Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky

1861 – born in the Vologda diocese 1881 – graduation from the Vologda Theological Seminary 1885 – graduation from the Moscow Theological Academy 1885 – teacher at Kharkov Theological Seminary 1888 – teacher of the law at the senior classes of the Kharkov Real School and the 2nd Women’s Gymnasium. 1889 – taking holy orders 1894 – inspector of the Stavropol Theological Seminary 1902 – rector of Kamenets-Podolsk Theological Seminary 1904 – Master of Theology (defended at MDA) 1906 – rector of the Vologda Theological Seminary 1916 – retired from October 19 1917 – death in Vologda Being the result of pre-revolutionary school theology and the continuation of the traditions of the dogmatic systems of archimandrites. Anthony (Amphiteatorova), Metropolitan. Macarius (Bulgakov), archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky) and Bishop. Sylvester (Malevansky), work by Archpriest. N.P. Malinovsky until recently was the property of only specialists in the field of dogmatic theology due to its inaccessibility to the general reader. The matter moved from a dead point in 2003, when the St. Tikhon's Theological Institute published a two-volume book “Essay on Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” 1 . The two-volume book was compiled by Rev. N.P. Malinovsky for the V and VI (theological) classes of theological seminaries. It is difficult to agree with the authors of the short (two paragraph) introductory article to this reissue that it turned out to be the most successful. It is possible that it is most convenient for the process of school education, but the true power of the author’s theological potential was revealed in the complete four-volume work, now offered for familiarization to the general reader. During the preparation of this introductory article, an extreme paucity of material on the biography of the deceased archpriest was revealed. It was not possible to find even an image of the deceased author’s appearance. But some information about his life and activities was restored. The future archpriest Nikolai Platonovich Malinovsky was born on November 18, 1961 in the village. Rabangi, Vologda province, in the family of a priest. He received his initial theological education within the walls of the local Vologda Theological Seminary, after which in 1881 he entered the Moscow Theological Academy to continue his education. In 1885, he completed the full academic course with the degree of candidate of theology and the right not to take new oral tests when seeking a master's degree. In this rank he was confirmed by Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Ioannikiy on June 27, 1885. In the same year, he was sent to teach at the Kharkov Theological Seminary, where he worked as a teacher of dogmatic, moral, basic and comparative theology 2. The beginning of Nikolai Malinovsky’s teaching career coincided with the introduction of the new Charter of Theological Seminaries in 1884. The updated curriculum made broad demands, and the youngest teacher wanted to approach the task of teaching as thoroughly as possible, to position his students for the diligent study of theological sciences. It was here that the first ideas for composing his future theological works arose. This is what Fr. himself said. Nikolai about the initial period of his teaching career: “I soon became convinced that one of the main difficulties was the lack of satisfactory teaching aids and manuals, ones in which students would find an accessible and satisfactory explanation of theological issues. In very, very many cases, such explanations were not provided in complete courses of dogmatics, or those available did not seem sufficient. This caused difficulties not only for the students, but also for the teacher. To resolve questions, objections and perplexities that arose, one had to turn to many books, and sometimes attempts to find the necessary books turned out to be in vain. Circumstances forced students, at least the best ones, to prepare lessons from various books, often from magazine articles. This, by the way, is the reason for the use of lithographed notes in addition to textbooks in almost all seminaries. I published those too. Gradual acquaintance with Russian theological literature led me to the conviction of the need for a careful revision and verification of positive justification, and even more so for apologetic explanations of the truths of faith in existing systems of Dogmatics, a more vital disclosure of dogmas, and the introduction of an apologetic element into Dogmatics on a broader scale; introducing and considering new issues, excluding what has already lost significance for our time, more accurately formulating the differences between Christian confessions, eliminating erroneous ideas on certain issues, more strictly distinguishing dogmas from the so-called. private opinions, etc.” Since 1888, Nikolai Malinovsky became a law teacher for the senior classes of the Kharkov Real School and the 2nd Women's Seminary. Here he taught for six years - from August 15, 1888 to August 11, 1892. In 1889, Nikolai Malinovsky took holy orders. On February 4, 1894, he was transferred to the Stavropol Theological Seminary to the position of Inspector. On August 15, 1902, he became the rector of the Kamenets-Podolsk Theological Seminary. In this post, Rev. Nikolai stayed until May 1906. From June 15, 1906 to October 19, 1916, he was