About revelation

Published for the first time - based on a manuscript verified by the author. Revelation presupposes the existence of that which is revealed, or the Mystery that makes It known. A secret is not just an unknown or a secret that can be communicated or not communicated, known or not known, and, if it becomes known, then its knowledge is exhaustive or adequate. The mystery remains above human knowledge and is not exhausted by it. It is inaccessible to adequate knowledge. It is characterized by a superhuman and transcendental intimacy. But it also needs to be revealed; without this, it is not a secret. In relation to revelation, it is a transcendental self-existent, which is revealed in being, although revelation is not exhausted by this. It is equally characteristic of the nature of the Mystery to be above revelation and to be revealed in it. The transcendental, which is closed in Itself or opens only in Itself and for Itself, remains above being and outside of it, it is not, for to be means to be for another. It is the Absolute, but is not the Transcendent, which is always correlated with the immanent. A Mystery ceases to be a Mystery if it is not revealed, just as if it is completely open and exhausted by revelation. A mystery is equally capable of being revealed as it is of remaining hidden; it is always a revealing Mystery, and in this sense it is God, for God, according to the patristic definition, is a relative concept. The Absolute, existing in itself, is not God, and indeed does not exist at all, being above being. But it becomes God for being, more precisely, for created being, God is God for creation, the revealing God. Therefore revelation belongs to the very concept of Divinity. 1 God is the Revealed, the Mystery. Secrets tend to be revealed; they are the object of revelation, but they are also the subject. Cognition of the Mystery cannot be the work of only the knower who accepts revelation, etc. for him, the secret is transcendental, inaccessible. Revelation is the action of the Revealer himself in the recipient of the revelation. God is not only the object, but also the subject of revelation, it is a personal act of the personal Divinity: “I am the Lord Thy God,” Yahweh: “I am the One who I will be.” This biblical definition follows analytically from Revelation, immanent in its very essence. Revelation is a personal act, from person to person. The subject of revelation, as the One who is revealed, is correlated with the subject who receives revelation, which in this sense is a dialogue, a conversation between God and creation, with angels and men, and the fullness of revelation belongs specifically to man (cf. 1 Peter 1:12, Eph. 3:9-11-13). Revelation is divine-human communication, the act of God in man and the reverse acceptance of God by man, a meeting and conversation, a covenant of God with man. Man is a personal being, and the reception of revelation takes place from Person (Divine) to Person (Human): Moses at Sinai, Isaiah and Jeremiah, all the great and minor prophets, the apostles and all men who were touched by the spirit of God “many times and in many ways” (Heb. 1:1). But every human personality is involved in the whole of the human race, is its representative (“transcendental subject,” in Kant’s language), is an all-man. The revelation of God, although it is accepted individually, and, as an experience, is even inexpressible in words, however, in its content it is intended for all mankind, if not in fact, then in principle: Moses on Sinai “went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying: Thus speak to the house of Jacob, and tell it to the sons of Israel” (Exodus 19:3). A prophet who receives revelation is always a mediator. Therefore, revelation is not dispersed into separate, personal, episodic acts, but accumulates and is integrated in the destinies of the human race, and in this sense it is equally an act and a fact, a “deposit” of faith, an always ongoing revelation. It is in this sense eternal life for the creature. The ocean of the Divine is never exhausted for the creature, which now knows in part. True, we are promised that in the next century we will know God no longer in part and not through a glass darkly, but face to face, just as we ourselves are known, no longer as children, but as men (1 Cor. 13). However, this difference in degree does not destroy the qualitative boundary between the Creator and creation: the creature cannot know God as He knows Himself, God will never cease to be a revealed mystery for man, revelation will not cease, it is eternal life. “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent” (John 17:3). Christ opened and revealed God to men in a new way; He is the door through which we enter into divine knowledge, recognizing in Him the Father by the Holy Spirit. But this is not adequate cognition achieved once in time, but infinite cognition. The distinction between aetemitas and aeviternitas, between divine eternity and created eternity, remains immutable. Created eternal life is nourished by the divine and is actually identified with it, but the difference between God and creation, the One who is revealed and the one who receives revelation, remains immutable and eternal. God by grace, deified man, partakes of the Divine life, but remains alien to the existing God. Revelation is divine-human communication; it is transcendental-immanent. II. How is revelation possible? This question has, so to speak, an epistemological significance similar to Kant’s general problem. 2 The revelation of the Mystery itself represents the mystery between God and man. One must be capable of revelation and worthy of revelation. A stone cannot accept revelation, just as an animal cannot. And man cannot bear revelation to a greater extent than is characteristic of him: “man cannot see Me and live” (Ex. 33:20; cf. Judges 13:22). Revelation is a divine action on man, but cannot be violence against his nature (deus ex machine). It presupposes a certain reciprocity or conformity between God and man, their correlativeness. In order for a person to be a recipient of revelation, and for a conversation between God and a person to be possible, it is necessary for God to be human in some sense, and for a person to have something divine in himself. This correlation between God and man is expressed in biblical language in such a way that man was created in the image of God, and, therefore, God contains within Himself the Prototype of man. This establishes an ontological ladder between God and man, which is traversable in the ascending and descending directions. This can best be understood from the Incarnation and Pentecost, which were both the descent of God from heaven. According to the Chalcedonian dogma, in Christ two “natures,” divine and human, are united in one life of a single hypostasis: perfect God and perfect man. God is fully revealed in the God-man, and man accepts the revelation of God. We have a similar thing in the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, where the gift of the Holy Spirit, “grace,” overshadows, inspires human nature and thus unites with it. At the same time - and this is the most important thing - a person retains the fullness of his humanity, does not melt or burn from the Divine fire that descends from heaven. Revelation is God-manhood in actu, the vital identification of the Divine and the human, with all the immutability of the difference between them. We must understand the image of God not in the sense of some kind of “property” or “resemblance” - for what kind of similarity can we talk about here? – but ontologically, as identity in difference and difference in identity. The image of God in man is reality, ontological power, his very humanity. It cannot be destroyed by sin, it is indestructible even by original sin, and it is therefore the foundation of the Incarnation. He is what man could meet and accept into himself both the incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit descending from heaven. The Image of God is a spark of the Divine in man, the spirit of God, breathed into him by God from Himself at the creation of man. In patristic writing, various attempts were made to more accurately define the image of God in man: some saw it in the mind, others in free will, and all limited it only to the spiritual nature of man, dismissing the body as something alien to the image of God. It was thereby reduced to the level of some kind of accident and even something improper in man, contrary to the direct meaning of the biblical story about the creation of man, and in particular about the creation of the body (Gen. 2:7). It is vain and erroneous to limit the image of God in man to only one part of him, for it belongs to his entire composition, since it is