibility of ongoing revelation presupposes its incompleteness in history, and therefore the corresponding incompleteness of dogma as a system of dogmas. Therefore, a certain - and, moreover, significant - part of it inevitably remains to the share of theological opinions, or, at most, theologems or theologumen of varying authority. Dogmatic thought, with complete fidelity to church tradition, but also with complete sincerity of free quest, is called upon, on the one hand, to critically distinguish, establish and assimilate different parts of the existing dogmatic teaching, as well as to respond to new problems of our time. This achieves the necessary balance in the statics and dynamics of dogma. Even the Roman Church, with its tendency to give binding dogmatic definitions whenever possible on all questions of the doctrine of faith, is unable to carry out this task and even tolerates the presence of obvious theological disagreements. Such, for example, is the disagreement between Thomists and Molinists on the question of freedom and grace. First to live, and then to philosophize (lat.). First to live, and then to theologize (lat.).