Иеромонах Серафим (Роуз). Православное богословие блаженного архиепископа Иоанна (Максимовича)

Several years ago, one abbess of the Russian Church Abroad, a woman of righteous life, spoke a sermon in the monastery church on the day of the patronal feast, on the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos. She tearfully begged the sisters and pilgrims gathered for the holiday to fully and unconditionally accept the teaching that the Holy Church transmits to us, which she has so carefully preserved for all centuries, and not to choose for themselves what is “important” in it and what is “secondary”; After all, considering yourself wiser than Holy Tradition, you can completely lose it. So, when the Church tells us in Her hymns and through holy icons that the holy apostles miraculously gathered from all corners of the universe to be present at the Dormition and Burial of the Most Holy Theotokos, we, as Orthodox Christians, are not free to deny or reinterpret this, but must believe the Church Tradition simply and sincerely. A young American who converted to Orthodoxy and learned Russian was present at this teaching. Looking at the icons painted in the traditional icon painting style, in which the apostles are depicted on clouds carrying them to the Dormition of the Mother of God, he himself was thinking about this question. The question was, should we really understand this as a miraculous event, or is it simply a “poetic” explanation of the meeting of all the apostles for this event, or maybe even some original “idealized” image of an event that did not take place at all? (These are, in fact, the questions that occupy some modern “Orthodox theologians.”) The words of the righteous abbess deeply struck the young American neophyte, and it became clear to him that there is something deeper in the perception and understanding of Orthodoxy than what our mind and our feelings reveal to us. At that moment, the Orthodox Tradition was transmitted to him not by books, but by a living vessel, filled with this teaching and Tradition, and it was necessary to perceive not only with the mind or feelings, but first of all with the heart, which thus began to be more deeply imbued with Orthodoxy. Subsequently, the young neophyte became acquainted, through reading and personally, with many theologically educated Orthodox Christians. These were our modern “theologians” who studied in Orthodox educational institutions and became “specialist theologians.” They were usually willing to explain what was Orthodox and what was heterodox, what was important and what was unimportant in Orthodoxy itself, and some of them were proud of their “conservatism” or “traditionalism” in matters of faith. But in none of them was one felt the authority of that simple abbess who spoke to his heart, despite all her “theological ignorance.” And the heart of this neophyte, just beginning a conscious Orthodox life, longed for an understanding of how to believe, what it meant and who to believe. He was too much of a man of our age and modern upbringing to be able to simply renounce his own thoughts and blindly believe everything that was said to him; and it is quite obvious that Orthodoxy does not require this: after all, the very creations of the holy fathers are a living testimony to the works of the human mind, enlightened by God’s grace. But it is also obvious that there is a certain shortcoming in modern “theologians”, who, despite all their inherent “logicality”, consistency and knowledge of patristic texts, were unable to convey the spirit, character and charm of Orthodoxy, as a simple, unlearned abbess could. The search for our neophyte, the search for contact with the true and living Orthodox Tradition, ended with a meeting with Archbishop John (Maksimovich). In him he found an educated theologian of the “old” school, but at the same time very aware of the criticism of this kind of theology in modern theological thought, and who, with his sensitive mind, could recognize the truth where it could be challenged. But he also had something that all the theological “sages” of our century lacked - the simplicity and authority of the pious abbess, which so struck the heart of the young God-seeker. Vladyka John conquered his mind and heart not because he became “infallible” for him - there is nothing like that in the Church of Christ - but because he saw in this saint an example of Orthodoxy, a true theologian, whose theology was the consequence of a righteous life and deeply rooted in the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church... And our young neophyte discovered that, despite his sensitive mind and critical thinking, the words of Bishop John were much more often consistent with the words of a simple abbess than with the words of the most educated modern theologians. The theological works of Bishop John do not belong to a particular “school”; the “influence” of any theologian of the recent past is not visible in them. It is true that Vladyka