Bulgakov, Fr Sergeii

[Tim Grass]

"Oh and by the way, Bulgakov was never a heretic. I asked a friend of mine about this."

This is silly, and your friend is wrong. Bulgakov is a heretic whenever he says something that is wrong.... just like we all are. You shouldn't throw a baby out with the bathwater.... but you shouldn't drink the bathwater just because it bathes a baby.

--Tim

[Olympiada]

Tim, My friend is not a member of the laity. I am not going to state his name because I have not asked his permission to do so. And that is a logical fallacy to appeal to authority or to name drop. So I will not do that. Anyways he told me that people are never convinced by arguing against them. But I will share his words to me and take full responsibility for them: " However in this case there has never been a formal & legitimate condemnation of Fr Sergius Bulgakov's writings as heretical. It is true there were criticisms of his work by members of what is today ROCOR back in the 1930s & there are several old & completely inaccurate essays still around by such ROCOR luminaries at Fr George Grabbe condemning him. However his own hierarch Metropolitan Evlogy did not condemen but praise him, and the faculty of St Sergius Institute (all of whom were condemned by ROCOR back then) exonerated him." That is the position I stand behind, and really this is for Fr. David. In Christ Olympiada Kane

[Anna Thompson]

Hi everyone. I don't think anybody thinks Fr. Bulgakov was a heretic all the way, but that his teachings about the Spirit ("Sophiology") were wrong, and wrong means heretical. He said many things that were wonderful, but also some things that were heretical. Anna

[Tim Grass]

Olympiada... if it's in a public discussion group it's not just for one member, it's for everyone. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif The claim that there's not been any legitimate condemnation of Bulgakov's writings is just wrong... there's plenty of legitimate criticism and condemnation of his Sophilogical writing. No one's suggesting, and I don't think anyone's ever suggested, that he be condemned as a heretic as a person.....but his sophiology is wrong, and most people accept this.

But this doesn't have anything to do with the transcendence of human beauty.....

--tim

[Father David Moser]

Not all of Segius Bulgakov's writings are considered to be heretical - just those promoting his teaching on "Sophia" as a kind of female divine ideal. The fact that the Synod of Metr. Evlogy did not proclaim him a heretic does not alter the fact that this particular part of his teaching is indeed heretical.

Very often, however, such a strong and general opinion will find its way into much of a person's other work and so as a result, all of the writings of S. Bulgakov must be read with at least the realization that he held such non-Orthodox opinions. This is no different for example than the care that must be used in reading the writings of Origin or Tertullian or St Augustine of Hippo. Some of the writings are profitable, but others are certainly outside of the teaching of the Orthodox faith.

Fr David Moser

[Olympiada]

Fr. David, If a synod is not authoritative enough for you in not declaring heresy, tha n what is? How is that your individual authority carries more weight than a synod? In Christ Olympiada

[Alec Lowly]

Father David, bless ...


"This is no different for example than the care that must be used in reading the writings of Origin or Tertullian or St Augustine of Hippo. Some of the writings are profitable, but others are certainly outside of the teaching of the Orthodox faith."

Is Augustine actually "sainted" in the East, Father? I mean, has he been formally glorified? I mean no disrespect to the name of a great Christian whom I must assume to be with the the Lord, but what does our tradition have to say about Augustine? I have noted that many Orthodox writers refer to him as the "Blessed" Augustine, which sounds to me like a side-stepping of the issue.

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Anna Thompson]

Hi Olympiada. I don't think you read Fr. David's post well. He's not disagreeing with a synod, he said that the fact that a synod *didn't* comment on or condemn someone's writings doesn't mean those writings aren't wrong. Anna

[Monachos.net]

Dear all,

All posts dealing with Fr Sergeii Bulgakov have been moved to this new thread in the 'Specific Individuals' area. We'll leave the 'Transcendence of Human Beauty' in the 'Specific Themes' area for discussion of that topic.

Monachos.net

[Father David Moser]

Is Augustine actually "sainted" in the East, Father? I mean, has he been formally glorified?

I know this isn't specifically about S Bulgakov, but since it came up in the context of the discussion about him, I will give a brief answer here.

Yes, St Augustine is considered to be a saint - not because of his theological writings, which as I have mentioned must be taken with care, but because of his profound repentance. There are services to the saint that can be obtained and used, there are icons, there are Churches named for him, there are people named for him.

There are those who choose to resist the witness of the Church and who condemn St Augustine - but that is between them and God, I don't advise getting caught up in that (sometimes very public) arguement.

Fr David Moser

[Gregorios]

Dear all,

Sadly, not a few people believe Fr. Sergius was a heretic. Mostly because of misinterpreted and misused florilegia that were composed of his works for the purpose of exposing heresy. Reading Fr. Sergius beyond the polemics is very hard. His works are extremely dense and presuppose a lot of working background knowledge on the part of the reader. This is one reason why it took so long before his works started to become more widely known and appreciated.