unchangeable or, more precisely, not distorted by sin. Man is a created god both in spirit and in body in their mutual connection, and in his hypostatic being, and in nature. I express this conformity of man to God through the theological concept of Sophia (Σοφία). Man is created in the image of Divine Sophia, and in this capacity he himself is defined as created Sophia. Sophia in God is the principle of his self-revelation in the Divine life. The Idea of ​​God, the Divine world, is above and before creation. God, who exists in the Holy Trinity, is the Father, revealed in the Word by the Holy Spirit. His one being (μία φύσις) and His one life is revealed in Him as some absolute, eternal content, as Truth, which has reality in Beauty. This content is the Divine word of the Word, the Second Hypostasis, which contains everything (John 1:2), and this ideal everything, an organism of ideas, is raised to reality and life by the life-giving Spirit. Sophia exists for the Trinitarian God, she belongs to His hypostases in their separateness, according to the personal properties of each of Them, as well as in Their unity. It does not exist outside and apart from the hypostases, and yet it is not a hypostasis: it cannot be identified with any one of the hypostases (for example, the hypostasis of the Word), nor with the entire Holy Spirit. Trinity, although it cannot be separated from them. We dogmatically and metaphysically distinguish in God hypostasis (or hypostases) and nature (ὑπόστασις or ὑποστάσεις and φύσις), but at the same time we affirm their inseparability. This φύσις is the depth, the root of the Divine. Sophia is also φύσις, but as the content of self-revelation, the life of the Divine in Itself. In the Holy Trinity, the Father is the Beginning, the Revealing Hypostasis, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Revealing Hypostases of the Father. This revelation is the Divine Word on which the Holy Spirit eternally rests, the ideality in reality is the Divine Sophia, 3 which, therefore, is determined by the Duo of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which reveals the Father. Sophia is that divine nature φύσις, which was reunited in the God-Man Christ with the created-human nature (according to the Chalcedonian dogma). In this union the conformity of both natures, Divine and human, or, what is the same, Sophia Divine and created, which are combined in a single life of a single hypostasis of the Logos, is itself attested to. This precisely testifies to the complete conformity and correlation of both natures, which are capable of being united in such a way in the God-Man. In other words, this thought can be expressed like this: Divine Sophia, as a revelation of the Divine nature, is the pre-eternal, divine Humanity, which is the Prototype of created humanity. They both reveal themselves as one God-Humanity, or Sophia, in both divine and created existence. In the fathers (St. Basil the Great, St. John of Damascus, St. Maximus the Confessor and some others) 4 we encounter the general idea that the world was created on the basis of divine παραδείγματα, clearly akin to Plato’s ideas. The divine seeds of being are immersed in non-existence, in the world of becoming (Plato’s γένεσις gives the basis for the existence of the world, as its entelechy (in the Aristotelian sense), purpose, foundation and final goal. Man, as the subject of Humanity, in his multiple hypostases, is created Sophia. In his created humanity is hidden, like the basis, God-manhood, he is the becoming God-man. This formation in Christ receives its fulfillment, which is also accomplished in the Old Adam by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this connection between man and God in Sophia, as the basis of human existence, or God-manhood, that makes a person capable and called to accept divine revelation, a subject of revelation. Humanum sarah divini. Man is capable of religion as genuine communion with God. The fact of religion expresses the divine-humanity of man. It is this unity of the transcendental and the immanent, of God and creation, which expresses the nature of revelation. Revelation is divine-human, and outside of this divine-humanity it does not exist. Any break or even just a break in this connection would turn revelation into a mechanically violent action of God over man, a deus ex machina, would make it paradoxical. The principle of revelation is expressed in the following words of Christ: referring to the text of Ps. 81:6: “You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High,” He adds: “He called those to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35). So, the word of God addresses only the gods, the sons of men, who participate in God-manhood. And also His words about His friends: “I no longer call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing, but I call you friends, because I have told you everything that I have heard from My Father” (John 15:15). Only friends of God can “hear,” that is, accept revelation, which is a ladder between heaven and earth, the vital identification of Divine Sophia and created Sophia. God can only reveal himself and speak to beings like Him, bearing His image, men and angels. III. Natural revelation. There is a natural revelation of God in creation, in nature and in the human spirit. The entire human race was created “of one blood” (Acts 17:26) to seek “God”, Who is “not far from each of us” (Acts 17:27) for “we are His race and the race of God” (Acts 17:24-28), the speech of the apostle. Paul in the Areopagus, cf. his and Barnabas’s speech in Lystra: Acts. 14). The revelation of God is accomplished in nature, Ps. 18: “The heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the firmament speaks of the work of His hands. Day imparts speech to day, and night reveals knowledge to night. Their sound goes throughout the whole earth, and their words to the ends of the world.” And this is also stated in the main text of Rom. 1, 19–20: “what can be known about God is obvious to them (the pagans), because God has revealed it to them, for His invisible, His eternal power and Divinity (= Divine Sophia) are visible from the creation of the world through viewing creation. And the moral law in man, his conscience, also testifies to God: “the work of the law is written in their hearts, as evidenced by their conscience and their thoughts, now accusing, now justifying one another” (Rom. 2:15). These words give sufficient fundamental recognition of natural revelation, and, consequently, the natural religion of “paganism” as such, which, however, was called into the Church of Christ, and turned out to be worthy, since paganism accepted Christ, Whom the synagogue rejected. It is necessary to comprehend both the very fact of this natural revelation in man and its limits. 5 The basis of natural revelation lies in the same presence of the image of God in man, who is created Sophia and already contains within himself the divine principle by his very creation. But doesn’t this mean that the Divinity is immanent to him, or that he is immanent to the Divine? And through this recognition of the Sophian foundation in man, are we not plunging into the twilight of pantheism with its confusion or identification of God and the world? We have such an identification along the paths of pantheistic philosophy, in Spinoza (Deus sine natura), in German idealism (in Schelling and Hegel), in Brahmanism. However, the doctrine of Sophia, as the Image of God in man, can be developed only in connection with the recognition of the personal God, the Divine Trinity, existing above the world and transcendental to it in its hypostatic existence. The world has its basis in the Divine, but, created “out of nothing,” it is not identical with it (this view should therefore be called not pantheism, but pan-en-theism). Man by creation is not only the center of creation, uniting all its threads, but also having divine depth, he is a god by grace. In natural revelation, he reveals himself to himself in this divine depth and is inspired from within himself by it, precisely as a man in his humanity. And at the same time, finding himself in this divine foundation, he thereby calls to himself divine revelation from above, thirsts and waits for it. But even in his own immanence, in himself and in creation, man recognizes the “traces of the Divine” and has a natural revelation about Him. Man has within himself the beginning of eternity, immersed in time and reflected in its face. Therefore, it is subject to development over time, genesis. In his own depth, he is a secret to himself, which is revealed in his life. This self-revelation of man has its basis in the Divine Sophia, which is revealed in him. Factual self-awareness does not contain the full depth of the human