John was called to theology - in the same sense in which he was called to monasticism and service to the Church by his great teacher, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), and it is also true that he fully mastered the desire of his mentor to defend the need for a “return to the holy fathers” and to a theology based on moral and spiritual life, rather than a purely academic one. But the theological works of Metropolitan Anthony himself are very different in spirit, in concept, and in content. He moved widely in contemporary academic and intellectual societies, and many of his writings were devoted to arguments and apologetics acceptable in the circles with which he was familiar. In the works of Bishop John, on the contrary, there is absolutely no apologetics; they are not open to discussion. He did not argue, but simply expounded Orthodox teaching. When there was a need to refute false teachings (the most striking example of which are his two long articles on Bulgakov’s Sophianism), the Vladyka’s words were convincing not by the consistency or logic of the argumentation, but by the very power of the patristic teaching he presented and the texts he quoted. He did not appeal to an academic or educated environment, but to an intact Orthodox conscience, and he did not speak of a “return to the holy fathers,” because what he wrote was simply a retelling and transmission of patristic Tradition, without any attempt to justify or excuse such an approach. The sources of Bishop John’s theology are very simple: Holy Scripture, patristic writings (especially the great Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries) and, most importantly, Orthodox liturgical texts. The latter, which have rarely been used to such extent by modern theologians, indicate a purely practical, rather than scientific, approach to theology by Bishop John. It is clear that he was completely absorbed in the worship of the Orthodox Church and that his theology was inspired by this direct source. Inspiration came not during leisure hours allocated for theology, but during his daily presence at all church services. He perceived theology as an integral part of everyday life, and undoubtedly this made him a theologian to a much greater extent than formal theological studies. Consequently, we will not find a theological “system” in Vladika John. This cannot be understood as a “protest” against the great works of “systematic theology” of the 19th century in Russia; Vladyka, without any doubt, used the systematic catechisms of that time in his missionary work. (As many great saints of both Greece and Russia did in the 19th and 20th centuries, considering these catechisms to be excellent aids for the Orthodox education of their peoples.) In this, the Bishop did not follow fashion and did not belong to any movement among theologians and their followers, either in the past or in the present, since they too often attach too much importance to any particular view of Orthodox theology. He equally respected Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and his "anti-Western tendency" and Metropolitan Peter (Mogila), who was allegedly too "influenced" by the West. When they told him about the shortcomings of these great saints and defenders of Orthodoxy, Vladyka shrugged it off and said that it was “not important,” because he first of all thought about the great patristic heritage that these theologians successfully passed on, despite their shortcomings. Many modern young theologians, who often approach Orthodox theology too abstractly, theoretically, polemically and one-sidedly, could learn from the Bishop. For Vladyka John, the theological “categories” of even the wisest learned theologians were “unimportant”; more precisely, they were unimportant if they did not convey the truth and essence of the matter, but were simply memorized. One incident that occurred when Vladyka was in Shanghai clearly characterizes the freedom of his theological thinking. One day, while attending oral examinations on the Law of God for the senior class at Cathedral School, he interrupted a student's unmistakable listing of the "minor prophets" of the Old Testament with the sharp and categorical remark: "There are no 'minor' prophets!" It is clear that Father, the class teacher, was offended that Vladyka was undermining his teaching authority, but, probably, to this day the students remember this seemingly strange denial of the accepted “categories,” and, perhaps, some of them understood what Vladyka John wanted to say: with God, all the prophets are great and important, and this fact is much more important than all the “categories” - our knowledge about them, no matter how correct they may be in themselves. In his theological articles, Bishop John often reveals to us a new side or deeper meaning of the subject under discussion with such an unexpected turn of thought. It is obvious that for him theology was not simply a human, earthly science whose treasures are