Veneration of the Mother of God and John the Baptist and the new direction of Russian religious and philosophical thought

Some time ago, the books of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov “The Burning Bush” were published in Paris, and a little later “The Groom’s Friend”. “Their common theme,” says the author himself, “is a dogmatic interpretation of the Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God and the Forerunner separately and together.” “The Burning Bush” sets out the doctrine of the Mother of God, “Friend of the Bridegroom” - about John the Baptist. Having stated that the purpose of the first book is to reveal the doctrine of the sinlessness of the Mother of God, the author gets straight to the point. “Does the Most Pure, Immaculate One have any personal sin? Is it possible to imagine even for a moment this terrible blasphemy?” - he asks. And he immediately admits that what he called “terrible blasphemy” was taught and preached by many Church Fathers, even such great luminaries of Orthodoxy as Basil the Great and John Chrysostom. However, this does not bother Rev. S. Bulgakov and he is trying to establish the “church point of view”, from which, in his opinion, both these and some other teachers of the Church retreated. Church teaching rests on two foundations - Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition tell us about the sinlessness of the Savior. “Thou shalt not commit lawlessness, for flattery will be found in His mouth,” prophesied the prophet Isaiah, and the Apostle Peter repeats his words, only replacing the word lawlessness with the word sin, since “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4; 1 Peter 2:22). “And in Him there is no sin,” says John the Theologian (1 John 3:5). “He who knew no sin,” “Tempted in all things except sin,” the Apostle Paul teaches about Christ (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15). Countless times it is said about the sinlessness of God, the sinlessness of the God-man in the works of the Holy Fathers and in church prayers. Where is the evidence of the absence of sins from the Mother of God? They are not in the Holy Scriptures. On the contrary, Holy Scripture says that all people are sinners. The Holy Scripture, providing some information about the life of the Most Pure One, calls Her the Mother of the Lord, the Grace-filled and other high names, but nowhere does it call Her sinless. Certain events of Her life, reported in the Gospel, are even directly explained by some interpreters as doubts and hesitations in faith. This is how, for example, Saint John Chrysostom and others explain the case when the Mother of God and His brothers came to take Him in view of rumors that Jesus was possessed by demons, i.e. wanted to prevent Him from fulfilling His ministry (Matthew 12:46–50; Mark 3:21–35; Luke 8:19–21). “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it,” the Lord said then, showing by this that His spiritual connection with His followers is for Him above any family ties. True, there is another explanation for this gospel event - as a tempting test of a mother’s heart suffering for her Son. However, no matter what interpretation you accept, you still have to admit that on the basis of Holy Scripture it is impossible to prove the absence of sins in the Mother of God. Prot. Bulgakov does not even try to use this proof. He only reviews the life of the Mother of God, as far as it is known from the Holy Scriptures and church traditions, and says that on the basis of these data, as well as “by the evidence of immediate feeling,” it is impossible to attribute to the Mother of God the commission of a personal sin at any time in Her life. However, the absence of mentions of sins does not yet prove that they did not exist, not to mention the fact that in some events in the life of the Blessed Virgin, many interpreters and Church Fathers see a manifestation of sinfulness in the Grace-Blessed One, but still the daughter of Adam. And “immediate feeling,” without testing it by positive church teaching, often led to heresy. Prof. Bulgakov wants to establish, on the basis of tradition, the church teaching about the sinlessness of the Mother of God. The existence of the tradition is evidenced by the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, the rules of St. apostle and patristic works, liturgical rites, church songs and prayers, iconography. However, tradition is sacred only when it has been and is accepted by the entire Universal Church. But in the decrees of the Councils there is no indication of the sinlessness of the Mother of God, etc. Bulgakov is looking for the testimony of the holy fathers. Many holy fathers, as Rev. himself points out. Bulgakov definitely said that the Mother of God also had personal sins. He wants to contrast them with the testimony of the holy fathers, who, in his opinion, taught about the sinlessness of the Mother of God, and names a whole series of such holy fathers. Of these, he was the first to cite St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, who “appears to recognize Mary as free from sin.” However, upon careful reading of St. Epiphanius, who described all the heresies that existed before him and in his time, it is clearly clear that he does not consider the Mother of God to have no sins, but only refutes those (anti-Dicamarianites) who did not give Her due veneration and blasphemed Her; with equal zeal he arms himself against the heresy (collaridian), which rendered divine honors to the Mother of God, and says: “Let Mary be honored, let us worship the Lord,” “there is the same harm in both of these heresies: both when they humiliate the Holy Virgin, and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond due.” Also, St. does not speak of the sinlessness of the Mother of God. Gregory the Theologian. The expression “Virgin, in whom soul and body are purified by the Spirit” is not an indication of sinlessness; rather, on the contrary, it shows that there was something that needed to be cleansed. (Word for Epiphany or Christmas and Holy Easter). Elsewhere, St. Gregory the Theologian says directly: “We know that not to sin is higher than man and is characteristic of God alone (I will not talk about Angels).” The expression “purified by the Spirit” is comparatively weaker if we put it next to at least the words of the same saint. Gregory about the holy martyr Justina, whom he still did not consider sinless: “She was the true bride of Christ, hidden beauty, an animated statue, an undefiled shrine, an inaccessible sanctuary” (The Sermon on Cyprian). In these expressions one can rather look for indications of sinlessness, but St. Gregory the Great was always far from such a thought, which is directly refuted by his words quoted above, and clearly spoke about the sinfulness of the entire human race. The first, according to Rev. Bulgakov, spoke about the sinlessness of Mary, Rev. Ephraim the Syrian. However, in the excerpt from his works cited as proof of this, nothing is said about the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary. “You, Lord, and Your Mother, You are the only ones who are completely holy in every respect, for in You, Lord, there is no spot and in Your Mother there is no blemish.” Holiness and the absence of vice do not mean, as will be shown later, the absence of sins. There is also no mention of sinlessness where Mary and Eve are compared. Although Mary stands immeasurably higher than Eve, who introduced death into humanity, while Mary gave birth to life, the Rev. Ephraim, calling Her innocent, immaculate, still does not call Her sinless. He even says right there that Mary needed cleansing. “The Light dwelt in Her, washed Her mind, made Her thoughts pure, made Her care chaste, sanctified Her virginity” (“Mary and Eve”, “Song of Praise to B.M.”). Rev. expressed this idea even more clearly. Ephraim in another place (“Word on the heretic about the birth of the Lord”). “He also purified the Virgin and was then born, in order to show that where Christ is, there purity is manifested in all its power. He cleansed the Virgin, having prepared him with the Holy Spirit, and then the womb, having become clean, conceives Him. Purified the Virgin at Her purity; that’s why he left me a virgin when he was born.” Thus Rev. Ephraim believed that with all the virginity of the Virgin, She had something that needed to be cleansed. A sinless person has nothing to purify. But perhaps the Virgin was sinless after the incarnation of the Word? And this cannot be found in Rev. Ephraim. He only says that “illuminated by grace, She was not indignant at sinful desires” (ibid.). But there are not only voluntary sins - there are also involuntary ones. We often sin against our desire, due to the weakness of our weak nature. These are the sins of doubt, lack of faith and the like. They are not denied anywhere by Rev. Ephraim and turning to God only says to Him: “You are sinless” (ibid.). The references of Prot. Bulgakov on St. Ambrose of Milan. An excerpt from his interpretation of Psalm 119 is a mistranslation. The Latin text (Migne) reads: “Virgo per gratiam ab omni integra labe peccati”, i.e. “The Virgin is free by grace” not “from all sin,” as is given by Archpriest. Bulgakov, but “from every sinful fall” or “from a sinful stain.” That the Most Pure Virgin was alien to sinful falls and immoral acts is a universal Orthodox belief, but this does not confirm Her perfect sinlessness. Here it is said only about Her chastity and intact virginity “ut incorrupte sit virgo”, and not about the fact that She had no sins at all. “Solus enim Deus sine peccato est,” says St. Ambrose just before this, without calling the Mother of God sinless either here or in another place where he lists