spirit. In natural revelation, human self-knowledge contains the divine revelation that is invested in it through the Image of God, created Sophia, and it is based on this. Man finds the stamp of the Divine both in his own spirit and in the natural creation. However, the transparency of this self-revelation is clouded by original sin, which introduced perversion into human existence, although it did not destroy its divine basis in the image of God. On the paths of human self-revelation, an ontological catastrophe occurred, the center of human existence shifted, and the original harmony in which man perceived himself and the world was lost. Man’s self-consciousness has become like a curved or even broken mirror, in which, although the images of existence are reflected, crookedly and partially. Natural revelation, which is also a person’s self-revelation, remains in him (according to the direct testimony of Apostle Paul), but it is aggravated by errors and illusions. Direct lies and delusion are introduced into it as a consequence of sin. And it is this mixture, indecomposable by the forces of man himself, that determines the content of natural revelation, or “paganism.” Pagan religions cannot at all be considered as devoid of any positive religious content. Quite the contrary, we must admit that each of them contains some grain of divine revelation. This revelation is perceived by man from himself, from his own depth, the image of God, which has its basis in created Sophia. But a sinful person realizes his own revelation for himself only through a sinful prism. The grains of truth turn out to be hidden in blocks of lies, human sensuality and passions (all kinds of “psychologisms”) and complicated by dark attacks. In the face of the pure truth of revelation, paganism, as a mixture of truth and lies, often with a predominance of the latter, seems unbearable, and any communication with it is perceived as spiritual fornication. “What agreement is there between Christ and Belial?” (2 Cor. 6:15). This explains the irreconcilable attitude towards him in V. 3. (among the prophets) and N. 3. (among the Apostle Paul), as well as among some apologists (Tatian). However, it is also combined with a more positive recognition of the presence of known truths in paganism (“Christianity before Christ” by Clement of Alexandria and St. Justin Martyr). Only in the light of Christianity can we highlight and impartially evaluate the positive aspects of natural religions, which are revealed in the dialectical process of their history. Only in the light of Christianity can paganism be understood not only as a delusion and an abomination, but also as a natural Old Testament for Christianity, which was expressed in the pagans’ acceptance of the Christian gospel. But this natural revelation is equally characteristic not only of the dialectic of the religious process in paganism, but also of the dialectic of philosophical thought. For pagan philosophy, of course, is not religiously empty wisdom, but a positive search for God. In its own way, philosophy cannot be equated with purely religious experience, but it knows its ways of knowing God. This is sufficiently evidenced by the contribution to Christian theology that Greek philosophy gave. And natural thought participates in the divine Logos, and it contains religious revelation, although clouded by human impurities. But the same can be said about art, which, as the knowledge of Beauty, has a natural involvement in the Holy Spirit. This is also confirmed by the contribution that paganism, in particular Egyptian and ancient art, gave to the Christian cult, and in general Beauty testifies to God, where it shines in the world. Thus, we must fully recognize the human, natural revelation that man finds in himself and in the world, in created Sophia, in the image of God. IV. Divine revelation. Man has his own revelation of the image of God, which is inherent in him as a created, cosmic being. But God created man in his own world given to him and gave him an original existence not so that he would remain closed and self-satisfied, separated from God by virtue of this originality. This is the satanic way of the prince of this world. Man is called to unite with God. God wants to be everything in everything for the world and for man, to reveal himself to him, to deify him. The image of God in man is a living bridge between heaven and earth, a receiver of Divine revelation. God's love for man, by the power of which created being was created, is expressed in the communication of God with man, in revelation, and man's love for God, which is invested in him through the image of God, is expressed in the search for this revelation. In revelation, man, who is destined to be a created god by grace, participates in the knowledge of God and communion with Him, and becomes a god-man in this theanthropic communion. Cognizing God, he also cognizes himself in the depths of his spirit; a meeting of the image with the Prototype takes place. What is the revelation of God in man in the simplest sense of the word? God speaks to man, and man partakes of divine life: the divinely inspired word and its mysterious power are like two ways of revealing God in man. Revelation is first of all a dialogue between God and man. God speaks to man in his human language, and man listens to the word of God and asks God with his human thought. The Word of God is also human, intelligible to man, divine-human: the Logos of God is also the logos of man (just as the name Jesus is the proper name of the God-man). This identity in difference is the fundamental fact and precondition of revelation. And further, man, without being stripped of his humanity, remaining himself, is able to experience the touch of the Divine, to partake of the divine life, pati Deum, to have the sacrament of life communion with the Divine, just as both lives, Divine and human, were one in the life of the Lord Jesus, and as the Spirit of God, descending on the apostles and other people, while remaining in them, united Himself with their humanity, and through this the divine-human in spirit. Humanum sarah divini. Revelation cannot simply be the voice of the Transcendent in the immanent, in human detachment from it: under this condition, this voice simply does not sound, does not touch the immanent, does not reach it. It is necessarily the unity of the Transcendent and the Immanent, and this living divine-human unity is the image of God in man, which means the existence of the eternal image of man in God, the unity of the divine and created Sophia. God reveals himself to man as Truth in the Word and as Life by the Holy Spirit in Their dyadic indissolubility. The Nicene-Constantinople symbol speaks of the Holy Spirit: “who spoke the prophets.” The Spirit is not the Word. But here the word of the Word is inspired, “spoken” in the prophets by the Holy Spirit, and this is generally the dual unity of Divine revelation: it is the word, as a known content, but at the same time the inspiration of life, “many-part and varied” (Heb. 1:1). In contrast to “natural revelation,” which is the self-revelation of man in his divine basis, in Sophia, although created, revelation in the precise sense of the word is the action of God in man, God’s condescension. It is an act of God's will in fulfillment of God's love for man. It is truly a meeting of God with man, and we have its image in numerous events in the life of Old Testament and New Testament humanity. At the same time, a person retains all his humanity and, establishing himself in it, fights for it with God, since Israel - in the symbolic image of V.Z. - fought with the mysterious Stranger all night: “Someone fought with him until the dawn appeared and saw that he could not prevail against him and said: Let me go, for the dawn has risen” (Gen. 32, 25-27). And Jacob the Israelite, the God-fighter, said: “I saw God face to face, and my soul was preserved” (31). But man is called not only to fight with God, but also to be a friend to Him: “And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one would speak to his friend” (Ex. 33:11). Revelation is carried out by God according to the will of God, but it is carried out in man and, therefore, deals with his humanity. This humanity has its own destinies. The most important of them is the revolution that took place in man during his fall. Previously, his man was capable of direct communication with God, “conversed” with God, and the paths of revelation were open (this is expressed in the massive mythological images of Genesis 1–3: “and they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise in the cool of the day...” (3.8). But after the Fall, the image of God was eclipsed in man, man began to resist revelation, hide from God, and the human side of