Memo to Metropolitan Evlogy prof. prot. Sergius Bulgakov regarding the definition of the Archbishop's Council in Karlovtsi regarding the doctrine of Sophia the Wisdom of God

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 1. Before turning to the analysis of individual provisions of this Definition, I consider it necessary to outline some general considerations (partly already expressed by me in response to the decree of Mister Sergius.) In the Definition, along with my other writings, there are especially many references to my work “The Non-Evening Light” as heretical. I affirm again that this work, published in 1917, was known to the Moscow Holy Council of St. Patr. Tikhon at the head, who ordained me to the rank of priest, with the blessing of the patriarchs. Tikhon, Rev. Ep. Theodora, b. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. 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 Patr. Tikhon was pronounced by the very fact of this acceptance, which was confirmed by the council by the second election of me after my ordination as a member of the Supreme Church Council, i.e. 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 works), I cannot help but see in this an act of not only silent resistance to the actions of the saints. 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 Arch. Seraphim, who proposes in it, as far as I know, to subject to church condemnation not only my doctrine, but also the teaching of Vlad. S. Solovyov and Fr. 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’Eglise universelle), 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 Fr. 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 the Reverend. 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 10 years 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 listening. 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 I 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 2. Consequently, the definition acquires a special charisma of logical infallibility in theology, which, of course, must 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 redemption, as everyone knows, are also met 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 completely irreconcilably, as a heresy: Metropolitan. Eleutherius, arch. Feofan, architect. Benjamin, probably others. Without denying for Met. Anthony, as a theologian, has the right to have his own private theological opinions, even if they are 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 saints. Fathers of the Church,” and my attempts to find one 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.? 3 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 M. 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 St. Irenea, Epiphania, Hippolyta. 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, 4 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 holy angels and people. The following signs of “gnosis” are defined in my theology. First, the teaching 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, wasn’t he also 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 Pres. Sol. etc., to find this real and not hidden, but frank 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 a clearly heretical expression in Arianism, which was condemned by the Church in Nicaea. Perhaps partly 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: St. Gregory the Theologian 5, St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John of Damascus, bl. Augustine - about the prototypes or prototypes of the creation of the world in God 6, and in the teaching of St. Athanasius about created wisdom, we have, however, in a rudimentary and unspoken form, a statement of the question about the foundation of creation in God, or, what is the 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 of God, the transformation of the world and its deification. None of these teachings are consistent with 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 7 . It is, in one form or another, irreducible from modern theology, and this is the raison d’être of my sophiological constructions. What do we find on this crucial issue in the theology of the Definition? 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 contain an attempt to give one’s 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 8 . 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, St. Sophia is not God, but the Divinity in God, completely in the sense in which Usia (or physis) is in the Holy Trinity. Is there Usiya in the Holy Trinity “another God”? 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 Unit in Trinity and the Trinity in 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 are 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 St. The 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 medium obscures the Divine medium (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 the 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, are no longer equal to “God” in His 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 about 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 about 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 creations of the world, so to speak, not hypostatically, but sophically, i.e. according to the Divine content of His 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” ascribed to me, “replacing 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 St. Churches on the 1st and then on the 6th Ecumenical. Councils, together 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 she 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, which, in contrast to the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, the energy of God is identified with God Himself, for which they were condemned by the definitions of the local Councils of 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, attributed to his opponent Varlaam, who was precisely anathematized for his denial 9. In the history of the Barlaamite disputes, modern theologians would find a lot of instructive things for themselves, in particular St. Gregory was accused by his opponents of introducing polytheism into the concept of the energy of the Divine, in exactly the same way as now the opponents of sophiology in Sophia see either a “fourth Hypostasis,” or “another God,” etc. 10. 