Her virtues, to which the author also refers. Almost all the “evidence” from the patristic works is limited to analyzed references, more refuting than proving the assertion of Archpriest Bulgakov. Only “approaching here,” in his words, are Jerome, Gaudentius and Blessed. Augustine. However, he wants to see the teaching about the sinlessness of the Mother of God in John of Damascus, on the basis of one quotation from his “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” and since this quotation is given by Ignatius Brianchaninov in his “Exposition of the Teaching of the Orthodox Church about the Mother of God,” he is inclined to count this famous spiritual writer among those who share this teaching. However, neither John of the Golden Strings nor Bishop Ignatius has a teaching about the sinlessness of the Mother of God. The words of John of Damascus, “the Spirit descended upon the pure Virgin and cleansed Her yet,” show the need for cleansing. “Free from all filth” does not mean “sinless.” Not only the Mother of God is called “spirit-bearing, divine.” Ignatius Brianchaninov also refers to other ascetics with these expressions; this expression corresponds to the expression “God-bearing,” which we constantly hear in church when mentioning saints; and in divine services, “divine” is repeatedly used (for example, in the kontakion of the first martyr Stephen: “the first martyr and divine Stephen”). Prot. Bulgakov does not hide the fact that Bishop Ignatius, having cited the quotation, goes on to say that the old man and sin could not help but manifest themselves in the Mother of God. But he sees here only “inaccurate and unfortunate expressions” of Bishop Ignatius, difficult to reconcile with the above words and relating only to original sin, and not at all to personal sin, “which he, apparently, excludes.” Meanwhile, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov not only “expressed himself,” but also substantiated in detail why the Mother of God also had sins, not only original sin, but also personal sins. “Despite the righteousness and integrity of the life that the Mother of God justified ... sin and eternal death manifested their presence and dominion in her.” He refers to John Chrysostom and Theophylact of Bulgaria, in support of the fact that original sin was manifested in the commission of personal sins and says: “Truth is alien to all exaggerations and belittlements: it gives everything its due measure and proper place.” He recognizes the Mother of God as alien only to the thoughts and feelings of voluptuous and carnal desires, not having tasted the struggle with them, and not with sin in general. Thus, upon closer examination it turns out that the question posed by Rev. Bulgakov at the beginning of his book, in the patristic writings, receives an answer directly opposite to that given by the author himself. Not only those holy fathers who expressed this so clearly that he himself had to include them among those “uttering terrible blasphemy,” but also those holy fathers from whom he seeks confirmation of his teaching either definitely teach just the opposite, or, without touching on the issue in its entirety, they only speak about the holiness and chastity of the Virgin Mary. For fear of blaspheming, they were far from considering the Mother of God to have no sins or to keep silent about them. “It is very ignoble and base to think,” says St. Gregory the Theologian in his laudatory speech to the Hieromartyr Cyprian, that it would be insulting for an ascetic to remind him of his unpraiseworthy deeds.” Knowing that a person cannot help but sin, they placed the dignity of achievement in putting off the old man and in the degree of holiness achieved by fighting the inclination to sin and defeating it with the help of God’s grace. This view was held by both all the ancient holy fathers and later ascetic church writers, and one cannot find among them the teaching that the Mother of God somehow turned out to be free from sin or victorious over it without a struggle. This is a new teaching that has no roots in the patristic works and Orthodox theology. Prot. Bulgakov says that the Holy Orthodox Church firmly and clearly teaches about the sinlessness of Mary in its countless services dedicated to the Mother of God. As proof, he cites about 50 excerpts from chants in honor of Her. However, in none of them is She called either sinless or any other equivalent expression. In them she is called a saint; but although in the full sense there is only “one saint, one Lord Jesus Christ,” all saints of God can be and are called relatively saints. In their host there are so many former greatest sinners who have repented that there is no need to prove that the word “saint” does not mean “sinless.” The Mother of God is called immaculate. Vice is obstinacy in sins, devotion to sin, sinful habit. A person is called immaculate if he leads a godly life without being enslaved by any passion. “Walk before Me and be blameless,” God said to Abraham (Gen. 17:1). Job is called blameless in the Holy Scriptures, and he considers himself as such (Job 1:1, 8, 2:3, 9:21). It is said about the righteous Zechariah and Elizabeth that they “walked in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord blamelessly” (Luke 1:6). By repeatedly using the word “blameless” in the psalms, David means by this the executor of God’s law. “Blessed are the blameless in the way, walking in the law of the Lord” (Ps. 119:5) This expression is also applied to some saints in church services (For example, Dec. 6, Canto VI, Dec. 12, Canto VII. Canons of the martyr Juliana and Eugenia). But none of the Old or New Testament righteous people is still considered sinless, and the lives of those who are called blameless do not hide their sins and temptations. Thus, by calling the Mother of God Immaculate and even All-Immaculate, Most Immaculate, the Church indicates Her devotion to the law of the Lord and the absence of any vice in Her, and not at all the absence of sins in Her. It is also impossible to see indications of the sinlessness of the Mother of God in the words “Undefiled” (“Fear the pious youths according to the soul and undefiled body,” - it is also said about the 3 youths - Irmos 8 of the song of Great Monday), “Pure”, “Incorruptible”. “Unblameable”, since here we speak only about Her high morality, and not about the absence of any sin. The expression “the body of the current of sin is unpleasant” speaks of Mary’s chastity and uncorrupted virginity. The remaining expressions cited by Archpriest Bulgakov from church songs have even less to do with the issue of sinlessness. “Sanctified” (Jer. 1:5). “Ordained”, “Blessed”, “Blessed”. “Dwelling of God”, “Glorious” - all these are lofty names for the Mother of God, but still do not give an answer to this question. It is no longer clear why various figurative expressions are given, such as “New Heaven”, “Book sealed with the divine spirit”, “Divine Ladder”, “Great Throne” and the like, which, while clearly depicting the great dignity of the Mother of God, still do not at all relate to the issue at hand, not to mention the fact that expressions that need to be understood in a figurative sense cannot be contrasted with those in which church teaching is clearly and definitely expressed. With his “evidence” taken from divine services, Rev. Bulgakov proves only that he could not find anything confirming his view in Orthodox worship and prayers, in which it is said only to God: “There is no man who will live and will not sin: You are the only one besides sin,” (prayer after the funeral litany), “You are the only sinless one,” (prayer from the rite of confession and many other prayers). The doctrine of the sinlessness of the Mother of God is not only alien to Orthodox teaching, but also disgusting. Having a lot of evidence against itself, it has no evidence for itself. Therefore, to prove his Orthodoxy, Archpriest Bulgakov had to resort to a selection of fragmentary expressions that either prove nothing or give the idea that his teaching is actually confirmed here, unless one reads the entire work from which this expression is taken. The example with reference to Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov is especially striking here. However, despite all the shaky foundations laid, Rev. Bulgakov continues to further develop the theory that seems correct to him. He goes far ahead of the goal outlined at the beginning of the book. But first of all, he protects his teaching from the suspicion that it is only a deviation towards the Roman dogma of the virgin birth. He claims that it is possible, without having personal sins, to have original sin at the same time, not only for those babies who do not yet have the ability to reason, but also for those saints who, by the grace of God, have realized personal sinlessness. He says that John the Baptist is already approaching such personal sinlessness, and the Blessed Virgin Mary possesses it (“Neopal. Bush,” p. 69). He dwells in some detail on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and at the same time touches on a number of other religious and philosophical issues. Having shown the absurdity of the doctrine of the removal of the Mother of God from original sin, Rev. Bulgakov, however, believes that She was nevertheless freed from one of its consequences - personal sinfulness. The consequence of original sin was also death. For the Mother of God, death was a transition to the Kingdom of Glory of Her Son and the perception of a crown for an earthly righteous life. Speaking about the glorification of the Mother of God, Rev. Bulgakov draws a parallel between Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Just as the second Person of the Holy Trinity - the Son of God - is called in the Holy Scriptures, patristic works and prayers - the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:24, 30), he also calls the Mother of God Wisdom (in Greek, Sophia) and says that there are two images of Wisdom (Sophia) and two human images in heaven: the God-Man and the Mother of God. “The image of God is revealed and realized in heaven as the image of two: Christ and His Mother.” Based on the fact that God created Adam and Eve, the author believes that only the human being of the Mother of God in heaven, together with the God-man Jesus, together reveal the complete image of man. “The fullness of the Divine image in man, or vice versa, the human image in God, is expressed through two: through the new Adam and through the new Eve.” Thus, according to Prot. Bulgakov, it turns out that the Mother of God stands, as it were, next to Her Son in the matter of redemption of the human race. Although the author warns that he does not share the idea that the Mother of God takes part in redemption along with and on an equal basis with the Son, however, the work of redemption of the entire human race, according to his teaching, would have been incomplete and unfinished if, in addition to the God-man Jesus, there had not been a feminine principle in the person of the Virgin Mary. At the same time, he forgets that the completion of the work of redemption is associated by the Church not with the Dormition, that is, the transition to heaven of the Mother of God, but with the Ascension of the God-Man, and that then it is sung: “Having fulfilled the vision for us and united us on earth with heaven, you ascended in glory, Christ our God” (Kontakion of the Ascension). The Church, while glorifying the sorrows of the Mother of God, never considered them a necessary addition to the sufferings of the God-Man, as if to atone for the sin of Eve, while the Lord suffered for the sin of Adam. Such a teaching is an attempt everywhere to parallel the masculine and feminine principles, which is alien to the teachings of the church, which sees in Christ the One Savior and Deliverer of the entire human race, who trampled death and hell, why at the resurrection of Christ Adam equally rejoiced and Eve, who was delivered from bonds, rejoiced (Kondakion Rev. 1st Tone). In an effort to draw a parallel between Christ and the Virgin Mary, Rev. Bulgakov, not satisfied with what has already been said, goes even further and finds that just as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, appeared to the world in the person of the God-man Jesus Christ, so the Holy Spirit appears through the Virgin Mary. The difference here is that the Son of God became incarnate, became human, but the Holy Spirit did not become incarnate, but having inhabited the Virgin, deified Her so that She, while remaining human and a creature, at the same time became the bearer and host of the Holy Spirit. Using many Orthodox expressions, the author puts into them a completely different meaning. Mother of God, as Rev. Bulgakov, remaining human, with the infusion of the Holy Spirit into Her, acquired a “double life,” human and divine, i.e. completely adored, why in his hypostatic existence he is a living created revelation of the Holy Spirit” (p. 154). Her being “from human became the Mother of God. For the Mother of God being is no longer a human being, although it is inseparably connected with it” (p. 174 ff). “She received the Holy Spirit and became inseparable with Him.” “Mary is therefore the perfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis; in creation, Her human face reflects the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, for it is transparent to it.” With this expression, Rev. Bulgakov defines what he means by “the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Mary” and then directly states that it is through Mary that the Holy Spirit acts in the world. In doing so, he distinguishes between the revelation of the Father, the revelation of the Son and the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The Son is revealed in Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit through Mary. The system turns out to be very harmonious, but not Orthodox. “The hypostatic revelation of the Holy Spirit has taken place, is taking place, and will be completed in full in the next century, in the kingdom of the Holy Spirit through Mary,” says the author. He explains the presence of the Mother of God at Pentecost as Her primacy and leadership of the Church and the human race, as Her unification of heaven and earth. According to it, it turns out that the Holy Spirit cannot appear in the world without the mediation of the Virgin Mary. Where did Rev. get his teachings from? Bulgakov? In this part of his teaching, he does not refer to any patristic works or church prayers. He philosophizes here, argues, but does not at all expound or seek out church teachings. Orthodox teaching, based on God's revelation, does not divide this revelation into “revelation of the Father,” “revelation of the Son,” and “revelation of the Holy Spirit.” The actions of the Most Holy Trinity are inseparable (Bishop Theophan the Recluse. Interpretive messenger. Ephesians). Neither vision nor prophecy comes from the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit separately. (Basily the Great. Against Eunomius V). The appearance or revelation of one person of the Holy Trinity is the revelation and appearance of the entire Trinity: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father: and how do you say: show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The verbs that I speak to you, I do not say about myself: but the Father abides in me, it is he who does the works” (John 14:9-11). Although it happened that the Epiphany was expressed in the appearance of all three Persons of the Holy Trinity, as for example, at Baptism and Transfiguration, this was in order to more clearly show the Trinity of the Divinity, so that “the worship of the Holy Trinity may appear,” and not because the appearance of one of the Persons was an incomplete revelation of God. (See the troparion of the Epiphany, also the prayer for the consecration of the Trinity Icon). The Holy Scripture itself indifferently calls the same appearance of the Divine in different places the appearance of the Father, the appearance of the Son, and the appearance of the Holy Spirit. (E.g. compare Isa. 6:9; John 12:36–41; Acts 28:25–27). This was also pointed out by St. Basil the Great and other saints fathers. Thus, the assertion that there are special revelations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a deviation from Orthodoxy. But even more perplexing is the teaching about the Mother of God as the bearer of the Holy Spirit, through whom the Holy Spirit is revealed to the world. Where did this teaching come from? Not from Holy Scripture and not from Holy Tradition. The mention in the Acts of the Apostles about the presence of the Virgin Mary at the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost cannot serve as either the basis or confirmation of this teaching, since others present are listed there by name or attribute, and His brothers are also mentioned along with the Mother of the Lord. Moreover, this mention is made not where the descent of the Holy Spirit is spoken of, but where it is said in general about who the initial gatherings of believers consisted of. About the day of Pentecost it is only briefly said that all the Apostles were unanimous together, and the Virgin Mary is not even mentioned separately. In fact, the Mother of God was together with the apostles because she herself needed to receive the Holy Spirit, like other believers, and not because the Holy Spirit could not descend without Her. If Our Lady is the exclusive organ of revelation of the Holy. Spirit, then how could the Holy Spirit “speak the prophets” without Her mediation? How did He, in the form of a dove, descend on Jesus at baptism, although it is unknown about the presence of the Virgin Mary there? How did the Holy Spirit descend not only on the day of Pentecost, when Mary was among those unanimously in prayer, but also later descended on the eunuch of the Queen of Ethiopia, on Cornelius and those with him, on the disciples of John and on other occasions, although it is known that She was not present there? Or maybe only from the Dormition of the Mother of God the Holy Spirit can be revealed only through Her, and until then He could act without Her? Prot. Bulgakov wanted to portray the Virgin Mary as a link connecting the Divine and humanity. Finding it insufficient that “there is one God and one Mediator (mediator) of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself redemption for all,” he also wants to find a mediator connecting the feminine principles in the Divinity and in humanity. Needless to say, in these searches he no longer tries to substantiate his teaching on the holy fathers and church prayers, abandoning even the attempts that he made when he expounded the doctrine of the sinlessness of the Mother of God. After all, remembering here about St. fathers can only say that the teaching being presented is alien to them. Based on one’s own reasoning and conclusions, a new teaching is being built here. Man is placed on a par with “the Lord from Heaven” (1 Cor. 16:47), although purified by God, he is still a man from the earth. According to this teaching, even before the atoning sacrifice of the God-man, this person, according to God’s will, receives the ability not to sin, i.e. sin does not appear in him. However, the root of evil - original sin - remains in him, and thus Mary remains belonging to the sinful human race. The suffering of the God-man saves and unites