the divine-human process of revelation accepted heavy, difficult character. Only in certain chosen ones and through special providential actions of God in various events of human life do the rays of the Divine penetrate the darkness of man’s natural existence. The chosenness of a separate and very small part of humanity in its deliberate destinies is a condition of revelation, and this fenced vineyard of the Lord becomes the place of God's revelation in the world. Here it is equally important to note both the whole difficulty of this process, in which God himself takes upon himself the work of this revelation to a rebellious person, and its possibility and reality. Original sin did not appear as an insurmountable barrier between God and man, the image of God in man shone even through darkness, Old Testament man remained God-accepting, and God’s efforts to reveal himself to man, “many and varied” (Heb. 1:1), were crowned with growing success. True knowledge of God took root, deepened and illuminated in the chosen people, to whom the treasure of the Word of God was entrusted, and, no less important, it was realized in life as a kind of holy reality. This is evidenced by the genealogy of Christ the Savior, which culminates in the appearance on earth of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. In Her person, man became completely accepting of God, and all creation spoke through Her lips: “Behold, the servant of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word (Luke 1:38). The possibility of incarnation has arrived, which has always been in God, but had to arise in man as well. The revelation of God was accomplished in the complete union of God and Man, in the “descent from heaven” of God to creation. This revelation was realized primarily in the incarnation of the Word. It is precisely how this revelation is interpreted in the already repeatedly quoted Heb. 1, 1: “God, who at times and in various ways spoke of old to the fathers by the prophets, in these last days has spoken to us by the Son...” (Heb. 1, 1-2). Jesus, by Himself and in Himself, revealed to people the Heavenly God, the Father, was the personal revelation of God about God, the Son about the Father. He realized this divine revelation in His theanthropic life, which is the unity of two natures, two wills, two energies, but also two words: the Divine Word and the human word, Logos and logos. But the revelation of God to people did not end with the incarnation alone, for it was also followed by the descent from heaven of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost. The latter was the inspiration of divine life in human life, the fullness of accomplished God-manhood. The New Testament Church, the body of Christ, moved by the Holy Spirit, appeared as this place of already accomplished, but at the same time ongoing Revelation. The latter is accomplished in the Church and is the Church: the dispensation of the mystery that has been hidden from eternity in God... so that now through the Church the manifold wisdom of God (πολυποίκίλος σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ), according to the eternal definition, may be made known through the Church. which He fulfilled in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:9–11). V. Revelation as tradition. Revelation is given to the individual not in his particularity, but in his humanity, and in his person to all humanity. Being limited in its immediate form by place and time, it retains its significance for the entire history of mankind, in its living tradition. The words of Christ are applicable here: there is nothing hidden that will not become apparent. And every act of revelation is imprinted in its “sacred history” and is included in the sacred tradition of humanity. We must first of all understand and accept that revelation is not only writing, but the life imprinted in them, the “multiple and varied” meeting of man with the Divine. Life is primary, but writing and tradition are secondary. Revelation is the history of humanity in its relation to the Divine, and in this sense it is tradition. It is not only a memory of the past, but also a real, living and living tradition. Flowing through time, it is integrated from the past to the present, and is always stored in all its vital fullness. If we take a mental look at the history of mankind to this day, then all of it is not only written down in the book of its existence, but also imprinted in its life. Tradition is, first of all, a kind of sacred reality. In Genesis we have the history of the world, its creation by God, but this history is entirely included in our lives. The “historical books” of the Old Testament recount the history of Old Testament revelation in connection with the destinies of the chosen people. But it is all recapitulated in the genealogy of Christ the Savior, and not only in the written genealogy, but also in His living humanity. The humanity of Christ is the living tradition of all mankind, from the creation of the world to our era, concentrated in the life of the chosen people. Tradition, as a living revelation, is the fulfillment of God-manhood, the communication of man with God, his deification. Revelation, as a tradition, is not only knowledge about God, true doctrine, but also life in God, a grace-filled gift of God. This grace-filled life for Old Testament humanity was determined by the law and sacred ritual, the establishment of sacrifices and church piety, the ministry of kings and prophets, in general, the entire fullness of the Old Testament, carnal circumcision. The tradition of New Testament humanity consists in the fullness of life in Christ by the Holy Spirit, in the unity of faith, sacraments, gifts of grace, in the unity of church love, in the fullness of the revelation given to us. In other words, revelation is the divine-human life of the Church, our own participation in it, and it is just as impossible to limit its limits, to exhaust it as it is to limit the internal limits of the Church. Revelation is life in God, accomplished deification, God-manhood. On this basis, one cannot contrast or separate, or, moreover, mutually exclude, sacred scripture and sacred tradition as two different types of revelation. This whole doctrinal disagreement between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and Protestantism, on the other, is based on a misunderstanding, which is this comparison itself. Tradition, as the life of the Church, is not one of the sources of revelation or just images of its imprinting, but revelation itself in actu, life in God through life in the Church. Tradition is the Church as a living unity and integral of the present, past and future, as God-manhood. And this life of revelation includes all its possible images: along with the sacrament, grace and prophetic spirit living in the Church, the Holy Scripture, as well as other books, written and material monuments expressing the revealed life and thought of the Church. Revelation is the Church itself, Humanity as the Church, the becoming God-manhood. We can talk about revelation in a double sense: as an act, or a sacrament of communion with God, and as a fact that has already happened and is imprinted in external data, inscribed in the tablets of human history. It is the action of the Spirit of God, who descended into the world at Pentecost; it is life in Christ, who is always with us, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Only in this actual revelation are the external facts of revelation revived and given their power, according to the words of the Apostle: the letter kills, the spirit gives life. “The Spirit gives life, but the flesh does not profit at all; the words that I speak to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63). This, according to the word of the Lord, is the distinction between the word - as a fact, “flesh”, and an act, spirit and life. Thus, the understanding of revelation in which it is reduced to one external fact, the presence of sacred books, disappears. This is the restoration of Old Testament legalism in the understanding of the “scribes and Pharisees,” which was so repeatedly denounced by the Savior. The Word of God, in the strict sense of the word, is not a book or writing, but is sacred scripture, existing only in the Church and for the Church, carried out in the life of the Church. Outside the Church, the Bible is simply a book that dies in dead hands, becoming an object of critical wit. On the contrary, it is revelation for the life of revelation, i.e. for church life. Countless and unsearchable are the ways in which the revelation of God through the medium of the Word of God reaches individual hearts. Here his efficacitas is manifested, but this is not a magical method of influence, just as it is not a purely