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 St. Churches. 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, i.e. Divine Origin" (the following is a confirmation of the thought based on biblical texts). “After all, it is absolutely certain that only God can be an original principle, as a single Divine being, which in our Christian teaching is the Divine nature in the entire Holy Trinity, and each Hypostasis individually.” 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 express simultaneously the trinity in one, and the one in the trinity, and the consubstantial, and the unity of God. And, of course, this distinction is not only the fruit of our mental abstraction, but also corresponds to divine reality, although it does not lend itself to our rational schemes, which are torn apart 11. 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, i.e. 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 (7) Divine being, next to the being of God, which contradicts the Orthodox teaching about 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. The whole misunderstanding arises from the fact that the “Definition” (as well as the decree of M. 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 M. 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 Usia-Sophia. According to their statement, God-Love has His essence, Usia-Sophia, at the beginning not of love, but of some kind of material, external possession, which idea is the greatest contradiction in the teaching about the Holy One. 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, i.e. 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 love-sophia. 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 IV 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 unbiased 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 revelation 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 words of mockery about the fact that I “attribute honor to myself” and so on. dogmatic understanding of the Chalcedonian dogma, I perceive 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, 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, correct and clear perception of the Chalcedonian dogma there is no place for either the Divine, nor the created Sophia." Whether my sophistry is true or false, but in this case my problems and argumentation remain simply not understood or unheard, and I can only refer the reader to “A. B." Instead of such an echo, here again the statement about Sophian teaching in the “Gnostic sense” is repeated, 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 eternal Logos, the Second Hypostasis of the Holy One. 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 Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. This dogmatic definition reads like this: ... “we unanimously confess the same perfect in Divinity and the same perfect in humanity, the true God and the 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, unchanging, 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,” the latter being absolutely precisely defined as body and rational soul, i.e. 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 5th Ecumenical, 2nd 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 ἐμψυχομένην ψυχῆ λογιϰῆ ϰαὶ νοερά 12, 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, according to the terminology I use, spirit). "St. The Church confesses the unity of God the Word with the flesh according to the constitution ϰατὰ σύνδεσιν, which is according to the 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 Council, III Council of Constantinople, which reproduces in the corresponding part the definition of the IV Council. Thus, the church teaching is that the “fullness” of human nature, perceived 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 teaching about the two persons, Divine and human, in Christ: the human “spirit” - of course, Hypostatic, for the spirit does not exist without hypostasis - is united with the Divine spirit, i.e. Logos, into one Divine person. It's there precisely that 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 on the 5th and 6th centuries. cathedrals 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” 13. 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 of God 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 Her basis. I am further attributed to a critical and arrogant attitude towards the authority of the VI Ecumenical Council on the basis of one passage from “A. B.”, which does not at all relate to the definition of the council, but to one of the particulars of the dogmatic polemic 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 of the Seat. 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 St. John of Damascus, who says the following regarding the right hand of the Father of the Seat: “When we say that Christ is bodily seated 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 of one essence with the Father, abides before the ages and in which, having become incarnate in the last days, He sits in a bodily form after the glorification of His flesh” (Kr. Izv. Right. Faith, IV, Chapter I). But just as “Seating at the right hand of the Father” cannot be understood in the sense of space, so “the descent from heaven” and “the 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 the 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 14: “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 elevation to heights 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 ascended again 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. It is here that it is said: “after all, all historical Christianity (?) has always recognized that the Lord ascended into heaven not by His Divinity, in which 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 15, and by this glorified in the resurrection and ascension of His flesh and soul He sat down and remains at the right hand of the Father Your own".... 