Having read Fr. Sergius for quite some time, and extsensively, I can only concur with Frs. Michael Plekon and Thomas Hopko that Fr. Sergius was NO heretic.

Nor is his sophiology heretical. Fr. Michael Plekon suggested the other day that one might think of one of the voices in the choir singing higher than the others and really sticking out. The voice is not singing something different, nor is it false, but is not in the range of the rest of the singing voices either. This one voice might be considered to be Fr. Sergius' sophiology.

Sophia is not a 'fourth person', she is not the Spirit, and she is not pagan Mother Earth. Sophia is the Uncreated Energy of the Trinity, whereas created Sophia is the basis of created being. The shared name Sophia indicates that creation and Creator relate in a pan-EN-theist way which avoids gnostic dualism as well as hindu pantheism. Sophiology is Fr. Sergius elaborate attempt to explain how God and the world relate.

Gregorios

[M.C. Steenberg]

Having read Fr. Sergius for quite some time, and extsensively, I can only concur with Frs. Michael Plekon and Thomas Hopko that Fr. Sergius was NO heretic.

Nor is his sophiology heretical. Fr. Michael Plekon suggested the other day that one might think of one of the voices in the choir singing higher than the others and really sticking out. The voice is not singing something different, nor is it false, but is not in the range of the rest of the singing voices either. This one voice might be considered to be Fr. Sergius' sophiology.

Thank you for your comments, Gregorios, which seem well balanced. Though it might also be worth remaining open to the reality that heresy and heretics aren't always black-and-white, as if one can simply say, bar-none, 'so-and-so is an heretic'. This was a common (perhaps standard) approach to Augustine in the modern Orthodox world for generations, until Fr Seraphim Rose -- for all the other difficulties encountered in that individual's life and thought -- wrote a short text that made the markedly good (and obvious) point, that what is heretical in Augustine is heretical; what is not, is not.

So the same perhaps with Fr Sergii. There seems to be the tendency to form 'camps' round his person: those who view him as arch-heretic, worthy of no good repute; and those who view him as almost the perfect theologian, capable of no wrong. Surely neither is correct. I've read much in Bulgakov's writings that is profound, insightful, interesting. I've also read much that gave me serious pause, and some that I felt was clearly wrong.

INXC, Matthew

[Gregorios]

Thank you for your comments, Gregorios, which seem well balanced. Though it might also be worth remaining open to the reality that heresy and heretics aren't always black-and-white, as if one can simply say, bar-none, 'so-and-so is an heretic'. This was a common (perhaps standard) approach to Augustine in the modern Orthodox world for generations, until Fr Seraphim Rose -- for all the other difficulties encountered in that individual's life and thought -- wrote a short text that made the markedly good (and obvious) point, that what is heretical in Augustine is heretical; what is not, is not.

Thank you Dr. Steenberg. And you're right. It seems Boris Jakim, and Fr. Michael Plekon are doing for Fr. Sergius what Fr. Seraphim Rose did for St. Augustine.


So the same perhaps with Fr Sergii. There seems to be the tendency to form 'camps' round his person: those who view him as arch-heretic, worthy of no good repute; and those who view him as almost the perfect theologian, capable of no wrong. Surely neither is correct. I've read much in Bulgakov's writings that is profound, insightful, interesting. I've also read much that gave me serious pause, and some that I felt was clearly wrong.

INXC, Matthew

True.

I am equally struck by the profundity and depth of his thought, while at the same time I find things I cannot agree with. But I have not found heresy in his thought. But than again, I wasn't and am not trying to find heresy either. To read Orthodox theologians in that way, to me, seems to be a wrong way of reading. I read in order to simply see what's there and if it is of value for my growth as an Orthodox Christian. I've read Fr. Seraphim Rose the same way, and there's much of value in his writing. Even if there are things I cannot agree with. But to use the word heretic (to me) seems to be wrong. Both of them are of great value, and both of them are obviously capable of error. This holds true for all of us who venture into theology I believe.

Gregorios

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thank you for your recent post, Gregorios. In it, you wrote:


I am equally struck by the profundity and depth of his thought, while at the same time I find things I cannot agree with. But I have not found heresy in his thought.

This is fair enough; but I am personally disinclined to shy away from the word 'heresy' in contemporary Orthodox usage, despite its being rather horribly misused by many. Heresy is, at this stage in the life of the Church, primarily such proclamation of doctrine as is apart from or separates one from the living inheritence of the faith - an inheritance that is the foundation of the experience of God. When such is encountered, it ought to be recognised as such. In an earlier post in this thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1953#post28372), Tim wrote what I thought were good words (in fairly amusing imagery):


Bulgakov is a heretic whenever he says something that is wrong.... just like we all are. You shouldn't throw a baby out with the bathwater.... but you shouldn't drink the bathwater just because it bathes a baby.

I'm not entirely convinced that Bulgakov's views on the Spirit are wholly in accordance with the inheritance of the Church, despite good efforts by many scholars to show that they are not as radically left-wing as others have claimed; and his conception of Eucharistic ecclesiology I find yet more troublesome. Whether or not these particular areas are those into which he makes heretical claims is something best left to those who read Bulgakov more fully than I do; but I would be nervous of any blanket disavowal of that possibility.