human revelation, it is a breath of the Spirit of God, a continuing revelation, a meeting of man with God. In this sense, we can say that the Word of God is always written in a new way in hearts. Instructive in this sense is the story (Acts 8) about the eunuch of the Ethiopian queen, who on the way read the book of Isaiah, chapter 53, this is the Old Testament Gospel. Philip asks the eunuch: “Do you understand everything you read? He said: How can I (understand) unless someone instructs me.” Philip, “beginning from these scriptures, preached to him the good news about Jesus.” Therefore Philip baptized him, after his confession of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and after this the Holy Spirit descended on him. Here we have a full complex of revelation, which comes from the fact of the prophetic book being read in this particular case, but is not limited to it, but also needs an act, a special inspiration, given first in the speech of the Apostle, and then by the Holy Spirit himself. This is what is said in the Gospel (Luke 24:45): Jesus “opened their minds to understand the scriptures.” Revelation is an individual-catholic act, in which an individual is included in the general life of the Church. Revelation does not begin with an individual and does not end with him; each person has it for himself, but not alone and not in isolation. Therefore, the epistemological criterion of revelation, which is immanently inherent in it, is churchliness. The Church testifies from within, and then externally, about the truth of revelation - this is its postulate. This also leads to the opposite conclusion: the entire life of the Church, no matter what it is expressed in, is a revelation taking place. And for this reason alone, it cannot be limited to only one, albeit the most important, source - the written Word of God. The specificity of revelation does not allow for the unambiguity of its external monuments. They are different in themselves, both in character and in meaning. Moreover, life introduces its own nuances and differences, even if they cannot be accurately expressed in a theological formula. It is indisputable that even among the sacred books of the Word of God, not all of them have equal importance for us: we distinguish, first of all, the Old and New Testaments; in the Old Testament we distinguish, for example, prophetic or historical books, say, the book of the prophet. Isaiah and Esther, as in the New Testament, we distinguish between the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles, and even among these latter we make a distinction, for example, between 1 John and 2 John. Moreover, this should be said regarding other monuments of revelation in the life of the Church, preserved by tradition. For example, the texts of the liturgies are not the same as other official texts of lesser significance; the symbols of faith and theological definitions of ecumenical councils are not the same as, for example, the works of St. fathers, even the most authoritative ones. However, all revelation is in a coherent unity and concreteness. Therefore, in individual cases, any of his monuments may receive greater or lesser significance depending on the action of the spirit of God and the individual properties or special receptivity of the subject. This corresponds to the composition of the sacred canon, which is least of all a code of laws, or a system of theology, or a catechism. Rather, it is like a mass of crowded mountains and foothills, a bizarre conglomerate, seemingly random in its individual parts and forms. This is a frozen crystal of history, with all the whimsicality of its pattern. It is known that it did not include all the writings of divinely inspired men (epistles to the Laodiceans and other supposed epistles of the Apostle Paul, Λόγια Χρςστοῦ, etc.), and, on the other hand, it included books that were disputed in their merits at different times. The Bible is the inspired record of the history of revelation. Also, other later monuments of church tradition are, as it were, a diary of church history relating to the life of revelation. In this sense, in relation to the quickening and revealing Spirit of God, we can say that revelation is the taking place of the Incarnation and Pentecost. The Spirit of God, hovering over the waters in a state of primordial chaos, continues to dwell in creation, uniting with man in his spiritual being, and all the diverse paths and monuments of revelation are partly occasions and means, and partly separate acts of revelation. Revelation in and through them continues. In the Protestant world, Holy Scripture is revered as the only source of revelation - the “Word of God”. In the Orthodox and Catholic world, the Holy Scriptures are included in the general composition of church tradition, which establishes the canon of sacred books. It is revered as the most important source of revelation, as the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, “who spoke the prophets.” 6 In what sense is Holy Scripture the Word of God, and how should its “inspiration” be understood? 7 I believe that no one can currently support the theory of mechanical inspiration of sacred books, which likens their compilers to a passive instrument in the hands of God, or which equates their writing to dictation by the Holy Spirit. “Inspiration” is not a deus ex machina, the action of God over man, through man and apart from man, but a divine-human affair. Therefore, the generally accepted expression “Word of God” must be limited in its literal meaning, for more precisely it is the word of God-man. Inspiration is human inspiration, which, by the special will of God, is illuminated by the Spirit of God and contains within itself divine inspiration. Inspiration is only a special type of revelation in general, which, as explained above, is a meeting of man with God. In it, a person is not passive, but is extremely active, experiencing the highest intensity of his humanity, as well as his individuality, his personal genius. In understanding the nature of the Word of God, we must further accept in all its strength and significance the position that the word of God is also the word of man. God speaks to man in human language, and human words express the Word of God. A person not only does not become dehumanized in it, but even more deeply, so to speak, becomes humanized. The Word of God is the revelation of God incarnate, the God-man, the Son of God - the Son of Man, the Word of God - the Word of man - equally both before the incarnation of the second Hypostasis, and in the incarnation (in his own preaching of the Word during the days of His sojourn on earth), as after the incarnation. And the Holy Spirit “spoke to the prophets” both before Pentecost and at Pentecost and after it through the mouths of the apostles and spirit-bearing men. And in this sense, there is no qualitative difference between the Bible and other monuments of tradition that arose in the life of the Church according to the principle: ““It pleased the Holy Spirit and us.” Holy Scripture is human scripture, which is fulfilled by Divine power and becomes a conductor of revelation, the Word of God. In this sense, it should least of all be turned into an oracle, which is what the transcendental word of God actually is. It was heard by the “friend of God” Moses in darkness and fire on Mount Sinai, but this word was written by him on the tablets and inscribed in the book of the law after his descent from the mountain. The understanding of the word of God as a transcendental oracle, characteristic of exaggerated and one-sided biblicalism, recalls the era of its origin, when the legalism of the Roman Church was partly replaced by the legalism of the letter of Scripture - a reaction towards the Old Testament. Understanding the Word of God as a divine-human word eliminates in advance questions about the limits of its divine inspiration, down to every letter, every punctuation mark. Since it is a human word, it is entirely written by a man and, so to speak, with a human pen and a human hand. To the extent that it is the receptacle of the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, it still needs to be heeded through the medium of this human word. Therefore, the special reverence and holiness of this container forces us to treat it with exceptional reverence and care. But this same thing forces us to strive for full recognition of its specific historical form, to understand it not only in its divine content, but also in its human form. It is impossible to absolutize the relative and see the stamp of eternity in the concrete historical. This form is a container and a veil that becomes transparent to the Word of God, but is not the word itself. In this meaning, the Word of God is a constantly