Иерархия и таинства 249

I. Hierarchy in the Apostolic Age The question of the emergence of a three-tier hierarchy as the basis of church organization is one of the most difficult in modern church-historical science and, in all likelihood, given the sources given, is doomed to remain a matter of hypothetical guesses and constructions. However, we can consider the most probable general result that suggests itself as a result of historical observations: during the first century, the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Church did not know a three-degree hierarchy in the current sense. 250 The latter can be stated from the beginning of the 2nd century (from the first epistle of Clement, the epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer and after them) and even at the turn of the 1st and 2nd centuries, at least in places (Διδαχή), we observe a more complex charismatic-hierarchical organization. However, already from the middle of the 2nd century, a hierarchical organization was established with a more or less obvious “monarchical” episcopate at its head. We are observing, as it were, two eras: firstly, the apostolic and post-apostolic age, when the gifts of grace, later associated with the hierarchical charisma, were abundantly poured out, as it were, over the hierarchical boundaries, and, along with the holy apostles themselves, various charismatics acted (1 Cor. 12), and, secondly, the era of regulated charismaticism through a hierarchy of the type Old Testament priesthood, starting from the 2nd century. One may not exaggerate (like Zom) the entire contrast of both eras, but one cannot help but see all their differences. At the same time - what is most important here - the very transition from one era to another remains elusive. The ancient absence of a three-degree hierarchy has the force of a historical fact, which the attempts of Orthodox-Catholic apologetics remain in vain to weaken, and we do not know the full accuracy of the establishment of the hierarchy. We do not know of a direct “apostolic succession” in the establishment of this hierarchy, which would be designated in an externally definite way. Although, based on examples of apostolic ordinations in the Acts of the Apostles, we can postulate the continuity of this ordination from the apostles to the first hierarchs, we are powerless to state it. Pragmatically tendentious evidence about the continuity of apostolic succession for the Roman Church from Tertulian and St. Irenaeus (as well as for the Asia Minor Church from St. Polycarp), of course, does not have sufficient evidentiary power, and they do not even try to show a continuous line of apostolic ordinations for all churches and for all cases of ordinations. The idea of ​​direct and continuous hierarchical succession from the apostles is inspired primarily by the Catholic doctrine of the primacy of Peter, who continues his presence in the Church in the person of the Roman high priests, as well as the doctrine of the direct establishment of all seven Sacraments by Christ Himself, and this definition of the Council of Trent 251 was also adopted by the dogmatic doctrine 252 of Orthodoxy. Such a doctrine, of course, leaves no room for that actual hiatus (gaping, break (lat.) - Ed.), which, in the name of scientific truth, is stated by church history during the transition from the pre-hierarchical to the hierarchical era. History in this case raises a question for dogmatic interpretation, namely, how one should understand the hierarchical principle in its meaning in the Church, as well as the general principle of apostolic succession, which currently establishes the justification for the hierarchy. The Catholic doctrine of the primacy of Peter, allegedly established by Christ Himself, and of the succession of his apostleship among the popes has, at least, consistency, although it is bought at the price of the dogmatic myth about the continued presence of the Apostle Peter in the Roman popes and in the Roman see. However, even from a Catholic point of view, there is no longer any basis to talk about the personal succession of the other apostles, and this is not said, because Roman dogmatics is not interested in this. Orthodox dogma would be more interested in this, which, however, has not yet done, and would hardly be able to do, an experiment of such proof. We sometimes encounter such word usage in a general form as applied to the entire episcopate, to which in such cases the fullness of apostolic grace is attributed. But this is a simple misunderstanding, for Orthodox dogmatics is completely unaware of the idea of ​​​​continuing the apostolic title in their successors. The dignity and ministry of the holy apostles, as those who knew Christ in the flesh and were called by Himself, are not transferable, and the episcopate does not at all have the fullness of the gifts of the apostleship and in this sense is not an apostolic ministry. The latter is much higher than bishopric, which is included in the apostolate as one of its private gifts and should not even be compared with it. It can be considered that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which gave the apostles the power of remission of sins at the appearance of the Risen Christ (John 20:22-23), was for them, as it were, an episcopal ordination, and it received power for itself at Pentecost. However, the very calling to the apostleship made by Christ was not at all connected with any private gift and was not confined to it alone. And what the holy apostles received at Pentecost in the fiery tongues of the Holy Spirit was much more than just the episcopate - namely, all their prophetic and charismatic gifts. The Church is called apostolic not in the sense of “apostolic succession” of episcopal ordination, or at least not in this sense alone, but in relation to the entire fullness of the apostolic tradition. And apostolic succession in this sense is characteristic of the entire Church, and not just the hierarchy, just as the gifts of Pentecost in the form of tongues of fire were given not only to the apostolic hierarchy, but also to the entire church people. The Catholic and Catholic interpretation of Pentecost wants to give it the meaning that only the first hierarchs - the apostles - were gathered in the Upper Room of Zion, and only through them these gifts are further transmitted to the rest of the Church members. But such a tendentious interpretation contradicts the facts, for according to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, not only the apostles were present at the descent of the Holy Spirit, but also Mary, the Mother of God, and many others (cf. Acts 1:14 and Acts 2:1-4). But even if this had not happened, one cannot think that the apostles at Pentecost represented only a hierarchy, “the teaching and ruling Church,” in the absence of the laity. It is more correct to consider in this case that the twelve apostles actually represented the entire body of the Church with all its members, that is, the hierarchy and the laity, although not differentiated, but inseparably. There is a complete analogy here with Matthew 28:19–20, where the command to baptize and teach all languages, directly addressed to the apostles, actually means the entire Church. (This is confirmed, in particular, by the fact that Baptism can be performed by the laity; it also presupposes teaching). It is indisputable that in the fullness of the gifts bestowed upon the Church, which was represented in the person of the apostles, there were also hierarchical powers, but they were not the only ones. If the Old Testament hierarchy received its beginning from the fullness of the gifts of the prophet and seer of God Moses, then the apostles laid the foundation for the Christian hierarchy not only as first hierarchs, but from the entire fullness of the apostolate, which, as such, is not transmitted to anyone, and therefore it is inappropriate to talk about apostolic grace among hierarchs alone. The Apostles founded churches in places and pre-established their structure. However, this cannot be understood legally, in the sense that they themselves created the entire system of church institutions and determined the church organization. The theanthropic nature of the Church presupposes not only divine inspiration and guidance, but also responsive human creativity and self-determination. Therefore, the church is subject to historical development. And in accordance with this, in the Chief Apostolic Church we observe initially a certain amorphousness and formlessness. (This gave Zom the reason to see in the latter the internal norm of the ecclesiastical church, in relation to which any institutionalism, “church law,” is a fall from grace). This amorphousness was filled and strengthened by the personal service of the apostles and their constant visits to various communities (later “charismatics” also join here). But, of course, it could not satisfy all the practical needs of local communities (or ecclesias), which therefore had their own bodies: “bishops”, “deacons”, “presbyters”, etc. At the same time, in the apostolic writing we do not find instructions that the Eucharist, the breaking of bread, which begins to take place immediately after Pentecost (Acts 2:42-46), had for itself deliberate performers, in addition to the apostles themselves, who, of course, were not sufficient to satisfy the liturgical needs in different places. This expressive silence about the existence of a deliberate hierarchy for the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist rather indicates that a certain hierarchical structure of sacramental life did not yet exist here. The idea of ​​a universal priesthood, although not in certain specific forms, was practically guiding for this system, the remnants or experience of which we have in the Didache, the Teaching of the 12 Apostles, where the Eucharist is celebrated by evangelists, prophets, and bishops or presbyters. II. The emergence of hierarchy in the post-apostolic age This is the direct evidence of history, which cannot be weakened by dogmatic postulates about the continuous existence of a hierarchy for the performance of the Sacraments since ancient times. On the contrary, it is more likely that hierarchy arises in history as if spontaneously and, of course, in accordance with the spirit of the apostolic tradition and in no way contrary to it, although there was a time when it did not exist. 253 This fact of the historical emergence of hierarchy currently introduces a whole dogmatic confusion, and dogmatic passions and tendentiousness are introduced into the judgment about the historical fact itself. For some, this fact contains the dogmatic elimination of the successive hierarchy in favor of an elective universal priesthood; for others, the very recognition of this historical fact sees a malicious heresy - an undermining of the hierarchical principle in the life of the Church, which they want to support with a historical myth. Both points of view are equally incorrect in their straightforwardness, but the facts undoubtedly require a dogmatic interpretation. There are Sacraments that are directly established in the Gospel and therefore are called Gospel Sacraments; about them, those peculiar questions that are raised regarding the “non-evangelical” Sacraments do not arise. History testifies that some Sacraments, although they correspond to the spirit of the tradition of the Apostolic Church and even exist in it as if in grain, however, they do not appear in life immediately, but in historical development, which in no way diminishes their significance. Such is the Blessing of Anointing, Marriage, in a certain sense even Repentance, and, obviously, this also includes the Priesthood. In Protestantism, a dogmatic principle has been established, a kind of Old Belief, according to which only that which is marked with the stamp of primitiveness (Ur-Christentum), so to speak, prehistoricity, has a dogmatic right to exist. This premise contains a tacit denial of church history, which is viewed only as the Fall. Why should only earlier and underdeveloped institutions be valid in comparison with more developed and later ones? Why are these latter deprived of the authority of Sacred Tradition, attributed exclusively to the former? This question was never answered; it was considered self-evident that early Christianity was the norm of all Christianity. But at the same time, it remains an irrefutable fact of Church Tradition that after an interval of only a few decades existing between the apostolic and post-apostolic centuries, we already observe in the second century an episcopate and a three-member hierarchy. In general, a hierarchical principle is established: Saint Ignatius, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Cyprian and others already express it as indisputable and self-evident. In this desire for fidelity only to the original tradition of the Church, in its pre-hierarchical state, although it is affirmed in the name of freedom, or “propheticism,” in reality, rather, Old Testament nomism is manifested in its legalistic completeness. Meanwhile, organically developing and gradually coming to its fullness, tradition, in fidelity to the apostolic principles, gave birth to a hierarchy. With this generation, the ancient apostolic principle of the laying on of hands clearly appears as an image of the communication of grace from the holy apostles in the Apostolic Church. This power was transferred by the apostles to their successors, although we cannot accurately establish all the particular cases of this transfer (the conciliar Epistles of Timothy and Titus). This laying on of hands initially has a varied and uncertain meaning. Only the later Tradition of the Church connects with certain of its images certain - and, moreover, different - gifts from the fullness of the treasury of the Church. In this sense, we can say that the Church itself establishes the hierarchy in its present form. Usually, the establishments of iure divino and iure ecclesiastico (according to divine law and church law - Ed.), divine and unconditional and relatively historical, are usually distinguished and contrasted in Catholic, and after it in Orthodox theology, with the three-degree hierarchy (headed by the pope) being, of course, one of the first. However, neither one nor the other category fully captures the nature of the hierarchical establishment. The hierarchical principle, succession through ordination, is a divine institution, it exists iure divino, but in its concrete historical existence it arises in the history of the Church, iure ecclesiastico. And in general this will, of course, be a modo divino-humano, a divine-human action of the Church. In the primitive Church, the fullness of the gifts of Pentecost was poured out in abundance, as during the lifetime of the apostles themselves, for some time, perhaps two or three decades, and after them. We have no direct instructions that the apostles, when founding new church communities, themselves ordained certain hierarchs for them. Rather, the possibility of establishing a hierarchy was left, which, however, was carried out by the Church itself. She, the Church, from the fullness of her abiding Pentecost, gave birth to a hierarchy, according to the Divine Spirit living in her, and according to the general principle of the succession of grace. If in the Old Testament Church we have the establishment of a hierarchy at the command of God, through the prophet Moses, then here too the hierarchy arises through the prophetic, spirit-bearing activity of the Church. The Church is a priori of hierarchy, and not hierarchy is a priori of the Church. The idea of ​​hierarchy as a direct and continuous succession of ordinations from the apostles is characteristic of the later century - Irenaeus, Tertulian and Cyprian. It is too brightly colored by a pragmatic character and cannot be considered sufficient evidence with historical force. If, without any doubt, all the fullness and power of the episcopate, which was given at Pentecost to the entire Church, was concentrated in the apostleship, this does not mean that the apostles were actually bishops of certain Churches. On the contrary, they did not stay in certain places, and we have no information about this (except for clearly legendary ones) (just as Titus and Timothy, who were ordained by the Apostle Paul, were not bishops in the strict sense of the word). The idea of the bishopric of the apostles necessarily follows only from the Catholic understanding of hierarchical succession (primarily from the Apostle Peter) and hierarchy in general as power over the Church (a special application of the principle of ex ore operato (Thus the action is not done - Ed.) · It is assumed that the external fact of succession establishes, as given, a hierarchy that rules over the Church in as a church oligarchy. This idea, although widespread among some Orthodox theologians, does not correspond to the Orthodox understanding of the Church as the organic unity of all members in the body, although with their distinction - the unity of all in freedom and love, in conciliarity. According to this understanding, all gifts, in particular hierarchical ones, are given to the entire Church in its conciliarity, and therefore, by virtue of this, the Church was competent to allocate different organs for different functions and establish a hierarchy. For this, it was not at all necessary that direct succession of ordinations from the apostles, which, although postulated, cannot be proven. The entire doctrine of hierarchy must be illuminated in the spirit of the principle of conciliarity, according to which the hierarchy exists in the Church and for the Church, but not above the Church; it is its organic member, although vested with special powers. Roman doctrine has influenced the theological thinking of all confessions on this issue to such an extent that considerable effort is required to overcome this influence. The basic principle here should be that hierarchical powers belong to the entire Church, and bishops arose in the Church by its power, and were not given, as it were, from the outside, directly from the apostles. Episcopacy, but not bishops, is included in the gifts of Pentecost, thanks to which, out of the total number of ordinations, separate bishoprics arose locally, in accordance with the needs of the church. It was completely natural that the latter arose through ordination from bishops, which received the name “apostolic succession.” The meaning of this name in the usual understanding is that within the visible historical field there is no break in the hierarchical succession of ordinations. However, the idea of ​​“apostolic succession” also has another, broader and dogmatically very important meaning in the Ancient Church. Here we mean not only the succession of hierarchical ordination, but also belonging to a given church community founded by the apostles or arose from them, that is, the succession of conciliarity. This important historical fact, noted by Turner in his excellent essay on “apostolic succession,” establishes in the worldview of the Ancient Church the principle of conciliarity as the inseparability of an organic connection, the unity of life of communities. 