Part of the challenge comes, it seems to me, through the tendency to mentally draw an equals-sign between any occurence of heresy in an individual's thought, and the title of 'Heretic' to his or her person. If the presence of any heretical thought at all transforms a saint to an heretic as global moniker, then the Church has had no saints. Even Peter misunderstands - dramatically - the teaching of Christ (we've discussed this in a particularly good thread here before); as does the Mother of God, etc. As does every father of the Church. The fact that they have presented misunderstandings, errors and the like, does not mean that they are not saints, as the Church understands sanctity. But the fact that they are saints does not mean the errors are not heresy.

If there is truth, there is heresy.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

The 'particularly good' thread on St Peter, to which I referred above, is found in as St Peter, the 'Keys' and the See of Rome (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2573), in particular from about Post #91 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2573#post33638) onwards.

INXC, Matthew

[Gregorios]

This is fair enough; but I am personally disinclined to shy away from the word 'heresy' in contemporary Orthodox usage, despite its being rather horribly misused by many. Heresy is, at this stage in the life of the Church, primarily such proclamation of doctrine as is apart from or separates one from the living inheritence of the faith - an inheritance that is the foundation of the experience of God. When such is encountered, it ought to be recognised as such.

Well said. An Orthodox friend of mine from Australia would say we must 'call a spade a ****** shovel.' Yet in my estimation Fr. Sergius, even in his more daring speculations, does not teach heretical things. Though it is obvious to many of his readers (including those sympathetic to him) that he is sometimes simply wrong. But theological mistakes do not necessarily separate one from the life of the Church. Heresy, certainly does.


I'm not entirely convinced that Bulgakov's views on the Spirit are wholly in accordance with the inheritance of the Church, despite good efforts by many scholars to show that they are not as radically left-wing as others have claimed; and his conception of Eucharistic ecclesiology I find yet more troublesome.

Whereas these things are the least of my concerns when reading him. I am much more puzzled, and troubled, by some of the conclusions drawn from the trinitarian kenosis and the kenosis of the Son in the Incarnation. His thought on the Trinity and the Church I have found to be particularly inspiring. And in general I find myself in agreement with Fr. Michael Plekon about the importance of Eucharistic ecclesiology in Frs. Bulgakov and Afanasiev.


Whether or not these particular areas are those into which he makes heretical claims is something best left to those who read Bulgakov more fully than I do; but I would be nervous of any blanket disavowal of that possibility.

Blanket statements usually are problematic. In the task that Fr. Sergius sought to accomplish it is almost inevitable that he would make theological mistakes. He even ran the risk of heresy. And perhaps, as more becomes available in English, the judgment of the Church at large will be to reject certain aspects of his thought as heretical. The possibility is there, but I would contest the idea that it has been factually established. It is possible, and that is all that can be said so far, I believe.


Part of the challenge comes, it seems to me, through the tendency to mentally draw an equals-sign between any occurence of heresy in an individual's thought, and the title of 'Heretic' to his or her person. If the presence of any heretical thought at all transforms a saint to an heretic as global moniker, then the Church has had no saints. Even Peter misunderstands - dramatically - the teaching of Christ (we've discussed this in a particularly good thread here before); as does the Mother of God, etc. As does every father of the Church. The fact that they have presented misunderstandings, errors and the like, does not mean that they are not saints, as the Church understands sanctity. But the fact that they are saints does not mean the errors are not heresy.

If only the above truth were more widely known! Thank you for making this point so clearly, forcefully, and concisely.

Gregorios

[Ken McRae]

Years ago, I re[a]d Fr. Meyendorff's 'Living Tradition'. I no longer possess it, but as I recall, the subject of Fr. Bulgakov's "orthodoxy" is introduced in the chapter on contemporary Orthodox theologians. I remembered being very unimpressed with him after that, as he was compared there to the worst Western theologians in my opinion, for his theological "innovation(s)". To see him compared to the likes of a Rudolf Bultmann or Paul Tillich was anathema to me. I've never re[a]d his theological writings, nor do I intend to.

Pavel Florensky stikes me as being similar to Fr. Bulgakov, with regard to the subject or production of theological "innovation(s)", as he "develops the idea of Sophia as being a fourth hypostasis, challenging traditional Trinitarian views (of three hypostases)." [>> http://www.books-online-store.net/favr/4SJU6ME29AF8.html <<] Would anyone care to offer a comment on Florensky's sophiology of "the Fourth Hypostasis" of the Godhead? How does, or did he attempt to reconcile such a teaching with Orthodox dogma, or does he even try to? And is there, or has there been any Orthodox theologians who have attempted to defend him on this point, and reconcile it with holy Tradition?

