On the similarities and differences in the theology of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky)

The controversy surrounding A. Buzdalov’s articles touches on the topic of the theology of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). In this publication, Andrei Gorbachev develops the mentioned topic, offering readers a comparative analysis of the views of Metropolitan Anthony and Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky). The main focus of the article is the consideration of the metropolitan’s soteriological views. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) are among the bishops who occupied the most prominent place in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the 20th century. The names of both hierarchs are often mentioned together in church literature, due to the similarity of their views on some theological issues. For the most part, this mention is made quite thoroughly 1, but sometimes it is not sufficiently justified 2. Below is an attempt to indicate the most significant similarities and differences in the theology of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Archbishop. Hilarion (Troitsky). The rector of three academies, one of the most famous Russian bishops, who received the largest number of votes in the election of the patriarch, Metropolitan. Anthony was more a pastor than a theologian by vocation. But despite this, and largely thanks to this (that is, his pastoral talent), he had a significant influence on young theologians, including on their choice of topics for scientific development. One of the MDA graduates of 1894 recalled: “It’s amazing, when I read N or talk to Z, I always catch myself thinking: yes, I’ve already heard about this somewhere. I begin to remember and find the original source - our former rector of the academy, the Reverend Anthony" 3 . Metropolitan Anthony was the inspiration for the master's works of Archpriest. Pavel Svetlova and Patr. Sergius (Stragorodsky), as well as anti-legal candidate dissertations by Hieromonk Tarasius (Kurgansky) and hierodeacon, and later Archbishop and Hieromartyr Andronik (Nikolsky). It is not difficult to detect the influence of Metropolitan. Anthony and in the development of individual theological themes and ideas of Archbishop. Hilarion (Troitsky). Archbishop Hilarion met Met. Anthony even when he was Vladimir of the Trinity and since then has maintained warm, friendly relations with Vladyka Anthony. It is likely that Eminence Anthony to some extent influenced V. Troitsky’s decision to become a monk. The latter recalled his conversation with the archbishop. Anthony Volynsky on the Feast of the Intercession in 1912: “Are you still walking like a hazel grouse?” – the Saint met me. We talked about a lot of things and generally felt quite comforted” 4 . As an inspector of the MDA, Archimandrite Hilarion spoke of his senior fellow bishop as a “deeply revered saint” 5 who “tirelessly advocates for the cleansing of our theology from Catholic scholasticism” 6 . In turn, His Eminence Anthony recalls Archbishop. Hilarion as a “highly talented, not to say brilliant, thinker” 7. In the letters of Metropolitan. Anthony, the latter is even without reservation referred to as “a brilliant archbishop. Hilarion”, and his death is “an irreparable loss” 8. Nevertheless, the friendship and mutual respect of both hierarchs completely coexisted with the independence of theological thought. Metropolitan Anthony, for example, remained dissatisfied with the statements of the archbishop. Hilarion about the paramount importance of the Incarnation in the matter of our salvation: “We declared our dissatisfaction with the point of view according to which the power of our redemption is transferred from the event of Christ’s suffering to the event of His incarnation. It is good, however, that the authors of this school of thought expanded the idea of ​​the Lord’s redemptive feat throughout His entire earthly life, as is expressed in the secret prayer of St. Basil the Great: but they still do not explain the essence of their thought. The Lord accepted our nature, became like us: but why does His holiness pass on to us? 9 . As for the scientific value of the theological reasoning of Metropolitan. Anthony, then archbishop. Hilarion spoke critically about her. According to the memoirs of S. Volkov, “the famous scholar Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in those years responded quite harshly to Florensky’s work, saying: Either I no longer understand anything about philosophy, or this is just Khlystov’s nonsense!” To this, the MDA inspector noted that he was “ready to agree only with the first half of his judgment, since, busy with the affairs of church administration and the public, Anthony “has fallen far behind philosophy and underestimates its newest trends.”10 We find a similar statement about Metropolitan Anthony in the memoirs of Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern): “Having moved away from the Academy, he quickly fell behind science. This, among other things, was said about him by the man who was martyred in exiled Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky), professor of New Testament at the Moscow Theological Academy" 11. However, in his works, Archbishop. Hilarion repeatedly refers to Met. Anthony and indicates that His Eminence Anthony was the first in Russian theology to take up the consideration of a particular topic 12. Metropolitan Anthony advocated adherence to the same principles of theological reasoning that the schemm adhered to. Hilarion. This is, first of all, agreement with the faith of the Church, with church tradition: “When readers are offered a (more or less) new explanation of Christian dogmas, the author who is an Orthodox believer least of all expects to introduce any new truth into the consciousness of the Church; on the contrary, he is convinced that the fullness of truth is the everlasting property of the church consciousness” 13. Most of all, the ideological closeness of the two theologians is noticeable in the theme of the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity and the unity of humanity in the Church. Metropolitan Anthony ended his article “The Moral Idea of ​​the Dogma of the Holy Trinity” with these words: “It remains for us to show that in our interpretation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity there is not a single new concept compared to what the St. said about it. The Fathers of the Church - Athanasius, Basil, two Gregory, two John, two Cyril and Augustine, who glorified the Triune" 14. Work by archim. Hilarion’s “Trinity of Divinity and the unity of humanity” was written as the fulfillment of these unrealized intentions: “In Russian theological literature, the idea of the unity of church humanity in the image of the essential unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity was pointed out 20 years ago by Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in his article: “The moral idea of the dogma of the Holy Trinity,” and then in the article: “The moral idea of the dogma of the Church.” 