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 symbol of faith teaches us in vain about the Son of God “coming down from heaven”? So we must think, following Paul of Samosata and other modalists, that Jesus was not the God-man in whom “all the fullness of the Divinity 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 we should not follow the teachings of St. Paul (Phil. 2:6–8) 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” 16. 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 all His God-manhood, i.e. not only humanity, as the Definition imagines, but the Divinity hypostatically united with it in the farewell conversation: “I am going to the Father.” Who am I, on whose behalf the Lord speaks? When denying the direct embodiment 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” (John 17:11).. “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” (John 17:24). 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 complete hypostatic man, along with the Hypostatic Logos, i.e. “Nestorian” heresy, συνάφεια 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, inaccuracy. However, despite this contradiction, the thought and intention of the Definition in this case is completely clear: we are talking about the complete composition of man in the God-man and the ascension of this complete man to heaven. Therefore, another possibility of understanding this place is precisely as Orthodoxy teaches in the definitions of the IV and other ecumenical councils, i.e. the presence of only a human soul and body in the God-man cannot be assumed 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 sat down 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 mean here in the language of theology and metaphysics, i.e. in absolute Spirit? Already from St. John of Damascus The definition could learn that it cannot be understood literally, but requires an explanation, so to speak, translation into the language of theology. What is dextera Patris, which means “Ascension” and at the right hand of the Father “Seat”? 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 expression in the simultaneous presence of the narrative of the Ascension among the evangelists of Mark. and Luke. and the promises of being with them all the days until the end of the age in Matt. (in the absence of a story about the Ascension in In). The same antinomy is expressed in the kontakion of the holiday, to which the Definition also refers: ... “thou art ascended in glory, Christ our God, in no way departing, but abiding unremittingly”... 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, in accordance with the definition, this is also interpreted Calvin), for God is above spatiality, and at the same time means removal - moreover, precisely the bodily from this world. The antinomy of the dogma further consists in the fact that in the depths of St. The Trinity, since “God is Spirit,” has 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 transubstantiations. My general idea is that the Lord returns to earth in the Divine Eucharist, puts on His glorified Body and mysteriously includes the Eucharistic elements in it, St. Gifts for spiritual-physical communion are assessed in such a way that “there is no shadow of such ideas in the teaching of St. Church,” and this is “the fantasy of an over-wise theologian,” which “has nothing in common with the teachings 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 he who comes with glory will be judged alive and dead, and his kingdom will have 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, the 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, 22:3-4). From the above, it is obvious that the future Kingdom of Christ will be on a transformed earth, in the city of Jerusalem that came 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 (i.e., 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 together 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 the theologian, are also distinguished by other fabrications of Fr. Bulgakov, for example, about the sinlessness of the Mother of God, as the perfect manifestation and revelation of the Third Divine Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit 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 before the face of the entire Christian world exactly what sins are affirmed in the Most Honest Cherubim and the Most Glorious Without Comparison Seraphim 17 . What follows is a series of tendentious and unfair accusations that I “ignore the authority of the ecumenical councils”, treat “with contemptuous disregard for the teaching of St. 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 St. The Fathers, with 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 St. 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 18. 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). “When attributing full authority to all fathers and teachers together, when they agree on something in the teaching about 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 his holiness, with all the abundance of spiritual gifts, St. The Fathers were not inspired by God, like St. 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 those cases when they disagree with each other... 3) that it is absolutely impossible to attribute to St. Fathers and teachers have the same authority when they talk about things other than 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 Spirit. 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 an “Apollinarian” at all. since his thought was misunderstood, like Nestorius, at least at the end of his life he 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 kills, 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 quite a few 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, with which my conscience, as an Orthodox priest, does not reconcile 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. Sergievskoe Podvorye in Paris. 