[Ken McRae]

... the subject of Fr. Bulgakov's "orthodoxy" is introduced in the chapter on contemporary Orthodox theologians. I remembered being very unimpressed with him after that, as he was compared there to the worst Western theologians in my opinion, for his theological "innovation(s)". To see him compared to the likes of a Rudolf Bultmann or Paul Tillich ...

Upon re-reading my post, it appeared to me as needing some qualification or further explanation. The subject of Fr. Bulgakov's "orthodoxy" is not really discussed in detail, in that book, as far as I can remember it, but more like broached and very briefly commented on. Secondly, I should say that my words might give a false impression of Fr. Meyendorff 's assessment of the theological value of Fr. Bulgakov's writings. He does not appear to condemn them wholesale, so much as appear to call into question certain things that he taught.

His comparison of Fr. Bulgakov to the worst examples produced by Protestant Liberalism struck me, at the time, as being a little ambiguous at best, not to mention just a little odd, too. I seem to recall Fr. Meyendorff "speculating" that Fr. Bulgakov's theological influence would have been much greater, had he been born a generation later, or at the same time as the Protestant Paul Tillich, a rank "Liberal" of the worst kind, who exerted a great influence upon his generation. It seemed to me that Fr. Meyendorff was almost saying that the main reason for Fr. Bulgakov's lack of acceptance by the masses was that he was "before his time"; which is to say, in my mind, that the masses were not ready for him.

Such an assessment still strikes me today as a little odd, as it seems to say that the true value of Fr. Bulgakov's theological contribution will be received and fully recognized by later generations. Perhaps such a viewpoint is not as ambiguous as I had originally thought, as it almost seems to be saying that Fr. Bulgakov will be fully vindicated by posterity.

[Gregorios]

Years ago, I re[a]d Fr. Meyendorff's 'Living Tradition'. I no longer possess it, but as I recall, the subject of Fr. Bulgakov's "orthodoxy" is introduced in the chapter on contemporary Orthodox theologians. I remembered being very unimpressed with him after that, as he was compared there to the worst Western theologians in my opinion, for his theological "innovation(s)". To see him compared to the likes of a Rudolf Bultmann or Paul Tillich was anathema to me. I've never re[a]d his theological writings, nor do I intend to.

I'll have to go read that capter before I can comment on this. But reading Bulgakov is not for those who cannot appreciate dense writing. Bulgakov is extremely dense, but very much enjoyable for those geeks who like stuff like that (that would me). The little I know of Bultmann and Tillich does not at all remind me of Bulgakov. Rather, Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, Paul Evdokimov, St. Maria Skobtsova, and Archimandrite Sophrony remind me of Bulgakov. Imho not bad company.


Florensky is another one like him, as he "develops the idea of Sophia as being a fourth hypostasis, challenging traditional Trinitarian views (of three hypostases)." [>> http://www.books-online-store.net/favr/4SJU6ME29AF8.html <<]

The reviewer at amazon.com from whom you take the idea that St. Pavel Florensky challenges traditional trinitarian theology is wrong. The idea that Florensky is trying to express is an idea he takes from St. Athanasius the Great. In the second oration 'Against the Arians' (par. 76-81) Athanasius develops some of his ideas concerning Sophia (which simply means wisdom). In Athanasius' sophiology there is both created and Uncreated Sophia; which is also the case in Frs. Florensky and Bulgakov.

From the reviewer it might be understood that the Trinity is turned into a Quaternity. In order to be cured of this misconception a reading of 'The Pillar and Ground of the Truth,' Letter 3 will do. Trinity is the Tri-Unity of Persons which self-exist and to which nothing can be added. God is God precisely as Trinity, and because He is Trinity. Adding a person to the Trinity would, in Florensky's theology, undo the existence of the Trinity. It would even lead to the non-existence of God and the world. Nothing exists unless there is first and foremost the Trinity.

"Either the Triune Christian God or the dying insanity. Tertium non datur. Pay attention: I do not exaggerate. That is precisely the way things are. I lack the words to express myself even more drastically. Between eternal life inside the Trinity and the eternal second death, there is no clearance, not even a hair's breadth. Either/or. (St. Pavel Florensky, "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth," p. 48)."

But whatabout Sophia? St. Athanasius identifies the Logos and Sophia, Frs. Florensky and Bulgakov do not. In fact Florensky says that Sophia is a 'fourth hypostatic element' (p. 235) and later on is called 'Ideal Person of the world' (p. 237), and 'a fourth creaturely, and therefore non-consubstantial person' (p. 252). What does that mean?

Perhaps it is useful to say what it does not mean first. It does not mean she is the fourth person in the Godhead thus making the Trinity into a Quaternity. Florensky makes this clear by using the term non-consubstantial. The Trinity remains Trinity. The Trinity, as he has spelled out in Letter 3 of his masterpiece, "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth", is consubstantial in the most rigorous and absolute sense possible. And the unity of creation derives from the Unity of the Trinity. Contemplating the Novgorod Icon of Sophia Florensky writes:

"Sophia was seen to be a personification of an abstract property of God, an attribute of His Wisdom - not, however, of the Personal, or Hypostatic, Wisdom of God, but of wisdom in abstracto. This interpretation is correct in the sense that Sophia is not a Hypostasis in the strict sense and is not identical with the Logos (Florensky, p. 277)."