15. But the work indicated by our theologian has not yet been completed - testing this thought according to the patristic works... What follows will be an attempt to collect patristic material that confirms the main idea of ​​these articles by the highly revered Saint and theologian of the Russian Orthodox Church" 16. In many ways, the archbishop. Hilarion also accepted the reasoning of Metropolitan. Anthony that Christianity is a religion of renewal of life, a religion of transformation, not progress, “that Christianity is a teaching about the gradual elimination of passions, about the means and conditions for the gradual assimilation of virtues; These conditions are internal, consisting in deeds, and externally given, consisting in our dogmatic beliefs and grace-filled sacred rites, which have one purpose: to heal human sinfulness and raise us to perfection” 17. In addition, sschmch. Hilarion was close to the thoughts of Metropolitan. Anthony about the Church as a new being, and also about the boundaries of the Church. As for issues of soteriology, it is not difficult to notice a significant difference in the positions of the two hierarchs. His first task is Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) saw the overcoming of the abyss that scholasticism had opened between dogma and morality, between school and life. He was forced to do this by the realities of Russian life, which was increasingly moving away from the Church: “Therefore, it seems to us beyond doubt that until we show them the closest connection between all the dogmatic truths of the Orthodox faith and a virtuous life, until we reveal the influence of church institutions on the perfection of our hearts, until then we will not be able to retain and return to the Church its scattered children by any measures” 18. To solve this problem, Met. Anthony tried to reveal the meaning for us and the connection between two dogmas, to which his contemporaries were, perhaps, the most indifferent. This is the dogma about the Holy Trinity and the dogma about the Church: “The Church is the likeness of the Trinity being - a likeness in which many individuals become a single being” 19. The possibility of this similarity finds its basis in the unity of human nature. According to St. Gregory of Nyssa, we should not talk about many people, but about a single person existing in many personalities. This unity of the primordial Adam was broken not by the increase in the number of people, but by sin. It was sin that cut through the original unity of humanity: “The sin of selfishness and the multiplicity of life’s goals (clouding with vanity) developed isolation in his consciousness to such an extent that the unity of nature appears in the carnal mind so far only as an abstraction, a numerical sum, but not as an actual (real) existence” 20 . However, this unity is not completely and completely lost: “However, with all our human fragmentation, we cannot help but notice in ourselves the manifestations of the universal human collective will, which is not from me, but in me, which I cannot refuse completely, but only partially, and then with difficulty and struggle. This will was given to me from the outside, but it is also mine at the same time. This is the universal human nature par excellence. This includes, first of all, the conscience given to us, which almost no one can overcome; then direct involvement and compassion for others; then feelings of parental, filial and many others. etc." 21. The Son of God becomes the Son of Man. Having accepted human nature, He cleanses it from sin and, as a result, overcomes the sinful division of humanity in the Church He founded: “But the Lord came and took on our entire nature, except for sin (i.e., without this selfish isolation and vanity), and therefore, so to speak, penetrated with Himself into the inner being of all humanity, - for His part, entered the door of our heart (Apoc. 3:20), expressing this assimilation by compassionate love, and therefore everyone who opens to Him becomes one with him, without losing personality and freedom, in the likeness of a child with his mother (Matthew 23:37), in the likeness of Paul and John with Christ - and thereby frees himself from the unconditional self-closedness of being, from the exclusivity of self-consciousness; his “I,” as we said, gives way to a better one—“we.” Thus, in the likeness of the Trinity, indivisible and unmerged, a new being is formed - the Holy One. A Church, one in essence, but multiple in persons, having Jesus Christ as its head, and as members angels, prophets, apostles, martyrs and all those who repented in the faith, shook off the darkness of selfish blindness, died to sin and came to life to Christ, to whom be glory forever with the Father and the Spirit" 22 . The foundation of grace-filled unity with Christ “has already been given to reality through His incarnation” and to this unity “everyone can consciously join through the gradual transformation of their nature, selfish and proud, into humble and loving.” Without the dogma of the Holy Trinity, “the Gospel commandment about love would be powerless.” “Thus, the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity is the metaphysical basis of the moral duty of love” 23. The idea of ​​the primordial unity of the human being, or the consubstantiality of the human race, and the return of this unity in the Incarnation was accepted and developed by Schmch. Hilarion, who believed that “this thought constitutes something of its own and original that Eastern theological thought brought into the history of the revelation of the dogma of the Church” 24. In his ecclesiological views, Met. Anthony proceeded from the fact that the Church is a new life, having an image and likeness in the divine life, a life that does not fit into the Procrustean bed of human definitions: “So, the Church is a completely new, special and unique being on earth (unicum), which cannot be accurately defined by any concept taken from worldly life” 25. Therefore, the definition of the Church as a body or as a society of Metropolitans. Anthony considered them insufficient: “And if in the theological dispute we mentioned, those thinkers who pointed out the superiority of their definition of the Church as a society, in comparison with its definition as the body of Christ, thought that they were really giving a definition of the Church, while their opponents