254 Episcopal grace is given to the community, and not to the individual, who realizes it only in connection with the community. This means that it is not the episcopal laying on of hands alone, but the entire community, by its consent and participation, that establishes the hierarchy with its succession. The organic connection of communities with each other takes us beyond the boundaries of the private Local Church, which is by no means closed in its conciliarity, but is in organic connection with the entire Body of the Church. This connection is externally expressed by the fact that episcopal ordination presupposes the participation of two or three bishops belonging to other Churches, as their representatives, that is, it is included in the life of the church as a whole (Cyprian’s “in solidum”). This is not the idea of ​​church democracy, but of church-conciliar organicity. The hierarchy with its hierarchical succession is given to the entire Church, which all has participation in ordination, and not only through elections and consent, 255 but through prayerful participation in the Sacrament of Ordination itself. The Rite of Ordination is structured in such a way that the consent of the people, expressed by ἄξιος, is an essential moment in the Sacrament itself. In the formula of Ordination, the believing people are also called to prayer for the descent of the grace of the Holy Spirit, in other words, the ordination itself is accomplished not by ordination alone, as a magical or mechanical act, but by the prayer of the Church at ordination. 256 The hierarchs themselves, apart from the church community and in spite of it, cannot perform an effective ordination, so to speak, ex opere operate. Therefore, for the effectiveness of ordination, it is required that the person being ordained be confined to a specific church community. III. Universal Priesthood and Hierarchy So, the hierarchy, just like the Sacrament of the Priesthood, although it has a historical origin in the life of the Church, it is precisely in this origin from the Church that the seal of Pentecost lies on it. Therefore, we can say about it that it exists iure divino, although at the same time it exists iure ecclesiastico. There is no contradiction in this combination of both principles, which are usually opposed. Initially, the hierarchical principle, having a Divine origin, was carried out spontaneously and indefinitely, in the order of enthusiastic inspiration, and then received the form of a canonical establishment. This canonical design ideologically and practically receives a one-sided and harsh expression, not alien to Western “legalism,” not only in the Western Church, but also in the Eastern Church. The main corrective against this legalistic one-sidedness is the principle of conciliarity or the organicity of the Church as the Body of Christ. Strictly speaking, the entire Church is hierarchical, like the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and hierarchical service is not the basis, but the function of this hierarchy. Zom's radical thought, directed (like all Protestantism) polemically against Roman legalism, in its fundamental denial of canon law as law, contains the truth that the hierarchy is not legalistic, but charismatic, and not placed above the Church, but conciliar and organic. In this conciliar organicity the iron of power melts, and submission means conviction. The organic nature of the hierarchy in the Church is connected with what constitutes its main and most important function. It does not consist in commanding and punishing (which is already a secondary and derivative function), but, first of all and most importantly, to perform the Sacraments and, most importantly, the Divine Eucharist. Hierarchy is primarily a Eucharistic institution. And, since the Lord Himself established the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the hierarchy is included in this establishment as one of the conditions. The celebration of the Eucharist begins in the Church immediately after Pentecost (Acts 2), obviously with the direct participation of the apostles; later (according to Didache) it is carried out not only by the apostles, but also by prophets and evangelists - a transitional era, and by the beginning of the 2nd century, in unknown ways, apparently by some instinct of church wisdom, its direct leadership is concentrated in the hands of the hierarchy, and all determinations of hierarchical degrees are made in relation to the Eucharist. The bishop, like the presbyter, are the celebrants of the Eucharist, and the bishop, who ordains the presbyters, naturally takes first place, while the deacon is the one who serves in the celebration of the Eucharist. It is remarkable that in the very first written monuments, where the hierarchical principle is established, it is invariably justified by the celebration of the Eucharist. So we have in Clement 257 (in relation to the elders) and in St. Ignatius 258 in relation to bishops and the entire clergy. And already on this basis, as a superstructure, for practical reasons, one or another ideological justification for episcopal power and significance in the Church is established. But in this Eucharistic meaning of the hierarchy, first of all and most of all, the conciliarity of its nature is revealed. The Eucharist is λειτουργία, a common cause, a common service. According to the rite of the Orthodox Liturgy, in which the prayers of the celebrant and those praying are united, intertwined and alternating, the Sacrament is performed conciliarly, by all the people together with the clergyman, and the power to perform the transposition is exercised not by a magical act ex opure to operate apart from the worshipers and without their participation, generally without relation to the Church, but as a Liturgy, a common cause (in the same way all other Sacraments, in particular and Ordination, as already stated above). In a negative form, this thought could be expressed as follows: a priest or bishop alone, without the people and without any relation to the people, fundamentally cannot and should not celebrate the Eucharist, 259 and those present at the Liturgy, even in the smallest number of lay people, are representatives of the entire church people. So, it should be considered that the origin of the hierarchy is sacramental and it was born from the Eucharist. And from this center the performance of other sacraments further arose and developed, nevertheless having a center in the Liturgy or dedicated to it: first of all, the Sacrament of the Priesthood itself, then Confirmation, Baptism, which initially could and still can be performed by the laity, 260 Marriage, originally confined to the Liturgy, then (by Divine institution) Repentance, and over time, Blessing of Anointing. But, what must be kept in mind, all these Sacraments, like the Eucharist, are also performed conciliarly, they are the actions of the Church through the hierarchy, or rather, with its necessary participation, but not the hierarchy as such, apart from the Church or above the Church. So, sacramentalism is the true basis of the hierarchy; here its necessity was felt for the first time, and only then this sacramental center, once arose, became noticeable in its action and in all church life. Here, in the conciliar understanding of hierarchy, we encounter the biblical idea of ​​a universal priesthood, which was put forward by the Reformation against Catholic clericalism. Unfortunately, both sides, who faced irreconcilable contradictions in the 16th century, knew only the Western formulation of this issue and were unfamiliar with Orthodoxy, which, in its idea of ​​conciliarity as applied to the hierarchical principle, alone was capable of reconciling them. And first of all, we must begin with the fact that the principle of the universal royal priesthood, known to the Old Testament and proclaimed by the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 2:9), must be recognized and is recognized in Orthodoxy in all its strength. All Christians are priests in the church of their own soul, which is also the temple of the Holy Spirit, and they are all laypeople, participating together with the performers of the Sacrament in the Divine Liturgy, as well as other Sacraments. It should be noted in this regard that the state of the laity in the Church is not a complete absence of the royal priesthood, but only a special state or degree of it, since all Christians are invested with the sacred rank of laity. The laity exists only in the Church and for the Church; outside it there is no hierarchy or laity: Muslims or pagans are not laity to the same extent that they are not priests. The sacrament that corresponds to the ordination of the laity is confirmation, after which the baptized is admitted to all other sacraments. It is worthy of attention that this ordination of the laity is an episcopal Sacrament, like Ordination: in the Western Church, as a rule, it is accomplished through the laying on of episcopal hands, but in the Eastern Church, although the direct celebrant is a priest, the myrrh used in the Sacrament necessarily has the consecration of even several bishops. In this sense, confirmation is the Sacrament of the universal priesthood. So, this principle, so dear - and in all fairness - to Protestantism, finds corresponding recognition and confirmation - at least in principle - in Orthodoxy: in the celebration of the Eucharist the whole Church participates in the fullness of its royal priesthood, which, however, is not amorphous, but organized, like different members of a single body, before the altar. But let it be allowed to point out to our Protestant brothers that the principle of the universal priesthood - sacerdotium - in its conciliar, organic application does not exclude, but necessarily includes hierarchical bodies acting not in isolation, but in organic unity with the Church. Hierarchy can be understood as the organization of the universal priesthood. The principle of the universal priesthood organically connects the hierarchy with the Body of the Church, but it does not mean that all members of the Church are practically called to exercise this priesthood, for in the body they are different members, not all of them are hands, mouths, etc. If church organization and differentiation of organs is recognized as necessary in Protestantism, then this practically only confirms the entire fallacy of the straightforward application of the principle of a universal priesthood. Hierarchy is precisely the practical application of this principle, with the power of the priesthood being delegated and concentrated in certain bodies. The same thing is recognized, only with insufficient consistency, in the Protestant distinction between sacerdotium and ministerium. ed). Although the hierarchical meaning of the ministerium is denied here, nevertheless, in fact, in it alone the sacerdotium is realized, which is in all members of the Church, in addition to the ministri ministers - Note. ed. ), is practically abolished due to non-use or is expressed only in the right to choose. It turns out to be a paradox that in Protestantism, the universal priesthood is exercised through the personal priesthood, which is doctrinally denied. In other words, it turns out that due to the lack of a conciliar understanding of the hierarchy, the universal priesthood in reality remains inactive except in the pastor. 261 Consequently, the principle of the universal priesthood in Protestantism is only proclaimed, but is not actually recognized, since sacramental ordination is denied. The point here is not at all about rejecting or belittling the universal priesthood, but on the contrary, to realize it and turn it from a formal declaration into reality, which is what takes place with sacramental Ordination. The latter, as we have seen, is truly the Sacrament of the entire Church, the realization of the universal priesthood. And with the restoration of the sacramental priesthood in Protestantism, we would not be talking about denial, but precisely about eliminating the inconsistency in the application of the principle of the universal priesthood of the Church, not only of this time, but of all times of its existence in its unity. Belonging to this unity of church life is expressed by the principle of the so-called apostolic succession, currently expressed in the episcopal laying on of hands with the general consent and prayer of the community. Bishops, ordaining in unity with the Church, successively express the function of the universal priesthood. The laying on of hands is not a magical act, deus ex machina, the sacramental power of one bishop over the Church, but in it the church priesthood itself realizes itself, in its continuity (once again - Cyprian’s “in solidum”) - the organized life of the priesthood. This organized life corresponds much more consistently to the idea of ​​a universal priesthood than an elective ministerium, devoid of sacramental meaning. The idea of ​​the latter is an extreme expression of ecclesiastical jurisprudence or legalism, which has afflicted the Western Church. In its reaction to this legalism, the Reformation went even further than its opponent. The bureaucratic empowered ministerium, this anti-hierarchical ecclesiastical democracy, means secularization allowed within the Church. It inevitably leads to church provincialism. The elective principle is able to establish the unity of the Church only externally. The only consistent form of such a fundamental fragmentation of the Church is congregationalism, and even further Quakerism, with a complete denial of hierarchy in the name of direct personal inspiration - also soit disant (properly speaking (French) - Ed.) of the universal priesthood. There are two poles in this actual denial of hierarchical conciliarity: the anti-hierarchism of Quakerism and papism. Can a historical argument have decisive force in denying hierarchy, namely, an indication that it does not arise immediately and that the primal Church, in a certain sense, lived without hierarchy? This can be answered with the question: is the ministerium that re-emerged in the Reformation really a restoration of the life of the original Church, in which the holy apostles lived and which was separated from us for thousands of years? Or is this a pseudo-historical, romantic reconstruction? On the other hand, is it not precisely in the light of the principle of the universal priesthood and the continuing Pentecost in its gifts that the principle of practical relativism in the means for its expression is most acceptable? It is only necessary to recognize that the primary idea is the universal priesthood, entrusted to the Church and carried out by it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in certain forms. This form, consecrated by antiquity, has undoubtedly been the hierarchy of episcopal succession since the 1st century. This principle of succession includes (and does not exclude) the elective principle, which is as dear to Protestantism as the Protestant, and at the same time completely hierarchical principle of concentration of power in the elected hierarchy. But, in addition to this, the principle of church unity in the continuity of the universal priesthood, the sacerdotium of the Church, is established here. Any arbitrary, unnecessary deviation from organic unity or Tradition in church life is not only a sin against church love, but also a known evil risk, introducing shock and doubt into sacramental action. This is exactly what the elimination of the successive hierarchy in the Reformation was. To the extent that it was motivated by the idea of ​​a universal priesthood, there was a misunderstanding here, for if this principle was not sufficiently recognized in Catholic and Catholic theology with its excessive and one-sided application of the principle of ex orete operate, in fact the principle of “apostolic succession” precisely means the universal priesthood of the people of God. And has not the time come to reconsider and test precisely in the light of the principle of the universal priesthood - the Protestant principle of the appointed ministerium, in order to return in its name to the continuously preserved unity of the Church in its apostolic