with the Divinity, predominantly, the male half of the human race; To save the female part of him, the suffering of this other person, the Virgo, is necessary. The communication of the Holy Spirit with humanity becomes impossible except through this Virgin. Unlike Jesus Christ, who united Divinity and humanity inseparably and inextricably in one Person, the Virgin Mary, remaining only human, “has unity with the Holy Spirit to a degree that exceeds all measure,” and becomes a mediator between Him and humanity. It turns out that She, as it were, stands between the Holy Spirit and people, not allowing them to communicate directly, although Jesus Christ promised to send the Spirit of the Comforter, who will directly dwell with believers and guide them into all truth (John 14:16–17, 16:13). If the Holy Spirit could never reveal itself to people until the Virgin Mary became His host, then indeed She, and not Christ, would be the connector of Divinity and humanity. But creating a necessary intermediary where one is not required does not mean connecting, but separating. On the one hand, bringing a person closer to God and even to some extent equalizing them, Rev. Bulgakov, on the other hand, divides the actions of the Holy Trinity, belittles the significance of the Incarnation and puts a partition between the Holy Spirit and people. No matter how much we say that the Mother of God becomes not a wall, but a door between God and man, but in the presentation of Rev. Bulgakov gets just the opposite. This is how the attempt of Archpriest is crowned. Bulgakov “to give the doctrine of the Mother of God.” Is this what the Orthodox Church teaches? She teaches that the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave herself up to God with her whole being from an early age, and became attached to Him with fiery love. Belonging to the sinful human race, She, with tireless attention to Herself, cleansed Her soul from all impurity. God, who foreknew Her (Rom. 8:29), gave Her His gracious help, and angels were sent to serve Her. In Mary’s life there were no sinful habits or severe falls in sin, but the severity of sin is relative. What is almost no sin for a person mired in vices, since against the background of his other deeds it seems completely indifferent, then, for a highly moral and ideal person, is a black spot in his soul. For the pure and highly pious Virgin Mary, even every shadow of lack of faith and doubt, every small decline in zeal for pleasing God, was a noticeable sin. But She became more and more inspired to fight him. Without justifying Herself, She atoned for Her sins with even greater jealousy. Having humbly accepted the mercy of God to be the Mother of Her Savior, She at the same time accepted the heavy cross, a weapon in her heart, for she was constantly forced to tremble for Her Divine Son. Her maternal heart naturally wanted to preserve Him from all dangers, and this desire sometimes ran counter to the will of the Savior of the world who came to lay down His soul. The Virgin’s maternal feat was not without temptation, but here too She struggled with sinful enemies in human nature, and tried to subjugate the will of sinful man to the sinless Divine will. At the beginning of the Gospel, we see the Mother of God making some other attempts to save and keep Her Son, who is fulfilling only the will of His Heavenly Father, from the path that He took, not sparing His life. This caused the Savior to indicate that family ties are not so important to Him as fulfilling the will of the Heavenly Father (Matthew 12:48, 49; Mark 3:33–35; Luke 8:21). But in the future such reminders were no longer needed by the Blessed Virgin. She was imbued with the same feelings (Phil. 2:5) that Her sinless Son, the God-Man, had, who subdued His human will to the same divine will with His Father. She obediently followed Him, although the sword pierced her heart, and sorrows tore Her soul apart at the sight, first, of dangers, and then of the suffering and death of Her Son. Here too, She seemed to repeat in Her heart: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord! Thy will be done! Let it be done according to Your word." More than any other of Christ’s followers, She had to suffer in order to renounce Her will and submit to His teaching. But on the other hand, she was awarded the most, exalted most of all. “Blessed are those who forsake iniquity, and those who hide behind sin” (Ps. 31). There are no more sins where they are forgiven. Therefore, there was no need to begin to examine the question of whether the Most Holy Mary had sins, and with the help of the constructions of a false mind (1 Tim. 6:20) to try to exalt the one exalted by God Himself. Not only by nature is Mary the beloved Matter of the Lord, but also as the doer of the will of the Heavenly Father (Matt. 12:48–49; Mark 3:33–35; and Luke 8:21), His first servant. There are no words to convey the glory of the most glorious cherubim and the most honest without comparison seraphim. She stands at the very throne of the One whom she loved with all her being and to whom she dedicated her entire life. And since love for God is invariably connected with love for neighbors (1 John), then she who loves God more than anyone has more love for people. Not a single sigh, not a single tear is hidden from Her. And not because only through Her the Holy Spirit is revealed, but precisely because of this love She is a prayer book and a representative of the entire human race. She is the joy of those who rejoice, the comforter of those who mourn, the help of those in need, the intercessor of all Christians. If even in her adolescence She devoted so much time to prayer that they say about Her “she lived in the saints,” although, in fact, she lived in a special room for virgins at the church, and came to the Holy of Holies only to pray, now, having passed the earthly path, at the Throne of Glory She is completely immersed in prayer, “day and night she prays for us,” and “with unceasing prayer the Virgin saves the world all-singing." And sometimes we turn to other saints with a prayer to save us, just as we turn to the Mother of God to pray to God for us, but mainly it is to the Mother of God that we cry “save us,” thereby expressing faith in the especially strong power of Her prayer, always heard and fulfilled immediately by Her Son. But just as it is difficult for a darkened gaze to look at the light, so for us, mired in sins and passions, the glory of the Mother of God is incomprehensible, the path by which She came to her is wonderful and incomprehensible. “The inexpressible God and Divine mysteries in vain in the Virgin, the grace revealed and fulfilled, I clearly rejoice and understand the strange and ineffable image: how the chosen pure one appeared above all creation, visible and intelligible. Even though I may praise this, I am greatly horrified by my mind and word, but boldly I preach and magnify: this is the village of heaven” (Ikos of the Entry into the Church). The continuation of the book “The Burning Bush” is the work of the same author “The Groom’s Friend”. Just as in the first book of Rev. S. Bulgakov wanted to give a teaching about the Mother of God, so in the second he wants to accurately determine who John the Baptist is and what his place is in the heavenly kingdom. His attention was drawn to the icon of Deesis (i.e. deisis - prayer), where the Mother of God and John the Baptist are depicted in prayer before Christ, and he draws a parallel between them. It is necessary to note the good side of this book. There are many excerpts from sacred chants dedicated to the Forerunner, apparently carefully reviewed. The life of John the Baptist according to the Gospel is carefully studied, and some events are excellently explained. However, despite these advantages, the work has such significant shortcomings that they deprive it of any value. Some kind of preconceived thought guided the author, so that his final conclusions are completely arbitrary and unfounded, and, unfortunately, the second book is indeed a worthy continuation of the first. Prot. Bulgakov, beginning to expound the doctrine of the Forerunner, says that the Forerunner was as necessary for the redemption of people as the Mother of God, which is why their veneration has much in common. Thus, they are often depicted together on the right and left sides near Christ; only they, supposedly, and the Archangel Gabriel have their own “councils,” etc. But the evidence given by the author is more than weak. He sees the church teaching that Christ could not come without the Forerunner in the fact that the Forerunner is called the star of the sun, the star that announced the sun (p. 12). However, if a morning star appears in front of the sun, this does not mean that the sun could not exist and rise in due time if this, and indeed stars in general, did not exist. It is impossible to prove on the basis of these words of church hymns that Christ needed the Forerunner so much that he could not come to earth without him to save people, also because in them more than one John the Baptist is called a star. “Thou art a bright star, the charmless one of the world, heralding the suns of Christ with its dawnings, the passion-bearer,” is sung to each martyr (common troparion to the martyr). If you look through liturgical books, you will see in them countless times that one or another saint of God is likened to a star. Such a comparison can even be found in the service performed the day after the Council of John the Baptist, where the Venerable Domnica, also called the “immaculate virgin,” is called a star. “Like the greatest two stars, the all-bright dawn has risen, even as the great sun will shine upon the world,” it is said about Joachim and Anna