offered only a comparison, then we note that the claims of the former were not at all founded. Every earthly society has so many aspects that are completely different from the life of the Church, and so few common features with it, that a comparison could be preferred to such an apparently formal definition, especially a comparison authorized by Holy Scripture, if, as we said above, the words of the Apostle related here were considered in their entirety, without cutting back on their main idea. And this main thought (for increasing oneself in love) already violates the image of a body that does not know any love, and thus again indicates that the concept of the Church is the concept of an exclusive being, opposite to everything earthly” 26. The Church is a new life in which the unity of nature does not lead to the disappearance of personality, and personal existence does not conflict with this unity: “Obviously, both thought and real life postulate such an initial concept in which reconciliation would be established between the free self-esteem of the individual and the principle of self-sacrifice and life for others - where these others, this “not I,” are not something opposite to me, my “I,” where freedom each personality was combined with the metaphysical unity of their being in spite of pantheism. This is the initial concept that represents the Church in the definitions that we gave it above on the basis of the Word of God” 27. Metropolitan's teaching Anthony about the unusualness and uniqueness of the existence of the Church led to a corresponding solution to the question of the boundaries of the Church. “He gave His truth and His grace not to each believer individually, but to their unity in the Church, which is, as it were, a body animated by the Spirit of God, uniting its members into one living unity of love, living by this unity and dying spiritually, as soon as they fall away from the latter” 28. Therefore, outside the Church there are neither sacraments nor grace: “Isn’t it clear from here that graceless heretics and schismatics receive all types of grace only from the Church, that is, baptism, confirmation, and ordination receive only in it, no matter what rite they are received?” 29. Naturally, there is no and cannot be priesthood and communion outside the Church: “Communion and priesthood are possible only in the true Church, and outside it there is only deception and only appearance, but the appearance is graceless, also there is only the appearance of the priesthood, in fact, the laity, and even those outside the church, and their communion, as St. Theodore the Studite is the food of demons, not the body and blood of Christ” 30. Dissenters, heretics and self-initiators are equally alien to the Church and are unworthy even to be called Christians: “Only Luther and the various branches of his followers, not having any opportunity to consider the faiths and church communities they created in the 16th century as the true and apostolic Church of Christ, began to call Christians all who claim such a name, and thereby violated Christ’s command, which does not distinguish the apostates of the one Church from pagans" 31. Metropolitan Anthony believed that the varied practice of admitting heretics and schismatics into the Church can be explained by the Church’s ability to impart the grace of the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and priesthood without repeating the ritual part of the sacrament: “You are surprised how you can give ordination to a heretical cleric in the sacrament of repentance, and you, that is, your lawyers, reproach me for ignorance of liturgics: let them indicate when and who ordained St. apostles to deacons, priests and bishops, and if your lecturers think of perplexing the Orthodox with the question: why don’t you accept a mullah or rabbi without a new consecration, but will you certainly promote a worthy one from the baptized Jewish or Mohammedan clergy to all degrees? - then you hope in vain that this question can put us in difficulty. We have given you the words of St. Basil the Great in the first canonical rule that the external effect of the baptism of heretics is canceled for the sake of the salvation of many; For the same reason, sometimes they do not repeat this over a “supposed cleric” (Laod. 8) external ordination, that is, in order to facilitate their conversion to the Church: what kind of Jew or Mohammedan or heretic, who was not even an “imaginary” cleric, can facilitate his conversion to the Church by being accepted directly by a priest or deacon? Of course, only those converted heretics or schismatics who had the appearance of successive ordination, that is, an imaginary order, desire such an honor for themselves. Probably, you would not pose such unreasonable questions if you treated the matter of faith with reverence, and not with mischief” 32. In his views on the nature of the Church and its boundaries, Archbishop. Hilarion (Troitsky), perhaps, is closest to Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky). According to Vladyka Hilarion, the Church is a divine-human organism intended for the salvation, perfection and deification of man, and “for this she alone possesses the necessary grace-filled means” 33. She is one and only, and there is no other like her or like her. One Christ created one Church, quickened by one Spirit. Outside of communion with her - outside of communion with God, outside of grace, outside of salvation: “Not only heretics, but also schismatics are separated from the Church. The essence of the separation remains the same” 34. As for the doctrine of salvation, although both theologians are united in their opinion about the unacceptability of the legal theory of salvation for Orthodox dogma, their unity in matters of soteriology is for the most part limited to this negative point. It is easy to notice that neither the life nor the theology of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) did not have the integrity that we find in the theology and life of the archbishop. Hilarion (Troitsky). Archimandrite, who knew His Eminence Anthony closely. Cyprian (Kern) writes: “Such is Anthony, all contradiction, all inconsistency. And in spite of everything, beautiful, unique, bright” 35. It seems that the noted inconsistency and “brightness” of Met. Anthony were fully manifested in his soteriology. The legal theory of salvation, or the theory of satisfaction, according to Metropolitan. Anthony, “was taken by Catholics not at all from Divine revelation, but from Roman law,” and, as V.V. Bolotov clarified, “from the law of feudal knights” 36. In the struggle with the legal understanding of salvation accomplished by Christ, Met. Anthony offers his original solution, which in general terms looks like this. To the extent that the spiritual world surpasses the material world, and the soul surpasses the body, mental suffering is endured by a person much more painfully than physical suffering. On this undisputed assertion of the superiority of mental sorrows over physical ones, Metropolitan. Anthony builds up his theory of salvation: “So, what is the main value of His suffering? Of course, in mental anguish!” 