The assignment was to do a 25 min presentation on one chapter in The Church of God by Louis Bouyer. I took Part 1, Chapter 10 on the “Renaissance of Russian Ecclesiology. These are my notes. I added content based on other presentations as I synthesized the material. I had not read the entire book.
Экклезиология
- Introduction
Before we can talk about a “renaissance” in Russian Ecclesiology it’s important to understand what was going on in the Russian Church prior to the 20th Century. From what is she being reborn? As we talk about all the names mentioned in Chapter ten, what is going on in Russia (and other places)?
The book sites the effects of the Patriarch of Constantinople but, honestly… not so much. Each Orthodox Church stands on her own. While Patriarch St Nicodemus of Constantinople was very much into the writing of St Ignatius of Loyola that would not have affected the Church in Russia.
The books says Peter the Great has a governance set up along protestant model… not exactly…
There was no reformation in the Orthodox World
However… the book seems a little biased in favor of the west. Let the east tell her own story.
Russia – the Tsardom – has a troubled history with the Church.
Go back 300 years. Tsar means “Ceasar” like “Kaisar”. This idea that Russia is the continuation of the Roman Empire (“Third Rome”) gives us…Holy Russia? (Slavrophiles) Phyletism – religious racism, really.
What is Holy Russia?
Many of our clergy and faithful come from various non-Russian backgrounds, and have whole-heartedly embraced the sacred customs and traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church. Let us not fall into the temptation of segregating our Diocese into cultural groups, because as sons and daughters of the Russian Orthodox Church, we are all citizens of Holy Russia. When we speak of Holy Russia, we are not talking about the Russian Federation or any civil society on earth; rather, it is a way of life that has been passed down to us through the centuries by such great saints of the Russian Land as the Holy Great Prince Vladimir and Great Princess Olga, Venerable Sergius of Radonezh, Job of Pochaev, Seraphim of Sarov, and more recently, the countless New Martyrs and Confessors of the 20th century. These saints are our ancestors, and we must look to them for instruction on how to bravely confess the Faith, even when facing persecution. There is no achievement in simply calling oneself “Russian:” in order to be a genuine Russian, one must first become Orthodox and live a life in the Church, as did our forebears, the founders of Holy Russia!
— Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) of New York
The Troubles (Smuta) 1598-1613 – Tsar dies without and heir. Social and economic collapse. Multiple factions.
God did this b/c of our sins…
Tsar Boris Godinov – had been regent under the dead guy – was clearing up political enemies. Getting rid of rivals. Enslaved the serfs to the land = prelude to 1917 Revolution.
His Rival Feodor Romanov – very popular, nearly elected king – was forced to become a monk. So was his wife. They had had a son… Michael.
The political machinations = ecclesial machinations: resulted in Feodor becoming a bishop and patriarch but wasn’t recognized by many as such.
Their son – very popular – Election of Michael Romanov 1613 as the first Tsar from that family. (Romanovs would rule until the Communist Revolution in 1917)
He decided to confirm Dad as Patriarch of all Russia in 1619. There were actually two kings… Coregent with Dad the Patriarch (relationship status: it’s complicated)
Nikonian reforms 1652 along with Nikon’s insistence that the Ecclesial power was greater than the state.
Rough period – Nikon deposed in 1667 In Revenge, Peter the Great did away with the Patriarchate- installed Synod in 1700
Not very pious at all. Wanted control of the church as an arm of the state control. He did use the Reformation as a model, yes, but exactly to destroy the Church’s catholicity and enslave her to the state.
The governance part Worked. There were people in the Church that wanted the power of the patriarchate removed. western captivity of the church?
The destruction of the church, however, didn’t work.
Peter was succeeded by his Wife, Mrs The Great, (not really wife… fun joke tho) that is Catherine. She brought Jesuits into Russia for teaching, thinking that her own clergy were not well educated, or up to western standards.
When the Jesuits were suppressed in 1773, Catherine said to the Pope, “You have no power here. Be gone before someone drops a house on you…” and protected the Jesuits, saving them “almost single handedly”
This is the “western captivity of the church”?
Communists try to buy the church by giving back the Patriarch Sep 1918
Out with the chair. The state is still in control. At Death of Patriarch St Tikhon, church elects Metropolitan Sergius as Patriarch. Then “the Living Church” as an arm of Communist State. Western captivity of the church?
One other thing to note: after Revolution, establishment of the Parish School (St Sergius Institute) still there and very active.
Many American Orthodox thinkers – Alexander Schmemman, Son in Law Thomas Hopko. Spiritual Fathers of Victor Sokolov, the priest who brought me into the Church in 2002.
Summary of Book Contents
- Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov 1804-1860
Church as unity of Love. Layman. Influenced by lay piety of the west. Read passage on page 137.yellow tab #1
Papalism & protestantism as invidivualisms. Church lived sobornost life in a russian village
The whole people needed for action
Criticism from Florovsky and others: seems to conflict with the ideas of what a bishop is? Seems to be entirely focused on the Spirit and not on Christ.
This will play out in most of the others who we discuss.
- Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov 1853-1900
Evolved to see unity of Love more clearly with the Bishops
Perhaps even the Pope? See page 140 green tab
Not fully covered in out text…
Civil powers – social reform. Pope Leo XIII – social teachings of the church.
Solovyov thought needed the state arm.
Church needs one center point – pope – to pair with one civil point. Then these things can happen. Aeterni Patris and Rerum Novarum
Had the idea of linking the Caesar (Tsar) with the Pope, the eccesial and secular orders, to build a better (perfect?) world.