occurring spiritual miracle of the superhumanity of the human word, its permeability by the Holy Spirit. In this sense, it is a special case of God-manhood, which is the incarnation of Christ and the inspiration of God by the Holy Spirit. A miracle is not the abolition of the human nature of God by omnipotence with the transformation of the human word into the direct Word of God, but its transparency for the Word of God, the “inseparable and unmerged” union of the word of God and the human word: unmerged, since the human word remains itself, retains its own nature and in the Holy Scripture, despite the Word of God contained in it, - inseparable, because the Word of God is both the word of man and not allows for a different image for himself. We have here a particular application of the Chalcedonian dogma about the union of two natures in Christ, Divine and human, in their inseparability and non-fusion. Holy Scripture is also a special case of the manifestation of the image of God in man, in his relation to the Prototype: the image is consistent with the Prototype, it contains it within itself, and yet does not merge with it and differs from it. From this understanding of the image of revelation in the Word of God, important practical and exegetical postulates flow. The Word of God, as contained in the Holy Scriptures as such, is for its reception the subject of a special revelation in Revelation. The principle of the universal efficacitas of the Word of God, which is accessible to every individual who reads it, is not enough here. Here there is a special action of the Spirit of God, which opens the mind to “understand the scriptures.” This is a matter of personal inspiration, however, not in the isolation of individualism, but in the catholic consciousness of conciliarity. In other words, only in the Church and for the Church is the Holy Scripture the Word of God, and only the Church was competent, through the special inspiration of the Spirit of God, to testify to the Word of God in the Holy Scripture, that is, to establish a canon. The canon is revelation about revelation. But also the assimilation of the divine content of the Holy Scripture is given to the Church, and this eliminates pretentious individualism, according to which each individual, having his own Bible in his hands, is already capable and called to find church reason in it. This position in no way diminishes the truth that any perception of revelation, in particular through reading the Word of God, is, in its implementation, a personal act in the life of each individual. However, it is also ecclesiastical-catholic, since the entire Church is inspired by the one Holy Spirit. This internal unity of the Spirit is further manifested in external unity, in testing oneself in accordance with the mind of the church, which is a necessary postulate of churchliness. Of course, this check is carried out differently in each individual case, according to its characteristics. From here stems the incorrect idea that one sometimes hears from representatives of biblical legalism, namely, that the Bible is the foundation of the Church, and not vice versa. This idea that the Bible, as the Word of God, is given only in the Church, which bears witness to its revealed content, must also be applied in a completely different sense. Everything human is subject to becoming and exists in history. Therefore, the sacred books in their human form bear the stamp of history. They belong to a certain era, people, culture, bear the stamp of the individuality of their authors, and their entire historical appearance is characterized by historical relativity. This historical form belongs entirely to the knowledge of biblical science, and the more fully, the more specifically it is perceived, the more clearly and accurately we read its human writings. Critical science, of course, should not exceed the limits of its true competence (which it has constantly done and is doing, turning historical relativism into religious), but its true religious merit is that it does not allow the relative to be absolutized. Each historical era, according to its spiritual age and the general level of its thought and knowledge, reads the text of the Bible in its own way. It is no longer possible for us to return to that historical naivety and bliss of ignorance that was characteristic of the ancient Church in its relation to the sacred text - and this attempt, doomed in advance to hypocrisy and insincerity, would simply be impossible. However, this change in historical orientation does not have a decisive religious significance at all in our perception of the Bible as the Word of God. We also understand well that the current conclusions of biblical science, with all their relativity and precariousness for us, nevertheless, having a guiding significance, do not at all represent the last word of science, the only possible relationship to the biblical text. They belong to the historical life of the Bible in the Church. They destroy only the misconception that it is possible to relate to the human body the Bible as a sacred oracle, in its immediate form. So, in this sense, the Bible belongs to history and moves through it with us. This thought does not at all contain a relativization of its religious content as the Word of God; quite the contrary, scientific research should have the goal of eliminating obstacles to its comprehension, which stem from the obvious discrepancy between its historical image and the consciousness of modern man and the resulting religious misunderstandings. Science sharpens our gaze to discern the word of God in the word of man. Another conclusion from recognizing a certain historical relativism regarding the human side of the Word of God is to distinguish the relative importance of different biblical books. This is a concrete perception of revelation, instead of the abstract category of canonicity in general. Of course, all the books included in the canon have divine content attested by the Church and are involved in the Word of God. However, this formal equality of them in canonicity is not yet enough to fully evaluate them. Despite this formal equality, we cannot sincerely admit that the book of Esther, as canonical, is equivalent to the Psalter, or the book of Judges to the Gospel, or the entire Old Testament to the New. This does not diminish the necessity and importance of all of them, since the Church equally included them in the canon, but their importance is fully manifested only in the Bible as a whole, as a complex and multi-component multi-unity. But in our practical attitude towards them there remains room for differentiation according to their relative importance for us. This distinction finds external confirmation in those hesitations that were revealed during the canonization of different books, and now, after canonization, are silently expressed in the difference in our practical use of them. This concreteness of the revelation we receive from the Bible is generally expressed in the fact that its divine content is not immobile, once given and frozen. It is also perceived by us in history and through history, according to our development and age, personal and historical. The Word of God bears the stamp of eternity, sufficiency for all times. But it is always revealed to us, and, therefore, has not yet been revealed in its entirety. With the turning of the pages of history, it is as if the pages of the Word of God are turned for us. This is clearly evident from his history: for Old Testament humanity, revelation was limited only to the Old Testament, while what is New Testament is contained in the New. However, this does not mean that the content of the latter has been fully revealed to us. And this is closest to the most mysterious and essential parts of it: prophecies, apocalypticism, eschatology, which were written in order to reveal the “future.” VII. Church authority. Revelation is given not to an isolated, but to a catholic person - although in individuals and through individuals, but to all humanity, in its history. Over time, its crystals form, its golden grains and clots settle, and what in technical language is called a deposit of faith arises. And this accumulation and preservation of revelation begins in the depths of the Old Testament, from the first days of human history. In it arises written revelation, sacred books, growing like stone to stone in the building of the sacred canon; it contains the living tradition of faith and covenant, law and worship of God. New Testament revelation here forms a new era in which revelation is enriched both in life and in writing. The canon of the Bible includes the New Testament books; The life of the Church, prayerful, dogmatic and canonical, as a living tradition, consists in certain