in the service of Anna’s Conception of the Theotokos. But in the same service Christ Himself is called a star: “Rejoice, never-setting stars Mother, Rejoice, dawn of the mysterious day,” says the akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos; and in the same akathist a little earlier, it was not Christ who was called a star, but the Mother of God herself: “Rejoice, star that reveals the sun” (last akathist, ikos 1 and 5). From the above it is clear that in church songs, the star that shone from Jacob - Christ and His Most Pure Mother and many saints of God - are indifferently called stars. The naming of a star does not determine what relation the so-named person has to the matter of saving people, and what place it occupies in the heavenly kingdom, but only indicates that it is a spiritual luminary, shining in sinful darkness and enlightening human souls. The fact that it is the Forerunner who is called the star - Dennitsa - is quite understandable, since he was a star that shone immediately before the rising of the Sun of Truth - Christ, and announced to people about His coming. But neither literally nor, as here, in a figurative sense, is it wrong to believe that without the existence of the morning star the sun could not rise. Another reason to assert that the Forerunner was absolutely necessary for the coming of the Son of God to earth, Archpriest. Bulgakov sees that the Forerunner was predicted by the prophets, and that all the evangelists refer to this prophecy, thereby showing its importance. But the importance of this or that event in the life of Christ cannot be determined by how many evangelists talk about it. Thus, only two evangelists speak about the birth of the Virgin Mary, and all four speak about the entry into Jerusalem; all four speak about how Jesus Christ fed five thousand with five loaves, but about how, having given communion to the disciples at the Last Supper, He established the sacrament of the Eucharist for all times, only three speak, and the fourth, outlining in much more detail than the others what Christ said and did at the Last Supper, omits precisely this, and speaks about communion only in connection with the feeding with five loaves, although this was only a prototype, and not the establishment of the Eucharist. It is also impossible to speak about the necessity of the existence of the Forerunner for the possibility of saving the human race on the basis of what was predicted about it by the prophets. Many signs of the coming of Christ and events from His life were predicted so that people would recognize the coming Messiah and be sure that this is the One they are waiting for. It is predicted about the birth of Christ in Bethlehem and about the massacre of the infants there, about the journey to Egypt and the return from there, about the stay in Galilee, about the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, about the division of the vestments, with the casting of lots (which is also mentioned by all four evangelists) and much more, so that references to prophecies are constantly made in the gospels. However, are all these signs really so necessary that otherwise the Son of God could not save people? The fulfillment of these prophecies is important as proof of the truth of God's speech and that Jesus is the promised Christ. But it cannot be considered that the work of redemption is so connected with Bethlehem that the prophets could not predict, and Christ would not be born in Bethlehem, but for example. in Bethany, or some other place; or that the Lord could not save people without riding on a colt. Of course, not all prophecies and life events are equally important. The prophecy about the Forerunner is one of the most important. But still, it is not clear from anywhere that without the appearance of the Forerunner, the salvation of the human race was impossible, i.e. Christ could not come to earth. According to the teachings of Rev. Bulgakov, the Forerunner was not so much necessary for people, for their preparation for the preaching of Christ, but for Himself, so that He would not be alone in the world, being met by the Forerunner. “In his person the Savior was received on earth,” he and the Mother of God represented the entire Church, showing the image of male love and the image of female love. Therefore, “the fullness of church love, communion with Christ is given in the union of love for Christ of the Mother of God and the Forerunner,” says the author (“Friend of the Groom,” pp. 21 and 27). In the Gospel, “preparing the way of the Lord” is depicted as preparing human hearts to accept the preaching of the Savior. “Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths upright,” cried the Forerunner (Matthew 3:3), and pointed out that this preparation lies in humility and repentance. This sermon of John even more aroused the already intense expectation of the Messiah, and those who listened to the Forerunner were the first to become followers of Christ (John 1:37ff). Only the close society of his disciples, who were especially devoted to the personality of John, did not leave him and were even indignant at the growing influence of Jesus; however, even those who did not immediately follow Christ later willingly accepted the preaching about Him (Acts 18:24, 19:7). In this regard, John truly prepared the way for the Lord. The reasoning of Rev. Bulgakov, that the Forerunner was needed in order, as a representative of humanity, to meet Christ and thereby, as it were, provide Him with moral support, do not follow from the Gospel narrative, and, moreover, it is difficult to agree that the short meeting between Christ and the Forerunner was the humble coming of Christ to John. According to Prot. Bulgakov, the Forerunner was also necessary as the Baptist. He says that the Lord needed baptism, and therefore a Baptist; that in baptism the Lord became the perfect God-man, having received the adoption of God the Father and the anointing of the Holy Spirit. “The Epiphany Epiphany is a new and final adoption: the Holy Spirit, descending to earth on the baptized Son of God, testifies to the Father this sonship and accomplishes adoption” (“Friend of the Groom,” p. 82). This idea is completely unorthodox and is a deviation to the old Gnostic teachings that Jesus became the Christ precisely in baptism. The difference between the Gnostic teachings, which usually asserted that at baptism the man Jesus united with the Word, and the teaching of Arch. Bulgakov, is not so great, since it doesn’t matter, and here only the fullness of the Incarnation is associated with Baptism. Fighting such teachings of St. the fathers pointed out that Jesus, from His very birth and even conception, was true God, and, therefore, could not receive anything beyond what he already had, being consubstantial and inseparable from the Father and the Spirit. From the first lines of the Gospel we read that righteous Simeon prays to God to let him go from this world, for he has seen the Christ of the Lord (Luke 2:26–32). The grace of God was already upon Him then. Church songs, like the words of St. Fathers who glorify the Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord speak only about the appearance of the Holy Trinity, the appearance of Christ, His death, victory over the ancient enemy and His sanctification of the world, but not at all about the sanctification, adoption or anointing of Christ Himself. The similarities in the church services of Christmas and Epiphany are that Rev. Bulgakov is inclined to interpret how the Church’s view of Baptism as a second Christmas is simply explained by the fact that until the end of the 9th century, Christmas and Epiphany were celebrated on the same day, since the Evangelist Luke has an indication that Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23), i.e. the anniversary of the birth of the Lord and the time of His baptism approximately coincided. Later, in order to better mark the significance of both events, Christmas and Epiphany began to be celebrated separately, first in the west, and then in the east, except in Armenia, where to this day Christmas and Epiphany are celebrated together. This, of course, is known to Rev. Bulgakov, but he does not want to draw the corresponding conclusions, and, meanwhile, this former joint celebration has the consequence that the services of these holidays, even compiled later, are very similar from the outside (in addition, the blessing of water is added to Epiphany), and in the West it is even customary to call Epiphany the holiday of the “three kings,” i.e. three royal wise men who came to worship the newborn Christ, the more clearly it is recalled that once all these events were remembered together. But the inner significance and meaning of each of them was special, which is why a new order of celebration was so quickly adopted by the Church, which in countless hymns gives clear teaching about this and that event, without calling the Baptism of the Lord anywhere either spiritual Christmas or Anointing. Explaining the Baptism of Christ as the anointing of the Holy Spirit, Rev. Bulgakov says that the Incarnation of God took place not only through the Mother of God, who gave Christ His flesh, but also through the Forerunner, who baptized Christ, and through this became the performer of His anointing, through the descent of the Holy Spirit onto His human nature. This teaching, as we have seen, is completely alien to the Church, for the Savior was already Christ from birth, and did not receive any anointing at baptism. The Holy Fathers gave a clear answer to the question - at what time did the Lord become Christ, although they knew of two deviations from the truth - that this happened even before conception, and that only