hierarchical succession? IV. The sacramental principle in its meaning for the hierarchy So, the episcopate and the presbyterium derived from it have, first of all, a eucharistic-sacramental origin and meaning, it is sacerdotium, such is its mystical root. But thanks to this significance, the bishopric also becomes an ecclesiastical authority. Canon law is based on the power of the Sacrament, episcopacy is a sacramental power, and the so-called apostolic succession has, first of all, sacramental significance for regulating the celebration of the Sacraments. None of the other elements of power that arose in the episcopate has such a primary meaning; on the contrary, they all represent derivative, church-historical, and then canonical superstructures on a sacramental basis. The fact of the emerging sacerdotium is used as an organizing force in the Church, which is further interpreted pragmatically, often with exaggeration and dogmatic one-sidedness and inaccuracies by church writers of different eras. The beginning of this hierarchical hyperbolism was laid by Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer, 262 he was followed by Saint Irenaeus 263 and Saint Cyprian 264 who found for it a unique completeness with his principle of episcopus in ecclesia and ecclesia in episcopo and in general the theory of “monarchical episcopate”, which found its consistent completion in the Vatican dogma. The bishop is sometimes called the “vicar of Christ” on earth (or even the representative of God) in Orthodox theology, which in its own way does not want to lag behind the Roman one, not always realizing where such statements lead. All these dogmatic hyperboles do not reach the target, because they hit further than it. If in a certain sense it is true that the liturgical bishop or priest bears the image of Christ the High Priest (“in persona Christi”) during the celebration of the Sacraments and, above all, the Eucharist, then this applies in exactly the same way (except for Ordination, of course) to the entire episcopate and presbytery equally as to the priesthood (sacerdotium), and it would be more careful, for the sake of dogmatic accuracy, to refrain from these hyperbolic comparisons. So, the principle of the hierarchy is sacramental-Eucharistic, it can be expressed in the words of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (Smym. 8): “That Eucharist must be considered true, which is either performed under the direct leadership of the bishop, or on his instructions; it is not allowed, apart from the bishop, to baptize or celebrate the Supper of Love.” V. The power of teaching and hierarchy The historical development of the Church generally favored the hierarchy, which, having concentrated its sacramental life around itself, then acquired the significance of a general organ of church unity, church power as such. This power and influence is manifested in other ministries of the hierarchy, besides the sacerdotium, namely the teaching, magisterium, and church government, iurisdictio. The latter went hand in hand with the nationalization of the Church, thanks to the connection between the Church and the empire, the cooperation of church and civil authorities, sacerdotium et imperium, spiritual and “external”, imperial bishoprics. Jurisdiction, as well as the teaching power of the hierarchy, were completely natural and normal consequences of sacramentalism concentrated in the hands of the hierarchy, for the power of administering the Sacraments in general is the highest and final power, which cannot be compared with any other. The fate of the development of this power in the East and the West was different in that in the West the development of the power of the hierarchy, as a monarchical episcopate, reached its limit in papism, while the East, following the same path, by the grace of God stopped in the middle and did not reach the limit. The teaching power of the hierarchy, of course, does not belong to the number of sacramental gifts. There is no hierarchical charisma infallibilitatis (the grace of infallibility - Ed.), proclaimed by Vatican dogma. Bishops not only do not have infallibility in their teaching, but actually made mistakes: the history of the Church knows heretics equally among popes, patriarchs, and bishops. Crowded episcopal councils were possible, but they were rejected and condemned by the Church (like the robber Council of Ephesus, the iconoclast of 764, then the union Councils of Lyon and Florence). The Eastern Church in its doctrine is always in danger of replacing individual papism with collective papism, and replacing the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility with the infallibility of the collective pope - the episcopate. For this purpose, a fiction is created of the unanimity of the episcopate, which was allegedly manifested at the Ecumenical Councils, as in all the most important cases in the life of the Church. Those familiar with the history of the Ecumenical Councils know how far from the truth this idea of ​​episcopal unanimity is. Of course, after various amputations, with the assistance of not only spiritual, but also secular authorities, a certain unanimity was established (although also not always: just remember the history of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus), but this unanimity was not always a guarantee of truth: just remember the Iconoclastic Council and the Florence Council. As a result of these comparisons, it turns out that the authorization of conciliar decrees is carried out not only by the episcopate as such, but by the entire church people, its “reception”, conciliarly. Usually, as an objection to this truth, it is pointed out that the Ecumenical Councils consisted of only bishops, and this alleged fact is cited in defense of the idea of ​​​​collective papism. But, firstly, it is necessary to take into account in this fact the share of the influence of the secular authorities who invited bishops to the Council, as well as the difficulties of the then means of communication; secondly, we must remember the presence of lay people at the Council - namely the emperor (“external bishop”) and imperial officials, as well as other persons, for example, numerous monks at the VII Ecumenical Council (not to mention papal representatives, usually priests). There has never been a special resolution, canonically dogmatic, on the exclusively episcopal composition of the Councils, which is why at present, given the changed conditions of all life, this practice can be considered abandoned (in particular, the Moscow Council of 1917–1918 consisted of representatives not only of the ruling episcopate, but also of the clergy and laity, like similar meetings of the Anglican Church and the convocation of the American Episcopalian). The idea of ​​collective papism, that is, the infallibility of a unanimous decision of bishops, is generally painted in the colors of Romanism and differs from it only in less consistency; to proclaim the Eastern Vatican dogma of the infallibility of the episcopate would mean going against not only history, but also life itself. Such a dogmatic claim would have as its basis the Roman idea of ​​an external organ of infallibility, analogous to the pope ex cathedra (from the pulpit, that is, speaking officially - lat., Ed.). But such a body, such an automaton of infallible judgments does not exist in Orthodoxy, for, according to the message of the Eastern patriarchs, our entire Church Body, and not just the hierarchy, preserves the Church truth. And the whole Church testifies to the truth, led by the Holy Spirit. The absence of such an external body in the Church, which is usually considered weakness and helplessness on the Roman side, is in fact an advantage, for it is more consistent with the nature of the Church, which the Holy Spirit Himself teaches all truth in His own ways, known to Him. Nevertheless, the hierarchy, by virtue of its sacramental power and in connection with it, naturally belongs to the special right of teaching, ius magisterii, the preservation and confession of church truth. First of all, it belongs to her in connection with divine services and sacramental activities, catechesis and preaching. The bishop oversees the teaching of the church. However, this teaching does not constitute a sacramental privilege of the hierarchy, which would be completely inaccessible to the laity. 265 On the contrary, the laity, with the blessing of the relevant hierarch, are allowed to preach even during divine services, and even more so outside it, not to mention the fact that they have the right, and under certain conditions the obligation, of theological judgment (even at the Vatican Council a place was given to theologians). It would be one of the intolerable superstitions to think that hierarchical charisma replaces and compensates for the lack of theological knowledge and, in general, represents a kind of magic that turns ignoramuses into theologians. Naturally, rather the opposite: the hierarch is required to be prepared for his service. But in addition to this church preaching, the hierarchy has the right and duty of observing church truth and its authoritative proclamation. Without claiming doctrinal infallibility, bishops are nevertheless the mouth of the Church, authoritatively and authoritatively proclaiming church judgments in agreement with it. In this sense, both at the Ecumenical and Local Councils, the final authoritative judgment rightfully belongs to the bishops (at the Moscow Council, bishops in special sessions had the right to veto the resolutions of the Council). This right of the bishopric in general and of the individual bishop in particular 266 can be called conditional infallibility. Pragmatically, we can say that indicium epscopati pro veritate habetur, however donee corrigetur, or sinon corrigetur (the judgment of the episcopate is considered true, but until it is corrected or unless corrected (lat.) - Ed.) by the Church. This is even more true, of course, in relation to actions of doctrinal significance or dogmatic facts. In particular, on the paths of ecumenical rapprochement, the episcopate is now given the opportunity to take certain powerful and authoritative steps, to make responsible decisions (in particular, in matters of sacramental intercommunion (mutual communication (lat.) - Ed.) it also has direct decisive power). However, it should be emphasized with no less force here that this power can only be exercised in agreement with the church people. The hierarchy cannot give unilateral orders here, as the history of the Florence Council quite eloquently testifies to this. Its definitions could not be imposed by the hierarchy on the people. The same must be kept in mind today in matters of ecumenical rapprochement. The hierarchy does not have the power to order a union unless it is prepared and accepted by the church people. In addition to all this, we must not forget that hierarchical succession and the sacraments do not exhaust the grace-filled life of the Church. In the Church there is a direct, immediate acceptance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the power of prophecy, which the Apostle commanded not to quench. This prophetic ministry in its essence cannot be standardized, for the Spirit breathes where it wants. But for this question about potestas magisterii (teaching authority (Latin) - Ed.) it is important that, along with hierarchical magisterium, the Church also knows prophetic, that is, essentially lay magisterium. Therefore, the teaching powers and possibilities of teaching in the Church are not exhausted by the hierarchy. It remains the responsibility of the hierarchy to proclaim and formalize the truth, and authoritative testimony about it. VI. Hierarchy and jurisdiction The hierarchy has, further, potestas iurisdictionis, the power to rule church life, first and foremost in the sacramental realm. This side of it is, of course, in connection with the sacramental power itself, there is also a “superstructure” on this “base”, but it is entirely of historical origin, there is an iure ecclesiastico (according to church law (lat.) - Ed.). The canonical structure of the Church in each era is nothing more than the consolidation of the actual state of affairs in church law. There is no dogmatic basis for this or that canonical system, which the Roman Church wants to have, all in the same papal dogma. A historical example of the clash of two different worldviews on the issue of the nature of canonical authority is the attitude to the famous 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical (Council of Chalcedon), which established the pentarchy of patriarchs (similar to the “five senses”) and exalted the See of Constantinople almost to the level of the Roman See. This exaltation was justified in the 28th canon frankly and decisively for reasons not dogmatic or even canonical, but historical - the actual significance of Constantinople as the “king city”, the political and cultural capital of the empire. This motivation was, of course, deliberately tendentious in the sense that the same reasons motivated the position of Rome, also as a royal city. Of course, in Rome, where the primacy of the papal throne was dogmatically motivated, they could not agree with such a reduction of Roman primacy to an accident of historical conjuncture, which could change, as it did change, both for Rome and for Constantinople, after the fall of Byzantium. The example of the 28th canon is very indicative and is of fundamental importance for the present time, when the entire historical situation has changed beyond recognition. The sacramental connection of individual bishops, located in some general church unity, is expressed in the ordination of a bishop by two or three bishops from other bishops, and, consequently, in their recognition in solidum by not only their private Churches, but also the universal episcopate and the Universal Church in general. The emergence of a new bishopric or the installation of a new bishop always leads beyond the local limitations of a given diocese, and on the basis of this alone one cannot speak of a monarchical episcopate, which has always been either a polemical fiction or a dogmatic hobby. Episcopacy could only be conciliar, both in its origin and existence. Only the Roman See, by virtue of the dogmatic proclamation of papism, represents the only consistent example of a monarchical episcopate. There remains only one path to a truly monarchical episcopate: “to Canossa.” The sacramental necessity of the relationship between individual bishops, which has its basis in the conciliarity of the church, has always required a certain orderliness and agreement, canonical norms, which were implemented in church rules established at church councils. Thus, the second, third and further floors of the canonical hierarchy arise; this represents only the vital development of the 34th Apostolic Canon, which states that the bishops of every nation should have the first among themselves. This principle is realized in the formation of metropolises and patriarchates, which are emerging again before our eyes and, of course, in this emergence, the ancient pentarchy is least of all taken into account. The principle of canonical jurisdiction is not only combined with the sacramental principle, as a regulating principle, but also argues with it, in some cases exaggerating itself and even seeming to obscure it. In the history of the Church, canonical disputes have created and are creating many church schisms that encroach on the very power of the sacrament. This includes various canonical prohibitions in secrecy, which cause such sad and painful phenomena of schism. As in all human affairs, the proper balance is not always maintained between what can be called the canonical logic of things and the lust for power of individual hierarchs or departments, contrary to the wise rule: pas trop gouverner (not to govern too much - Ed.), for the area of ​​the Church is not the area of ​​the empire. History has linked canonical unities with state ones (from which comes the emergence of national-state patriarchates). But we must remember that the real sacramental unit in the Church is the bishopric, which is in connection with the whole Church, Cyprian: episcopus in ecclesia. And in the face of the excessive centralization of huge national-state Churches, which weighs heavily on the development of local life, has not the time come in our time to gradually give place to individual episcopal communities, like the apostolic ones, with the overcoming of Eastern papism of various types, but with the restoration in full force of the principle of conciliarity? The type of sacramental-hierarchical “congregationalism” of the bishops is more consistent with both the essence of Orthodoxy and the needs of the historical moment than the belated restoration of the Churches of states. In addition, states have long become laic and are striving for the separation of Church and state at a time when church organizations are trying to maintain and even perpetuate this connection. The Constantinian era of the connection between the Church and the state has passed, and the Orthodox Church has entered (obviously after the Russian Revolution) into the post-Constantinian era. We find an instructive comparison in the canonical structure of the Church in Protestantism, which, having rejected the sacramental nature of the hierarchy and turned it into an elective ministry, at the same time erected a very impressive canonical organization on this foundation. We are no longer talking about the connection between the Church and the state in the Reformation according to the principle of cuius regio euius religio (whose country is the faith (Latin) - Ed.), or the