forms of objectified revelation. Along with the dynamics of revelation, its statics are also realized. How is it determined? What are the conditions for preserving this revelation as a deposit of faith? Here we enter from the life of the spirit, the supra-empirical realm, into the realm of historical empiricism, where the church exists not only as “invisible,” as the super-historical body of Christ, but also as a visible human institution, having an external organization and certain organs. Do organs of revelation exist and are they possible? Here, first of all, it is necessary to distinguish between the organs of storage of an already given revelation and the acceptance and witnessing of a revelation that is again occurring and is about to occur, in the past, present and future. It is necessary to establish that there does not exist and cannot exist an external, unchangeable and permanent body of revelation as an ecclesiastical institution. The spirit breathes wherever it wants, and it is impossible to fetter it with external forms. Prophets and apostles are not the establishment of the law, but a fact of grace-filled life. Ecumenical councils are also not a canonical institution for the acceptance of revelation, as is often thought, but a fact of revelation. We must not forget that revelation, in the sense explained above, is always a miracle, and a miracle is not statutory or logical. The fact that Moses ascended Mount Sinai to receive the revelation is not ex cathedra of his office, but a direct command and accomplishment of God, just like the election of the prophets even before birth (Jeremiah 1:5). Turning from individual cases of revelation to revelation as a general fact in the life of the Church, which preserves the truth and testifies to it, it must be said that this revelation of the truth by the Church is a continuing miracle, which is affirmed by the general faith in the Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). How and when does the Church perceive the truth, separating it from lies and error (for Deus ecclesiae suae non deest in necessariis)? Not only is there no answer to this question, but there cannot and should not be an answer. The Church is the Body of Christ, which is moved by the Holy Spirit, it is a mystical unity - (conciliarity) - and the truth is revealed to this unity. Therefore, the idea of ​​an oracle dictating the truth of revelation to the Church is equally contrary to the nature of the Church, as well as the nature of revelation, for such an oracle thereby becomes above the church and outside of it. This is the main ecclesiological difficulty and unacceptability of the Vatican dogma about the pope as infallible ex sese, non ex consensu ecclesiae, since this prerogative of his is addressed not to the past, but to the present and future. 8 The one-sidedness of Protestantism as a reaction against papism lies in the fact that in the name of the principle of church freedom, the complete absence of external organization in the Church in relation to the life of revelation is proclaimed. But this denial of hers simply does not correspond to factual reality. And in Protestantism there are revealed truths, which are guarded with authority and authority by the organized church, which has its own corresponding bodies. Isn’t the Bible, as part of a certain canon of sacred books, a fact of revelation that, being miraculous, i.e. supernatural, revealed in its origin, is now also the law of faith, guarded by the Church, not only “invisible” or mystical, but also institutionally organized and acting through its authorities? Not only the canon of sacred books, which the Church preserves in its tradition, but also the basic dogmas of faith, no matter how they are eroded by liberalism or minimized by criticism, have for themselves saving protection and authoritative testimony in the Protestant hierarchy. The latter, no matter how it is organized, acts in conciliar harmony with the entire community. In general, anarchy under the pretext of universal prophetism is one of the utopias, and therefore illusions, that do not correspond to reality and even contradict the nature of churchliness. Even in Quakerism, which wants to be a direct revelation, denying any deposit of faith and, therefore, authoritative organization, the Bible remains as a fact of revelation, and therefore its deposit, at least in the sacred canon, and there also remains the fact of the existence of a community having certain dogmatic foundations and principles of organization. An unorganized society simply does not exist, it is a flock, and therefore the church is always an organization of faith, i.e. revelations. The Church in its empirical or historical existence is not only an organism, but also an organization, and, of course, a hierarchical organization. This hierarchical organization should not be a purely human elective institution, but an objectively given gift of grace (and in this sense also a deposit of faith) - what is conventionally and imprecisely designated as “apostolic succession.” The hierarchy of apostolic succession arises and exists primarily as a sacramental organization, which has at its core the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, and with it other sacraments. But this power is so significant that the hierarchy in it and with it becomes the center of church power in general, and in particular receives the special authority of teaching. Therefore, it is natural for her to be the mouth proclaiming church truth, and also to be the custodian of the truth, already realized and accepted by the Church. Of course, it does both as an organ of the whole organism, i.e. churches. Even in this most indisputable competence of the hierarchy, it does not break away from the church (not ex sese, sine consensu ecclesiae), but acts in harmony and like-mindedness with it. Charisma infallibilitatis, revelation, is given to the whole Church, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, the Church in its empirical and historical existence is a grace-filled organization, a catholic body, not amorphous, but organized. The competence and power of the hierarchy to be the mouth of the Church and the guardian of revelation, however, is limited only by its already given content. But the hierarchy cannot in any way be turned into an infallible organ of revelation, its oracle, because this would contradict the very essence of revelation, which has no forms or boundaries for itself and is equally accessible to the priest Ezekiel and the Tekoian shepherd Amos. In this the universal prophecy is fulfilled. Therefore, in relation to the newly proclaimed truths of revelation, the hierarchy, while maintaining its ministry to be the mouth of the Church, does this only by virtue of genuine insight into the truth of the Church, which accepts or does not accept its definition. Therefore, here it has only conditional infallibility, donee corrigetur. 9 The infallible authority of the hierarchy (either the individual pope or the collective pope, it makes no difference) would contradict the gift and calling of universal prophecy given to the church, and would practically eliminate revelation as a divine-human process. More precisely, the hierarchy alone would be the representative of the entire church body, which clearly contradicts both the idea of ​​the church and the idea of ​​revelation. In the church everything is individually catholic. Naturally, Catholic theology, developing its teaching about the sole infallibility of the pope, usually considers him to be the “vicar” (vicarius) of Christ himself, that is, practically taking His place. And just as Christ is the New Adam, containing all humanity within Himself, so the Pope is the same new Adam, representing all Church humanity within himself. 