Sophia is, ultimately, a personification, not a person. There are only three Hypostasis or Persons in the strict sense; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is a basic truth for Florensky as for any other Orthodox theologian.

So what does it mean to speak of 'fourth person' or 'ideal person of the world'? First of all, we are dealing with images. Florensky seeks to explain his sophiology by using several images or symbols. There is no 'concrete person of Sophia' the 'fourth person' is only an image, only a symbol. The beginning of Letter 10 (which is the Letter on Sophia, p. 231-283) depicts an angel working as a blacksmith. The subscript is "Omnia conjungo" (I unite all). The angelic person in this vignette is Sophia, uniting all creation, and even uniting creation with God. The angel is a 'personification' the same way that she is verbally personified in Proverbs and other Scriptural wisdom-literature. Fr. Robert Slesinski writes:

"This is the sense of the vignette depicitng a cherub, which bears the inscription: Omnia conjungo (I join all things). As creation's ideal personality, it also guarantees its essential, internal consistency, providing it a common, animating principle or cosmic soul as it were. Without it, in other words, only chaos obtains ("Pavel Florensky; A Metaphysics of Love," p. 178)."

But Sophia is also the point of connection between Creator and creation, in this Sophia is the possibility of divinization:

"As only a participation in the Tri-hypostatic Life of God, reflecting various essential elements of the Holy Trinity, Sophia is only analogously personal, and rather serves only to exemplify and explain the different moments in the creative activity of the Holy Trinity (Slesinsky, p. 181)."

It must be said in this connection that 'moment' is to be understood in an intra-Trinitarian, ontological way. Not chronologically. The Trinity acts as One, not as three in a chronological sequence.


Would anyone care to offer a comment on Florensky's sophiology of the Fourth Hypostasis? Is it Orthodox, in your opinion? Thanks.

Is it Orthodox? Yes, I believe so. Is it the Orthodox position on the question how Creator and creation relate? No, I believe not. On the whole, I believe Florensky's theology/sophiology is challenging, even groundbreaking, but not free from shortcommings or error.

Gregorios

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

I was pleasantly struck by Gregorios' Post #7 in which he states: '...Rather Dumitru Staniloae, Paul Evdokimov, St. Maria Skobtsova and Archimandrite Sophrony remind me of Bulgakov. Imho not bad company.'

Allow me to quote from 'I LOVE THEREFORE I AM, The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony' written by Hieromonk Nikolai Sakharov, PhD, (in Theology from Oxford University). He is also the grand nephew of Archimandrite Sophony.

"Reflecting on Fr. Sophrony as a theological event, one might be astonished at the universality of his appeal. His books have already been translated into more than twenty languages of the world...

"...His lifespan covers almost the entire twentieth century...(1896-1993)

"The most profound influence on Fr. Sophrony in the field of dogmatic theology came from Fr. Sergius Bulgakov. At the institute (St. Serge, Paris) Bulgakov taught dogmatic theology...Bulgakov had a rich background in patristic literature as well as in philosophy (notably Kant, Fichte, Feuerbach, Hegel, and Schelling, as well as Soloviev and Florensky)...Soloviev's theme of Bogochelovechestvo (Godmanhood) made him more attentive to the anthropological implications of Chalcedonian christology and the trinitarian theology of the Cappadocians.

"Among Bulgakov's theological ideas that had the most direct impact on Fr. Sophrony are trinitarian theology, kenocticism, and anthropology. Thus Bulgakov precedes Fr. Sophrony in elaborating on the relational character of divine hypostases in the Trinity and the antinomy of the absolute identity and absolute distinction of the divine personae...Also important for Fr. Sophrony was Bulgakov's view of Christ's kenosis (self-emptying) on the level of the intratrinitarian being...It is noteworthy that Bulgakov works out the idea of the kenosis of the Spirit in his operation. This allowed Fr. Sophrony later to apply the idea of the variable measure of operation and perceptibility of the Holy Spirit to his ascetic theory of godforsakenness. Bulgakov's anthropology and that of Fr. Sophrony are marked by similiar maximalist categories. Bulgakov anticipates Fr. Sophrony in his understanding of the Biblical expression dextera Patris, related to Christ's ascension to 'the right hand of God' (Mk 16:19)...

(to be continued)

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

I will have to carefully hide behind every bush at the Monastery next I see Hieromonk Nikolai. However, he did often lament that he had written the verbal equivalent to sleep medication.

It is true that if you fall asleep during the reading of "I Love Therefore I Am - the Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony" penned by Priestmonk Nicholas V. Sahkarov, you have achieved two goals, or rather as the colonized in North America would say: 'Everyone is granted fifteen minutes of fame'.