37. In addition, the Most Reverend Anthony expresses his conviction that the fear of death did not have access to the soul of the God-man: “However, before turning to the explanation of this law, we must refute the current idea of ​​the Gethsemane prayer of Christ, as if instilled in Him by the fear of impending bodily suffering and death. This would be extremely unworthy of the Lord, Whose slaves later (and even earlier - the Maccabees) went to torture, rejoicing and exulting amid the torment of their bodies, and thirsted for death for Christ as the greatest good. The Savior knew that His Spirit would be separated from the body for less than two days, and therefore He could not look at bodily death as something terrible” 38. Metropolitan Anthony believed that the expression “this cup” (Matthew 26:39, 42, 44; Mark 14:36, 39; Luke 22:42) should be understood not as the Savior’s death on the cross, but as His state of sorrow for the sins of mankind, which was, according to Bishop Anthony, the motivating reason for the Gethsemane prayer: “We are confident that the Savior’s grave torment in Gethsemane came from the contemplation of the sinful life and sinful disposition of all human generations, starting with His then enemies and traitors, and that the words of the Lord: “let this cup pass from Me” do not refer to His impending crucifixion and death, but precisely to this, which completely suppressed Him, the mood of deep sorrow for the sinful human race so beloved by Him” 39 . The change in the content of the Gethsemane prayer of the Savior is revealed by Metropolitan. Anthony had the opportunity to transfer the “center of gravity” of the dogma of atonement from Golgotha ​​to Gethsemane: “But then the night of redemption came, the Lord began to cry and grieve and be exhausted (Matthew 26:37) over all the sins of the world” 40. For Metropolitan Anthony is not the death of Christ, but it is His Gethsemane “suffering of compassionate love that is our redemption” 41. “Compassionate love” is a special term with which Met. Anthony is trying to eliminate all the ambiguities in the questions of soteriology and, first of all, to answer the question: “Why is Christ’s suffering saving for us?” 42 The concept of redemption Metropolitan. Anthony interprets it in two ways. In the psychological aspect, redemption is an experience, it is, as quoted above, the “sufferings of compassionate love” of Christ, which He experienced in Gethsemane. Another aspect of redemption is energetic in nature. Redemption becomes an action, a regenerating force: “So, we establish the truth, revealed in Divine revelation and confirmed by observation and experience, that the morally regenerating principle or force is the power of compassionate love” 43, and in this aspect “redemption is nothing other than the granting to us of the grace-filled ability to work out our salvation” 44. Divine compassionate love as a regenerating force is now not only perceived by people, but also performs its saving action through them, making them accomplices of this love, subject to its free acceptance: “The salvation brought to humanity by Christ lies not only in the conscious assimilation of the first truths of Christ and His love, but also in the fact that with His compassionate love Christ cuts through the barrier established by sin between people and restores the primitive unity nature, gains access directly to the spiritual depths of human nature, so that a person who submits to His influence, not only in his thoughts, but also in his very character, acquires new dispositions, feelings, aspirations not created by himself, but received from Christ united with him, and now it depends on his free will either to bring them to life, or to viciously reject them” 45. His understanding of the Atonement Met. Anthony summarizes as follows: “Having suffered in His loving soul our imperfection, our vicious will, the Lord poured into our nature a source of life-giving new forces - to everyone who desires and has desired it, starting with the prudent thief” 46 . Thus, “the subjective feeling of compassionate love becomes an objective force that restores the unity of human nature broken by sin and passes from one soul to another” 47. Two aspects of the Atonement of Metropolitan. Anthony also substantiates the necessity of the Incarnation for our salvation. The comprehensive, universal character of the Redemption as the experience of the sinfulness of all humanity requires from the Redeemer the divine properties of omniscience and omniscience. Meanwhile, to perceive the Redemption as a regenerating force, it is necessary to return people to the unity of human nature, cut by sin, which becomes possible only through communion with the renewed humanity of Christ, accomplished in the Church, for which the perception of human nature by the Son of God was necessary: “It was explained that only the omniscient, all-encompassing God could grieve to love each person individually: now we will see that only man could convey, pour his holiness into the hearts of people, in short saying: our Redeemer can only be the God-man, as He appeared2 48. It is also worth noting here the fact that the suffering and death of the Savior on the cross are named Metropolitan. Anthony into a service, subordinate position in relation to Gethsemane prayer. They take the meaning of just an illustration of the “redemptive”, “more natural prayer”: “So, the bodily torment and bodily death of Christ are needed, first of all, so that believers would appreciate the power of His spiritual suffering as incomparably stronger than those of His bodily torment, which in themselves tremble the readers and listeners of the Gospel” 49 . At the same time, Met. Anthony rejects the educational significance of the Old Testament sacrifices: “In particular, with regard to the rapprochement of the passion of Christ with the Old Testament sacrifices, the generally accepted concept among Catholics and Protestants (even rationalists) about the latter... has always seemed to us completely unfounded” 50 . The entire Old Testament cult, as interpreted by Metropolitan. Anthony, loses its educational meaning, and the meaning of the concept of sacrifice is reduced to an everyday level: “Sacrifice in the eyes of the Old Testament people meant, therefore, a donation, just as Christians now donate