10 But such a concept is difficult to reconcile with the idea of ​​a church body, which consists of different members in their plurality. VIII. Continued revelation. Is revelation finished and can it end? If we understand it statically, not as life, but as a given (deposit), not as an act, but as a fact, then this question can be answered in the affirmative. After the Incarnation and Pentecost, the “last times” begin, for the revelation of God to people through the deification of creation in the Incarnation has already been accomplished in principle. However, this accomplishment is not only a chronological fact that took place in our era, it has the power of eternity, and its revelation determines the entire life of humanity, both in this eon and after it. Revelation is the life of both an individual human throughout all his destinies, and the life of the entire church, all humanity. This is the life of divine knowledge, in which, along with the personal acceptance of revelation, the Word of God, this book of life, the “eternal Gospel,” is read by life and is always revealed again with changing depth. Also the truths proclaimed by the Church as dogmatic definitions, for example, the dogma of St. The Trinity, the incarnation of God, becomes the subject of personal revelation: “We will come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). A person who becomes the abode of the Holy Trinity by the power of the Subject Spirit has a living revelation of what, when written down and included in the deposit of faith, sounds like a scholastic formula. A person has a similar vital revelation about God in the sacraments, which give a person, in connection with his general spiritual state, living communication with God. Revelation is not only knowledge in the word, but also communication in life, ineffable by word. This also includes the question of “dogmatic development,” or the possibility of new dogmas. Usually you have to give both a negative and an affirmative answer to this question. The first is given in the sense that in the Church, which is life in Christ, led by the Holy Spirit, the whole fullness of truth already exists, in relation to which there can be nothing new. However, this completeness is revealed in history in new revelations about oneself, or new dogmatic definitions, as the history of dogmas sufficiently testifies to this. The fullness of church truth is not a treasure locked away, but a wealth that always enriches life. From this it follows that dogmatic development cannot stop in history, and it has different rates at different times, depending on the nature of the era. But we must not forget that, in addition to newly emerging dogmatic definitions, history itself is a continuously continuing revelation of life, in which, along with new problems, new revelation is also presented. In order to understand this truth about revelation in history, one must once again abandon the idea of ​​the externally mechanical nature of revelation and understand it as a divine-human interaction, “synergy,” in which the human side must reach a certain maturity and fullness of questioning. Καιρός is generally the definition of the inner voice of historical eras, and each of them has its own καιρός, and they all merge into one common world-historical καιρός, with which the present eon ends, having reached the possible fullness of revelation. This completeness for the present zone will be expressed at its end, in which it transcends into the future age. The transcendental revelation for him is the new appearance of Christ in His second coming, parousia, as well as the new manifestation of the power of Pentecost, in which the “transfiguration” of the world will take place, the “new heaven and new earth” will appear. All these are the lapidary symbols of the eras of revelation, in history and beyond history, in this century and in the future, as well as further in centuries of centuries, in eternity. Revelation, as life in God, is eternal life, eternity itself. Eternity has two faces for us: firstly, temporary, in which eternity is revealed as infinity (good or “bad”, depending on its content), and secondly, eternal, in the sense of a qualitative definition, as the ineffable depth of life that is revealed (“eternal life” as the knowledge of God. John 17: 2–3). Creation cannot have adequate, exhaustive knowledge of God, who is therefore eternally revealed to it. This does not contradict the deification of man, in which God will be all in all, because even with this realization of the Kingdom of God in creation, life in God for the creature will be accomplished as a revelation from the endless ocean of divine eternity. The created aeviternitas is filled with the power of the divine aeternitas. This is the ever-performing God-manhood, the actual unity of the Divine Sophia and the created Sophia, the eternal Dialogue of the Transcendent with the immanent, of God with creation. The image looks in the Prototype and is illuminated by it, and the Sun of the Prototype sends light to His image. The Incarnation is not only a once accomplished fact, but also an always ongoing act, and Pentecost is not only a one-time event, but an eternally ongoing inspiration of God. The hidden life of the Holy Trinity is communicated to creation. The source of all revelation, its Beginning ἀρχή. – The Father reveals Himself in the Son by the Holy Spirit in the Divine Sophia, and He reveals Himself in the created Sophia, sending the Son and the Holy Spirit into the world. The self-revelation of the Holy Trinity in Itself becomes Her revelation in the world. Printed for the first time: up to page 81 - from typescript with corrections by S. Bulgakov and marked 26.VII.1919 Oleiz (the manuscript was given to us by T.V. Elchaninova). The end is based on a typescript from the archive of S. Bulgakov, located in the Sergievsky courtyard, without traces of the author's editing and marked - Crimea, 1918. The article was written during the years of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov in Crimea. Only a few pages were published from it in Sergievskie Leafki (1932, No. 6 [56], pp. 10–13). Thus, in the depths of the Absolute itself, we distinguish two antinomically related, but mutually indeducible and irreducible definitions to one another: the Absolute God; the darkness and unapproachable light of the Absolute and His revelation as God the Creator in creation. Further exploration of this initial opposition is beyond the scope of this essay. See about this in my books: “Non-Evening Light” (1917). "Lamb of God" (1933). “Chapters on Trinity” (1928), etc. Wie ist die Erfahrung mӧglich? Wie ist die Uffenbarung mӧglich? Although this is a miracle, a miracle must also be ontologically possible. I develop the foundations of sophiology in connection with triadology in my various books, in particular in the treatise On God-Humanity (volume one: Lamb of God, 1933; volume two: Comforter, 1936). Wed. essays: Chapters on Trinity (1928); hypostasis and hypostasis (1925). See the pathological excursion about created Sophia in my book: The Burning Bush (an experience of dogmatic interpretation of certain features in the Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God). Paris, 1927. Natural revelation is fully and equally recognized in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism (see especially Scheeben. Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik. B. I, Erstes Buch, Erster Тheil). The situation is more complicated in Protestantism. The usual formula of the Orthodox-Catholic catechism is that church revelation consists of the Holy. Scriptures and Holy legends, in their seemingly side-by-side position as two separate sources, is definitely not satisfactory. Firstly, there are not two of these sources, but one: church tradition, which includes the Holy. Scripture. But, on the other hand, in the general composition of church tradition, the Word of God undoubtedly has primary importance, and it verifies all other church tradition. This question has a long history and has generated numerous literature. Wed. comparison in the Inspiration articles in Diet, de theol. dogm. cat. vol. VII. 2 and in Real Encycl der.prot. Kirche Bd. t. 3, cl. IX. Here we must distinguish between two possible ideas of a supreme high priest who is the head of the universal church. The first is that the primacy of the pope in the church is, so to speak, representative, and the fallen is only the mouth of the universal church. Such an idea, consistent with the general meaning of the ancient tradition of the church about the primacy of the Roman See, can be compatible with the idea of ​​the conciliarity of the church, hierarchically organized from top to bottom. The second idea is the ultramontane principle, which also triumphed at the Vatican Council (although the possibility of its further, more acceptable interpretation is not excluded). In his definition - ex sese, sine consensu ecclesiae, he seems to tear apart the idea of ​​conciliarity, putting in its place an institutional prophecy ex cathedra, introducing a dogmatic oracle. However, Catholic theology in its best representatives does not want to abandon the principle of conciliarity and strives to combine it with the Vatican dogma, albeit with unconvincing arguments. It is touching to see, for example, this attempt by Scheeben. 1. c. 80–96. See my L'Orthodoxie, chapter on external ecclesiastical authority. Catholic doctrine here oscillates between two incompatible and, in any case, different points of view: according to one of them, the apostle lives and acts in the pope. Peter, according to another, he is the vicar of Christ himself. Having arisen at different times and from different sources, both doctrines are mechanically connected with each other.