However, as our second goal, we are the true losers vis a vis this theologial exposition of Archimandrite Sophrony. Especially regarding kenosis...let us continue:

"Fr. Sergius Bulgakov on Kenosis

In the twentieth century Sergius Bulgakov-the theologian of kenosis par excellence-gave to the Russian leanings toward kenotic perception a firm dogmatic grounding, not least through their synthetic integration with the ideas of the German kenoticists, notably Schelling (A. Nichols, "Light from the East", London, 1995). The latter stands out for his cosmogony of kenotic relation between God and his creation. Creation in Schelling is seen not only as 'revelation' of God, but as his realization and personalization...

"It is through Bulgakov that Fr. Sophrony in the 1920s in Paris was introduced to the kenotic ideas in Christianity. Bulgakov's ideas became a theological matrix for a further integration of the kenosis theme into
ascetic theology in Fr. Sophrony.

"Bulgakov distinguishes various levels in the kenosis of God. Kenois is a first principle of trinitarian existence: it constitutes the being of each hypostasis. Bulgakov attempts to deduce kenotic implications from the very concepts of the fatherhood of the Father and of the sonhood of the Son:'If on the side of the Father, there is self-negation in the begetting of the Son, the Son is thoroughy emptying himself when he accepts the 'passive' state of the one who is begotten.' (Bulgakov, The Lamb of God,468; cf ibid 122: 'The Sonship is already an eternal kenosis.'

to be continued...

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

continuing from "I Love Therefore I Am" by Hieromonk Nikolas Sakharov:

"Kenosis of the Father toward the Son is expressed in the fact of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. Bulgakov expresses it in terms of 'self-emptying,' by which the Father realizes himself in the Son, and which is also his 'self-actualizing.' Bulgakov defines this self-emptying as 'the giving of self to the other, the self-sacrificing ecstasy of burning love, which zealously cares about the other'. The Son mirrors the Father's self-emptying and empties himself out for the sake of the Father: 'If the Father desires to have himself...in the Son, the Son also does not desire to have himself for himself; he sacrifices his own self [samost] to the Father, and being the Word of God, he, as it were, becomes wordless of himself, making himself the Word of the Father.' On the level of interhypostatic relationships in the Trinity, Bulgakov makes a starting point: self-emptying involves suffering...Suffering not only does not contradict the all-blessedness in the divine being: it is even identified with it in the joy of self-sacrificing love, which brings suffering and bliss to oneness. Ibid., 121-22.

Fr. Sophrony's Position

Though Fr. Sophrony would agree with Bulgakov on the kenotic principle in trinitarian being, his trinitarian kenoticism hinges on the concept of the persona and not on any abstract deductions from the concepts of 'fatherhood' and 'sonhood.' Fr. Sophrony's principle of persona per se presupposes ultimate kenosis in relation to the other personae, since kenosis is inherent to the hypostatic mode of existence which is love:

'The Person in God we live as the bearer of absolute fulness of Being; and at the same time the Person does not exist alone...Perfect love does not live locked in itself but in the the other Person, in other Persons. The whole conjunction of Being obtains as the imprescriptible possession of each of the the Three Hypostases. But the Hypostasis manifests itself thus in the act of perfect love which similarly implies complete self-emptying, the belittlement of self.' We Shall See Him as He Is, 230; cf His Life is Mine, 29.

"This comparison allows us to situate Fr. Sophrony's roots within the Russian theological scene. Fr. Sophrony is more attentive and receptive than Lossky to Bulgakov's ideas on kenosis. Nevertheless, though Bulgakov's kenoticism had a significant impact on Fr. Sophrony's theological framework, it does not determine it. Bulgakov's abstract idealism remains alien to Fr. Sophrony's mystical-ascetic 'realism'.

from Hieromonk Nickolas Sakharov "I Love Therefore I Am" pgs, 99-104

Don't be shy, it is a wonderful book!

[Ken McRae]

It is noteworthy that Bulgakov works out the idea of the kenosis of the Spirit in his operation. This allowed Fr. Sophrony later to apply the idea of the variable measure of operation and perceptibility of the Holy Spirit to his ascetic theory of godforsakenness.

Dear fr. Seraphim,

I have been thinking about this thread lately and want to apologize to you for having not taken time to respond earlier. I would like very much to read more about Fr. Sophrony's "ascetic theory of godforsakenness," in regard to his teaching on "the variable measure of operation and perceptibility of the Holy Spirit." Does Hieromonk Nikolas expound upon it in any detail? If he does, and if you feel up to the task, could you post a few passages from him on the subject. It would be a great blessing and deeply appreciated by all, I'm sure!



... from Hieromonk Nickolas Sakharov "I Love Therefore I Am" pgs, 99-104 - Don't be shy, it is a wonderful book!

It certainly sounds like an excellent treatise. I've had my eye on this one from time to time, so I want to thank you for taking the time to post these extracts from it. They have certainly strengthened my first inclination(s) to acquire a copy. You have also done much to "partially" rehabilitate my opinion of Fr. Bulgakov. I will reconsider reading him, though he is still far from the top of my hit list. May the Lord continue his healing work within you, fr.!

unworthily yours!
Theophilus

[Ken McRae]

So the same perhaps with Fr Sergii. There seems to be the tendency to form 'camps' round his person: those who view him as arch-heretic, worthy of no good repute; and those who view him as almost the perfect theologian, capable of no wrong. Surely neither is correct.