candles, kutya, eggs to the church; the first for the decoration of the church, and the rest for the clergy to eat” 51. This is the general outline of the main theological ideas of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), from which it is clear that their author failed to remain faithful to the principles of theology expressed by himself, according to which “an author who believes in the Orthodox way least of all expects to introduce any new truth into the consciousness of the Church; on the contrary, he is convinced that the fullness of truth is the everlasting property of the church consciousness” 52. Probably the ideological guidelines of Met. Anthony were designated by him more precisely in another statement: “First of all, the Bible, then the church charter, and in third place Dostoevsky.” To this archim. Cyprian (Kern) reasonably remarked: “Well, where, Vladyka, are the holy fathers?” The Metropolitan looked intelligently and smiled in his own unforgettable way 53 . This high assessment of Dostoevsky and fiction in general (examples from which are replete with theological articles of Bishop Anthony) somewhat opens up the sphere to which it would be more correct to include the soteriological reasoning of our author. In his style and method of reasoning the work of Metropolitan. Anthony is not so much theological articles as literary sketches, or even literary-psychological studies on theological topics. The theological approach involves serious study of the topic, consideration of it from various angles, wide coverage and comparative analysis of sources. For literature, the main thing is fascination and inspiration. “His theology is close to expressionism,” notes the priest. Seraphim (Rose) 54. Therefore, the failure of Met. Anthony's promise to confirm his own ideas with patristic writings 55 does not look like an accident. The idea is expressed, justified to the best of our ability, and the painstaking work with the sources is left to others. This is a kind of literary device of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), this is his method. “He rather gives up than develops his thoughts,” writes Archpriest. Georgy Florovsky, - doesn’t say anything, just cuts them off” 56. But with this approach to theological issues, mistakes become inevitable. However, perhaps such mistakes not only did not frighten Metropolitan. Anthony, but they were even part of his plans: “Antony once told me,” recalled Metropolitan. Sergius (Stragorodsky) - that one should not be afraid to express one’s thoughts, even if they have not received final processing; if a thought is valuable, it will not die, others will pick it up, and if no one picks it up, then it doesn’t deserve to live” 57 . This explains the fruitfulness of Metropolitan, noted above. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) as the initiator of the development of many theological ideas and as a “catalyst” for solving complex theological issues, which may serve as an excuse for the gross mistakes that he made. As for the soteriology itself, Metropolitan. Anthony, then, first of all, the very method by which His Eminence Anthony constructs his reasoning looks erroneous. “Antony ascends from psychology to ontology” 58. This assessment of Fr. Georgy Florovsky should be considered softened, since Met. Anthony does not so much “ascend” as apply the laws of psychology to ontology, and sets out his understanding of the dogma of the Redemption “through observation, first of all, of what is constantly happening in life before our eyes” 59 . In addition, the statements that Met. Anthony bases his argument on the Atonement. For example, in the patristic heritage one can find statements that are opposite in meaning to the statement about the superiority of mental suffering over physical suffering. For example, Rev. Ambrose of Optina said that “in sorrows you will pray to God and they will go away, but you cannot drive away the disease with a stick” 60. Also, a separate consideration of Christ’s suffering seems unjustified, since in Gethsemane the Savior’s body suffered to the point of bloody sweat, and the crucifixion was accompanied by the spiritual sorrow of the God-man. The most noticeable non-traditional position of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) on the question of the very subject of the Savior’s Gethsemane prayer. The reason for the Gethsemane yearning, according to the concordant testimony of Sts. fathers - the fear of death, perceived by the incarnate Son of God along with other blameless passions, and the expression “this cup” means nothing more than death on the cross. We find this understanding, in particular, in the most revered Metropolitan. Anthony from the Holy Fathers St. John Chrysostom: “That is why He, as He hungered, as He slept, as He was tired, as He ate, as He drank, so He asks to be delivered from death, showing His humanity and the weakness of nature, which cannot lose real life without suffering” 61. “Father, even if it is possible to eat, this cup passes by from Me... What do these words mean? Father, if it is possible, reject the cross” 62. This general patristic understanding of the Gethsemane prayer of Christ was confirmed by the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council 63. It is not surprising that the further reasoning of Met. Anthony, built, in fact, on a fallacy, looks more like a figment of the imagination of Bishop Anthony than a theological study. “You have to think,” Metropolitan inspires the reader. Anthony, - that on that Gethsemane night the thought and feeling of the God-man embraced all the fallen people among their many billions and mourned with loving sorrow each individual, which, of course, was accessible only to the Divine, omniscient heart. This was our redemption." 64 Thus, not only psychology, but also mysticism, of which Met. Anthony was alienated all his life, they are included in the core of his theological concept. Moreover, this is non-Orthodox mysticism, strictly speaking, a fantasy that claims to be a revelation. This kind of reasoning is more reminiscent of the “spiritual exercises” of Ignatius of Loyola than the theological conclusions of the Orthodox archpastor. “You have to think” - that’s the whole basis for the guess on which Met. Anthony builds his theory. The value of this guess falls even more for the reason that it remains unfounded to limit the Atonement exclusively to the Savior’s grief at Gethsemane. The Lord grieved over the death of Lazarus and the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem. Metropolitan himself Anthony speaks of Christ’s sorrow on the cross: “For the second time this overwhelming sorrow overwhelmed His most pure soul on the cross...” 