after Christ reached adulthood. Prot. Bulgakov admits the second, creating a unique theory from which he draws a number of further conclusions. “The Most Pure One and the Forerunner in their union personify the entire church, heavenly and earthly, angels and men.” Pointing to the joint image of the Mother of God and John the Baptist in prayer before Christ, and other prayer memories where the name of the Forerunner follows immediately after the Mother of God, Rev. Bulgakov is looking for the basis of this closeness. Having pointed out the service inherent in both of them and other similar features of their spiritual exploits, but finding this still insufficient, he finally finds the answer he desired: their spiritual closeness lies in the absence of free personal sin, in personal sinlessness. When Rev. Bulgakov in 1926 wrote page 69 of the book “The Burning Bush”, then the Forerunner was only approaching personal sinlessness; and in the spring of 1927, when page 28 of the book “Friend of the Groom” was written, the Forerunner already possessed personal sinlessness. The author should note whether he made a new discovery or changed his opinion, and not place, without reservation, in books that form a continuation of one another, two different answers to the fundamental question raised in these books. But prof. Bulgakov, who apparently gave the first answer, having not studied it enough and already forgotten about it, is now trying to prove the correctness of the second answer. Strictly speaking, there is no evidence. Prot. Bulgakov reviews the life of John the Baptist and points out that the holiness of the Forerunner throughout his life, although not directly attested in the Gospel, is indirectly confirmed. Having given several indications of John's holiness, the author suddenly begins to talk not only about holiness, but also about sinlessness, which was allegedly witnessed by the Lord in His conversation with the disciples and the people (Matt. 11:2–19 and Luke 7:18–35). However, there are no indications of the Forerunner’s sinlessness. Prot. Bulgakov completely seems to forget that holiness and sinlessness are not the same thing, and that if in the full meaning of the word “one is holy” there is only the sinless Lord Jesus Christ, then by the grace of God countless hosts of God’s saints, called saints, are approaching holiness, although many of them were previously grave sinners. In the Holy Scriptures, only the Lord is called sinless, and it is useless to look in it for indications of the sinlessness of anyone other than Him. No one except God and the Angels is called sinless in church hymns and the works of the holy fathers, which collectively express sacred tradition and church teaching. An expression of church teaching about the sinlessness of John the Baptist, Archpriest. Bulgakov considers the celebration of the conception and birth of John the Baptist, and says that by celebrating the conception and birth of only the Mother of God and the Forerunner, the Church thereby brings them closer and testifies to holiness from the very conception, to freedom from sin. Mixing here the concepts of holiness and sinlessness, the author, however, immediately places part of the stichera, in which a definite answer is given - why the conception is celebrated. “The creation rejoices at your conception, prophet and forerunner, John the Baptist: for your divine birth foreshadows to us the Master’s Nativity.” To explain how the Virgin Mary and the Baptist John could reach such a degree of holiness that they had no personal sins, although at that time Christ had not yet redeemed us from original sin - Rev. Bulgakov points to their holy ancestors and says that this holiness “is accumulated and acquired by the hereditary holiness of generations of the Old Testament Church.” But he completely forgets that among the ancestors of Christ there were also those distinguished not by piety, but by terrible wickedness, but from the four female persons mentioned by Evang. Matthew in the genealogy of Christ, only the Moabite Ruth was famous for her virtuous life, and the morality of the other three was not particularly high. This, however, did not prevent the children of wicked parents from being distinguished by high piety, which is especially clearly seen in the example of Ahaz and Hezekiah. Whatever reasoning is given, however, the personal sinlessness of the Forerunner is an unfounded teaching from a church point of view, just like the same teaching about the Mother of God, to substantiate which the author used much more evidence, but equally unsuccessful. Confirming that the Church places John the Baptist in a particularly exceptional position on a par with the Mother of God, Archpriest. Bulgakov believes that, supposedly, only he and the Mother of God, and even the Archangel Gabriel, have their own “cathedrals.” This view of the author only testifies to his complete ignorance of church books and regulations. Not to mention the fact that in all liturgical books and even calendars, in addition to the double council of the Archangel Gabriel (March 26 and July 13), the council of the Archangel Michael and other ethereal forces (November 8) is also mentioned; many saints have “councils”. If you just open the Prologue - a book in which short lives of saints and teachings for each day are placed, or the Greek menaion, where information about the celebrated saint (synaxarion) is placed after the 6th song / canon, when, according to the charter, they are supposed to be read, then in the same January, when the Council of the Baptist, you can find a whole series of councils. On the eighth of January, “the council of these (Julian and Vasilisa) is held in their holy torment, which exists at Foros.” On the ninth of January, “the council of his martyrdom (martyr Polyeuctus) is being held among the great saints of the Apostle.” During the first half of January, the word council is repeated at least five times, and on the day of John the Baptist, the seventh of January, it is said: “his council is being held in Forakia.” Similar things happen in other months. Sometimes in similar expressions it is said: “the council is being celebrated, its feast is being celebrated.” What does the word “cathedral” mean here, and what is the geographical name added to? The name of the cathedral (in Greek - isynaxys) is a meeting of believers to glorify the saint. When the memory of some saint of God was celebrated, they gathered mainly in the church built on the site of his torment (if he was a martyr), where there are relics, or in some other way connected with the name of the saint being celebrated. A solemn all-night vigil was held there, and then, in the morning, the liturgy. People from all over the surrounding area gathered in large numbers to the place of celebration, which is why the holiday itself was called a cathedral, a meeting. This order partly still exists in Constantinople. There, the memory of many saints is celebrated in a specific church. So, for example, the memory of the confessor John the Russian, about whom the Russians hardly know (he is a Little Russian captured by the Turks during the time of Peter I), is celebrated on May 27 in the Panagia Kafatiani church in Galata; much Markella, July 22, in the Church of John the Baptist, in the same place, and so on. On these days, many people gather, just as on the day of the church holiday, a solemn service is performed, taking place with a great upsurge of spirit. We see something similar in Russia, where there is always a large crowd of people on the days of church holidays or on the days of the celebration of a miraculous icon or a saint whose relics are available - these relics and icons. It was this gathering of people that gave the name to the whole holiday. In the book Typikon - the rules of worship - the expressions are repeated many times: “his council is held where his relics are, and where his church is.” Such instructions are found especially often on the days of remembrance of Russians, and determine where a solemn festive service with an all-night vigil should be performed for this saint. Thus, not only the Mother of God and John the Baptist have their own cathedral, but almost every saint. If the “councils” of the Mother of God, John the Baptist (even without specifying places) and the archangels Gabriel and Michael are spoken of in many liturgical books, and about the rest only in a few, then this is because the gathering of people in churches on the days following such great holidays as Christmas and Epiphany is ubiquitous, and in addition, speaking about the councils of the holy archangels, the Church indicates that our prayer meetings are an imitation of the angelic ceremonies, constantly glorifying God. The reference of Rev. should also be considered very unsuccessful. Bulgakov on the order of removing particles at the proskomedia, where he sees a rapprochement between the Mother of God and John the Baptist: firstly, in honor of the Mother of God, a particle is taken out of a special prosphora (or a special seal on it, if there is only one prosphora), and in honor of the Forerunner from the same, from which 9 particles are taken out in honor of all saints, and secondly, even the removal of a special particle in honor of the Forerunner immediately after The Virgin Mary is not a widespread custom, since in Greek churches the first particle is taken out of the nine-order prosphora (or seal) in honor of the disembodied forces, and only the second in honor of John the Baptist, Moses, Aaron and all the other prophets. It may seem that these are all such minor mistakes, prof. Bulgakov that they would not be worth touching upon, but they show on what illusory and theologically unfounded evidence