Dear Matthew,

As you say, neither approach appears properly balanced. Incidentally, from a Catholic perspective, Fr. Bulgakov's case reminds me in some ways of Fr. John (Meister) Eckhart's case; and I am presently wondering to what extent, if any, Schelling's Trinitarian kenoticism might manifest signs of an Eckhartian influence.


I'm not entirely convinced that Bulgakov's views on the Spirit are wholly in accordance with the inheritance of the Church, despite good efforts by many scholars to show that they are not as radically left-wing as others have claimed; ... etc.

I'm curious to know if either you, Matthew, or Gregorios have ever read Archbishop Seraphim Sobolev's polemical reply to Fr. Bulgakov?

unworthy Theophilus

[Ken McRae]

"Fr. Sergius Bulgakov on Kenosis

"In the twentieth century Sergius Bulgakov-the theologian of kenosis par excellence-gave to the Russian leanings toward kenotic perception a firm dogmatic grounding, not least through their synthetic integration with the ideas of the German kenoticists, notably Schelling (A. Nichols, "Light from the East", London, 1995). The latter stands out for his cosmogony of kenotic relation between God and his creation. Creation in Schelling is seen not only as 'revelation' of God, but as his realization and personalization ...

"It is through Bulgakov that Fr. Sophrony in the 1920s in Paris was introduced to the kenotic ideas in Christianity. Bulgakov's ideas became a theological matrix for a further integration of the kenosis theme into
ascetic theology in Fr. Sophrony."


I am presently wondering to what extent, if any, Schelling's Trinitarian kenoticism might manifest signs of an Eckhartian influence.

An Online Book Review of Reiner Sch&#252;rmann's
Wandering Joy: Meister Eckhart's Mystical Philosophy
@ http://www.janushead.org/4-2/review1joy.cfm

In Wandering Joy, Sch&#252;rmann specifically examines three of his [Eckhart's] sermons: "Jesus Entered," "Woman, the Hour is Coming," and "See What Love." In his examination of "Jesus Entered," Sch&#252;rmann interprets the text in light of sources Eckhart cited as well as testimony from his Inquisition. For "Woman, the Hour is Coming," he switches orientation and focused predominately upon the philosophical implications of the sermon. In particular, Eckhart's "way" toward the Godhead is traced through the fourfold pathway of Dissimilarity, Similarity, Identity and Dihiscence. Finally, in "See What Love," Sch&#252;rmann attempts to elucidate the whole of Eckhart's philosophy as centered around the question of being. In order to accomplish this task, he examines the text in light of two other philosophies, Aristotle's theory of analogy and Heidegger's ontological difference. With a thorough examination of the three sermons, Sch&#252;rmann masterfully discloses the central theme of Eckhart's work, releasement. Releasement, sometimes translated as "detachment," is understood to appear in Eckhart under two aspects: both a law and a state. As the demand of a law, it is "voluntary disappropriation and impoverishment." As the description of a state, it is "the original liberty which man has never lost at the basis of his being."

Sch&#252;rmann writes:-

"Each generation has produced its own interpretation of Eckhart's works in accordance with its own ideological movements. German philosophy of the nineteenth century adopted Eckhart as an ancestor and called him the "father of German speculation." Hegel regarded Eckhart as the reconciler of faith and science; Schopenhauer saw him (Eckhart) as the founder of transcendental idealism; and Schelling found in Eckhart's works a close similarity to his own philosophy of Revelation. Schelling and Franz von Baader undoubtedly reflect most accurately the thought of Meister Eckhart." ( Reiner Sch&#252;rmann in Wandering Joy , p. xvii )

Concerning Fr. Sophrony, Sergius Bolshakoff writes that:-

"On his shelves there was a goodly supply of C.S. Lewis, Knox's (Chesterton's?) Orthodoxy, The Walsingham Way, Meister Eckhart, and much else besides the fathers of the East and of the West." ( Bolshakoff on Archimandrite Sophrony, In Search of True Wisdom , p. 139 )

From the above words of Sergius Bolshakoff, it appears Fr. Sophrony had some interest in Meister Eckhart, and the thought has occurred to me that perhaps such interest was directly linked to his study of Fr. Bulgakov's works, and the formative influence(s) of Schelling and German Idealism upon his [Fr. Bulgakov's] teaching. According to Sch&#252;rmann, (who is regarded by many as the 20th century's greatest Eckhartian scholar,) Schelling reflects "most accurately the thought of Meister Eckhart."

[Ken McRae]

... in my estimation Fr. Sergius, even in his more daring speculations, does not teach heretical things. Though it is obvious to many of his readers (including those sympathetic to him) that he is sometimes simply wrong. But theological mistakes do not necessarily separate one from the life of the Church. Heresy, certainly does.