exhausted by our rationalistic interpretations or in which we can become complacent “experts,” but was something leading to the heavenly, which should draw our minds to God and heavenly realities that cannot be comprehended by logical systems of thought. The famous Russian church historian N. Talberg invites us (in the “Chronicle” of Bishop Sava, chapter 23), first of all, to understand Vladyka John as “a fool for Christ’s sake, who remained so in the episcopal rank,” and in this capacity compares him with Saint Gregory the Theologian, who, in the same way as Vladyka John, did not correspond to the standard understanding of the “appearance” of a bishop. It is this “foolishness” (according to worldly concepts) that gives the characteristic tone to the theological writings of both Saint Gregory and Bishop John; both of them move away from “public opinion”, from the way “everyone thinks” and thus do not depend on any “trend” or “school”. They approach theological issues from an elevated, non-academic point of view and thereby avoid petty quarrels and a contentious spirit. With new, unexpected turns of thought, their writings primarily become a source of inspiration and a deeper understanding of God's revelation. Perhaps what is most striking is the absolute simplicity of Vladyka’s works. It is immediately clear that he accepts the Orthodox Tradition directly and unconditionally, without any “two-faced” thoughts about how one can believe in this Tradition and still remain a “developed, cultured” person. He knew modern "criticism" and, when asked, could give specific, clear reasons for his disagreement with it on most issues. He had carefully studied the issue of "Western influence" in Orthodoxy during the previous centuries and maintained a sober, balanced point of view, carefully examining what should be excluded as unacceptable to Orthodoxy and what should not be recommended, but what should not be "heated" about, and what could be accepted as consistent with the Orthodox way of life and piety. (From this it becomes clear that Bishop John had no “prejudice”; he checked everything exclusively by sober Orthodox teaching.) But, despite all his knowledge and ability to think critically, he continued to believe in the Orthodox Tradition simply as it was handed down to us by the Church. Most modern Orthodox theologians, even if they are not exposed to the most extreme Protestant-reformed thinking, still look at Orthodox Tradition through the academic setting that is familiar to them. And Vladyka John, first of all, was “accustomed” to Orthodox services, to which he devoted many hours every day, and thus he lacks even the slightest “taste” of rationalism (not necessarily even in the bad sense of the word), which we find in the most outstanding academic theologians. There are no “problems” in his writing; his usually numerous quotations only indicate where the teaching of the Church is located. In this sense, he is absolutely unanimous with the “thinking of the holy fathers” and seems to us like one of them, and not just a commentator on the theology of the past. The theological works of Bishop John, published in various church periodicals over four decades, have never been collected in one volume. Those available today to the St. Herman Brotherhood would fill a book of 200 pages. His longer works were written by him in his youth, while still a hieromonk in Yugoslavia, where he was already recognized as an outstanding Orthodox theologian. His two articles on Bulgakov’s Sophianism are especially valuable, one of which very convincingly and objectively points to Bulgakov’s complete ignorance in the field of patristics, and the second is even more valuable as a classic presentation of the true patristic teaching about the Wisdom of God. Among his later works, attention should be paid to an article on Orthodox icon painting (in which, by the way, he turns out to be much more knowledgeable about the issue of “Western influence” in icon painting than his teacher, Metropolitan Anthony); to a series of sermons entitled “Three Gospel Feasts,” in which he reveals the deeper meaning of several “minor” church holidays, and to the article “The Church is the Body of Christ.” Bishop John’s shorter articles and sermons are also theologically rich. One sermon begins with the “Hymn to God” by St. Gregory the Theologian denounces modern atheism in the same sublime, patriotic tone. In another, pronounced on Great Friday 1936, the Bishop addresses the deceased Christ lying in the tomb. It could have been said by the same holy father. We begin this series of publications with Bishop John’s classic presentation of the Orthodox teaching on the veneration of the Mother of God and the most important errors directed against it. The longest chapter is a vivid and clear refutation of the Latin dogma of the “immaculate conception.” Blessed Archbishop John (Maksimovich). Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God. Villemoisson – St. Petersburg, 1992