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 Never-Evening Light,” which concerns only cosmology, does not satisfy me in everything). But having cited these “contradictions,” the “Definition” continues: “there are quite a few contradictions... we also see a deviation from the teachings of the Orthodox Church.” This is the method of this criticism, without any difficulty making the transition from “contradictions” to “deviation from the teachings of the Orthodox Church.” Here it is appropriate to cite the following tirade... M. Anthony: “Yes, the ancient great pagan was not mistaken... when he argued 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. I, 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 manifests itself in world development” (M. Anthony, complete collection of works, vol. III, 105. Dissertation on free will). St. Gregory The theologian says “what was the thought of God occupied with before the Almighty, reigning in the emptiness of centuries, created the universe and adorned it with forms? She contemplated the longed-for lightness of Her goodness, the equal and equally perfect luminosity of the triscendent Deity (i.e., the Divine Sophia)... The World-Giving Mind also considered in its great mental representations the images He composed of the world, which was produced later, but for God even then it 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 world itself, are compared). See the excursion to the Burning Bush. The beginning of sophiology can even be found in... Met. Anthony: “It is possible, following Gregory the Theologian, to 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 St. It turns out to Gregory that creativity consisted in the volitional realization of the ideal world, in its implementation for oneself, and not only for the Divine consciousness, which it was eternally... the creation of matter can be understood as the assimilation by God of the ideal world, i.e. 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” (ib. 109). Wed. also a presentation of the teachings of Metropolitan. Anthony, obviously authorized, on the occasion of his anniversary, in “Ts. Vestn." No. 470 (Oct 13, 1935). Here we read “St. The Bible does not 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 of the week of Orthodoxy (Greek text in the Lenten Triodion, Athens edition 1930, pp. 151–2, in the Slavic translation by F. Uspensky. Odessa 1893, pp. 30–38) in five anathematisms, and the opposite teaching of St. Gregory Palamas is blessed in five proclamations 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 the unknown and transcendental energy 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 ousia and energy in the Divine, either merging and identifying ousia and energy, or recognizing energies as created, even human-subjective states. This is how they understood the phenomenon of the Tabor light, while the Palamites saw here the manifestation of the Divine, i.e. 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 V. 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 also Christ foretold on the mountain, and simply all the power and action of the trinitarian deity - πᾶσαν δύναμιν ϰαὶ ἐνέργειαν and everything in the divine nature, unnatural - ϰαὶ τὸ διαφέρον ὁποσοσοῦν τῆς θείας φύσεως – is created – ϰτιστὸν – εἶναι. - Piously wise, as if he was not created - there is the most divine light and all the power and action - ϰαὶ πᾶσαν δύναμιν ϰαὶ ἐνέργειαν (nothing is truly powerful to apply new to what is naturally inherent in God) in the words and in lengthy writings they name theotheists and polytheists.” Accordingly, (2) the doctrine of Barlaam is anathematized, according to which God does not have any natural energy - But there is only one ousia - μόνην οὐσίαν εἶναι - as well as the one according to which “the same and completely indistinguishable is both the divine ousia and the divine energy,” and it is not confessed, according to the teaching of the Saints and the understanding of the Church, “the ousia in God and His essential and natural energy - οὐσίαν τε ἐπὶ θεὸν ϰαὶ οὐσιώδη ϰαὶ φυσικὴν τούτου 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. This identity in divine uncreatedness was precisely what 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: “who also philosophize with them and say that all natural force and energy - Πᾶσαν φυσιϰὴν δύναμιν ϰαὶ ἐνέργειαν - is Trinitarian The deities are created ϰτιστήν. And 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 the Divine τῆς Θεότητος 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, equally speaks of 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 ossia 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 by St. The Synod (M. Anthony, A. 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. In the Moscow Cathedral, in the subdepartment of sectarianism, under the chairmanship of Arch. Feofan, known as a supporter of imyaslaviya, the question was turned to dogmatic further investigation, or rather, research. See my Chapters on Trinity. [So in the publication. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. ] By the way, σάρξ 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. It is here that it is said: “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 can 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), the opinion that humanity is represented in Christ only by soul and flesh, without the hypostatic human spirit, which is replaced by the Logos, was declared completely unorthodox, then here, as a matter of course, this understanding of the humanity of Christ as consisting of flesh and spirit is given. 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 ascension - not to the Father in heaven, but to God knows where (?!)" And again: by the 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.” With regard to 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 Scriptures, 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 Holy Scripture” (Migne, Ser. gr. t.161, p.556). Wed. The Comforter, p.144 ff.