already the rector of the Stavropol Theological Seminary 3, where he once began his theological studies. All these years, careful and painstaking work has continued to compile the above-mentioned work. Anyone who has become familiar with this dogma cannot help but be surprised at the completeness of the scientific and patristic material presented in it. The remarkable Russian scientist prof. N.N. Glubokovsky wrote that in the work of N.P. Malinovsky “in a compilative manner, a compact unification of Russian scientific literature throughout the entire dogmatic volume is successfully and diligently presented” 4 . And this despite the fact that this work is not a simple thoughtless compilation. Fr. himself Nikolai said: “Having set the task of my work to present the conclusions of Russian dogmatic literature on each dogmatic issue, in my books I also indicate existing Russian literature. I paid special attention to ensuring that these indexes are complete and accurate. And all the dogmatic monographs or articles in journals that I indicated were re-read, with a few exceptions, when it was impossible to have this or that publication at hand, due to its not being in the book depositories available to me, and sometimes even on sale.” In 1904, the author submitted the first 5 and second 6 volumes of his “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” for the degree of master of theology to the Moscow Theological Academy. On April 9, a master's debate took place in the large auditorium of the academy. An academic report on this debate 7 published in the June 1904 issue of The Theological Bulletin reports on the composition of the scientific meeting of this debate. The meeting was headed by the rector of the academy, His Eminence Evdokim (Meshchersky), members of the Academic Council were present - ordinary and extraordinary professors, other members of the academic corporation, the abbot of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra Archimandrite Tobias, the synodal sacristan Archimandrite Theodosius, the rector and some teachers of the Bethany Theological Seminary and students of the academy. The debate opened at six o'clock in the evening. After a brief introduction of the disputant by the Secretary of the Academy Council N.D. All Saints Archpriest Nicholas delivered a speech in which he pointed out the motives that prompted him to compile a complete course of Orthodox dogmatic theology and the plan adopted in the latter for the disclosure, illumination, proof and defense of dogmatic truths. The speech was followed by a debate, which was opened by the first official opponent, Honored Ordinary Professor in the Department of Dogmatic Theology A.D. Belyaev. The second opponent was A.I. Vvedensky, an extraordinary professor in the department of metaphysics and logic, whose objections to the debate were published in the same issue of Theological Bulletin under the title “On the issue of methodological reform of Orthodox dogmatics.” At the end of the debate, several comments were made by the ordinary professor in the department of introduction to theological sciences S.S. Glagolev. Prof. A.I. Vvedensky, despite criticism of the methodology of the work under review (to which a wonderful and comprehensive answer was given by the applicant himself), said: “I feel obliged to pay tribute to: 1) your wide and usually very accurate knowledge in the field of Orthodox dogma and areas of knowledge closest to it; 2) your respect for science, which, by the way, brought you here, to this department, as a candidate for an academic theological degree, and finally, and this is especially valuable, 3) the desire you have everywhere demonstrated to stand firmly among modern theological vacillations, on the rock of the Orthodox faith.” The result of this dispute was the assignment of prot. Nikolai Malinovsky holds a master's degree in theology. The history of the second defense of Archpriest turned out differently. Nicholas within the walls of the same Moscow Theological Academy. The third 8th and fourth 9th volumes of his “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” were nominated for the highest academic degree - Doctor of Theology, covering sections about God the Redeemer, God the Sanctifier and God as the Executor of His determinations about the whole world and the human race. From the very beginning, this defense was foreseen to be a very difficult task, especially considering the diversity of views on the issue of atonement among the professors of the Moscow Theological Academy of that time. The defense took place at the end of 1913. The official opponent was the extraordinary professor of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, inspector of the academy, Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky), the future new martyr. He submitted a negative review of the work of Fr. Nikolai Malinovsky 10. A formal accusation against the dogmatics under review from Archimandrite. Hilarion had a view of this work as compilative and even unoriginal: most of the review is devoted to a discussion of where and from whom the author borrowed the material... However, it is likely that the presented work, both in methodology and in content, did not coincide with the personal theological views of the archimandrite. Hilarion, in particular, on the issue of atonement. 