Universal Salvation in the Eschatology of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov
@ http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/1/110

If anyone has this article, please post a few passages here. Thanks!

[Gregorios]

Universal Salvation in the Eschatology of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov
@ http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/1/110

If anyone has this article, please post a few passages here. Thanks!

I just sent it to you in a private message. It is a critical, but appreciative, reflection on Bulgakov's eschatology. Pointing out its strengths and some of its unaddressed (by Bulgakov himself) weaknesses and inconsistencies.

Gregorios

[Ken McRae]

I would like very much to read more about Fr. Sophrony's "ascetic theory of godforsakenness," ... etc.

I have just learned that Blessed Elder Sophrony expounds this deep mystery in his treatise entitled We Shall See Him as He Is. Thus I have been trying to locate a copy of it online but have failed. If anyone has recently seen it offered anywhere online, I'd appreciate a lead on it. A web link to the Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist would be appreciated as well! Many warm thanks!

[Gregorios]

I have just learned that Blessed Elder Sophrony expounds this deep mystery in his treatise entitled We Shall See Him as He Is. Thus I have been trying to locate a copy of it online but have failed. If anyone has recently seen it offered anywhere online, I'd appreciate a lead on it. A web link to the Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist would be appreciated as well! Many warm thanks!

You could try contacting SVS Bookstore, I've seen some in the bookstore,..

Gregorios

[Ken McRae]

On the whole, I believe Florensky's theology/sophiology is challenging, even groundbreaking, but not free from shortcommings or error.

Dear Gregorios,

Thanks for the lead. I checked the SVS website and did not see it listed, so I'll give them a call direct. Btw, I neglected to mention this before, but I feel you presented St. Florensky in the best possible light; and it has helped to temper and improve my "view" of him. I'll eventually get around to reading some of his "selected writings", as well as some by Fr. Bulgakov.

Incidentally, have you ever read any of the material below, by N.A. Berdyaev, Boehme, and Law? Western scholars often assert that Boehme is, (in some ways,) a connecting link between Eckhart and Schelling; and according to Berdyaev, Boehme (Law's Behmen) exerted a great influence over Russian sophiology. And Law, on the other hand, is frequently described as Boehme's greatest or best-known Protestant disciple:-

1 - Berdyaev Online Bibliotek Library (http://www.berdyaev.com/)

Nicholas A. Berdyaev's (Berdiaev's) Studies Concerning Jacob Boehme

2 - Etude I. The Teaching about the Ungrund and Freedom (http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_349.html)

3 - Etude II. The Teaching about Sophia and the Androgyne.
J. Boehme and the Russian Sophiological Current. (http://www.berdyaev.com/berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_351.html)

4 - Jacob Boehme Resources (http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/boehme/)

5 - Jacob Boehme [1575-1624] on the Way to True Illumination (http://www.passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/darklite.htm)

6 - Boehme On the Life Above the Senses, or the Supersensual Life (http://www.passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/sprsense.htm)

7 - William Law on the Spirit of Prayer (http://www.passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/sprprayr.htm)

8 - Law on the Way to Divine Knowledge (http://www.passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/divknwlg.htm)

9 - Law on the Spirit of Love (http://www.passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/sprlove.htm)

Law was an Anglican priest and mystic, and before he became a "recluse" of sorts, (later in life,) he belonged to the Oxford Holiness Club and was John Wesley's mentor, in the latter's "pre-Methodist" day(s). Law states in his writings that he was an avid student of all the best spiritual writers, in the east and West, from Dionysius the Aeropagite to the Quietistic Fenelon and Guyon, before he came under the strong attraction and powerful influence of 'Jakob Behmen' (Boehme), the 'Teutonic Theosopher'. Law's best known and most profound works were Spirit of Prayer and Spirit of Love. His work on the Way to Divine Knowledge forms a connecting link or thread between these two, and in reality, the three works together form a kind of working Triology.

[Gregorios]

Theophilus,

Forgive me what I sawin the SVS bookstore were two other titles of his,.. I will try the Library here, and perhaps I could send you a photocopy if it's not too big?

Gregorios

[Ken McRae]

Many thanks for the kind offer Gregorios, but it is no longer necessary, as I was able to locate a "used" hardcover copy on the UK Amazon website. I previously neglected to check that website before posting for some assistance. There are still a couple of copies there for sale, if anyone else is interested in obtaining one.

It is interesting to observe, incidentally, the title of the first chapter of Metropolitan Anthony's treatise on Beginning to Pray (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0809115093/ref=sib_dp_top_toc/002-0389447-5654439?ie=UTF8&p=S007#reader-link): 'The Absence of God'. Such a title strikes me as perhaps pointing to some aspect of the same Mystery "of God-forsakenness", as expounded in Archimandrite Sofronii's 'We Shall See Him as He Is.' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/0951278622/all/ref=dp_olp_1/202-9835984-4808620?%5Fencoding=UTF8)