65. If we talk about the redemption by the spiritual suffering of the God-Man, then it is more logical to extend this redemption to all the sufferings and sorrows of Christ experienced by him in life and in death. This limitation makes the point of view of Met. Anthony is even more vulnerable and, moreover, brings her closer to the legal theory of atonement, which limits the whole meaning of our salvation by the death of Christ on the cross as satisfaction of divine justice. In the position of Metropolitan Anthony noticeably exalts the spiritual part of Christ’s human nature to the detriment of the physical and, as a result, the absorption of Christ’s human nature by His Divinity. According to Bishop Anthony, to be afraid of death, “this would be extremely unworthy of the Lord.” This idea is confirmed by the following argument: “The Savior knew that His Spirit would be separated from the body for less than two days, and for this reason He could not look at bodily death as something terrible” 66. Continuing the proposed line of thought, it can be argued that Christ could not cry over the death of His friend Lazarus, knowing that he would resurrect him in a matter of minutes. Why then not reject other blameless passions, perceived by the Son of God with human nature, as “unworthy of the Lord”? Reasoning in this way, strange as it may seem, one can come to the impossibility of the sorrowful state that the Lord experienced in Gethsemane: how could He grieve, being omniscient and knowing that He would save humanity from the inevitability of sin and death? The way of reasoning of Met. Anthony reveals the Monothelite and related Monophysite tendencies of his theology, which are aggravated by the confusion of the concepts of nature and will: “So, the nature of all people is the same: it is an impersonal but strong will” 67. “Antony here goes into unexpected voluntarism, almost like Schopenhauer...” 68 (Archpriest Georgy Florovsky). If you look a little deeper, in the soteriology of Metropolitan. Anthony rejects the essential significance for our salvation not only of the death on the cross of the God-man, but also of the Incarnation itself. If “only the omniscient, all-encompassing God could grieve to love every person individually,” then in order to “pour his holiness into the hearts of people” 69, divine properties are not only necessary, but also sufficient. Loss of solid guidelines in the theory of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) results, among other things, in substituting the meaning of the connection between the various stages of the redemptive feat of the Lord Jesus Christ with our salvation. From the Orthodox point of view, Gethsemane is a victory over the fear of death, and the Cross and Resurrection of the Savior is a victory over death, since the entire Church at Easter loudly confesses that “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death,” and not by spiritual grief in Gethsemane. Meanwhile, for Vladyka Anthony, “the suffering of compassionate love is our redemption” 70, that is, first of all, deliverance from death, while the suffering on the cross and the death of Christ, illustrating the spiritual torment of the Savior in Gethsemane, are aimed at overcoming the universal human fear of death: “Because our nature is so coarse, so enslaved to bodily sensations and the fear of death, that to be imbued with the understanding of purely spiritual the torment that Christ had in mourning the sinfulness of others is very difficult for her, if it is not associated with bodily suffering and insults from neighbors” 71 . However, this overcoming of the fear of death is not essential, but psychological in nature. Jerome. Seraphim (Rose) concludes his analysis of the soteriology of Metropolitan as follows. Anthony (Khrapovitsky): “The only way out is not to name Met. Anthony is a heretic - it should be said that he is not accurate in theology and do not spread his false teachings" 72. As noted above, it would be even more correct, if possible, to recognize the interpretation of the dogma of the Atonement of Metropolitan. Anthony was an unsuccessful literary experience due to the non-theological nature of the reasoning of the late Primate of the ROCOR. Soteriological views of the archbishop. Hilarion have little in common with the views of Metropolitan described above. Antonia. Vladyka Hilarion argues entirely in line with the Holy Tradition of the Church. The peculiarities of his soteriology are connected, for the most part, with the fact that he builds his reasoning in an ecclesiological vein, with the aim of showing the connection between the salvation accomplished by Christ and our salvation in the Church of Christ. In general terms, salvation by sschmch. Hilarion can be described as follows 73. The Son of God, having assumed purified and deified human nature in His incarnation, delivers it from sin. But victory over suffering and death is present in Christ only in potential. Therefore, the holy fathers of the Church, “speaking of salvation, first of all point to the incarnation precisely as the means and basis of salvation” 74 . Christ, “armed” with the Divine, comes out like a strong warrior, “that he may deliver these, who through the fear of death are guilty of work” (Heb. 2:15), voluntarily goes to death and rises with the power of His Divinity: “Who is this who has passed through the gates of death? He can only be God" 75. But if Christ were only God, the resurrection would remain a theophany, not entailing any significant changes for man: “It was not God who passed through the gates of death, it was not before God that the palace of eternity was “opened”, it was not for God’s sake that the stone was rolled away from the door of the tomb, but for the sake of the God-man. Together with Christ, our human nature passed through the mysterious gates of death” 76. The salvation and deification of humanity in Christ ends with the ascension in glory: “Bearing my human nature, the Firstborn from the dead passed through the gates of death and the grave, without seeing corruption. Corruption and death were defeated, incorruption and eternal life were granted. The natures in Christ are united inseparably, and Christ, having ascended in glory, planted our nature at the right hand of the Divine glory" 77 . To this purified from sin, deified, incorruptible, inaccessible to suffering and death, resurrected and glorified nature of Christ, humanity is grafted by the Holy Spirit and the Church of Christ is created. Our salvation actually lies in communion with the body of Christ: “The Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the work of salvation and rebirth of mankind. The benefits of redemption must be acquired by humanity itself, which is united by Christ Himself in one Church” 78 . Thus, on the issue of the influence of the ideas of Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) on the theology of schmch. Hilarion (Troitsky) the following points should be noted. Archbishop Hilarion is very close to Metropolitan. Anthony on many issues of ecclesiology. This is, first of all, the theme of the two-aspect existence of the Church as a body and society, the question of the boundaries of the Church, as well as the doctrine of the unity of the Church in the image of the Holy Trinity, which becomes possible due to the original unity of humanity. However, in the last point in the views of the two hierarchs one can find as many similarities as differences. The fact is that the archbishop. Hilarion uses the unity of humanity to explain both the transmission of the fallen state of Adam to all his descendants, and the salvation of humanity in the Church headed by Christ - the new Adam: “The real unity of humanity explains the transfer of Adam’s sin to Old Testament man. The same unity explains the salvation of all in Christ." 79 Meanwhile, Met. Anthony, contradicting the idea of ​​the unity of the human race that he professed, explains the sinful state of the human race not by ancestral sin, but by the fact that God “foresaw the will of each of us as similar to the will of Adam and Eve, that is, essentially not evil, but disobedient and proud and, therefore, requiring a correctional school, which is our earthly life in the body” 80. “Not in accordance with his own teaching about the unity of human nature, he interprets human sinfulness completely atomistically” (Archpriest Georgy Florovsky) 81. As for issues of soteriology, here, as shown above, our theologians have little in common. For Metropolitan Anthony The Atonement ends with the Gethsemane experiences of the “compassionate love” of the God-Man. Archbishop Hilarion gives the leading place in the matter of our salvation to the Incarnation, but is not limited to it. According to his views, the incarnate God, having purified, deified and glorified human nature through His incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension, by sending down the Holy Spirit creates the Church, in which He saves believers through the communion of His deified humanity. For example: Report of the Chairman of the Synodal Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan. Minsk and Slutsk Philaret // Collection of documents and the Anniversary Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church: Moscow, August 13–16, 2000. – Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing house of the Brotherhood in the name of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky, 2001. – pp. 86–87. Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church / Comp. St. Filaret (Drozdov); Preface, prep. text, approx. and decree: Ph.D. ist. n. A. G. Dunaev. – M.: Publishing house. Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2006. – P. 7; Asmus, Valentin, prot. Criticism of A. S. Khomyakov by P. A. Florensky // A. S. Khomyakov - thinker, poet, publicist: collection. articles based on international materials. scientific conf., held in Moscow at the Literary Institute named after. A. M. Gorky. – M.: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2007. – T. 1. – P. 160. Gnedich, Peter, Rev. The dogma of atonement in Russian theological science (1893 – 1944). – M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2007. – P. 242. Troitsky V.A. Letter to L.P. Arkhangelskaya dated October 30. 1912 – Archive of A.V. Nikitsky. Hilarion (Troitsky), schmch. About life in the Church and about the life of the Church // Hilarion (Troitsky), schmch. Creations: In 3 volumes: T. 3: Church-journalistic works. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 2004. – P. 471; Hilarion, Archbishop Vereisky, sschmch. The Trinity of the Divine and the Unity of Humanity // Hilarion, Archbishop. Vereisky, sschmch. Without the Church there is no salvation - M.; St. Petersburg: Sretensky Monastery; Sign, 2000. – P. 626. Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Bethlehem and Golgotha ​​// Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. The Church as a union of love. – M.: PSTBI, 1998. – P. 425–426. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. About the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church and about Archbishop Hilarion // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Prayer of the Russian soul [Sb. articles]. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 2006. – P. 169. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. I remain loving you forever...: Sat. letters. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 2007. – P. 177, 194. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 8/9. – P. 163 (2nd page) [Beginning]. Volkov, Sergey. Near the monastery walls: Memoirs. Diaries. Letters. – M.: Publishing House of Humanitarian Literature, 2000. – P. 155. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Memories of Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Bishop Gabriel (Chepur). – M.: PSTBi, 2002. – P. 16. For example, Hilarion, Archbishop. Vereisky, sschmch. Repentance in the Church and repentance in Catholicism // Hilarion, Archbishop. Vereisky, sschmch. Without the Church there is no salvation - M.; St. Petersburg: Sretensky Monastery; Sign, 2000. – P. 142; Hilarion, Archbishop Vereisky, sschmch. Christianity or the Church? // Ibid. – P. 591; Hilarion, Archbishop Vereisky, sschmch. The Trinity of the Divine and the Unity of Humanity // Ibid. – S.S. 626. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Church // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Prayer of the Russian soul [Sb. articles]. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 2006. – P. 21. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), archimandrite. The moral idea of the dogma of the Holy Trinity // Theological Bulletin, 1892. T. 3. No. 11. – P. 172 (2nd page) In the published sources there is an erroneous repetition: “The moral idea of the dogma of the Holy Trinity” (A.G.). Hilarion, Archbishop Vereisky, sschmch. The Trinity of the Divine and the Unity of Humanity // Hilarion, Archbishop. Vereisky, sschmch. Without the Church there is no salvation - M.; St. Petersburg: Sretensky Monastery; Sign, 2000. – P. 626 Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. How does the Orthodox faith differ from Western confessions // The Road Home: [website]. URL: http://www.dorogadomoj.com/dr163ant.html (accessed 08/17/09); quote from the archbishop. Hilarion: Hilarion, Archbishop. Vereisky, sschmch. Repentance in the Church and repentance in Catholicism // Hilarion, Archbishop. Vereisky, sschmch. Without the Church there is no salvation - M.; St. Petersburg: Sretensky Monastery; Sign, 2000. – P. 142. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), archimandrite. The moral idea of the dogma of the Holy Trinity // Theological Bulletin, 1892. Vol. 3. No. 11. – P. 151 (2nd page) Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Church // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Prayer of the Russian soul [Sb. articles]. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 2006. – pp. 32–33. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), archimandrite. The moral idea of the dogma of the Holy Trinity // Theological Bulletin, 1892. Vol. 3. No. 11. – P. 171 (2nd page) Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – pp. 299–300 (2nd page) [Conclusion]. There, p. 166, 172, 166. Troitsky, Vladimir. History of the dogma of the Church [candidate essay]. – [Sergiev Posad]: [MDA], [1910]. - Manuscript. – P. 1301. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. The moral idea of ​​the dogma of the Church // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Prayer of the Russian soul [Sb. articles]. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 2006. – P. 31. “A word of truth to those who conceal the truth,” op. by: Nikon (Rklitsky), archbishop. Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and his time: 1863–1936. In 2 books. – Nizhny Novgorod: Brotherhood in the name of St. book Alexander Nevsky, 2004. – Book. 2. – P. 342. “Message to the schismatic Old Believers,” ibid., p. 339. “Answer to Evangelical Christians about the composition of St. Bible ", ibid., p. 345. “A word of truth to those who conceal the truth,” ibid., 342. Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church. – M.: Pilgrim, 1997. – P. 473. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christianity // Hilarion (Troitsky), Archimandrite. There is no Christianity without the Church. –M.: Orthodox conversation, 1992. – P. 59–60. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Memories of Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Bishop Gabriel (Chepur). – M.: PSTBi, 2002. – P. 24–25 Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 8/9. – P. 157–158 (2nd page) [Beginning]. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – P. 312 (2nd page) [End]. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Reflection on the saving power of Christ's passion // Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Dogma of Redemption [Sb. articles]. – M.: [B. i.], 2002. – pp. 81–82. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), archimandrite. Moral justification of the most important Christian dogma: Application to the analysis of Kant’s teaching on justification // Theological Bulletin, 1894. Vol. 1. No. 3. – P. 441 (2nd page) Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 8/9. – P. 161 (2nd page) [Beginning]. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – P. 292 (2nd page) [End]. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 8/9. – P. 167 (2nd page) [Beginning]. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – P. 302 (2nd page) [End]. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Memories of Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Bishop Gabriel (Chepur). – M.: PSTBi, 2002. – P. 21. Seraphim (Rose), Hierom. On the danger of the emergence of the crusader heresy among the Orthodox // Seraphim (Rose), Hierom. Offering of an Orthodox American. Collection of works. Ed. 3rd. – M., Platina: Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska, Russian department. Valaam Society of America, 2001. – P. 687. Florovsky, Georgy, prot. Paths of Russian theology. – Reprint. – Vilnius: [B. i.], 1991. – P. 430. Quote by: Gnedich, Peter, Rev. The dogma of atonement in Russian theological science (1893 – 1944). – M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2007. – P. 272. Florovsky, Georgy, prot. Paths of Russian theology. – Reprint. – Vilnius: [B. i.], 1991. – P. 428–429. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – P. 286 (2nd page) [End]. Agapit (Belovidov), schema-archimandrite. A biography in Bose of the deceased Optina elder Hieroschemamonk Ambrose with his portrait and facsimile. In 2 parts. – Reprint. – [M.:] Ed. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1992. – Part 2. – P. 49. John Chrysostom, St. Selected works: Commentary on St. Matthew the Evangelist. – Reprint. – [M.:] Ed. dept. Moscow Patriarchy. - Book 1. – 1993. – P. 23. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6: Council of Constantinople 3rd, Ecumenical 6th. – Kazan: Central Printing House, 1909. – P. 107–128. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – P. 295 (2nd page) [End]. Florovsky, Georgy, prot. Paths of Russian theology. – Reprint. – Vilnius: [B. i.], 1991. – P. 429. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – P. 298 (2nd page) [End]. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), archimandrite. Moral justification of the most important Christian dogma: Application to the analysis of Kant’s teaching on justification // Theological Bulletin, 1894. Vol. 1. No. 3. – P. 441. Seraphim (Rose), Hierom. On the danger of the emergence of the crusader heresy among the Orthodox // Seraphim (Rose), Hierom. Offering of an Orthodox American. Collection of works. Ed. 3rd. – M., Platina: Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska, Russian department. Valaam Society of America, 2001. – P. 691. More details about the soteriology of schmch. Hilarion, see: Gorbachev A.A. Soteriology of Hieromartyr Hilarion (Trinity), Archbishop of Verei // Alpha and Omega. – Moscow, 2010. – No. 1 (57). – pp. 175–189 Hilarion (Troitsky), schmch. Incarnation // Hilarion (Troitsky), schmch. Creations: In 3 volumes: T. 3: Church-journalistic works. – M.: Publishing house. Sretensky Monastery, 2004. – P. 261. Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Easter of Incorruption// Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. The Church as a union of love. – M.: PSTBI, 1998. – P. 400. Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Bethlehem and Golgotha ​​// Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. The Church as a union of love. – M.: PSTBI, 1998. – P. 427. Troitsky, Vladimir. History of the dogma of the Church [candidate essay]. – [Sergiev Posad]: [MDA], [1910]. - Manuscript. – P. 1302. Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Bethlehem and Golgotha ​​// Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. The Church as a union of love. – M.: PSTBI, 1998. – P. 426. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Dogma of Redemption // Theological Bulletin, 1917. T. 2. No. 10/11/12. – P. 311 (2nd page) [End]. Florovsky, Georgy, prot. Paths of Russian theology. – Reprint. – Vilnius: [B. i.], 1991. – P. 435.