primacy of the secular sovereign in the Church in the English establishment (officially state church (English) - Ed.), but also about the very structure of church power. Protestantism in both its branches, both Lutheranism and Reformation, established a whole system of canonical bodies of the general church government, either on an elective basis, or directly for state purposes. Thus, instead of a hierarchical structure of the Church, there was a church bureaucracy governing the Church (the whole abnormality of this situation has been sufficiently exposed in our days in Germany). But does this system correspond to the ideal of the early Christian Church, in the name of which the reform was carried out and the sacramental hierarchy was rejected? How much do these consistories, superintendents and other ancient charismatics resemble, although Protestantism wants to be a prophetic-charismatic church? Overcoming this secularization and some kind of frank and legalized caesarepapism or democracy (instead of conciliarity) is possible only on the path of overcoming the revolutionary moment in the reformation, namely in the restoration of the sacramental hierarchy. And doesn’t this secularization of the Church bear the same dark shadow of medieval papism, which the Reformation wanted to remove? In the Protestant world, a call has been made more than once to overcome and, as it were, complete and correct the Reformation (Harnack), but until now this call has been understood rather in the sense of a destructive criticism of Christian dogmas. But has not the time really come to continue the reformation, freeing it from the shadow of papism that lies over it, albeit with a negative coefficient? This same wish can also be addressed to certain Orthodox representatives who, in theory and in practice, sometimes strive to implement second-class papism, namely without a pope, or, even worse, collective papism. Without at all wishing to belittle the dignity of the Roman Patriarchate, the great Apostolic Church of the West, we nevertheless consider it essential for the fate of Christianity in the quest for unification for the ecumenical movement to internally overcome papism in our own environment - in the name of church conciliarity. More on the question of Sophia, the Wisdom of God* (regarding the definition of the Bishops' Council in Karlovtsi) To His Eminence Metropolitan Eulogy, Professor Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov Report 267 Your Eminence was pleased to invite me to express my thoughts on the content of the Definition of the Bishops' Council in Karlovtsy from October 17–30, 1935 on my teaching about Sophia, the Wisdom of God. 268 Before turning to the analysis of individual statements of this Definition, I consider it necessary to present some general considerations (partly already expressed by me in response to the decree of Metropolitan Sergius). In the Definition, along with my other writings, there are especially many references to my work “Non-Evening Light” as heretical. I affirm again that this work, published in 1917, was known both to the Moscow Holy Council with His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon at its head, and to His Grace Bishop Theodore, the former rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, who ordained me to the rank of priest, with the blessing of Patriarch Tikhon. Nobody demanded any renunciation from me. I myself (and not I alone) even considered this book as a well-known basis for seeking holy orders, and I was accepted into the clergy of the Orthodox Church, being the author of this book, therefore, with all its problematics and doctrine. The verdict of the Holy Council and Patriarch Tikhon was pronounced by the very fact of this acceptance, which on the part of the Council was confirmed by the second election of me after my ordination as a member of the Supreme Church Council, that is, one of the two highest church institutions. Therefore, since this book of mine in the Karlovac Definition is obviously interpreted as heretical, and I am required to publicly renounce it (as part of my other writings), I cannot help but see in this act not only silent opposition to the actions of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the Moscow Holy Council, but also direct condemnation of these actions. Such condemnation by a relatively lower body in relation to the highest ecclesiastical authority of the Russian Church is a non-canonical action, undermining the very foundations of church discipline and violating the conditions for the normal development of theological thought. This same tendency manifests itself with even greater force in the book of Archimandrite Seraphim, who proposes in it, as far as I know, to subject not only my doctrine to church condemnation, but also the teaching of Vl.S. Solovyov and Father P. Florensky. As for the first, “Readings on God-Humanity,” his main theological work, containing an outline of sophiology, was published in 1881 in Orthodox Review, one of our best theological (and, of course, then censored) magazines (and then was only repeated in his French book “La Russie et l'Église universelle” (Russia and the Universal Church (French) - Ed.), and during his lifetime he did not attract condemnation or even doubt (which was caused by some of his Latin opinions). He went to the Lord not only in peace with the Church, but also recognized - not only in the secular, but also in the spiritual press - as one of the worldly guides to Christ. Therefore, undoubtedly, the idea now to anathematize the teachings of Solovyov includes the condemnation of not only him, but also the entire church society (including the hierarchy), which revered Vl. S. Solovyova. Even more striking is the condemnation of Father Pavel Florensky, who was a priest and professor at the Theological Academy, editor of its magazine “Theological Bulletin” for a number of years, and enjoyed the special trust of His Grace Theodore, rector of the Academy. It is obvious that here, together with P. Florensky, all these bodies of church power are also accused of connivance in relation to heresy. In any case, I assert that the very right to existence of sophiology - in its problematics and theological research - along with other theological teachings has already been recognized by the Russian Church for decades, and moreover, by its highest bodies, and it cannot be taken away from Russian theology. In the case of conflicting judgments, one must be guided by the attitude of a more authoritative body in comparison with a less authoritative one: this is how I understand the path of genuine church obedience. I would like to point out another characteristic feature of the “Definition”. In it my theological constructions are severely criticized, they are exposed in contradictions, etc. Of course, I do not consider myself infallible and cannot deny the validity of theological criticism, even the most destructive, since it remains within the bounds of theological discussion. However, the fact is that the Definition knows in its method of theological criticism only one category: heresy, which is why any error or contradiction, whether correctly or incorrectly seen in general, is qualified only as heresy. 269 ​​Consequently, the Definition acquires for itself a special charisma of logical infallibility in theology, which, of course, should be a matter of common, conciliar effort, even in the presence of mutual criticism, but providing a certain breadth of discussion and even the possibility of errors. The latter are avoided only by those who do nothing. Such inexorability in theological criticism using the category of heresy as the only one is especially unexpected in an act signed in the name of Metropolitan Anthony, whose opinions on the atonement, as everyone knows, also meet with extreme protest and the most irreconcilable attitude in wide circles of church society, especially in view of the fact that Metropolitan Anthony not only developed these opinions of his in a theological article, but also included them in the Catechism. It is known that within the Russian episcopate there are hierarchs who treat this teaching absolutely irreconcilably, as a heresy: Metropolitan Eleutherius, Archbishop Theophan, Archbishop Benjamin, probably and others. Without denying Metropolitan Anthony, as a theologian, the right to have his own private theological opinions, even if unusual, I believe that this same right should be extended to other theologians. Turning to the content of the Definition, we encounter here, first of all, the general judgment that we had to analyze already in the answer to Metropolitan Sergius. My teaching is declared to not have “sufficient justification for itself in the Word of God and in the works of the holy fathers of the Church,” and my attempts to find such are “completely untenable.” To this judgment I have to answer that I still find such grounds, or at least strive to find them, which I try to show in my writings. And it is completely wrong that “instead” of this I look for them “in the pagan Plato and in the Kabbalistic teachings.” Elsewhere we read that “speaking in the language of Neoplatonism or (?) Gnosticism (?)” does not mean speaking “in the language of the Gospel, the New Testament (which, of course, is indisputable) and the Christian Church in general.” But the question is, is it even possible to truly understand the language of the Christian Church without knowledge of Hellenic philosophy, and is it now possible for an Orthodox theologian who would not be knowledgeable in ancient philosophy, in particular, in the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, the Stoics, etc.? 270 The mention of Kabbalah as the source of my sophiology can only cause amazement: of course, in “The Unevening Light” I expounded many teachings, both those that I share and those that I do not share; This is the usual method of comparative research, but that’s all. Further, the gnosis of Valentinus is declared to be the true source of my teaching. To this I can only answer what I already said in my answer to Metropolitan Sergius: my doctrine has nothing to do with Gnosticism. In fact, I was never inspired by them or even studied them in any depth, and any influence in the sense of borrowing biographically is completely alien to me. We must also add that we generally do not know enough and even less understand the Gnostic systems, which have been preserved for us only in the cursory and polemical presentation of Saints Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Hippolytus. Therefore, to be under the influence of gnosis, to tell the truth, is actually impossible, although it may be very convenient to rattle this polemical weapon. Finally, gnosis has nothing in common with my sophiology because it is a system of emanative pantheism, which is generally deeply alien and even hostile to me. In general, I most decisively reject the connection with gnosis attributed to me, for I firmly know the true sources of my inspiration in this teaching: this is the Word of God and the life of the Holy Orthodox Church in its liturgy, in its veneration of the Mother of God and the saints - Angels and men. The following signs of “gnosis” are defined in my theology. First, the doctrine of the “two wisdoms.” I would like to understand more precisely what this means, but I will limit myself only to reminding that the teaching about the two wisdoms, the Word before the incarnation and after the incarnation, is characteristic of the Church Fathers, for example, St. Athanasius the Great - therefore, was he not a Gnostic? Secondly: the doctrine of the “image of God.” But this is, first of all, biblical, patristic and pan-Orthodox, which can be found in all dogmatic manuals. And this is a sign of gnosis? Thirdly, about Sophia as the essence of creation and as the creator of the world: although in the Definition there are references to the corresponding pages of my writings, my teaching here is portrayed so vaguely and incorrectly that it is difficult, on the basis of such a presentation, to even talk about similarities or dissimilarities with gnosis. And in general, this whole attempt to characterize my teaching as Gnostic belongs to the category of polemical devices that have no justification for themselves in my own writings. There, as far as I remember, there is hardly even a mention of gnosis, in particular Valentinov’s, which is supposedly the secret source of my sophiology. And isn’t it better to simply turn to Chapter VIII of the Book of Proverbs of Solomon, the corresponding chapters of the Wisdom of Solomon, etc., in order to find this real and not hidden, but revealed source? The wisdom of God is the revelation of the Father in the Son and the Holy Spirit and therefore exists inseparably with the Divine hypostases, at the same time differing from them in the same sense in which the Divine Ousia is inherent in the consubstantial Trinity and in its own way - in each of the hypostases, not separating, but also differing from them. She is the beginning that the Lord had at the beginning of His ways in the creation of the world (Wisdom 8:22), and it connects and together mediates the world with God. The question of the relationship between the world and God is actively occupied by Christian theology even in its initial and uncertain steps, and under the influence of one-sided cosmologism in the understanding of the Holy Trinity, it is inclined towards subordinationism: the Logos, as a mediator between God and the world, is understood as unequal to the Father - equally in Tertullian and Origen, until, finally, this idea receives an obviously heretical expression in Arianism, which was condemned by the Church in Nicaea. Partly, perhaps, as a result of the reaction to Arianism, the very question of the relationship between God and the world further disappears from the surface of dogmatic thought, the subject of which is mainly difficult and complex problems of Christology. Only in some statements of individual Church Fathers: Saint Gregory the Theologian, 272 Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint John of Damascus, Blessed Augustine - about prototypes or prototypes of the creation of the world in God 273 and in the teaching of Saint Athanasius about created Wisdom we have, however, in a rudimentary and unspoken form a formulation of the question of the basis of creation in God, or something same, about Divine Wisdom. The question arises with new force in our era, which is experienced in various types of pantheism and has a deliberate task for Christian philosophy to overcome it. Religious philosophy knows the following ways to resolve the issue: 1. deism, which actually coincides with atheism: here the relationship between God and the world is understood as complete mutual alienation, so that the very possibility of creation becomes incomprehensible; 2. pantheism of various types, from panlogical (in Hegel) to materialistic - practically this is also atheism, since here one way or another the identity of God and the world, world-theology and man-theology is affirmed; 3. acosmism or anti-cosmism (in Hinduism and in the philosophy of pessimism returned by it): here the reality of the world is denied, which is declared an illusion, and at its core (atman) is identified with the Divine; this cosmological docetism also leads to pantheism; 4. Manichaean nihilianism, for which the world, created from “nothing” and lying in evil, is practically not recognized as having in itself the image of God’s Wisdom, which further damages the basic dogmas of Christianity about the Incarnation, the transformation of the world and its deification. None of these teachings correspond to the Christian Revelation. And in the face of all these difficulties, the theology of our days inevitably poses anew the problem of God in relation to the world. This determines the main problematic of sophiology, which deals precisely with this primordial Christian problem, now posed anew by the entire development of modern philosophy and theology. 274 It is in one form or another irreducible from modern theology, and this is the raison d'être (the meaning of existence (French) - Ed.) and my sophiological constructions. What do we find on this crucial issue in the theology of Determination? For him, neither this problem nor the legality of attempts to resolve it simply exist. My thought about the Divine Sophia as connecting and mediating God and the world without any consideration is declared, firstly, “gnostic”, and secondly, false, and this judgment is a sufficient reason for its rejection. With this sweeping denial, which seems to go without saying, the Definition does not even attempt to give its own, positive judgment on this issue. Such a course of action in relation to the most burning question of modern theology is dogmatic arbitrariness, for it is impossible to cope with dogmatic problems with nonsense and prohibitions alone. 