he builds his theories. However, he not only does not stop at his views outlined here, but goes much further. Continuing to examine the question of the glorification of the Forerunner, he goes so far as to attribute to the Orthodox Church the teaching that John the Baptist was not only a man, but also an angel, that he united angelic and human natures, that he was an “angel-man.” Prot. Bulgakov even defines exactly what place John occupies among the angels: he allegedly took the place of the fallen Dennitsa. But when and where did the Church allow the mixing of angelic and human natures, or their union in one person? The author cites a number of church hymns where the Forerunner is called an angel, in accordance with the chapters of the prophecy of Malachi: “Behold, I send My angel before Thy face” (Mal. 3:1), and also points out that sometimes the Forerunner is depicted with wings. But what does it really mean to call the Forerunner an angel? The word "angel" means "messenger". The prophet Malachi predicted that God would send His messenger to announce to people about the coming of Christ and prepare them for His acceptance. The Lord Himself is also called the “Angel of the Great Council” (Is. 9:6; 5 irmos of the Nativity), as sent into the world by God the Father (John 5:23 and many others); but still He did not assume the angelic nature (Heb. 2:16). Why is it said at the same time that “not an intercessor, not an Angel, but the Lord Himself came incarnate” (Irmos 4 songs. 2 ch.). John the Baptist is also called an angel because he imitated the angels in his life, not caring at all about his own needs, and being completely devoted to the service entrusted to him by God. Saints in this sense are called imitators of ethereal forces. “What shall we call you, saints,” the Church sings, “either cherubim, as Christ rested on you; or seraphim, as you constantly glorify Him; Are angels - turn away from bodies; whether you have strength - you work miracles; Your names are many and your gifts are great, pray for our souls to be saved” (Stichera 7 Tone). “Thou art a pillar of patience, O venerable forefather; To Job in passions, to Joseph in temptations and disembodied life, who is in body,” is sung to the venerable Samson, Alypius and other pillars (Troparion to the Stylites). Without denying that the saints are called those who have lived the life of the angels, Rev. Bulgakov argues, however, that only the prophet Elijah and John the Baptist are directly sung as “angels in the flesh.” But by this he once again clearly emphasizes his ignorance of church services. Just a few days after the Council of John the Baptist, in the service on January 17, Rev. Anthony the Great is called several times “a heavenly man, an earthly angel” (Stichera at the Evening), and the teacher. To Macarius the Great is sung on January 19: “Desert dweller and angel in the flesh” (Troparion). Similar expressions are found throughout the entire annual service. The troparion “the desert dweller and the angel in the body” was sung by St. John Climacus, Moses Murin, Kyriako (4 weeks of Lent, Aug. 28, Sept. 29) and others. The one who called the Forerunner by this name, the prophet Malachi, is also called an angel, not only in his service on January 3, but also in the non-canonical III book of Ezra (1:40), and the very name of Malachi means “angel.” The acceptance of the Great Angelic Image is called tonsure into monasticism. With all these expressions, the Church does not at all mean to indicate that the so-called person became an angel by nature, but only testifies to his high spiritual life. That in the same sense we must understand the name of John the Baptist as an angel, it is directly stated in the text cited by the Archpriest himself. Bulgakov’s stichera, sung on the day of the Nativity of the Forerunner, the creation of the famous nun Cassia: “Man is by nature, but an angel by life.” – Yes, and Prof. himself. Bulgakov on page 118 does not say that John combined two natures - angelic and human - but that he “as an equally angelic man, combining in himself the fullness of human nature and the height and closeness to God of the angelic nature, stands above the angels themselves.” Thus, on this issue of the sinlessness of the Forerunner, Prof. Bulgakov gives two answers, this time in one book. That the Church does not attribute angelic nature to John the Baptist is clearly evident from numerous prayers (for example, “Save, O God, Thy people” and “The Master is Many-merciful” at the litiya; prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ, after the Sweetest Akathist and the 8th Vespers), where the Baptist is mentioned separately from the angels, moreover, after them; also from the fact that on the days dedicated to them she does not remember the Forerunner with them, and among the weekly memories Tuesday is dedicated to him, while the angels are glorified on Monday, and the apostles and saints with St. Nikolai - on Thursday. The image of John the Baptist with Angel wings is not at all an indication of his angelic nature, but only a reminder of the words of Holy Scripture: “Behold, I send My Angel.” It should be noted that Rev. Bulgakov, speaking about various icons of the Forerunner, does not pay any attention to whether this or that image of him is accepted throughout the Church, or represents a local and random phenomenon, not found anywhere else. Meanwhile, only generally accepted images can express the tradition of the Universal Church. Taking the path of literal understanding of expressions used in a figurative sense and symbolic images, the author opens the way to a number of unexpected conclusions. The Lord Jesus Christ is called the Lamb much more often than John is an angel. In the ancient Church, during persecutions, He was even depicted in the form of a Lamb. Is it really therefore necessary to believe that the Lord assumed the nature of a lamb? And, meanwhile, following the method of prof. Bulgakov, it is necessary to teach that Jesus Christ is not only the God-man, but that He is the God-angel-man-lamb, or at least the God-man-lamb. No matter how absurd and blasphemous such a thought may be, it is quite consistent. Following the path that Archpriest took in his research. Bulgakov, - abstracting from the direct teaching of the Church, looking for confirmation of his views in fragmentary expressions from the Holy Scriptures or prayer books, not paying attention to other places that do not confirm these views - one can reach even more extreme conclusions. But this will not be either Orthodox teaching or praise of a saint. The truths contained by the Church must be revealed in the fullness of its teaching, as professed by the Universal Church. “There is no one who is sick among those born of the wives of the prophet John the Baptist,” said the Lord (Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28). Only born not from a wife, but from a Virgin, the God-Man and this “Most Honest Cherub and Most Glorious Seraphim” Virgo are greater than he among people. He is the personification of complete devotion to God. Since childhood, he has lived in the desert, rejecting all comforts and bliss, satisfying only the most necessary needs of his body. He lives a spiritual life entirely. Original sin had not yet been removed from people by Christ and was manifested in human nature. The Church does not indicate what sins the Forerunner had; but, confessing the Lord as one sinless, she thereby recognizes the existence of sins in the Forerunner. And how could a person be preserved from the manifestations of sin living in humanity, being under the power of sin and in slavery (Heb. 2:15), in alienation from God. True, God called some of the righteous His friends (James 2:23), sanctified them even in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5), even filled them with the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3), but still they only looked upon the fulfillment of the promises by faith, died without receiving them, and descended into hell (Genesis 37:35). John was the last and greatest righteous man of the Old Testament, already standing on the threshold of the New, but still, living before Christ completed our redemption, he was under sin, which cruelly tormented humanity. If there is no one in the New Testament who is completely free of sins, it would have been even more impossible to achieve such sinlessness before him. But still, the degree of sinfulness and sins are different. John had no attachment to sin or sinful habits. On the contrary, being filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb, he clearly saw its abomination and hated both sin in general and his own. Hatred of these sins, the desire to be cleansed of them, and a stubborn struggle with them, working on oneself, while at the same time recognizing one’s unworthiness, constitute real repentance, of which John became a preacher. It is natural to hear the call to “repent” from the lips of the sinless Lord, who is not involved in either original or personal sins. But if someone who is not free from them preaches repentance, he himself must be the first to fulfill what he preaches. And, apparently, John was in a deeply repentant mood, he stubbornly eradicated in himself every inclination to sin and saw even his slightest shortcomings, that when he became ready to accept the word of God, from the depths of his soul, filled with a repentant feeling, burst out - “repent.” It is known that a word does not work as well as a personal example. “Whoever does and teaches this will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). Throughout his life, John personified true repentance. That is why his voice rang out so loudly and “Jerusalem and all Judea and all the