‘Bella idea, ma fuor d’un miracolo, é cosa impossible’ (a beautiful idea but, short of a miracle, impossible to carry out). – Pope Leo XIII
Also Sophilogy. Actually more stress in Orthodoxy. General idea: trinity exists in communion essence/energy division… what makes the Church exist in communion in mirror? What unites them?
How is grace communicated?
Sophia = energy but not essence of God?
Another hypostasis in the trinity? (page 141 green tab)
(Western Trinity makes way more sense to this writer…)
Gnostic? Nearly New Age? Orthodox?
Heresy?
Direct influence… Paris school
- Fr Pavel Aleksandrovich Florensky 1882-1937
Picked up on Sophiology…
Wrapped it in his science (physics, biology) and attempted to develop a world-system…
According to the forward Pillar and Ground of the Truth (mentioned on p141 green tab) published by the Princeton University Press: “The book is a series of twelve letters to a ‘brother’ or ‘friend,’ who may be understood symbolically as Christ. Central to Florensky’s work is an exploration of the various meanings of Christian love, which is viewed as a combination of philia (friendship) and agape (universal love). He describes the ancient Christian rites of the adelphopoiesis (brother-making), which joins male friends in chaste bonds of love. In addition, Florensky was one of the first thinkers in the twentieth century to develop the idea of the Divine Sophia, who has become one of the central concerns of feminist theologians.”
Again, his ecclesiology was wrapped around this idea that we cannot experience God directly so there must be something between us – that is Sophia.
- & Sergei Nikolayevich Bulgakov 1871-1944
Went further into Sophianism. Condemned as heresy in the 1930s Seriously wrapped up in the politics of the period.
He saw the the Blessed Virgin a bit “higher” than the other Orthodox (also condemned as part of his Sophianism) in that she was (how???) the incarnation of the Holy SPirit.
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. 191) (Quoted in the
From this he saw the Church as the fullest embodiment of this (page 142 in our text)
One of the founders of Paris School (western captivity? liberation?)
- Vladimir Nikolaievich Lossky 1903-1958
Opposed to Sophianism.
Reads a bit more Orthodox and also Catholic
Text on page 142-143 (red tab)
Filioque – of course. However this is important. The issue is does the son, somehow, constitute a source or cause of the Spirit? Orthodox would say no – both the Son and the Spirit find their first cause in the Father. They would ask, if the Spirit is the “love between the Father and the Son” then how can he be his own person? He somehow then dwells in us.
Final two sentences on p 144.
In the church, our human persons, like the Divine persons in the trinity, without being confused or able to separate from one another, are one in the only son of the Eternal father. At the same time, however, they are consecrated in their diversity by the spirit of Life which proceeds from the same father.
This writer finds this expression of the Orthodox position to be very Catholic, actually.
- Georges Vasilievich Florovsky 1893-1979
Taught patristics at the Paris School (which was not all heretical, see?)
Dean of St Valdimir’s Seminary (NY) in 1949. Also taught at Harvard.
Critiqued all of the previous as following too much on Khomyakov, not Christological enough – the Church is Christ’s body, yes?
Hard sentence on page 144 blue tab
- Nikolay Nikolayevich Afanasiev 1893-1966
Taught at Paris School.
This is where it gets interesting…
Afanasiev taught what is called a “Eucharistic Theology” meaning that in some way the Church is Constituted/Realized in the Eucharist. In the liturgy, itself, the worshipping community embodies (mediates) the entire Church.
He also believes in the universal Church, perhaps with the Church of Rome presiding in Love over the entire communion of Churches.
He is criticized by more recent writers such as John Zizioulas as seeming to teach that even the local parish Mass is a full embodiment of the Catholic Church. (See here)
But his work is also synthesized by Zizioulas (in Being as Communion) and Fr Alexander Schmemman (whom I mentioned at the beginning of the discussion) in Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom and other works.
Our text notes that there is a marked lack of juridical aspects in Afanasiev and previous writers. I would say this was not missing in Solovyov, who wanted to build a state around the Church, or, rather, under the Church and that being the Pope’s Church – and state.
As I mentioned – not fully covered
- Konstantin Nikolayevich Leontiev 1831-1891
Confused by ending with him. But it seems Bouyer brought us back to show that long before the Sophia folks there was the notion of Law needed in Orthodoxy. Leontiev cited the need for law arising in the traditionof the Byzantine Church prior to the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims.
Not noted in the text though: the possibility that this is exactly why Russian Orthodoxy instead of Greek, plays such a huge, and yet messy role: just as Russia was getting off the ground, as it were, and would have needed some sense of “nomocanonical work” from Byzantium, Byzantium fell. Russia ended up on her own.
So maybe the “‘renaissance’ in Russian Ecclesiology” comes through at the end. Where someone who was writing before all the mess with the Communists and Sophianists was thinking about the missing nomocanonical work of the universal church and it suddenly connects with the Eucharist.
Metropolitan John Zizioulas, whom I mentioned above, was good friends with Rome, and presented Laudato Si to the press
Zizioulas’ main correction to Afanasiev’s work was to underscore the historic teaching that the “local church” is not pariochial, but rather gathered around the Bishop. Thus, the Local Church links us through mediation with the Universal Church gathered around the Holy Father and all celebrating the same Eucharist.
May it be so.
____________________
In addition to the URLs in the body above, these URLs are of interest:
Retrieved on 14 April after original URL (https://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/977/vladimir-soloviev-his-critics/) suddenly vanished.
Doxos 