1,348
edits
Changes
m
→Controversy
==Controversy==
Bulgakov’s teaching on sophiology is highly controversial. The attempt to understand it properly is hindered by the highly political controversy surrounding it in the 1930’s. <ref>For commentary, texts and a fuller account of the sophiological controversy see Antoine Arjakovsky, Essai sur le père Serge Boulgakov (1871-1944), philosophe et théologien chrétien (Paris: Les Éditions Parole et Silence, 2006), pp.99-125 and La génération des penseurs religieux de l’émigration Russe: La Revue ‘La Voie’ (Put’), 1925-1940 (Kiev/Paris: L’Esprit et la Lettre, 2002), pp.433ff., N. T. Eneeva, Spor o sofiologii v russkom zarubezh’e 1920-1930 godov (Moscow: Institut vseobshchei istorii RAN, 2001), Igumen Gennadii (Eikalovich), Delo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova: Istoricheskaia kanva spora o Sofii (San Francisco: Globus Pub., 1980), Bryn Geffert, ‘Sergii Bulgakov, The Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, Intercommunion and Sofiology’, Revolutionary Russia, 17:1 (June 2004), pp.105-41, ‘The Charges of Heresy Against Sergii Bulgakov: The Majority and Minority Reports of Evlogii’s Commission and the Final Report of the Bishops’ Conference’, ''St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly'', 49.1-2 (2005), pp.47-66 and especially Alexis Klimoff, ‘Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological Controversy’, ''St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly'', 49.1-2 (2005), pp.67-100.</ref> It should be noted that by 1931 there existed three separate Russian Orthodox jurisdictions in Europe: Russian Church Abroad/Sremski Karlovtzy Synod under Met. Antony (KhrapovitskiiKhrapovitsky); the ‘Patriarchal’ church answering ultimately to Met. Sergius (StragorodskiiStragorodsky) of Moscow (of which the young [[Vladimir Lossky]] was a member); and the Russian Church in Western Europe (Bulgakov’s own jurisdiction as well as the church of Georges Florovsky) under Met. Evlogy (GeorgievskiiGeorgievsky) that was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople -- though in 1934, Metropolitan Evlogy was privately reconciled to Metropolitan Anthony, and in 1935 he went to Karlovtzy for a special reunion conference, at which time the schism betwen him and ROCOR was healed<ref>Timothy Ware, ''The Orthodox Church'' (London: Penguin Books, 1964)p. 184.</ref> In 1936, Metropolitan Evlogy again cut his ties with ROCOR, quite possibly because of the controversy over [[Sophianism]].<ref>Protopresbyter George Grabbe, ''Toward a History of the Ecclesiastical Divisions Within the Russian Diaspora'', Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XIV, No. 4, July-August, 1992, pp. 37-39</ref>
In [[Sophianism#Decree_of_the_Moscow_Patriarchate|an ukaz of 24 August, 1935]] of Met. Sergius, Bulgakov’s teaching on ‘Sophia’ was described as ‘alien’ to the Orthodox faith.<ref>Bulgakov responded to the ukaz in his O Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiei: Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski prot. Sergiia Bulgakova Mitropolitu Evlogiiu (Paris: YMCA, 1935), pp.20-51. [[Vladimir Lossky]] then published a well-known critical analysis of Bulgakov’s response to the ukaz as ''Spor o Sofii'' (Paris, 1936).</ref> This ukaz was largely based on the epistolary reports (letters with a catenae of ‘suspect’ quotations from Bulgakov’s works) of Alexis Stavrovskii. Stavrovskii was an ex-student of the St Serge Institute who due to a disciplinary problem was forced to leave the school and was later expelled from France for reasons that are not made clear in the sources. He was also the president of the Brotherhood of St Photius (Alexis Stavrovskii was president; [[Vladimir Lossky]], the vice-president, and Evgraf Kovalevskii [later [[Jean-Nectaire (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis]]] were also amongst the 12-15 young laymen who made up its numbers) whose members had left the jurisdiction of Met. Evlogy for that of Met. Elevthery of Lithuania.
The commission quickly broke into factions. In June of 1936 the majority report (prepared by Vasilii Zenkovskii, Anton Kartashev and others) rejected the charge of heresy but had serious objections about Sophiology. The minority report of 6 July, 1936 was prepared by Fr Sergei Chetverikov and reluctantly signed by Fr Georges Florovsky who had only joined the commission when Met. Evlogy had insisted so that it would not be viewed as a whitewash. (Florovsky had a very close relationship with Bulgakov despite their theological differences. Some of this closeness was no doubt due to the fact that Bulgakov was for at least a spell in the early 20’s the confessor/spiritual father of Florovsky). Meanwhile, the Church Abroad formally accused Bulgakov of heresy in 1935.
[[Sophianism#Decree_of_ROCOR|The 1935 decision of the Church Abroad]] was based on Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar’s Novoe uchenie o Sofii (Sofia, 1935), as well as on the arguments of St. [[[John Maximovitch|John (Maximovitch)]].<ref>Protopresbyter George Grabbe, ''Toward a History of the Ecclesiastical Divisions Within the Russian Diaspora'', Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XIV, No. 4, July-August, 1992, p. 38</ref> St. John, in his book ''The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God'', discusses at length why the [[sophianism]] of Sergius Bulgakov is [[heresy]], specifically one as destructive as [[Nestorianism]]. Speaking of those who attempt to deify the Theotokos, he wrote:
:In the words [of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov], when the Holy Spirit came to dwell in the Virgin Mary, she acquired "a dyadic life, human and divine; that is, She was completely deified, because in Her hypostatic being was manifest the living, creative revelation of the Holy Spirit" (Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, 1927, p. 154). "She is a perfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis" (Ibid., p. 175), "a creature, but also no longer a creature" (P. 19 1)....But we can say with the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus: "There is an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is proper" (Panarion, "Against the Collyridians"). This Holy Father accuses those who give Her an almost divine worship: "Let Mary be in honor, but let worship be given to the Lord" (same source). "Although Mary is a chosen vessel, still she was a woman by nature, not to be distinguished at all from others. Although the history of Mary and Tradition relate that it was said to Her father Joachim in the desert, 'Thy wife hath conceived,' still this was done not without marital union and not without the seed of man" (same source). "One should not revere the saints above what is proper, but should revere their Master. Mary is not God, and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the joining of man and woman; and according to the promise, like Isaac, She was prepared to take part in the Divine Economy. But, on the other hand, let none dare foolishly to offend the Holy Virgin" (St. Epiphanius, "Against the Antidikomarionites"). The Orthodox Church, highly exalting the Mother of God in its hymns of praise, does not dare to ascribe to Her that which has not been communicated about Her by Sacred Scripture or Tradition. "Truth is foreign to all overstatements as well as to all understatements. It gives to everything a fitting measure and fitting place" (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov)."<ref>St. John Maximovitch, [http://www.ortodoks.dk/On_Orthodox_Veneration_of_the_Mary.htm ''The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God''], (Platina, Ca: St. Herman Press, 1978), p. 40f</ref>