country of Jordan came out to him” (Matthew 3:5). People walked, revealed their sins to him and, like a skilled doctor, asked how to treat their mental illnesses. But John remained humble, and, in the consciousness of his unworthiness, pointing out how to fight sin, he preached publicly that real cleansing from sins would be brought by the One coming after him, from Whom he is not worthy to untie the thong of His sandals. The Desired One has arrived; Obeying Him, John baptized Him with trepidation, and saw how the sky opened up and the Mystery of the Holy Trinity appeared, when Christ, by humbly bowing his head under the hand of His servant, atoned for the sin of the hand of his forefathers who proudly rose for the forbidden fruit. Having announced to the disciples and people the coming of the Deliverer from sin and pointing to Him, John continued to call for repentance. He sees that his glory has faded with the arrival of the Great Sun, but he does not mourn, but rejoices at this. He rejoices that the people he prepared rushed to what he preached, for not only with words, but with his whole being, he bowed before Him and was devoted to Him. He continues to preach the truth of God, boldly proclaims it to the king of the earth and ends up in prison. But even from there his voice is heard, although now only for a few, until the sword ends earthly life. After his death, his soul, like all souls before him, goes to hell, but goes with a sermon about the coming of Christ to earth and the approach of deliverance. After Christ’s descent into hell, he goes with Him to heaven and, as the most devoted of people, stands before His Throne together with the Mother of God. The greatest of those born of women rejoices with the angels and prays for his fellow men. He left a lesson for everyone. Martyrs, saints, priests, monks, virgins have their leader in him. Every Christian has in him an example of humility and devotion to God. When calling on him for help, one must imitate him and glorify him according to his strength; it is not in our power to praise him adequately. “The memory of the righteous with praise is sufficient for you, the testimony of the Lord, the Forerunner.” The teaching of Archpriest Bulgakov about the veneration of the Mother of God and John the Baptist, which, as it turned out, cannot in any way be considered Orthodox, is dangerous not so much in itself, but because in this case, as in many others, the author was the spokesman for ideas that gripped some circles of Russian thinking society. These ideas are associated with the doctrine of Sophia - the Wisdom of God. “Sophia” is a Greek word meaning wisdom. Since the task of this article was only to give a critical analysis of the teaching like this. called Sophians about the Mother of God and John the Baptist, then here we will limit ourselves to pointing out that until now, in accordance with the words of the Holy Scripture: “But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, to the Greeks foolishness, to those who are called Jews and Greeks of Christ, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23-24). In church teaching, expressed in particular in the patristic works and church prayers, the understanding was established that the Wisdom of God is one of the names of the Son of God. Currently, a current of thought has emerged that is trying to give a different understanding of the name Wisdom. Without giving a specific teaching for now and leaving a wide field for further philosophical research, the representatives of this teaching have already clearly shown their direction. Although they cite excerpts from St. fathers, but as gr. Yu.P. Grabbe in “The Roots of the Church Troubles”, here, in essence, is a polemic with St. fathers (“Roots of the Church. Troubles”, Chapter VI). They are destroying the teaching that has already been established in the Church, and, without yet giving a new positive teaching, they are developing it with a certain desire to find in “Sophia” the feminine principle, both of the Divinity and of humanity. There is, they say, a heavenly, uncreated Sophia, and there is a created Sophia. Being both in the Divine and in the creation, Sophia unites the Creator and the creature. A ladder of essences is established, as it were, and this destroys the clear distinction between the creator and the created. The highest degree of created Sophia is a transition to uncreated Sophia. Since “The Mother of God is Sophia to the utmost degree” (“Neopal. Kupina”, p. 189), then she “is a creature, but no longer a creature” (ibid., p. 191). If “the divine Sophia is the revelation of the Holy Trinity” (ibid., p. 189), then the Mother of God “is the eternal life, if not of the Divinity itself, then in the Divinity” (ibid., p. 191). In general, an attempt is made to find a parallel between the masculine and feminine principles everywhere. Given that the Sophian teaching and its various shades have not yet been developed, “there is a place for everything” has not yet been accurately defined. In particular, the feminine principle in the Godhead is something close to the Holy Spirit, although it is not completely identified with Him. In determining the position of the Mother of God, hesitation is also evident - in the book “The Burning Bush” by prof. Bulgakov places Her in parallel and in correspondence with Jesus Christ, and in “The Friend of the Bridegroom” - with John the Baptist. But, in general, they want to create something new, based on mental constructs and abstract philosophical reasoning. And the desire to, as it were, equalize Divinity and humanity, to make not only people dependent on God, but also God dependent on people, is clearly visible. This is why the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist are supposedly exalted, in order to later show that without representatives of humanity, the God-man Christ could not have done anything. “Divinity and humanity are essentially different parts of the same ladder.” This is not stated directly, but it is clearly stated. We recall the first centuries of Christianity, when, as a result of the desire to obtain accurate knowledge about God and the world, the harmonious system of the Gnostic Valentinus appeared, representing 15 pairs of eons that produced one another, where the male and female principles were also strictly distinguished in each pair. New philosophers have not reached Valentin’s conclusions; there is also no reason to assert that they borrowed their teaching from him. However, the same foundations are laid both there and here - human reasoning, adapting to oneself, and not bowing to the revealed truths. This is the desire to equalize and mix what God discovered and what man himself found. Both before and now, similar results are obtained from this. Our philosophers seem to feel their closeness to the ancient heretics, not hiding their sympathies for them and seeing them as preachers of truth (Karsavin, “Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church”). A proud mind cannot be reconciled with a humble fall before God. It is more pleasant to pick the fruit yourself than to receive it from the Creator. This is what Vladimir Solovyov expressed in his speech in memory of Auguste Comte, when he called for religion to be made divine-human, to pour more humanity into it - now it is too divine. Without hiding, supporters of the new philosophical movement are striving to reform Orthodoxy. “The Orthodox way of life will have to be remade. A new style is emerging in Orthodoxy,” writes Berdyaev. From the editors of their organ “The Path” it is proclaimed: “A new way of life of the Orthodox soul is being formed, more active, creative, more courageous, fearless” (“The Path”, September 1925). Thus, it is directly stated that Orthodoxy is still unsatisfactory on all sides. The Fathers of the Church did not understand Christian teaching enough; the saints were not fearless and courageous enough. martyrs, and probably Saints Peter, Alexy, Jonah, Philip and Hermogen of Moscow, Sava of Serbia and Peter of Cetinje († 1830) are no longer active, although these enlighteners, being spiritual shepherds, were also outstanding figures in state and public life. They want to create a new “Orthodoxy”, with a new teaching, a new way of life, even a “new soul”. But will this be Orthodoxy, or even Christianity in general? It is not clear how some people who are apparently sincerely devoted to Orthodoxy do not notice this. It is not clear how Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, zealously performing divine services and lovingly studying church hymns, preaches the opposite of them. Perhaps in the depths of his soul he feels that he is wrong and this explains the fluctuations in his conclusions, mistakes that do not correspond to his rank and position, which can only be missed by closing his eyes. But if so, let him renounce what he wrote, and not mislead those who read his works. Let those who wish to remake the Church, which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), stop. Let’s hope that they will hear, if not our voice, then the voice of the Apostle Paul: “O Timothy, keep the tradition, avoiding the vile talk and contradictions of a false mind, about which there is no one who boasts about the faith and sins” (1 Tim. 6:20–21) But if the search for a new faith and new wisdom nevertheless continues, may the faithful sons of the Church remain steadfast in Orthodoxy, singing with one heart and one mouth: “We do not boast in wisdom and strength and wealth, but in You, the Father’s Hypostatic Wisdom, Christ, for there is no one more holy than You, O Lover of Mankind” (Irmos 3rd song of the canon of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul). You might be interested in: