sergius bulgakov

7/30/2019 Sergius Bulgakov

1/17

Concl usi on of a Memorandum

f rom the Revd. Sergi us Bul gakov

to t he i i ost Rev. Met ropol i t an nul ogi us

The above may be summari zed as f ol l ows: -

1. The report of met ropol i t an oergi us to the Synod about mydoct r i ne of Sophi a i s evi dent l y not based upon acquai ntanceKi t h my wr i t i ngs i n the or i gi nal , but onl y upon quotat i onsf rom t hem, whi ch were f urni shed t o hi m. Nei ther was I- i n-- f ormed of the t r i al i n pr ocess, nor was there any previ ousconsi derat i on by competent t heol ogi ans. The i naccuracy andi ncompl et eness wi t h whi ch my opi ni ons are t reated i n Metro-- pol i t an oergi us1 report are such that I cannot consi dert hat i t const i t ut es a sat i sf actory j udgement . Besi des, t hepersonal j udgements of met ropol i t an j ergi us deal not so muchv, i th the cent ral poi nt s of my doct r i ne, as wi t h det ai l s, some-- t i mes not even connected wi t h i t . The report has more thecharacter of a t heol ogi cal pol emi c, i n whi ch, by t he way, t hepersons! opi ni ons of met ropol i t an Sergi us are not al ways un-- assai l abl e f rom the vi ewpoi nt of Or t hodoxy.

3. 1n repl y t o the accusat i on that my vi ews are "pagangnost i c",I sol emnl y decl are that , as an or t hodox pr i est } I conf ess al lthe t rue dogmas of Or t hodoxy, i/1 oophi ol ogy doeB not concernthe content of those dogmas, but onl y t hei r t heol ogi cal i nt er -- pret at i on. I t i s my personal t heol ogi cal convi ct i on, whi ch Inever have and never shal l exal t to the posi t i on of obl i gatoryChurch dogma. 1 I consi der mysel f as a theol ogi an ent i t l ed tohol d my own theol ogi cal i deas, wi t h no pret ensi on to thei rgeneral acceptance unt i l the Spi r i t of God mel ees Hi s j udgementknown. I n t he hi st ory of the Church there have al ways been di f f erences i n theol ogi cal school s and opi ni ons (we need onl y recal lthe school s of Al exandr i a and Ant i och) end wi t hout f reedomf ortheol ogi cal st udy, of course wi t hi n the l i mi t s of the Church' sdogmas, theol ogy cannot l i ve. Sophi ol ogy has al ways been at eachi ng at l east t ol erated i n the Russi an Or t hodox Church,( the pr i est i ' l orensky, VI . 3ol ovi ef f 3, end mysel f i n the"Unf adi ng Li ght , 1317.

l . Let me ci te as evi cence the fact that i n my book "L' Ort ho--cl oxi e" (The Orthodox Church") i nt ended for the i nf ormat i on ofnon- Or t hodox about Or t hodoxy, the quest i on of Sophi ol ogy i snot even ment i oned.3. Sol ovi ef x' s Sophi ol ogi cal doct r i ne, al though subj ect toquest i on i n some poi nts, was admi t ted even by t he Roman Cath-- ol i c Church i n so f ar as i n hi s work " Eussi e et l ' Egl i seUni ver sel l e", he j oi ns i t wi t h hi s def ence of the pr i macy ofthe Pope.


2/17

3. 1 have gi ven the true exposi t i on of my sophi ol ogi cal doct r i ne,as rel ated to var i ous dogmat i c quest i ons, i n a ser i es of booksand ar t i cl es, begi nni ng i n 1917 (' 'The Unf adi ng Li ght ") and es-- peci al l y i n books about the Ort hodox venerat i on of the Vi rgi n,

St J ohn the Bapt i st , the angel s, about i kons and other venerat -- i on and i n an extensi ve st udy "Of the God- " of whi ch thef i rst vol ume, "The Lamb of God"l . on Chr i st ol ogy has appeared.The second, "The Comf ort er " i s now i n pr ess. My doct r i ne neverhas i ncl uded the acceptance of a "f ourth hypost asi s" i n theHol y Tr i ni t y, but deal s chi ef l y wi t h the rel at i on bet ween Godand t he wor l d. Fur t her, i t has no connect i on what ever wi t h pa.ga.ngnosi s, whi ch I amaccused of hol di ng. Rather i t i s i nspi red byRussi an Or thodox venerat i on of Sophi a, the Di vi ne Wi sdom, asexpressed i n Church archi t ecture, l i t urgy, i conography, andrepresent s an essay i n the dogmat i c i nterpretat i on of thi s ven-- erat i on. 2.

4# The f act of the condemnat i on of my doct r i ne, as i t has beenpronounced by Met ropol i t an Ser gi us, wi t hout any general di scuss-- i on i n the Chur ch, i s not i n keepi ng wi t h Orthodox "sobornost"and bears rather the character of Roman Cathol i c pretense tohi erarchi cal i nf al l i bi l i t y exsese, i n mat t er s of f ai t h, itfotrecogni si ng any such external hi erarchi cal organ of dogmat i ci nf al l i bi l i t y, the Orthodox Church gi ves i t s dogmat i c j udge--rnents by the acti on of the Hol y Spi r i t , i n var i ous ways, butal ways i n ways of Church "sobomost " . ( oecumeni ci t y) Somet i mesthese j udgements are ar r i ved at by l ong and stormy di scussi ons( the Chr i st ol ogi cal di sput es) and are consummated by a sol emndef i ni t i on of the f ai th i n oecumeni cal or l ocal counci l s, accept e d oy the Church as the words of t r ut h, (and somet i mes rej ected,as i n the case of the f al se counci l s) or el se taci te consensu,by the l i f e of the Church i t sel f . I n the present i nst ance, asregards my doct r i ne, i ts proper general theol ogi cal di scussi onhas not yet begun, di scussi on whi ch cannot be achi eved by anypremature f orced j udgement . My doct r i ne bel ongs not to dogmas,but to theol ogi cal opi ni ons, i n whi ch Or t hodoxy, accordi ng toi t s spi r i t and i t s dogmat i c basi s, permi t s the proper f reedomof t hought . I nter f erence wi t h, or di mi nut i on of thi s f reedomt hreat ens the l i f e of the Or t hodox Church and touches the vi t ali nt erest of al l t heol ogi ans, regardl ess of the di f f erences i nthei r theol ogi cal opi ni ons.

Par i s. Oct ober, 1935. Rev. S. BULGAKOV.

1. 1 have present ed a br i ef exposi t i on of the l eadi ng i deas of"The Lamb of God" i n Russi an ( PUT" No 41, ) i n Engl i sh (Theol ogy"1934) and i n German (Theol ogi sches Zent ral bl at t " 1934) Hencethey are avai l abl e f or anyone.S. See the tabl e of di f f erent i cons of Sophi a the Di vi ne Vi i sdonii n the new book by Al exi s van der Mensbrugghe ".fromDyad to

Tr i ad" 1835. (The Fai th Press)


3/17

THE FELLOWSHI P OF ST ALBAN AMD ST SERGI US,

30, St J ames' s Square,London, S. . 1.

December 13t h/ o5.

Dear member of the Fel l owshi p,

I t i s, we t hi nk, very l i kel y t hat you haveheard report s concerni ng a condemnati on of cer tai n t heo-- l ogi cal opi ni ons of Fr . Sergi us Bul gakov, and we bel i eve,i n consequence of thi s and al so because Fr. Bul gakov i s oneof the ol dest and most venerated of our f r i ends, that youwi l l be gl ad to have a statement of the actual f acts of thecase. They ar e, br i ef l y, as f ol l ows : -

Fr . Sergi us Bul gakov i s one of the l eadi ngexponent s of the theory of Sopi i i ol ogy, whi ch i s an at temptto state and sol ve the perenni al probl em of the rel at i onbetween God and the worl d and of Creat i on. Thi s has been amatt er of cont roversy i n the Russi an Church si nce the mi ddl eof the l ast cent ury, and the supporters of thi s l i ne oft hought have i ncl uded such wel l - known theol ogi ans and phi l osopher s as V. Sol ovi ev, P. Fl orensky, N. Berdyaev, andV. Zenkovsky, each of whomhas of cour se, devel oped the theoryi n hi s own par t i cul ar way. The di scussi on has been part i cul ar l yvi gorous i n the post - devol ut i on per i od i n the exi l e.

At the begi nni ng of October news was recei vedi n Par i s that the' Presi di ng i shop of t he Church i n Russi a,the Met ropol i t an Sergi us of Moscow, had i ssued a censure ofFr . Bul gakov' s wr i t i ngs, par t i cul ar l y the sophi ol ogi cal _por t i ons. Some t i me l ater the document i t sel f reached Par i s.

At the request of the Met ropol i t an i i ul ogi us,Fr. Bul gakov' s own super i or i n Per i s, Fr . Bul gakov prepared . repl y to the accusat i ons. Thi s repl y, t ogether wi t h Het ro-- pol i t an Sergi us Document , has been publ i shed i n book f ormby the Y. m. C. A. Press i n Par i s at the end of November . Partof i t consi st s of a sol emn prof essi on of or thodoxy by Fr.Bulgakov, i n whi ch he i nsi st s that he has never taughtSophi ol ogy as par t of Chr i st i en dogma, and that i t i s apr i vate t heol ogi cal and phi l osophi cal opi ni on compat i bl ewi t h Or thodoxy. There, at the moment , the mat ter r est s.