11 Presentation of this issue in Russian classical dogmatic systems of the 19th century by Archim. Hilarion considered it as “the main destructive delusion of Latinism” 12. Later, Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), a remarkable Russian patrolologist, will write about the reviewer himself: “Archbishop Hilarion identifies the entire redemptive and saving work of Christ with one incarnation and ... says literally nothing about Christ’s death on the cross... He wants to base his theology on church hymns, but he quotes only the hymns of the Nativity, Epiphany, and Annunciation, completely ignoring the texts of Holy Week, the Feasts of the Cross and even Holy Easter, so in his concept there is no place not only for death on the cross, but also for the Resurrection of Christ, but only for His Nativity and Incarnation. In general, the reaction of Russian theological thought at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries lacked genuine knowledge of the patristic tradition in its entirety, a positive revelation on its basis of the dogmas of Orthodoxy." 13. Due to the indicated personal position of Archimandrite Hilarion, it is not surprising that he wished to Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky regarding the revision of the "traditional school teaching about salvation, about grace, about the threefold ... ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ" 14 . Concluding the review, Archimandrite. Hilarion wrote: “Presenting all of the above for the discretion of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy, I, for my part, would believe that even with a certain leniency, the desire of Fr. Archpriest Malinovsky cannot be satisfied” 15. Almost all members of the Council of the Moscow Academy joined the negative review and the defense was rejected 16. But the negative review is from Archimandrite. Hilarion was not deprived of friendly remarks. So, for example, about the style of the work under review, he writes: “the extensive work of Fr. Malinovsky is read in parts not without pleasure and easily and, with the exception of some five to ten pages, almost never creates a frivolous mood, so little in keeping with the importance of the subject under discussion” 17. Archim. Hilarion makes a positive assessment of the work, provided that it is not considered as innovative work for a doctoral degree. “If books are about. If Malinovsky is considered precisely as a collection of more or less popular articles on various issues, then quite a lot of approving things can be said about them. Even if the articles that fill two huge volumes are completely unscientific, unoriginal, and not independent, even if they are not entirely neatly copied, many and, perhaps, the majority do not care at all about all this. There are few scientists, but there are a lot of people who want to learn something and read something. This majority always needs to have knowledge on many and varied issues. Many are not at all willing to research and study the issue; they only need to read as briefly as possible about a well-known issue in order to know at least something about this issue. If you are particularly interested in any question, then you would like someone to indicate what else you can read about this particular issue and where. Archpriest Malinovsky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" is meeting the urgent needs of people of this very kind. His work is a kind of compendium of our theological literature, from the ideological side accurately reflecting its merits and even more its shortcomings. Even if this compendium was compiled hastily, even if it has the character of a huge rough job, but it is, and in this, in essence, the important merit of Father Archpriest. Malinovsky. There are also special works in Russian theological literature, but there are so many questions, and there are so few books that even a person who has enough leisure in his life to read entire books cannot read the same question by reading a dozen or so pages in Fr. Malinovsky’s book, which is not difficult to always have at hand. and deep, but still, at least some acquaintance is better than none. And on what questions alone cannot satisfy the curiosity of the reader “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Archpriest. Malinovsky? Here the reader will find information not only about Orthodox teaching, but also about heterodox teaching, and what we noted as a shortcoming of the dogmatic system, for which the reader will only thank Fr. archpriest. An analysis of the false teachings of heterodoxy is also given here. Anyone who is interested in issues of polemics with sectarianism will, at least briefly, find something on these issues from Fr. Malinovsky. If anyone hears objections to the dogmatic and other truths of Christianity and does not know what to answer, he will find in the books of Fr. Malinovsky and excerpts from apologetic treatises. Even on liturgical and church-historical issues one can read in these voluminous books. When you imagine the whole mass and variety of information collected in the essay under review, then, leaving scientific standards, you will involuntarily greet in the person of Fr. Archpriest Malinovsky, a selfless worker" 18. Apparently, it was not easy for Rev. Nicholas accept a negative attitude towards the painstaking work of his whole life. He lived only three years after an unsuccessful defense, dying in Vologda on January 28, 1917. However, time has revealed the merits of his dogmatic system: courses of dogmatic theology in many theological schools in Russia in the 20th century were compiled on excerpts from this dogmatics. 1. Indulgences and taxes of the infallible popes for sins. 1905 2. On the issue of religious education in our secular educational institutions // Strannik, 1893 No. 1, p. 56–72, No. 2, pp. 215–230, No. 3, pp. 405–417, No. 6–7, p. 218–243, no. 8, pp. 402–412 3. About the sacraments as a means of human sanctification. 1908 4. An essay on Orthodox Christian doctrine with a presentation of preliminary concepts about religion and revelation in general and an overview of the religious features of the Roman Church and Protestantism. Sergiev Posad, 1912 5. Essay on Orthodox dogmatic theology. In two issues. Kamenets-Podolsk, 1904 and 1906; 2nd ed. Sergiev Posad, 1911, 1912, 1914. M., 2003 6. Orthodox dogmatic theology. In four volumes. Sergiev Posad, vol. 1, 1895 and 2 1910; t. 2, 1903; t. 3, 1904; vol. 4, 1909. 7. Celebrating the 1000th anniversary of St. Cyril and Methodius in the Latin Church // Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 8. Propaganda of the papacy among the Slavs // Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, 1885, part 2, p. 504; 1886, book. 7, p. 418. 9. Speech before the defense of the master's thesis “Orthodox dog-magical theology.” Part I and Part II. Part I. 1895 and 1903 // Theological Bulletin, 1904, June, p. 248 – 253. Oh prot. N. Malinovsky and his activities 1. Asmus V., prot. Archbishop Hilarion (Trinity) and Orthodox theology // Theological collection. Vol. 7. M., 2001, p. 56–81. 2. Vvedensky A.I. On the issue of methodological reform of Orthodox dogma // Theological Bulletin, 1904, June, p. 179–208. 3. Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M., 2002. 4. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Comments, amendments and additions to “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Archpriest. N.P. Malinovsky (vols. III and IV). Sergiev Posad, 1914 / Reprint from the “Theological Bulletin” for June 1914. 5. Master's disputation of the rector of the Podolsk Theological Seminary, Archpriest N.P. Malinovsky // Theological Bulletin, 1904, June, p. 254–273. 6. Svetozarsky A.K. Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) and his time. // Hilarion (Troitsky), Archbishop. Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church. M., 1997. 7. Vologda diocesan bulletin. 1906, No. 11, 23; 1917, no. 4. The reprint was made from the second edition of this work: Sergiev Posad, 1911, 1912. Officially held the position of teacher from October 19, 1885. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M., 2002, p. 11. Two editions were published: Sergiev Posad, 1895 and 1910. Stavropol-Gubernsky, 1903. This report was also published by the publishing house “Axion Estin” in electronic version and is included in the CD “Dogmatic Theology. Issue 1”. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Comments, amendments and additions to “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Archpriest. N.P. Malinovsky. Sergiev Posad, 1914. This review was also published by the Aksion Estin publishing house in electronic form and is included in the CD “Dogmatic Theology. Issue 1.” Asmus V., prot. Archbishop Hilarion (Trinity) and Orthodox theology // Theological collection. Vol. 7. M, 2001, p. 56–81. Archimandrite's views in detail. Hilarion's answer to the question of atonement is discussed in the indicated article: Asmus V., prot. Archbishop Hilarion (Trinity) and Orthodox theology. At the canonization of Archbishop. Hilarion, it was noted that the fact of his glorification as a new martyr does not mean automatic approval of his some controversial theological opinions. Vasily (Krivoshein), archbishop. Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church // Theological works, collection. 4. M., 1968. pp. 28–29. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Comments, amendments and additions..., p. 93. Extract from the academy journal: Reference: 1) Statutes of Theological Academies, §173: “A person who has a master’s degree in theology is awarded the degree of Doctor of Theological Sciences upon submission of a printed essay recognized as relevant for the purpose in one of the branches of theology, without a new oral test and without defending the essay at a colloquium.” – 2) According to §109 lit. A. Clause 15 of the same charter “order on the consideration of dissertations for academic degrees and the evaluation of them (§§172 and 173)” is listed among the cases decided by the Academy Council itself and submitted for review to the local diocesan bishop. – 8) According to the meeting of votes, it turned out that all members of the Academy Council present at the meeting (except for ordinary professor M.M. Tareev) joined the negative conclusion of the review of Fr. Inspector of the Academy Archimandrite Hilarion. Determined: Recognize what was presented by Fr. Rector of the Vologda Theological Seminary, Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky, to obtain a doctorate, an essay entitled “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” vol. III and IV, - does not correspond to the stated purpose and the case of seeking the said academic degree is considered terminated. On this journal is the resolution of His Eminence: “January 27, 1914. Execute” (Theological Bulletin, 1914, June, pp. 711–712). Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Comments, amendments and additions..., p. 96