275 The doctrine of Sophia is further called a work of “renewed dualism.” What could this mean? Does this mean that I am restoring the Eastern doctrine of two gods: good and evil? But to interpret Sophia, the Wisdom of God, as an evil principle means deliberately attributing to me something that is as far from my thoughts as heaven from earth. Further, to attribute to me, along with “our” teaching about the Holy Trinity, the teaching “about Sophia as some other God” is just as reasonable as for interpreting it in the sense of Manichaean dualism. As I testify in all my writings, Hagia Sophia is not God, but the Divinity in God, completely in the sense in which Usia (or physis) is in the Holy Trinity. Is Usiah “another God” in the Holy Trinity? Of course, the task of sound theology, trinitarian and sophiological, is to understand Usia-Sophia in the Holy Trinity as the beginning of true consubstantiality, triune life and revelation - the Unity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Unity, not only in relation to the trinity of heterodivine hypostases, but also Their true consubstantial Trinity in nature. Otherwise, what we get is not the dogma of the Trinity, but tritheism, which contradicts the teaching of the Holy Trinity and is condemned by the Church. According to the Athanasian Symbol, “we honor the one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in Unity below the merging Hypostasis, below the dividing being... But the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Divinity, equal glory, co-essential majesty. As is the Father, so is the Son, so is the Holy Spirit.” From the point of view of the Definition, this Orthodox teaching about the one Divinity in the Trinity God remains to be understood only as “some other Divinity.” In the development of this general thought, the Definition is attributed to me that “by introducing the assistance of Gnostic media, the Orthodox teaching about the creation of the world is distorted to the point of rejecting it. For the Holy Church teaches that God created the world through His Hypostatic Word and the Holy Spirit, without thinking or allowing any intermediaries or assistance here.” For me, “the Gnostic mediation obscures the Divine mediation (sic!) of the Son and the Holy Spirit, leaving no room for the activity of both.” Let me begin with the fact that the formulation of the Christian dogma about the creation of the world is given here inaccurately and ambiguously. What does it mean that “God created the world through the Hypostatic Word and through the Holy Spirit or through the Divine mediation of the Son and Spirit”? Doesn’t this formula return our thought to subordinationism, Tertullian-Origen, and then also Arian, according to which God creates the world precisely through the mediation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, Who, according to this instrumental meaning of Theirs, are no longer equal to “God” in Their Divinity? Or does the Definition, with all the inaccuracy of its expressions, actually want to say that God the Father creates the world through the Word and the Holy Spirit, as this truly corresponds to Orthodox teaching, and then the question arises, what exactly does this mean through , introduced by the Definition into the very core of the dogma of the creation of the world? The definition doesn't even notice that this is where the real problem begins. For me, it is resolved in the sense that God the Father, as the First Will, “Creator of heaven and earth,” creates the world on the basis of His image, which in the Holy Trinity is revealed in the Word and the Holy Spirit, and this self-revelation of the Divine, or Divine Sophia, is the Beginning of creation, which is spoken of in Genesis 1:1 and in Wisdom 8:23. Through here means that the Second and Third Hypostases participate in the creation of the world, so to speak, not hypostatically, but sophically, that is, according to the Divine content of Their life. God the Father says: let this and that be (by the Holy Spirit) (the Word by which all things were). Obviously, it is precisely this very thought that the Definition can only have in mind in the words about “the Divine mediation of the Son and the Holy Spirit.” But why is “gnostic mediation” attributed to me, “replacing the Divine mediation”? God and Sophia are not two principles, but one God, exactly the same - no more and no less - as God and Usia, for Usia in Revelation is Sophia. And as a result of all this judgment, truly gliding over the very abyss of Arianism, the Definition hastens to conclude that my teaching must be recognized as “heretical as the creed of ancient Gnosticism, adjacent to the Arian heresy and for all this falling under the condemnation of the Holy Church at the First and then at the VI Ecumenical Councils, along with other heretical false teachings,” in a word, attributes to me a whole catalog of heresies. However, it is dangerous to throw a stone at someone who is in a glass house. Immediately after this inexorable judgment, continuing its accusation, the Definition itself no longer slides only on the edge of heresy, but directly falls into it, committing a gross dogmatic error. Namely, we read in it: “Further in the definition of Sophia, where it is called “the energy of God” and where Sophia, as the action of God, is identified with God Himself, the heresy of the Barlaamites is repeated, who, in contrast to the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, identify the energy of God with God Himself, for which they were condemned by the definitions of the Local Councils of Constantinople in 1347, 1352." You simply cannot believe your eyes when reading these lines, in which the Orthodox dogma, accepted by the Church in accordance with the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, is attributed to his opponent Varlaam, who was precisely anathematized for his denial. 276 In the history of the Barlaamite disputes, modern theologians would find a lot of instructive things for themselves, in particular, Saint Gregory was accused by his opponents of introducing polytheism in the concept of the energy of the Divine, just as now the opponents of sophiology in Sophia see either a “fourth Hypostasis”, then “another God” and the like. 277 A false understanding of my teaching about the Divine Sophia as another, non-divine or other-divine principle in God or along with God, leads the author of the Definition to this understanding: “An even more crude, contrary to the very essence of the Christian faith, heresy is introduced in the definition of Sophia as Usia, the being of God, which he calls the original principle along with the Divine Hypostases, for this gives us the concept of Sophia-Usia, as some second God, contrary to the teachings of the Holy Church. The latter, as we all know well, looks at the being of God and the Divine three Hypostases not as two, but as one original being of God, that is, the Divine Beginning” (the following is a confirmation of the thought based on biblical texts). “After all, it is absolutely certain that only God can be the original beginning, both the One Divine Being, which in our Christian teaching is the Divine nature in the entire Holy Trinity, and each hypostasis separately.” Having attributed to me the idea that is completely alien to me that the Divine Sophia is “another God,” the Definition tries to express the right dogma about the Divine Trinity, but at the same time it completely gets entangled in inaccuracies. I am reproached for recognizing Usia-Sophia as “an original principle along with the Divine Hypostases.” If this is understood in such a way that in the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity I distinguish three Hypostases and a single essence, then I follow here the direct teaching of the Church (see above). I also distinguish in the one God three separate Hypostases (“lower, merging Hypostases”). In a certain sense, we can say that both the three Hypostases and the one nature exist “along with” one another, but this “along with” is only the powerlessness of our language to simultaneously express the Trinity in one, and the one in the Trinity, and consubstantials, and the unity of God. And, of course, this distinction is only the fruit of our mental abstraction, but it also corresponds to Divine reality, although it does not lend itself to our rational schemes, which it breaks. 278 In order to overcome all these difficulties for thought, the Definition uses expressions that are by no means usual in theological terminology and are essentially ambiguous. It is the distinction of the threefold Hypostases with the unity of nature that it immerses in “one original, that is, the Divine principle.” What can this concept of “one beginning” mean when applied to the Holy Trinity, unknown to theology? Does this introduce into the Trinitarian dogma the Western primacy of essence over hypostases? Further, this concept of “original beginning” is explained as “God, as a single divine Being, which is the Divine nature in the Holy Trinity in our Christian teaching.” In this incomprehensible definition one can only see a new confirmation of that non-Orthodox impersonalism into which the Definition itself involuntarily falls. It is this that transforms the triune and consubstantial Divine Person into a faceless it, into “the beginning or nature,” with a further comparison: “The Divine nature in the entire Holy Trinity, and so is each Hypostasis individually.” This last comparison of nature and each of the Hypostases does not explain, but only confuses the matter, and I feel in no way enlightened by such a vague definition. The criticism of my sophiology ends with the fact that I am credited with understanding Sophia as a “special Divine being” (without explaining what exactly “being” means here): “Sophia is interpreted as another (?) Divine being, next to the being of God, which contradicts the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Trinity.” The last point, of course, requires proof. The Trinitarian God has one Usia or being, is consubstantial - such is the Orthodox dogma. The question is, is there “another being” added to the Holy Trinity in Usia? And if not, then this does not exist in Sophia either, since she is identical with Usia, as is her self-revelation in God. All the misunderstanding arises from the fact that the “Definition” (as well as the decree of Metropolitan Sergius) stumbles over the idea that Usia-Sophia in God also loves the Trinitarian God, albeit in a special way of love, namely, non-hypostatic. However, she, in her own way, realizes the truth that God is love. With a whole series of biblical and church texts, I showed in my answer to Metropolitan Sergius that this is exactly so. The Church teaches about different images of love in the Divine, and the rationalistic opposition to this thought indicates that the general axiom: God is Love is limited in its power by these theologians, since it is not applied by them to the Divine Ousia-Sophia. According to their statement, God-Love has His essence, Usia-Sophia, at the beginning not of love, but of a certain material, impersonal possession, which thought is the greatest contradiction in the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity as Love. On the contrary, in God everything is love, and there is nothing that does not involve love. The idea of ​​material possession, alien to the reciprocity of love, when applied to the Holy Trinity, is contradictory and blasphemous. God is love not only in the sense that His personal self-consciousness is Trinitarian love, Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, but His natural being is love and is determined by love. Otherwise, to say that God has Usia-Sophia means that He loves her, or in her loves Himself in trinitarian self-revelation (and it is this trinitarian self-revelation that frees this love for Himself from all self-love, on the contrary, makes it sacrificial self-sacrifice). But Usiya is also not a dead thing that belongs at the beginning of external possession - let this blasphemy not be! - for the Kingdom of Divine love also extends to her, and she is love, that is, she loves, although in a special way of non-hypostatic love. But the images of love can be many different, the same beginning of love differs in the hypostatic image according to the nature of the hypostases (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and in the non-hypostatic image of the usiyno-sophian love. Based on numerous testimonies of the Church, it is absolutely necessary to affirm the possibility and existence of various images of non-hypostatic love, in particular, for example, a creature towards its Creator. Turning to the question of the Incarnation, the Definition states that I “inevitably had to face the determination of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.” In response to this imaginary clash, I testify with full responsibility to the Church of Christ that my entire Christology in the Lamb of God, as this should be clear to any unprejudiced reader, strives to be precisely Chalcedonian theology, it is imbued with the pathos of the Chalcedonian dogma, in it it sees the highest wisdom of Christology. This can be fully felt by anyone who is familiar with all the polemics against this dogma in Protestant theology and with its latest denial. And if I claim that the Chalcedonian definition leaves room for further dogmatic clarification, then this only testifies to my reverence for this dogma, in which I see not only the definition already given, expressed in four negations, but also the grain of a positive definition, not given at the Council itself. But not a single Ecumenical Council ever claimed to be exhaustive in its definition, but left room for further disclosure of dogma both at new Councils and in the general dogmatic movement of thought, and did not at all establish the principle of dogmatic immobility. And I perceive words of mockery about the fact that I “ascribe honor to myself” and so on, the dogmatic understanding of the Chalcedonian dogma, only with painful bewilderment. Regarding my main idea that the union of two natures in one Hypostasis of the Logos cannot be understood mechanically as a deus ex machina (God from the machine (lat.) - Ed.), but presupposes an initial correspondence or ontological relationship of both natures, Sophia Divine and created, I find nothing except the following unfounded statement: “There can be no talk of any Sophia moment (?), because with a direct, true and clear in the perception of the Chalcedonian dogma there is no place for either the Divine or the created Sophia.” Whether my sophiesology is true or false, but in this case my problematics and argumentation remain simply not understood or unheard, and I can only refer the reader to “The Lamb of God.” Instead of such an echo, the statement about Sophia’s teaching in the “Gnostic sense” is repeated here, and it all ends with the following judgment: “Bulgakov shares the heretical views of Apollinaris, condemned by the Second and Sixth Ecumenical Councils.” (Of course, a convenient excuse here is my purely historical interpretation of the doctrine of Apollinaris, which I understand not in the sense of “Apollinarianism”, but in the sense of the Chalcedonian dogma). Here is the following passage from “The Lamb of God”: “That in man there is his human spirit, which came from God, then in Christ there is the pre-eternal Logos, the Second Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity”; This thought is incriminated to me as Apollinarianism, as a “completely non-Orthodox thought.” Before this judgment, I again stop in the deepest amazement: as a “completely un-Orthodox thought” (the heretical views of Apollinaris, condemned by the Second and Sixth Ecumenical Councils), here the main dogma is qualified, which forms the very core of Orthodox Christology and was repeated three times: at the IV, V, VI Ecumenical Councils. This dogmatic definition reads like this: ... “we unanimously confess the same perfect in Divinity and the same perfect in humanity, true God and true man, the same from the rational soul and body - ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος - consubstantial with Us in humanity... one and the same Lord Christ, the Only Begotten Son in two natures - ἐν δύο φύσεσιν, unmerged, unchangeable, inseparably, inseparably cognizable... while preserving the properties of each of the natures, united in one person and in one Hypostasis - εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν, not divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same only begotten Son, God’s Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.” So, the teaching of the Chalcedonian dogma is precisely the same one that is contained in the words I have cited, and which is recognized by the Definition as non-Orthodox. It is here that a single person, or Hypostasis, the Logos, is established in the God-Man, which has (hypostasis) two natures, “perfect Divinity” and “perfect humanity,” and the latter is precisely defined as a body and a rational soul, that is, without a special human Hypostasis or, what is the same, a human spirit, which is replaced by the Hypostasis of the Logos (the soul is not a spirit, but a force that animates the human body). Of course, the terminology of the era leaves here a certain uncertainty, which, however, is sufficiently eliminated by further clarification regarding the inadmissibility of two Hypostases due to the unity of the Hypostasis of the God-Man. We find the same idea in the definition of the V Ecumenical, II Council of Constantinople: in Canon 4, those who, affirming the duality of persons (“Nestorianism”), “do not confess the unity of God the Word in the flesh, inspired by a rational and thinking soul - πρὸς σάρκα” are anathematized ἐμψυχομενην ψυχῇ λογικῇ καὶ νοερᾷ, 279 by connection or by Hypostasis.” Here, even more clearly than in the formula of the Fourth Council, the idea is expressed that human nature in Christ, consisting of flesh inspired by a rational soul, does not have its own special person or hypostasis (or, in the terminology I use, spirit). “The Holy Church confesses the unity of God the Word with the flesh by constitution - κατὰ σὺνθεσιν, which is by Hypostasis - καθ' ὑπόστασιν.” Canon 5 once again repeats the condemnation of those who do not recognize that God the Word was united with the flesh by Hypostasis, or one person (cf. the text of canon 8). Finally, we find the same idea in the definition of the VI Ecumenical, III Council of Constantinople, which reproduces in the corresponding part the definition of the IV Council. Thus, the teaching of the Church is that the “fullness” of human nature, assumed by the Lord, extends only to the body and (rational) soul, but does not include the hypostatic spirit, which is the Logos Himself. And the opposite teaching, which the Definition wants to pass off as Orthodox, is anathematized as Nestorian. Such is the degree of dogmatic clarity of the Definition, which so easily exposes imaginary heresies. However, what can only be assumed on the basis of the above passage is revealed in all certainty in the further presentation of the Definition, where we read: “in its teaching about the union of two natures in Christ, the Church expresses the belief that the complete human nature, consisting of body, soul and spirit, was united with God the Word, but in such a way that the result was one Divine Person.” What is presented here as Orthodox teaching is classical Nestorianism, the doctrine of the συνάφεια of two persons, Divine and human, in Christ: the human “spirit” is finite, Hypostatic, for the spirit does not exist without hypostasis, - unites with the Divine spirit, that is, the Logos, into one Divine person. This is precisely the heresy that was rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in its following definition: “we confess... one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, the only begotten, in two natures... knowable... not cut into two persons or divided, but one and the same Son and the Only Begotten God the Word.” And then the same thing was repeated at the V and VI Ecumenical Councils. The definition, as in the question of the Light of Tabor, passes off as Orthodox teaching the purest Nestorian heresy, condemned by the Church, and it is also stated that, denying the latter, Bulgakov “does not share this faith of our Church.” 280 Immediately after I am accused of affirming the acceptance of human nature by the Logos, it is already attributed to me that I am speaking “not about the incarnation of the Logos, but about the incarnation of Sophia”: “it was not God who diminished to the form of a servant, but only Sophia and the Most Pure Mother of God, thus becoming the receptacle not of the Son of God, but only of the same Divine Sophia.” Thus, it turns out that where I need to be accused of Apollinarianism, I am guilty of the hypostatic incarnation of the Logos, and where I am subject to trial for Sophianism, I am accused of denying the incarnation of the Logos, which is replaced by the incarnation of Sophia. And these two contradictory accusations are on the same page! As for the thought attributed to me that I understand the incarnation as the incarnation not of the Logos, but of Sophia, I again can only refer to my books, where the completely Orthodox thought of the incarnation of the Hypostatic Logos, uniting in Himself the Divine and human nature, according to the Chalcedonian dogma, is developed and affirmed. The whole peculiarity of my sophiology is only that I interpret these two natures in the God-man as the Heavenly Sophia, the Divine nature, and the created Sophia, created in the image of the Heavenly and on its basis. I am further attributed to a critically arrogant attitude towards the authority of the VI Ecumenical Council on the basis of one passage from “The Lamb of God”, which relates not at all to the definition of the Council, but to one of the particulars of the dogmatic polemics that preceded it, and, what is most important here, was not included in the dogmatic definition of the VI Council. At the same time, the cited passage is incorrectly interpreted in the sense that by “life of the spirit” I mean Sophia (which is not the case in this case) and, thus, “rejecting the definition of the above-mentioned Ecumenical Council (let them, when pronouncing such an accusation, responsibly indicate: where and when, in what words?), “I replace it with the Sophian teaching of a newly invented type.” It is regrettable to state in the Definition such a method of accusation, which is based on attributing to me something I did not do. For some reason, the Definition’s greatest indignation is caused by my attempt at a theological interpretation of the Ascension of the Lord. Needless to say, I firmly and undoubtedly profess the dogma of the Ascension of the Lord and the right hand of the Father. However, one cannot help but admit that the dogmatic truth contained here is expressed in anthropomorphic symbols, which do not allow for direct and literal interpretation. This was already attested with sufficient force by Saint John of Damascus, who says the following regarding the right hand of the Father: “When we say that Christ has sat bodily at the right hand of God the Father, we do not mean the right side of the Father in the sense of space. For how can the Unlimited have a spatially right side? The right and left sides are the belonging of that which is limited. By the right side of the Father we mean glory and honor in which the Son of God, as God and Consubstantial with the Father, abides before the ages and in which, having become incarnate in the last days, sits in a bodily form after the glorification of His flesh” (Kr. Iz. rights, faith, IV, ch. II). But just as “sitting at the right hand of the Father” cannot be understood in the sense of space, so “descent from Heaven” and “Ascension into Heaven” cannot be understood spatially (astronomically), although the Ascension is symbolized in spatial images. It is known that the question of the Ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father (“dextera Patris”) was subject to special discussion during the Reformation in Eucharistic disputes, in particular between Calvinism and Lutheranism. But this theological problem for the Definition simply does not exist and “does not represent any antinomy” 281: “The dogma of the Ascension is no less light and acceptable than any dogma of our dogma.” But this is not at all about the acceptability or unacceptability of the dogma of the Ascension, but about its theological understanding, for which the idea of ​​the disappearance of Christ from the field of view of the apostles through His ascension into height is by no means sufficient: the dogma does not refer to the empirical disappearance, but to the ontological removal from the world of the Savior who descended from Heaven, Who again ascended to Heaven. And here, first of all, it is necessary to correct the distortion of the “light” dogma of the Ascension, which was admitted in the Definition. Precisely, it is said here: “After all, all historical Christianity (?) has always recognized that the Lord ascended to Heaven not by His Divinity, in Whom He always abides in Heaven with God the Father, but by humanity, and that in His humanity He ascended precisely as a complete Man - in His soul and body, 282 and with this glorified flesh and soul in His Resurrection and Ascension He sat and remains at the right hand of His Father... Let us pause to analyze the content of this dogmatic definition. Its main idea is the purely “Nestorian” division of Divinity and Humanity in Christ, applied in this case to the interpretation of the Ascension of Christ. First of all, we learn that “the Lord ascended into Heaven not by His Divinity, in which He always dwells in Heaven with God the Father.” Does this mean that the Creed teaches us in vain about the Son of God “coming down from Heaven”? So, we must think, following Paul of Samosata and other medalists, that Jesus was not the God-man in whom “all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,” but only a man on whom the power of God rested? Or, following the “Nestorian” teaching, should we think that the Man Jesus was only, so to speak, the place of the presence of the Son of God, the meeting and union of two persons: the Heavenly Logos and the earthly Jesus? This means that we should not follow the teaching of the Apostle Paul (Phil. 2:68) about the humiliation of the Son of God, which is, in a certain sense, a God-inspired transcription of the formula: “who came down from heaven”? Here the Definition introduces a directly heretical, truly condemned by the Church, teaching that divides natures (contrary to the Chalcedonian formula: “lower dividing, lower uniting”) and thereby denying the unity of the God-man, the authenticity of His Ascension, and therefore the Incarnation itself. Of course, when presenting the dogma of the Incarnation, we must not forget that the descent of the Logos from Heaven is also connected with a certain inseparability of Him from the Holy Trinity (this constitutes the very heart of the dogma of the kenosis of the Son), but this alone shows that the dogma of the Ascension is not at all as simple (“bright”) as it seems to the Definition. Damage to the general Christological dogma of the Incarnation inevitably includes no less damage to the dogma of the Ascension of Christ. It is about the latter that it is said that Christ ascended “not by His Divinity, in which He always abides in Heaven with God the Father, but by humanity.” 283 Such a conclusion is natural, since the Definition actually denies the descent from Heaven, and therefore the Incarnation. But we must be fully aware that such a teaching about the Ascension directly contradicts the words of the Lord Himself, Who speaks on behalf of His entire God-manhood, that is, not only humanity, as the Definition imagines, but in the Divinity hypostatically united with it in a farewell conversation: “I am going to the Father.” Who am I, on whose behalf the Lord speaks? When denying the direct incarnation of the Logos in the Definition (see above), when denying the Ascension of the entire God-Man, with the Ascension limited only to His human nature, this Self must be attributed by the Nestorian Definition to the human “I” in the God-Man, unknown to the Church: it has to ascend to Heaven to another Divine Self, which, according to the Definition, always resides in Heaven and does not descend to earth. Then let them listen to the further words of the God-man, the Word Himself incarnate: “And now glorify Me, Father, with You, with the glory that I had with You before the foundation of the world” (John 17:5). “I come to You, Holy Father” (II). “Father! whom You have given Me, I want them to be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory, which You have given Me, because You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (24). On behalf of whom am I, beloved and glorified by the Father before the foundation of the world, does the Lord speak? Really on behalf of the human, “Nestorian” I? The definition insistently adds that Christ “it was in His humanity that He ascended as a complete Man, in His soul and body.” It must be said that this explanation is not only inaccurate, but also deliberately ambiguous, so much so that it can be understood directly in two opposite meanings, depending on whether the Definition comes from a dichotomous or trichotomous doctrine of man, whether it presupposes a two-part composition - from soul and body - or a tripartite one: from spirit, soul and body. In the first case, the statement of the Definition means that in Christ there was a full hypostatic man, along with the Hypostatic Logos, that is, the “Nestorian” heresy, συνάθεια of God and man in Christ, a complex, two-part Hypostasis. And when applied to the Ascension, this means that man in Christ in all the fullness of his humanity ascended to Heaven to unite there with the Logos. Elsewhere, the Definition, however, expresses, as we have seen, the idea of ​​a tripartite composition of man - spirit, soul and body, and therefore the definition of this composition as two-part, which we find here, is a contradiction or, at least, not accurate. However, despite this contradiction, the thought and intention of the Definition in this case is completely clear: we are talking about the full composition of man in the God-Man and about the Ascension to Heaven of this complete Man. Therefore, another possibility of understanding this passage, precisely as Orthodoxy teaches in the definitions of the IV and other Ecumenical Councils, that is, about the presence of only a human soul and body in the God-Man, cannot be allowed here, since it is directly said here that “in His humanity Christ ascended precisely as a complete Man.” So, the scheme of the theology of the Ascension, according to the Definition, is as follows: the Logos dwells in Heaven, having never descended from Heaven, and Man, who has never been in Heaven, ascends into Heaven, and all this is in direct contradiction to John 3:13: “no one ascended into Heaven except the Son of Man who came down from Heaven, who is in Heaven.” “And by this, glorified in His resurrection and ascension, in flesh and soul He is seated and remains at the right hand of His Father.” This exhausts the entire theology of the Ascension in the Definition, which is opposed to my - albeit imperfect - theology. But what can this bodily sitting at the right hand of God the Father, that is, in the absolute Spirit, mean here in the language of theology and metaphysics? Already from Saint John of Damascus the Definition could learn that this cannot be understood literally, but requires an explanation, so to speak, translation into the language of theology. What is dextera Patris, what does it mean “Ascension” and “gray-haired” at the right hand of the Father? This definition seems “bright” and clear, and there is not even an attempt to express the dogma theologically. The theological problem of the dogma of the Ascension lies in the antinomian conjugation, on the one hand, of removal from the world, “Ascension,” and, at the same time, being in the world, maintaining a connection with it. This is expressed in the simultaneous presence of the narrative of the Ascension in the evangelists Mark and Luke and the promise of being with them all the days until the end of the age in Matthew (in the absence of the narrative of the Ascension in John). The same antinomy is expressed in the kontakion of the holiday, to which the Definition also refers:... “thou art ascended in glory, O Christ our God, in no way departed, but abiding persistently.”... The antinomy of the dogma is expressed, further, in the fact that “Ascension into heaven and sitting at the right hand of the Father” cannot be understood as a spatial definition or “place” (as, according to the Definition, this is interpreted by Calvin), for God is above spatiality, and at the same time means removal - and specifically bodily - from this world. The antinomy of the dogma further consists in the fact that in the depths of the Holy Trinity, since “God is Spirit,” there is no place for a bodily presence, in particular, at the “right hand” of the Father, and at the same time the dogma necessarily includes precisely that. Further, the Heavenly “sitting at the right hand of the Father” is connected with the mysterious Eucharistic presence of Christ on earth in the Holy Gifts, as well as with His spiritual presence in general in the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit. Finally, the removal from the world into the supermundane is only temporary, since in the parousia Christ returns to the world in the same image, remaining forever in the bosom of the Holy Trinity. The task of Ascension theology is to combine all these antinomian definitions into a complex system of theological concepts, which is what I am trying to do, for better or worse. To evaluate this attempt is a matter of theological criticism. For the Definition, all this theological problematic does not exist at all. It, as a comprehensive theological definition, teaches about the “ascension into Heaven of the human flesh of Christ,” without even attempting to explain what this can mean for thought, how it can be realized by it. Not only is my doctrine simply mocked, but I am also accused of teaching about the disincarnation of Christ. Here we have to deal not only with misunderstanding, but also with complete theological insensitivity to the problem itself. A similar fate befalls my ideas concerning Eucharistic theology. Of course, for the Definition there is not all that centuries-old struggle around the problems of Eucharistic theology, which, in particular for Orthodox theology, resulted from its infection with the Latin theory of transubstantiation. My general idea that the Lord returns to earth in the Divine Eucharist, puts on His glorified Body and mysteriously includes in it the Eucharistic elements, the Holy Gifts, for spiritual-physical Communion, is regarded in such a way that “there is no shadow of such ideas in the teaching of the Holy Church” and this is “the fantasies of an over-wise theologian”, which “have nothing in common with the teaching of all historical Christianity.” Having distorted, as we have seen, the dogma of the Ascension, the Definition proceeds further to the distortion of the dogma of the Second Coming, which is expressed in the Creed in the following words: “and again the one who comes with glory will be judged by the living and the dead, and to His kingdom there will be no end.” This speaks of Christ's new return to the world and His reign in the world. This idea is explained in New Testament prophecies as the transformation of this world, the appearance of “a new heaven and a new earth,” the descent from heaven of the Heavenly Jerusalem, in which the Lord will live together with His Humanity. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I, John, saw the holy city Jerusalem, new, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying: Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them; they will be His people... And he took me up in the spirit to a great and holy mountain and showed me the great city, holy Jerusalem, which came down out of heaven from God... But I did not see a church in it, for the Lord God Almighty is his church and the Lamb... And nothing will be cursed anymore, but the throne of God and the Lamb will be in it, and His servants will serve Him” (Rev. 21:1–3, 10, 22; Rev. 22:3). From the above, it is obvious that the future Kingdom of Christ will be on a transformed earth, in the city of Jerusalem that has come down from Heaven for the peoples who will bring there their “glory and honor”; in a word, the Kingdom of God for creation will be accomplished in this world, “on earth.” What do we find about this in the Definition? But this: “with such his (that is, my) ideas and a categorical statement about the inadmissibility of any “body of flesh” into the heavenly world, the teaching of the Orthodox Church about the future bliss of holy people after the Last Judgment of Christ with the resurrected and glorified bodies of glory in the Heavenly Kingdom of the Holy Trinity is rejected, for the essence of this bliss will consist in the fullness of communion with God, as it is said in Apocalypse: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them” (Rev. 21:3), as, therefore, they are with Him.” Again, you can’t believe your eyes when reading such eschatology. It turns out, according to the Definition, that the future Kingdom of Christ will not be in this created world on earth, but in the Heavenly Kingdom of the Most Holy Trinity, in other words, glorified humanity will be ascended to Heaven into the bosom of the Most Holy Trinity. Where did this strange and by no means Orthodox teaching about the universal ascension come from, which, obviously, as we have to conclude, is going to happen after the Second Coming and thereby obviously presupposes a new, second Ascension of Christ to Heaven along with all humanity? Such a teaching has no basis in the teaching of the Church and directly contradicts, as we have seen, the Word of God. Therefore, it can only be brought closer to Origen’s doctrine of apocatastasis, which consists in the abolition of this world and the return of souls to a pre-heavenly original state. And it is also remarkable that this strange doctrine is confirmed by the text of Rev. 21:3, which speaks precisely about the Heavenly Jerusalem that has descended to earth, and about the Kingdom of Christ on earth. Here we are approaching what is truly amazing in the Definition, namely, we read here: “The same extreme subjectivism and arbitrariness, completely and in spirit unacceptable in an Orthodox writer, especially a theologian, are distinguished by other inventions of Father Bulgakov, for example, about the sinlessness of the Mother of God as a perfect manifestation and revelation of the Third Divine Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and about the Mother of God.” I am horrified reading these lines. How! “The sinlessness of the Mother of God” is “extreme subjectivism, unacceptable in an Orthodox writer,” and is it a “fabrication”? So, for an Orthodox writer, contrary to all the evidence of liturgical texts, it is considered appropriate to blaspheme the Most Pure and Immaculate One and attribute personal sins to Her? (Of course, recognizing the personal sinlessness of the Mother of God does not eliminate “original sin,” which, as a common weakness, She shares with the human race). Let it then be pointed out in the face of the entire Christian world exactly what sins are affirmed in the Most Honest Cherub and the Most Glorious without comparison Seraphim. 284 What follows is a series of tendentious and unfair accusations that I “ignore the authority of the Ecumenical Councils” and treat “with contemptuous disregard for the teaching of the Holy Fathers,” examples of which are given. The reader of my works will easily see to what extent this is incorrect: the task of my theology is precisely determined by the theological understanding of the dogmatic definitions of the Church, and I pay the most responsible attention to the study of the patristic tradition, as I do in all individual cases of research. But at the same time, I cannot renounce the right and obligation to apply historical scales in this study, in accordance with the current state of patristic science, and to prohibit this, as the Definition actually wants, means to prohibit scientific theology in general, which is possible only with ignorance of the actual state of scientific theology in our days. The works of the holy fathers, despite all the importance and authority of these writings, cannot at all be attributed to infallibility of judgment. Their opinions differ among themselves (sometimes to the point of mutual anathematization, as was, for example, the case between Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Blessed Theodoret), they bear a certain stamp of the era. In general, the doctrine of the infallibility of patristic creations, similar to the Word of God, is a heresy for Orthodoxy, which was characteristic of the Middle Ages, in particular the era of the Council of Florence. 285 The Orthodox attitude to the issue is expressed in the following words of such a conservative theologian as Metropolitan Macarius (Introduction to Orthodox Theology, §141): “In ascribing full authority to all the fathers and teachers together, when they agree to affirm anything in the teaching of the subjects of Divine Revelation, we must remember: 1) that it is absolutely impossible to attribute the same authority to each Father separately. With all their holiness, with all the abundance of spiritual gifts, the Holy Fathers were not inspired by God, like the holy Prophets and Apostles, and therefore the writings of the Fathers should never be compared with the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures. The Holy Fathers were not individually infallible; on the contrary, they could sin, and some actually did sin; 2) that it is absolutely impossible to attribute the same authority to the Fathers and teachers in cases where they disagree with each other... 3) that the same authority cannot be ascribed to the Holy Fathers and teachers when they do not talk about the subjects of Divine Revelation... Finally, one should not be tempted by the sometimes encountered disagreements of one or another ancient respected teacher of the Church regarding some revealed truths with the unanimous teaching of all other shepherds, but one must look at this disagreement as the private opinion of the teacher.” In the light of this sober and sound judgment, in addition to which we must also remember the existence of historical science, which constantly refines our knowledge in the field of patristics, one can evaluate the critical methods of the Definition, for which every touch of criticism is already a disparagement of the authority of the holy fathers. And of course, historical science, which constantly gives us new material, encourages us to revise and reassess both ancient authors and their teachings. This kind of judgment of a historical-critical nature, of course, exists in my writings, where I have to deal so much with patristic texts. And all of them are put on my account by the Determination as an expression of non-recognition on my part of the patristic authority. If we read the theological works of patented Orthodox theologians, who worked under spiritual censorship, everywhere we encounter this criticism of the sources, and its denial would mean a direct prohibition of scientific work. At the same time, it would not hurt to remember what a difficult apologetic task falls on the shoulders of the Orthodox theologian, who, ignorant of the actual state of science, seems to not recognize authorities. There is no need to dwell on individual invective, although it would be easy to answer them. Most of all I get, of course, for the historical rehabilitation, which, for purely scientific and historical reasons, I do for Apollinaria. The latter, in my understanding, was not at all an “Apollinarian,” since his thought was misunderstood, just as Nestorius, at least at the end of his life, was also not a “Nestorian,” as can be concluded from his newly discovered treatise “Heraclides.” These historical judgments about individuals and theological assessments of their ideas give reason to accuse me of adherence to the heresies of “Apollinarianism” and “Nestorianism”, condemned by the Church. What can I say in my defense in the face of such a perversion of my intentions? I will not dwell at all on the reproach that falls to my lot regarding my anniversary (“Khovar”) speech, which had only one topic: fidelity to the Church in living Tradition, for the letter deadens, the spirit gives life. In conclusion, I am required to publicly renounce my “heretical teaching about Sophia.” As in the decree of Metropolitan Sergius, the Definition does not contain any formulas in which the condemned opinion would be expressed and the Orthodox teaching would be opposed to it. What does it mean to completely renounce the doctrine of Sophia in the face of: a) the biblical doctrine of Sophia, b) liturgical texts of Sophia’s services, c) iconography and church building, d) a certain cycle of patristic texts, e) theological thought? Should I reject all this without trying to understand all this material? I will also add that all my writings are devoted to the theological clarification of certain dogmas of Orthodoxy (this is allowed, as if reluctantly, by the Definition: “Prof. Bulgakov expresses in his writings many completely different thoughts and especially mitigating reservations (!), which are often acceptable from the Orthodox Christian point of view”). To renounce my writings would therefore mean to renounce not only my theology (regardless of whether this is possible or impossible), but first of all the dogmas that I confess and reveal in them. In turn, the Definition itself, which claims to be the norm of Orthodox theology, admits, as we have seen, a number of more or less major errors regarding those dogmas that it concerns: about the Incarnation, about the Ascension, about the Light of Tabor, about the future Kingdom of Christ, about the sources of theology. But the most difficult thing, which my conscience as an Orthodox priest does not reconcile with at all, is the statement contained in it that the Most Holy Theotokos “has sins.” I hereby submit these perplexities of mine to the discretion of Your Eminence. January 1936. Sergievskoe Podvorye in Paris. This essay was compiled for the collection “The ministry and sacraments”, prepared by a commission of theologians for the second conference “Faith and Order” (Lausanne). Published by “The Path”... No. 49. October-December 1935. P.23–47 – Note. edit This includes the absence of a specific distinction between bishops and elders, in Acts 20:17, 28; equals Titus 1:5–7; Phil.1:1; 1 Timothy 3 (deacons) etc. Tridentin. cons, canones de sacramentis in genere, can. I (Sess. VII). Confessio Dosithei, artic. XV. "Conf. orth." pars 3, qu. 99. This, however, does not exclude the possibility of direct apostolic hierarchical succession (in all the vagueness of this term) in individual cases, for example, in Rome (according to St. Irenaeus and others), at least it can be hypothetically constructed to prove a certain thesis. However, exceptions in this case do not confirm the general rule. Essays on the early history of the Church and the ministry, edited by H.B.Swete, S.H.Turner. Apostolic Succession, p. 105,106,108, 109, 129. “The holy Church was catholic as well as apostolic. It was not one line of descent, but many, which linked the Church of Irinaeus, and Tertullian with the Church of the Apostles; in brief it was not the Apostolic succession, but the Apostolic successions” (106–107). “Like to Irinaeus, to Hegesippus, and to Tertullian, bishops have their place in the apostolic succession only in connection with the churches over which they preside” (129) (The Holy Church was conciliar as well as apostolic. There was not one, but several lines of succession that connected the Church of Irenaeus and Tertullin with the Church of the Apostles; in short, it was not apostolic succession, but apostolic succession... According to Irenaeus, Hegasippus and Tertullian, bishops occupied a place in apostolic succession only in connection with the churches they led (English) - Ed.). In Conf. Dosith., art. X, first the universal episcopal succession from the apostles is affirmed, and then it is added: “the bishop is elected not by priests or presbyters, and not by secular authorities, but by the Council of the Supreme Church of the region where the city for which the ordained one is appointed is located, or at least by the Council of the region where the bishop should be. Sometimes, however, the city itself elects, but not simply, but presents its election to the Council. According to the rite of ordination, it follows that the laying on of the hands of the bishop (or bishops - during episcopal ordination) is not only not given final significance in the Sacrament, but it is associated only with his appeal to the Church about the conciliar prayer for the one being ordained, the performance of the Sacrament. “By the election and skill of the most God-loving bishops and the entire consecrated Council (the preceding words are only at the episcopal ordination), divine grace, always healing the weak and replenishing the impoverished, guarantees (to such and such a degree). Let us therefore pray for him, that the grace of the Holy Spirit may descend upon him,” and the Church prays (“kyrie eleison”) together with the bishop, so that the requested grace may descend (In the rite of deaconal ordination it also reads: “It is not in the laying on of my hands, but in the visitation of Thy rich bounties that grace is given to those worthy of Thee!” “Prophesying” προχειρίξεσθαι refers to the election of the person being ordained, and not only by the bishop, but also by the people. Thus, the organic connection of the one being ordained with the Church is included in conciliarity, included in the ordination itself. The same idea about the participation of the clergy and the people in the Sacrament is expressed in the formula Apostolicae constitutiones VIII, 6: Thyself even now look upon this thy servant, with a voice to the judgment of the clergy of all entrusted to the presbytery, and fill him with the spirit of grace to the council,” etc. Saint John Chrysostom says: “Great is the power of the council or Churches. Their sentence is important; it elevates those who approach them to spiritual levels. That is why the one preparing to ordain asks for their prayers, and they give their voice and proclaim what is known to the sanctified, but not everything can be revealed to the unsanctified” (Ad.2 Cor. horn.18). Wed. essay by N. Aksakov “The Tradition of the Church and the Tradition of the School” (Theological Bulletin, 1908). “No small sin,” says Clement in his epistle, “will be upon us if we deprive those who bring gifts (προσενεγκότας) blamelessly and holyly from the episcopacy” (44). Christians “must do everything in order that the Lord has commanded. “He commanded that sacrifices and sacred acts should not be performed at random and not without order, but at certain times and hours” (40), and not everywhere and not at all times, but in Jerusalem and only by the high priests with other servants (41). Therefore, in the Christian Church, the apostles appointed bishops and deacons (42). And like the Old Testament priesthood, the apostles established the order of succession of bishops. His call to obey the bishop is closely intertwined with the call to participate in the Eucharist celebrated by the bishop. “Whoever is not inside the altar deprives himself of the bread of God. If the prayer of two has great power, then how much stronger is the prayer of a bishop and an entire church” (Eph. 5). “So, try to have one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the unity of His blood, one altar, as well as one bishop with the elders and deacons, my fellow servants” (Phil. 3; Phil. 4). “They move away from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins... Without a bishop, no one should do anything related to the Church. Only that Eucharist should be considered true which is celebrated by the bishop or the one to whom he grants it” (Smyrna.58), etc. In Saint Ignatius we have the most vivid eucharistic concept of episcopate, to which other motives are further added. In the Teaching of the 12 Apostles (preceding the Epistles of Saint Ignatius), although the celebration of the Eucharist also belongs to the prophets, along with them bishops and deacons are also named, whose main duty is the orderly celebration of the Eucharist (Didache, 15). Practice, of course, knows such cases (for example, Bishop Theophan the Recluse celebrated the Liturgy daily in his solitude), but then the participation of the people, that is, the entire Church, is undoubtedly implied. Since the Sacrament of Baptism can be performed by the laity, it could not be a sacramental basis for the hierarchy. The absence of a sacramental hierarchy in Protestantism is not an obstacle to the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism. It should also be noted that it does not apply to women at all, since they do not take part in ordination. “Everyone, honor the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the elders as the assembly of God, as the host of the apostles. Without them there is no church” (Tral.3). Of course, such hyperbolic expressions cannot lay claim to dogmatic accuracy, just like the following: “all of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ the Father, and the presbyter as the apostles. Honor the deacons as the Commandment of God” (Smir. 8); “the bishop presides over the church as the image of God, the elders as the assembly of the apostles, while the deacons are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ himself” (Magnes. 6): “As Jesus Christ is the thought of the Father, so the bishops are in the thought (ἐν γνώμη) of Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3). Therefore, “one must obey the bishop as Jesus Christ Himself” (Tral.2). “Whoever obeys a bishop does not obey him, but the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of all” (Magn. 3). “The bishop should be looked upon as the Lord Himself.” For a similar rhetorical definition, see Conf.Dosith., art.X: “the bishop, as the apostolic successor... is the living image of God on earth.” Saint Irenaeus, in the fight against the Gnostics, who asserted themselves in the possession of the hidden tradition, places the main emphasis on the preservation of true tradition in the episcopate of apostolic succession, which is confirmed by the example of the Roman Church: Adv. haeres. III. 3. Likewise Hegesippus and Tertullian (Praeser. adv. haer. 32, ad. Marcionem IV, 5). The doctrine of hierarchy in Saint Cyprian oscillates between two centers: on the one hand, the solidarity (in solidum) of the entire episcopate, which binds the unity of the Church, and on the other, in the acceptance of its visible center in the Apostle Peter (although Cyprian himself does not want to recognize the episcopus episcoporum in Rome (bishop of bishops (lat.) - Ed.)). His main idea about the monarchical episcopate is also twofold: episcopus in ecclesia et ecclesia in episcopo (bishop in the church and the church in the bishop (Latin) - Ed.), because it can be equally understood in the sense of papist episcopalism, as well as the conciliar principle. However, he also retains the sacramental principle of hierarchy: ut sacerdotes qui sacrificia dei cotidie celebramus (we are like priests who daily offer sacrifices to God (Latin) - Ed.) (Ep. 57, 3), and even the idea of conciliarity as the unity of sacerdos with the people (plebs) is not eliminated: illi sunt ecclesia plebs sacerdoti adunata et pastori suo grex adhaerens. Unde scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo (They make up the Church: the people united by the priest and the flock dependent on their shepherd. From here you can learn that the bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop (lat.) - Ed. Note, cf. 66, 8). This is not contradicted by his parallel principle that the unity of the Church is connected with the episcopate (the famous controversy about the two texts regarding the Apostle Peter, de Unitate p. 4, is not of decisive importance here). The Cyprian principle is extremely important for the sacramental interpretation of hierarchism, that each of the bishops in solidum - holistically, sophically, belongs to the episcopate, is simultaneously associated with it, but is also personally authorized. Rule 64 of the “fifth-sixth” Trullo Council prohibits the laity from public (“before the people”) preaching of dogmatic content (obviously, without the direct permission or order of the bishop), but, of course, not teaching itself in general. Here it is not inappropriate to recall Cyprian’s in solidum: each individual bishop has a universal bishopric as such, not often, but entirely. Published by “Put”... No. 50. January-March-April 1936. Appendix, pp. 1–24 – Note. edit Published in the Karlovac Church Gazette and as a separate brochure. Here is a typical example: the Definition cites a number of supposed contradictions in my teaching, which are seen in various places in my writings. It is not of interest to me here to analyze these real or imaginary contradictions (I myself do not at all eliminate the possibility of certain differences in shades of thought in works written over more than 20 years; in particular, as I have already stated, the presentation of “The Unevening Light”, which concerns only cosmology, does not satisfy me in everything). But having cited these “contradictions,” the Definition continues: “there are many contradictions... we also see a deviation from the teachings of the Orthodox Church.” This is the method of this criticism, which without any difficulty makes the transition from “contradictions” to “deviation from the teaching of the Orthodox Church.” Here it is appropriate to cite the following tirade... Metropolitan Anthony: “Yes, the ancient great pagan was not mistaken... when he proved that in reality there are only ideas that are elusive to our external senses, but comprehended by the highest powers of the knowing spirit. The ancient prophets also taught us to contemplate reality not in its external signs, but in its idea.” (M. Anthony. Collected works. 1, 418. Homily before the funeral service of S. Rodomsky). It does not hurt to remember that images of these “Christians before Christ” (according to the words of St. Justin Martyr) are sometimes placed in the vestibules of Christian churches (for example, in the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin). Along the way, I am also accused of “pantheism”: “the desire to reveal and substantiate in Sophia all existing unity while calling it the old term “soul of the world” reveals a non-Orthodox pantheistic worldview.” Why? What is pantheism here and what does it mean? In this case, are not the words of the Apostle “pantheism”: “God will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) or 1 Cor. 8:6? Regarding “pantheism,” the following thought should be taken as a guide: “Theism ceases to be theism and becomes pantheism not through the introduction of God into the world, but through the denial in God of Life and in general of any content other than that which is manifested in world development” (Metropolitan Anthony. Complete collected works, vol. III. p. 105. Dissertation on free will). Saint Gregory the Theologian says: “What was the thought of God occupied with before the Most High, reigning in the emptiness of centuries, created the universe and adorned it with forms? She contemplated the longed-for lordship of Her goodness, the equal and equally perfect luminosity of the Triscendent Deity (that is, the Divine Sophia)... The World-Generating Mind also considered in His great mental representations the images He himself composed of the world, which was produced later, but for God even then was real. God has before his eyes what will be, and what was, and what is now” (here the Divine Sophia, as the eternal prototype of the created world, and the created Sophia, this very world, are compared). See the excursion in “The Burning Bush”. The beginning of sophiology can be found even in... Metropolitan Anthony: “One can, following Gregory the Theologian, recognize behind all Divine desires, thoughts and actions some, albeit passive, external reality, a greater reality than the thoughts and feelings of a person have outside his consciousness. Then infinite matter will be eternal, contemplated by God, but not a world existing in itself. According to Saint Gregory, it turns out that creativity consisted in the volitional realization of the ideal world, in its implementation for oneself, and not for the Divine only consciousness, which it was eternally... the creation of matter can be understood as God’s assimilation of the ideal world, that is, His thoughts, and human consciousness, so that man remains the center and goal of creation, and matter will exist only in his and Divine consciousness, and, moreover, in the latter only as an ideal being, and not real, not existing in itself” (ibid. 109). Wed. also a presentation of the teachings of Metropolitan Anthony, apparently authorized, on the occasion of his anniversary, in the “Church. News.” No. 470 (Oct 13, 1935). Here we read: “The Holy Bible does not at all say that our world was created from “nothing”... the world was created not from “nothing”, but from the life that God had and still has.” Vladyka Metropolitan, referring to Gregory the Theologian, explained that “the past, present and future world eternally exists in God.” According to the Evangelist, “there was life in him.” The life of the Divine is the truest, most unconditional and most real being, which embraces everything that exists and, moreover, with the full power of dependence on Him. The creation of the world, as explained by the ruler, consisted in the fact that the world of ideas, the spiritual world, eternally existing in God, was transformed into the material world. The Bishop refers to Gregory the Theologian, who explains that all Divine desires, thoughts and actions have greater reality than the thoughts and feelings of a person outside his consciousness. Therefore, what is impossible for man – the transformation of an idea into the material world – is possible for God.” I leave unanswered that series of supposed contradictions in my writings, which are collected here in connection with this, not because I cannot answer it, but because I consider this petty polemic here to be meaningless. The teaching of Varlaam and Akindinus is anathematized in the synod on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (Greek text in the Lenten Triodion, Athens edition 1930, p. 1512, in the Slavic translation by F. Uspensky. Odessa, 1893, p. 30:38) in five anathematisms, and the opposite teaching of St. Gregory Palamas is sanctified in five exclamations of eternal memory (ibid.). This text directly testifies to what should be known to every theologian and archpastor. The difference between the teachings of the Palamites and the Barlaamites is that the former, distinguishing in God Usia as unknown and transcendental from the energies with which God is revealed, affirm the Divinity and uncreatedness of these energies and in this sense identify energy with God, distinguishing in Him ὁ Θεός and Θεότης. On the contrary, the Barlaamites deny the very distinction between Usiya and energy in the Divine, either merging and identifying Usiya and energy, or recognizing energies as created, even human-subjective states. This is how they understood the appearance of the Tabor light, while the Palamites saw here the appearance of the Divine, that is, God Himself. The Barlaamites reproached the Palamites for this doctrine of the plurality of energies of the Deity in polytheism, the Palamites reproached the Barlaamites for Arianism and Messalianism. As stated in the synaxarium of the Second Week of Great Lent, Barlaam “taught spiritually, as the common grace of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the light of the future age, upon whom the righteous will shine like the sun, which Christ also showed on the mountain shining, and simply all the power and action of the Trinitarian Deity - πάσαν δύναμιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν and everything in the divine nature, varied - καὶ τὸ διαφέρον ὁποσοῦν τῆς θείας φύσεως – is created – κτιστὸν – εἴναι. - Piously wise, since the most divine light and all the power and action were not created - καὶ πάσαν δύναμιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν (nothing can truly be added to what is naturally inherent in God) in words and scriptures extensive names of thetheists and polytheists.” Accordingly, (2) the teaching of Barlaam is anathematized, according to which God does not have any natural energy - μηδεμίαν ἐνέργειαν φυσικὴν ἔχειν τὸν Θεόν, but there is only one usia – μόνην οὐσίαν εἶναι – as well as the one according to which “the same and completely indistinguishable is both the divine energy and the divine energy,” and does not confess, according to the teaching of the Saints and the understanding of the Church, “the energy in God and His essential and natural energy - οὐσίαν τε ὲπί Θεόν οὐσιώδη καὶ φυσικὴν Αὐτοῦ ἐνέργειαν. And this same thought receives positive expression in the satisfaction of those who profess faith in the Trinitarian God, “not only uncreated in essence - ἄκτιστον κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, and hypostases, but also in energy - κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν - which can be communicated to the saints (like the Light of Tabor). So, first, a distinction is established in the Trinitarian Deity: His ousia and His uncreated, divine energies, and the denial of the existence of such a distinction in God is anathematized. But this energy in God, distinguished from essence, is at the same time identified with it by its uncreated divinity, like the Sophian revelation of ousia. It was precisely this identity in divine uncreatedness that was denied by the Barlaamites, to whom the Definition thus ascribes Orthodox teaching as a heresy. It is the teaching of the Barlaamites that is anathematized (3) with the following words: “Also with them they philosophize and say that all natural force and energy - πἀσαν φυσικὴν δύναμιν καὶ ἐνέργειαν - Trinitarian Created deities (κτιστήν). But this is opposed “according to the divinely inspired theology of the saints and the Church, the pious opinion: all natural power and energy of the Trinitarian Deity is uncreated.” Also anathematized (5) is the teaching of those who consider it possible to apply the name of Divinity τῆς Θεότητας only to the divine ousia, but refuse to apply it to the Divine energy, for the teaching of the saints and the Church, testifying to the one Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, speaks equally about the Divinity both in relation to ousia and energy. In the face of all these definitions of the Church, how does the Definition sound, attributing to Barlaam the Orthodox thought about the divinity of Usia and energy and considering the heresy condemned by the Councils to be the very teaching that they proclaimed as true? Here, by the way, I also remember “name-worship,” on the occasion of which I am shown to be guilty of Eunomianism. It’s better not to remember this sad story here, which is still in the memory of many. Arguing dogmatically, it must be said that, firstly, the three reports presented to the Holy Synod (Metropolitan Anthony, Archimandrite Nikon, Prof. Troitsky) all contradict each other, expressing three different dogmatically inconsistent points of view. Secondly, the dogmatic dispute on its merits not only cannot be considered completed, but has not yet begun. At the Moscow Council, in the subdepartment of sectarianism, chaired by Archimandrite Theophan, known as a supporter of imiaslaviya, the question was turned to dogmatic further investigation, or rather, research. See my "Chapters on Trinity." By the way, σὰρξ ἐμψυχομένη is the usual expression of Apollinaris. However, in another place in the Definition, where it is required to accuse me of Apollinarianism, a completely different point of view on the hypostatic union is expressed, approaching the ecclesiastical one. Namely, it says here: “Despite the fact that the doctrine of the union of two natures into one Divine Hypostasis was in the Church even before Apollinaris and was found in all ancient symbols, starting with the so-called apostolic.” The obvious contradiction with the above may also be explained by the fact that for the Definition “spirit” and “hypostasis” seem to be something different and separable. Therefore, affirming the presence in the God-Man, along with the Divine Spirit, and a special human, along with soul and flesh, it believes that with two spirits there can be one Hypostasis. But this means such a misunderstanding of the hypostatic nature of the spirit, with which it is generally difficult to begin to consider the “Hypostatic Union.” Antinomy is by no means the same thing as contradiction, as Definition apparently thinks. A contradiction indicates a logical error in thought that requires correction, while an antinomy indicates the presence of a limit for thought, which must necessarily affirm antinomian positions with equal force and full responsibility. Yet—in just a few lines—the Definition turns the antinomy into a “contradiction.” If, when I was accused of “Apollinarianism” (see above), a completely non-Orthodox opinion was declared that humanity is represented in Christ only by soul and flesh, without the hypostatic human spirit, which is replaced by the Logos, then here, as a matter of course, this very understanding of the humanity of Christ is given as consisting of flesh and spirit. So shaky and unstable is the theology of Definition. Elsewhere it says: “The flesh does not (does not) participate with Him in His sitting at the right hand of God the Father. And it is even more incomprehensible and strange that for His spiritual stay in Heaven, His bodily Ascension there, transmitted to us in three New Testament books (Mark 14:19; Luke 24:50; Acts 1:9) had no need or real meaning at all, for the Spirit for His arrival (!) to God does not need the process of spiritual ascent - not to the Father in Heaven, but to God knows where (?!).” And once again: Professor Bulgakov “definitely and clearly rejects the dogmatic teaching of our Church that Christ ascended to the Divine Father with His glorified Body of Incarnation.” Regarding my theology about the Forerunner, “the Angel sent before the face of the Lord,” it is said that my teaching “was taken exclusively from his Sophian fabrications alone, and not from the Holy Scripture, and also not from the patristic works.” In response, I will say that in fact, perhaps none of my writings are as documented biblically, liturgically, iconographically as this one. This thought receives the most clear expression from Cardinal Vissarion of Nicea, who was here the exponent of the general views of the era: the teachings of the fathers “should have the force of canons of faith for us, and we must honor and believe them along with the Holy Scriptures” (Migne, Ser.gr.1.161, p.556). Wed. Comforter, pp. 144 pp.