4/17

The act ual method t oy whi ch the censure was i ssued was asf ol l ows: -

The i nf ormat i on on whi ch met ropol i t an Sergi us acted wasprepared f or hi mt oy the Brotherhood of at Fhot i us, a smel lbody of l aymen, i 5 or 20 i n numtoer, and was communi cated tomet ropol i t an Sergi us t oy met ropol i t an I l euther i us of Li t huani a, who i s under hi s i mmedi ate j ur i sdi ct i on. The Russi anDi ocese of v.'estern Eur ope, we may r emark, to whi ch Fr . Bul gakovbel ongs and whose head i s the metropol i t an I Cul o i us, was cutof f f rom canoni cal rel at i ons wi t h Russi a i n consequence ofi ts refusal to accede t o a demand recei ved f romMoscow i n 1937requi r i ng the cl ergy of the Exi l e to af f i rm thei r l oyal ty tothe Sovi et power , end the st atus of met ropol i t an Eul ogl us

si nce 1932 has been t hat of an Exarch of the Oecumeni calPat r i arch of Const ant i nopl e. Thi s change of j ur i sdi ct i on washowever reseated by a smal l mi nori t y, who eventual l y *- nowl edged as t hei r i shop the met ropol i t an Fl eut her i us ofLi t huani a, who bei ng a Li t huani an subj ect , was not i ncl udedi n the demand f or a prof essi on of l oyal t y and so remai ned i ncanoni cal rel at i ons wi t h Met ropol i t an Sergi us of Moscow. Hewas l ater appoi nted t oy Met ropol i t an Sergi us as Admi ni st ratorof al l the Russi an Churches abroad^ and has now under hi sj ur i sdi ct i on three or f our par i shes.

I t wi l l t oe not i ced t hat Fr . Bul gakov i s not under the

j ur i sdi ct i on of ei ther met ropol i t an Sergi us or met ropol i t anEl eut her i us and that at no st age was he cel l ed to answer thecharges made agai nst hi m. The document of metropol i t an Sergi usi s of the nature of a sol emn warni ng to hi s flock rather thanof a j udi ci al condemnat i on passed t oy a super i or on one of hi ssubj ects.

I t i s not of course the "busi ness of the Fel l owshi p to tryto adj udi cate on the orthodoxy of Fr. Bul gakov' s opi ni ons, noras a oody are we responsi tol e f or the opi ni ons of our member s,however venerated end di st i ngui shed. I t i s however r i ght thatwe shoul d take the keenest i nt erest i n al l that concerns t hei r

wel f are and thei r work end. that we shoul d gi ve them the supporof our prayers and our f r i endshi p i n any di f f i cul t i es throughwhi ch they may pass. Li ke t he Church of the Angl i can Communi othe Ort hodox Church has i t s school s, of t hought , though thei ssues that character i se them are di f f erent , and part i cul ar l ypromi nent i s t he di vergence between the school of whi ch Fr .Bul gakov i s a l eadi ng member and the l ess specul at i ve schoolrepresent ed t oy hi s oppl onent s. Fr . Bul gakov' s case i s the f i rstone i n whi ch the Fel l owshi p has been brought f ace to f ace wi tha grave probl emwhi ch threatens the peace' of a roup of our


5/17

Copy of l et ter f romProf essor L.Zander i n regard toThe Revd. Sergi us Bul gakof f .

November l st / 35

I n connect i on wi t h the new t roubl e connected wi t h t he Ukaz ofthe Met ropol i t an Sergi us regardi ng Father Bul gakof f , I shoul dl i ke to express my personal vi ew of the si t uat i on.

I do not need to dwel l on general i t i es whi ch are obvi ous toeverybody: ( l ) the condemnat i on was pronounced wi t hout gi vi ngFr. . Bul gakof f so much as a chance of def ence; ( 2) the sol e basi sf or i t has been a report prepared by a person who oan by nomeans be consi dered as a peer of Fr . Bul gakov, or at al l competenti n theol ogy (as a mat ter of f act , St avrovsky, whomMet ropol i t anSergi us actual l y names as the author of the report i s a f ormerstudent of the Theol ogi cal I nst i t ute i n Par i s, who spent but avery br i ef t i me at the I nst i t ut e, havi ng been obl i ged to l eavei t because of hi s conduct t her e) . One woul d ut ter l y f ai l to underst and how such ext raordi nary ci rcumst ances of put t i ng out theUkaz were possi bl e, i f one were not to keep i n mi nd cer tai n ext er nal ci r cumst ances under whi ch the Moscow Pat r i archate has tol i ve, and whi ch have nothi ng t o do wi t h t heol ogy.

I n thi s whol e si t uat i on, the mat ter whi oh I shoul d l i ke to em-- phaei ze most of al l , i s t he fact that the Ukaz ascr i bes to Fr .Sergi us (wi l l f ul l y or not ) cer tai n thi ngs whi ch he never ei thertaught or procl ai med. I n devel opi ng hi s t eaohi ng on Sophi a, Fr.Sergi us hi msel f never consi dered i t as a dogmat i c t eachi ng of theOr t hodox Chur ch. I t was al ways to hi m a theol ogumeon- one of thephi l osophi cal aspects of i nt erpret at i on of Or t hodoxy. Onl y because of thi s at t i t ude on hi s par t there was possi bl e t he con-- si derabl e evol ut i on of hi s t eachi ng, whi ch, whi l e retai ni ng thebasi c pr i nci pl es of the t eachi ng, was so great (even dur i ngthese l ast years) that a whol e book mi ght be wr i t t en on the devel opment and evol ut i on of Fr. Sergi us' t eachi ng on Sophi a. Suchan evol ut i on. woul d not have been possi bl e, and woul d have meanta compl ete f ai l ure and wr eok, i f , Fr. Sergi us had consi dered hi st eachi ng as a dogmat i c t eachi ng of the Church.

Thi s at t i t ude on the part of Fr . Sergi us to hi s own teachi ng maybe proven by several t angi bl e f act s: ( l ) when he set bef ore hi m-- sel f the task of descri bi ng Orthodoxy t o f orei gn and non- Or t ho-- dox r eaders and wrote hi s book whi ch f i rst appeared i n Frenchunder the t i t l e I ' Orthodoxi ee", and was recent l y publ i shed i n theEngl i sh l anguage under the t i t l e of "The Orthodox Church"- i nthi s book he t ouched upon var i ous aspect s of the Orthodox t eachi ng and l i f e, but di d not even so much as ment i on Sophi a.


6/17

2

di d not ment i on i t j ust because i t i s hi s personal i nterpret at i on and not an accepted dogmat i c t eachi ng of the Church.( S) Dur i ng the ten years of Fr. Sergi us' work i n the Russi an Stu-- dent Chri sti a, n Movement we saw hi m al ways as our bel oved teacherand i nspi rat or , but never di d we hear hi m speak about Sophi a.He acted as a pr i est , and may 1 say, as a prophet, and neverpreached t o the young peopl e on subj ects whi ch can be underst oodonl y by those who are more mature and bett er t rai ned t o see thei rway i n the real m of theol ogy and phi l osophy. Theref ore, the Sophi- l ogi cal di scussi ons have al ways been the pr i vi l edge of a veryl i mi t ed ci rcl e of such mature per sons of a suf f i ci ent l y hi gh i nt el l ect ual standi ng to f ol l ow Fr . Sergi us. Thi s i s why our Move-- ment as a whol e knew Father Sergi us Bul gakov rat her than thet hi nker Sergi us Bul gakov. personal l y ami ncl i ned to depl orethi s fact) . ( 3) We cannot f ai l to take i nt o consi derat i on al sot he f act that dur i ng the ten years of Fr . Sergi us work i n theTheol ogi cal Acadamy he actual l y created a most val uabl e group ofpi ous young Or t hodox pr i est s, but that among themthere i s not asi ngl e di sci pl e and f ol l ower of hi s doctr i ne on Sophi a. Thi s i san obvi ous proof that al so i n hi e pedagogi cal act i vi t y he keptwi t hi n t he general Orthodox f rame of the accepted Ohurch t eachi ngand di d not f orce hi s i deas upon anybody.

Are not these f act s, havi ng the wei ght of t en year s, suf f i ci entproof of the veraci t y of Fr Sergi us' st at ement , narr. l y that hi si deas are an at tempt at a theol ogi cal and phi l osophi cal i nt er -- pret at i on of the dogmas of the Ohur ch, but that he under noci rcumst ances regarded t hem, or taught that they wer e, a expos-- i t i on of the dogmat i c doctr i ne of Chur ch.

May I now turn to t he t eachi ng as such, wi t h whi ch I am somewhatacquai nt ed, as I happen t o be one of the cl osest and most con-- vi nced di sci pl es and f ol l owers of Fr . Sergi us. I shoul d l i ke toexpress my bewi l derment when readi ng the Ukaz and seei ng theteachi ng of Fr. Sergi us r el ated to gnost i ci sm. I t woul d be tool ong a mat ter t o wr i t e i n det ai l about the di f f erence betweenFather Sergi us and the gnost i cs. I shoul d l i ke, t heref ore, j ustt o poi nt out several perhaps external yet character i st i c argu-- ment s.

We know the course of spi r i t ual and i ntel l ectual evol ut i on ofmost of our t hi nkers. I f Fat her Sergi us i s of ten ref erred to asa f ormer Marxi st , * woul d say that f ar more i mportant and si gn-- i f i cant i n hi s "spi r i tual bi ography" has been the study andovercomi ng of German i deal i st i c phi l osophy, and fur thermore andespeci al l y t he system of Schel l i ng. Al l these stages are ref l ect-- ed i n hi s books ( i f I had the t i me and possi bi l i t y I shoul d l i kevery much to wr i te a research work on the evol ut i on of Fr . Sergi ui deas) . Yet among the var i ous i nterest s whi ch at t racted hi s


7/17

3

spi r i t dur i ng the course of hi s l ong l i f e, he never , at any per i odwas i nterested i n gnost i ci sm ( j ust as never he was i nterested i nt heosophy, or Spencer , et c, et c, ) Si mpl y, he, i f I may say so,hever had any t aste f or gnost i ci sm. Among the contemporary Russi ant hi nker s, the onl y one who i s real l y i ncl i ned to gnost i ci smi s

Karsavi n who wrote on thi s subj ect . To af f i rm that Fr . Sergi us

1

teachi ng i s gnost i ci sm, means r eveal i ng absol ute i gnorance ei therof the f ormer or the l at t er .

I do not go i nto the anal ysi s of the others accusat i ons contai nedi n the Ukaz. I n gener al , i t i s wr i t t en so l i ght l y, and al most asa pi ece of j ournal i st i c, - work, that a si mpl e l ayman' s conci encecannot hear i n i t the voi ce of the Church. The very speed of i tsi ssui ng, wi t hout t aki ng the t roubl e of havi ng a commi ssi on to worki t over , gi vi ng Fr , Bul gakov a chance t o def end hi s teachi ng et c)haste*' i n sendi ng i t out to the Bal kan Pat r i ar chs- al l t hi s gi vesground t o surmi se t hat the i nner goal of the Ukaz was the di sorgan

i zat i on of our Church l i f e her e. I am f ar f rombei ng a vi ct i mtothe emi gre i l l ness of expl ai ni ng al l our t roubl es by Bol shevi sti nf l uence or i nt r i gue. Yet I cannot hel p but see an al i en i nf l uenci n the Ukaz. The teachi ng on Sophi a does not date si nce yest erday.Fr . Paul Fl orensky, a f r i end and par t i san of Fr . Ser gi us1, was award- ed the degree of Mast er of Di vi ni t y of the Moscow Theol ogi calAcadamy f or a book of hi s i n whi ch a chapter on Sophi a i s the cen-- t ral and basi c pl ace. Prof essor Sergi us Bul gakov was ordai ned apr i est at a t i me when he was the wel l - known author of a book " TheUnf adi ng Li ght ", contai ni ng hi s ear l y t eachi ng on Sophi a whi ch i nmany respect s was more "Doubt f ul " than hi s present t eachi ng. Hewas ordai ned wi th the consent and bl essi ng of the l ate Pat r i arch

Ti khon. He was f ur thermore el ected by the Moscow Sobor of 1918 tothe Supreme Church Admi ni st rati on whi ch t ook the pl ace of the SynoI t seems to be good proof that nei t her Pat r i arch Ti khon, nor he whordai ned Fr. Sergi us- the most l earned Bi shop Feodor - nor the rel i g- i ous consci ousness of the Russi an peopl e ever saw i n hi m a heret ial t hough they al l knew wel l that he was the author of the verysyst em of i deas whi ch has now suddenl y been condemned as a horr i blheresy.

May I say j ust a f ew words about my personal f eel i ng regardi ng thisystem of i deas of Fr. Bul gakov. We f i nd no answer i n of f i ci al t heo- l ogy to the probl em an answer to whi ch i s t he reachi ng on Sophi a.

Yet t hi s probl em i s f aci ng us and i t f aces the Chr i st i an consci ousness as a whol e. Answers to i t are gi ven by di f f erent t hi nkers. Ipersonal l y see onl y t hree possi bi l i t i es: ( l ) The answer gi ven by theRoman Cat hol i ci sm i n the Thomi st system; ( s) the answer of Bar t h,and ( 3) the answer of Fr. Bul gakov. I amqui t e convi nced that i f werej ect the i dea of Sophi a, we have to f ol l ow ei ther the l i nes ofBar t hi an' s of Thomi st course of i deas. I saw once a good i l l ust r at i on of thi s when an address on thi s subj ect was' made by aRussi an schol ar who i s i n opposi t i on t o Fr. Sergi us- he was most


8/17

4

warml y greeted by Mar i tai ni

I shoul d l i ke to cl ose my al l too l ong l et ter by expressi ng mygreat anxi ety not so much about Fr. Sergi ue but about our rel i g-

- i ous work as a whol e. Even i n the days of the maxi mum subord-- i nat i on of the Church to the St at e, we knew no " I ndex" andRussi an theol ogi cal thought f el t i t sel f f r ee. The Ukaz seems toi nt roduce a new pract i ce whi ch ai ms at the dest ruct i on of themost preci ous possessi on of Or thodoxy- namel y- f reedom of thoughand research on the part of f ai thf ul and l oyal sons of the Chur

Yours very Si ncerel y,

L. ZANDER.


9/17

~,. .. . . .

censure i mposed upon #r . Bul gakova teachi ng by Sorgl us, Metropol i ta

o'f Moscow, has caused a good l eal of uneasi ness among t he f r i ends of the

Russi an Church*

Thi s short document wi t h the two l et ters at tached to i t i s i ntended to

thro sol i ght on the events whi ch preceded t he censure

Mst pr i eal

Modern Russi an t heol ogy was bora I n thml ddl of the xi xth eeatury I t

revi val was started by l ay theol ogi ans l i teA.S.KuOi ftl aJ tov, and f ar si nemo

I mportant and or i gi nal cont r i but i ons i n' the r#al mof l ussi an theol ogi cal tho

have made ei ther by l aymen, or f eyothr men who actual l y st ood outsi de

the ci rcl e of prof essi onal t heol ogi ans, Susstan t heol ogy, as soon as i t beca

i doaondent of schol ast i c l f l u, nos, pl unged i nto a di scussi on of thmai n

p r e t t * of th rel at i on between @d and Hi s created sorl d* Most of the RussiProf .

Orthodox or i gi nal thi nkers (such as ?3ol 0Vl ovf/ I LBrayaev, Fr. Patu f l orensky

Prof Kar savi n, Set . Prof . a. Bi l gakov) ' have l strp?eteu those rt l at i onshl ps

i n tht t ras of the doetr i aon "Sophi a" f ths Bi vi ae wi sdom)

Thi s school of tti ought f romthvery begi nni ng mot wi t h opposi t i on,

b@caa speci al l y aggressi ve. wi t hi n t ho ci rcl es of th Russi an mi grat i on.

Several f actorl ed t o thi s bi t t ern, f i r st , t he f reedomof the prese. The

l ussi an Church was at l ast abl to I t s opi ni ons wi t hout reserve.

Second, the pol i t i cal mot i ves brought i nt o t he cont roversy. Met ropol i t an

l ul ogi us opponent s have at tempted to 1 hi a posi t i on by accusi ng;

f r , S. Bul gakov, Prof ABer dyaev and other prof essor and t hi nkers under hi s

j ur i sdi ct i on, of pol i t i cal radl eal i aa as wel l as of theol ogi cal i nnovat i ons.

Such i neri mi taat i ons were par t i cul ar l y wi de- spread 198-S-S? at t he t i me

of th spl i t i n the Bussi aa Church i n Emi grat i on, between Met ropol i t an Eml ogi

and thKarl ottssl Synod. But t hey di d not amount t o at that t i me t o wore than


10/17

the publ i cat i on l i bel l ous pamphl et s aad ar t i cl es whi eh were gradual l y di scredi t

/ and l oat any i nf l uence wi t h the publ i c. A new el ement was added t o the st ruggl e

, when the Brotherhood of Hrati tts appeared on the scene*

t hi s i s a smal l soci ety whi ch consi sts of I E to I B young l aymen (f romSS to

35 yeara ol d) who took as t hei r par t i cul ar task a heresy hunt of any descri pt i o

and speci al l y need any meang possi bl e f or amat tack on the Chr i st i ans of the

West . !Eh.is l ast obj ect of thei r act i vi t y i s r el ated, t o thei r name, f or they

chose as thei r pat ron Phot i eg of ( tenstant l nopXe, who was promi nent l a the break

whi ch took pl ace "between thl ast and t he f eet l a X930- S1 these young men l ef t

the J ur i sdi cti on f Met ropol i t an Eul ogi u&, f or that of Met ropol i t an Eul epfeerl us

Li thuani a, , wbo el ai ma to represent the Oburch of l ussi a abroad* t oder the l eader

shi p of Mr. TT. stavrovsky an ex- etudent of the Par i s Aeadewy, who oa account of

ser i ous mi sconduct was f orced to l eave the Col l ege, and was l ater on erpal l ed f

Frances they commenced a very energeti c campai gn of denunci ati on agai nst

Fr, Bul gakov (the Roetor of the Academy) They adopted t he method of ci roul ar i ss

t he l eaders of t he Orthodox Church wi t h a l ong catal ogue of thei r opponent s' he

One sueh document reached Metropol i t an Sergi us i n Moscow, who became al armed an

asked the Met ropol i t an of Li t huani a to provi de hi mwi t h f ur ther f ormat i on

Hi e l at ter ent rust ed stavTOVSky hi msel f {ho had at that t i f ound a resfuge i n

Li thuani a and had aetu&l l y become l ui epher l us Secret ary) wi t h thi s eorami sei on.

St avrovsky gl adl y sei sed thi s opport uni t y and composed a l ong document denounci

FrBul gakov whi ch was f orwarded to Moscow

Xn the course of t i me ' Met ropol i tan $ Eul epher i us was i nf ormed f

Moscow that Fr Bul gakov' a t eachi ng ae condemned by Metropol i t an Sergl ue and th

i nf ormat i on was i mparted t o var i ous peopl e; i n Par i s. A l i t t l e l at er the aetual

ment arr i ved i n Li t huani a and i ts contents;as i t now appears , caused a good de

of uneasi ness among t hose who worked towards produci ng aueh a aondeui nati oae f a


11/17

*5*

vf aet i s that Met ropol i t an Sergi us mai n- I t qui tcl ear i n t he doeumeat that hi s

sol e aouree of i nf ormati on was st avrorsky, who was ment i oned by name i n the

epi st l e* Meanwhi l e the age9 educati on. mi t he moral ooaduot of. the accuser

i n heresyobvi ousl y shoved hi munsui tabl e f or sue a .grat task as the aeeusat i on/ of a

di st i ngui shed and l earned theol ogi an l i ke Professor SoBul gatoov of rep

who i s one of the greatest Hussi es thi nker, and who was a member of t he Supreme

Cornel l of the f ussi s Church, t o whi oh he was l eotad 'by the Hl - l usei an Synod

of 19. 8* f hi s probabl y eacplai tts the reasoa why the. doeument i t sel f has not

been actual l y publ i shed i n Per l s, al t hough through some #*# enamel s i t

reached the Churches i n Bal kans wi t h great rapi di t y, aa wel l as t he author i t

of the Aagl i ea Church*

f he f act of sueh a eoadeamet l o taki ng pl ace and t he way i t was mani f est ed

reveal s several . fasts are i mportant f or al l t hose who ere concerned wi t h

the f uture of thtusai an Or thodox Church* f i r st of al l f eats show that a

thi ck atmosphere of suspi ci on, and f ear as wel l aa of espi onage , oreated by th

Communi st s, has permeated i nto thRussi an Church and has aetual l y af f ected t he

mental i t y and the out l ook of sowof i t s l eader*. Pereeout i oa pur i f i es the. l i f e

of t he Church hut i t al so . tends t o di si ntegrate and hi t t er some i t s members

Secondl y, i t ol ear l y shows that a aer i al s seet l on of the l ussi aa Chureh i s prep

to f i ght a bat t l e of ebsemrant i smant i s r eady to use al l means f or eomproml stn

those who st and f or radi eal thi nki ng and f or - operati on wi t h West ern Chr i st en

f hl a l ast poi nt br i ngs us. t o t he thi rd and the most del i oat si de of thi s

whol e story f he Communi st oi rernment i s determi ned to extermi nate the Chureh.

I t has sueoeeded i a . suppressi ng very f ree expressi on of . t hought i n Hussi a.

f h onl y secti on of the Bussl am Ohurea whi eh eaa st i l l speak f reel y and i s sp a

of the perseeut i oa i n ' ft i ssl s i s the smal l group of Russi a t heol ogi ans i n Par i s

They are t he onl y Russi an rel i gi ous thi nkers whose books and ar' t l el es are


12/17

4 .

publ i shed i a Europe and i s the States. , and who t ake part 1 Eocuaeni oal movem

t here i s no quest i on that f rom the eomunl st poi nt of vi ew t he di scredi t i ng o

a maml i ke Bul gakov i s an (i mportant vi et ory. f hi s l e al l t hat ona say at

present the f uture wi l l probabl y reveal the mot i ves behi nd t he act i ons of men

Mr . St uvroveky and others who have t r i ed to gi ve as wi da publ i ci t y as possi b

i a connect i on wi th thi s weenf l at i Bw bot h i n Par i s and i a ot her part of the

We do not si mi l ar l yt aaowwhat are t he ci rcumst ances whi ch have f orced Met ropol

Sergi us ' to aet as preci pi t atel y as h di d when hmade hi s pronouncement on

wr i t i ngs of who cannot repl y to hi s accusat i ons because he has never be

aslrad to i o so, and whose books are not wi t hi n hi e r each because they have be

banned by t he Government i a Russi a. I n concl usi on the quest i on ought to be ra

as t o what i n the beari ng of al l t hese vent s oa the l i f e of our f el l owshi p.

fhe1 f uture of the

Two paths l i e bef ore as We can ei ther consi der al l the above a the domest

t roubl es of the Bussi ans, whi ch do not concern t he other embers of the Fel l o

(such a no*co2Mi t t al at t i tude ea be easi l y advocated f romvar i ous poi nts of

repreor these I s yet smother way Men i s open to us Thi s way i s more dar i ng and

sore Chr i st i an way of act i on, whi ch i s open t o us as a f el l owshi p. I t consi s

taki ng the troubl es of t he i usei am secti on as suf f er i ng whi ch af f ects al l our

members. Our f el l owshi p has or i gi nated and grown f romthe l i vi ng 3peri ence o

oneness and uni t y reveal ed t o us i n the Hol y Euchar i st , f e are al ready one

i m the si ght of Sod* The present cri si s i s the f i r st occasi on when . the real i

our mal t y i s bei ng tested I f we are r eal l y t he members of the saws Bol y Apost

end Oatbol i Ohutch of Chr i st then surel y we have t o bear the burdens of one

and of our Churches, . even though as yet they are caaoni cal l y separated*

I f w accept thi s' posi t i on then the dut y of the Russ i ans t o bqui te f r

wi t h thei r Angl i caa brot hers and other aeaber s of our f el l owshi p, and to show


13/17

ft l

wi thout bi di ng anythi ng what i s happeni ng i n thei r Qhureh The uuty of t he Augl

woti l i si mi l ar l y be to share any di f f i cul t i es wi t h the Russi ans* Such shar i ng n

I mposes '&new responsi bi l i t y oa al l OUT, i t requi res a muoh deeper #

knowl edge of omr Churches, and mti eh mo. fe*ooi aragt o he abl e to sterna np f or tho

whare i n troubl e and who parMei p&t e i s t he st ruggl e, The quest i on i s - are

part i es wi l l i ng end ready t o shar aeh ot hers sorrows and j oys are t hey

to t ry and l i ve t he one eoaaaoa tit i n th# Hol y Gathol i e ? Wi l l the Russ

abl e to *eei ve wi t h an open heart t he i nterf erence and the advi ce of the!

AngHeaa brot hers? f i l l the I ngMeans and other members be t o take a rea

i nterest i n the t umbl es of t hei r l &stern by-others, and not bshoekeu by t hei

di vi si ons aai l ack of external uni t y?

An answer t o t hese quest i on* an onl y he gi ven by t he l i f e of t he Fel l owshi

whi ch 111- pro?, howvfa-y- we arexreal l y #* . B#y,. sQ/ / that t$ one mem

suf f er al l t he - $- suf f er wi t h i f-s':;anu when one member rej oi ces al l t he

members rej oi e wi t h i t "


14/17

/ -


15/17

** 2 *

/ leaning,, of the tojf

a. It state that*.

1. the teaching is @ 8 fa th er luAgakoff threa ten ed with defro cking unleea he

disavows the te ac hing , 'b . Since Fr.Bulgakoff la not in ju r isd ic t ion of Metropo li tan ;"


16/17

s *

. ac ti on which Metropolitan Iwlogitta.Mjrj,Jajget

, He must receive the Ukass formally, ei ther froa the Oecumenio Patriarchor froa-Metropolitan Serglue*

# wa l l & Iif.Bttigakoff fo r spl aaet ioa, ad oa rcivl$ i t , considers

1* Doctrine sound* ' Dofictriae jaeetlonable but permitted*'S* Doetma 8*1 as ' to reqt ti re canonical. judgment*4* la addition require teapotary retirement of itt&gakoff from Instit

I OQV&A decide the procedure for ueeielotti

A The oodyt

"{%)-Hie own yaoft f bishops*

(11) A oamiafflto of theologian* '( ) f ' :. .

8 The -$ ; ' . . ' . .

(i) So cure from Bulfiakoff a statement of the teaching anaevidence of its Orthodoxy.

{11} A competent study of the teaching and evidence,( i l l ) collection of oritic iame.(iv) defense against c ri ti ci sms (y,rr:itten and oral).(v) A doeAeion toy the body.

d. Possible results of the decisions

1. That the teaching need not be considered contrary or spec if ical lycondraned Then Bulfjakoffs pos it ion would be j ust i f ied.

8. That the teaching i s quest ionable. Then Bulfgakoff mitfxt:(1) s t i l l be peimitted to hold, posi tion , but not to teach the

doctrinei( i i ) he permitted to hold pos ition on acceptance of doct rinal posi

held by the canonical body deciding the ease";(ill) might permitted to retire freta Institute-with liberty to

apeak UX& writ* as an independent thinker within the Charon

e* The material and results say published during the procedure or af tupon decision of Metropolitan lulegiue.

VI \|$ teff^^

Actual nature of the tea chine - here found in Bulgakoff's writing,Jtelatto of the teaching on Sophia -to the dogmaa the, instruction Bulggive regard lag the-* , ;The evideaee that the- teaching i s Orthodox at / least hot unorthodox:.The contrary evldextee


17/17

jg *

v:*/ Line of ac t ion fo r fr8ttl|ploff,

a Prepare a clear tatnaent of doctrine he boMe as object of dis-cussion,

b . ;.icjriously consider a l l c r i t i c i sm, and answer to the poi n t, avoidingpo raonali t ies

c Offer to refrain from bringing in Wopbia into instruction in .Academd. Agree to accept the ruling of canonical authority, or state what

authority ho would accept0 Accept the ru li ng , even disavowing if re qu ir ed .f. Refuse to accept the rul in g on do ct ri ne , but accept ad min ist rat ive

decision of Metropolitan Eulo^ius.

"^ .^Q,J3Q3itioiq of. .gupjaorjtere. of the .I de olog ical . In s t i t u t e .

a. Think primarily of the uniqueness of the Institute the imperatiimportance of its continuance and maintenance

b , 1'he Oka a is a re co gn it io n by Metropo li tan Sergiue himself of the s i

ficanoe of the Institute.c Heooffnlae that Fr.Bulilcoff ia only ope of the pjofeaeors a t the

Ins t i tu ted ko into consider ation the undoubted Chri sti an l i f e of Fr. Ser gi us,

ana the deep spiritual benefits he ha a brought to the HUBS i an in te llec tual c lass .

a. View the s it ua ti on in ll $b t of po in ts I I I and IV above,f. Recognize the enlivening value for Orthodox thought of a process of

free di3ou&slon on a doctrinal subject which involves a wholeth log ica l system regard ing Cod, Cre at io n, Kan and Sa lv at io n,

g. .Remember the history of the Tractariana ar$ the Oxford Movement inthe early years and the subsequent benefits to the Anglican Communi

Paul a.Ajiflereoft.

f a r t s , October SO, 1980,

sergius bulgakov

Documents