Talk:Sergius Bulgakov

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

St John Maximovich, in his book, The Orthodox Veneration of the Virgin Mary devotes an entire chapter on why the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov is heresy. This heresy is as destructive as the Nestorian Heresy.

The Moscow Patriachate denounced this Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov as heretical in 1935 according to the Wikipedia and The St Herman Botherhood.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nektaria (talkcontribs) .

It seems to me that this article is missing a clear, generally agreeed upon, explanation of what "Sophiology" is. Am I wrong in thinking that many of those who denounced Sophiology didn't understand it the same way as Fr. Bulgakov?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrJohn (talkcontribs) .

Recent Edits by Nocontinuingcity

If Nocontinuingcity can supplement this article with facts that he can document from reliable sources, that is of course in keeping with the policy of Orthodoxwiki. However, it has to be presented in a way that is in keeping with the MCB policy. Also, you cannot just remove factual statements that you don't like, particularly those for which reliable source references have been provided. You may not like the St. Pachomius Library as a source, but St. John Maximovitch certainly is a reliable source... and he was a contemporary participant in the controversy, and so statements that cite his views on the matter cannot just be white washed, and over written with the opposite views. Frjohnwhiteford 03:32, December 13, 2007 (PST)

Nocontinuingcity has simply restored his original edit, and again white washed all the was here bfore. He also provides a footnote at the beginning of a section that ostensibly covers all that follows, and references serveral works. This makes it difficult to tell what claim is supported by what source, and make future editing problematic. I going to again restore the previous text. Feel free to supplement or correct that text, but do not remove facts that are documented, and provide footnotes that specifically support your assertions, rather than one whopper footnote that spays buck shot on all that follows. Frjohnwhiteford 18:37, December 13, 2007 (PST)

Some Dissent

First, I don't think it is true to say that the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius "devoted itself to the establishment" of a formal union between Orthodox Churches and the Anglican Communion. It included other established Orthodox figures not suspected of Sophiology, such as Vladimir Lossky, an ardent opponent of Sophiology. Second, I don't think that a quotation from St John of Shanghai and San Francisco is an adequate replacement for the material that Fr John has removed. There was a good deal of bibliographic material, as well as a different reading of the matter than Fr John's. I don't think it is simply a "whitewash." Both positions should be represented. --Fr Lev 19:56, December 13, 2007 (PST)

If you would like to rephrase that first statement, that is fine with me. I have no problem with most of the content that was posted, but I do have a problem with removing all the content that was there in the first place, and I also have a problem with an entire essay, that simply has one footnote, that allegedly supports all that follows. Let the person who wishes to post that content work with the content that previously was there... correcting what may be justifiably corrected, supplementing what needs to be supplemented, and footnoting his various assertions with the specific references that support each of those assertions. Frjohnwhiteford 20:07, December 13, 2007 (PST)

I agree with you, Father. --Fr Lev 06:13, December 14, 2007 (PST)

I've reverted Fr. John W.'s edits here, chiefly because he deleted some interesting, useful, and well-referenced (so it seems to me) background information. Fr. John, please feel free to fill out the Synod's argument (in the words of St. John Maximovitch, etc.), but please do so in a way which doesn't destroy what was already here. The basic facts should be pretty readily established. If we need to have two different subsections, arguing pro and con, let's do it. E.g. The legacy of Fr. Bulgakov is still controversial, some argue... while others hold... etc. As always, let's keep away from personal attacks and try to document who said what, where when and why. Many thanks! — FrJohn (talk)
I do not disagree that much of the material that was added was good, but it was poorly referenced... in that it provided one footnote, with a shotgun blast of references, and it is impossible to tell without finding all the needles in the hay stack which reference covers which assertion of fact. As the text currently stands, according to the normal conventions of footnoting, you would have to assume that all those extensive references were intended to only establish that there were 3 Russian jurisdictions in Western Europe. But obviously, the intent is to cover all that follows. However, this makes future editing impossible, because if I insert new information in this passage, does that footnote cover my information? Suppose I am able to disprove an assertion in his following paragraph... which part of his footnote do I remove or modify? Secondly, there was a text here previously. The editor that added this material, simply wiped that out... and I think the burden of working the existing material is on the next editor. I don't think the burden of restoring white washed information should be on anyone else. Frjohnwhiteford 03:45, December 18, 2007 (PST)
Dear Fr. John, I'd suggest you not worry about the footnotes, but start a new section, and write about the other perspective in that way. — FrJohn (talk)
There are some issues of fact in the text as it is that are problematic... at least the whole story is not given, and so some emendations are needed. For example, while it is true that there were three Russian jurisdictions in 1931... there were not in 1935, when this controversy hit the fan. Evlogy had reconciled with ROCOR. Evlogy split off again in part because of the investigation into this issue. Frjohnwhiteford 18:26, December 21, 2007 (PST)
Hmm... let's not worry too much about a polished article at this point. Why don't you present your side of the argument, even roughly, in another section. — FrJohn (talk)

The Author of the Pastoral Text

This article is about Fr. Sergius N. Bulgakov, controversial Parisian theologian. The Nastolnaya Kniga was written by Fr. Sergius V. Bulgakov. See: Frjohnwhiteford 23:52, June 2, 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! How can we best differentiate on the wiki? Should this page be moved at all? I think the Liturgical colors page only referred to "Bulgakov," so I had it link here. —magda (talk) 00:08, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
The author of the text is usually referred to in citations or references I have seen either simply as "Bulgakov" or "S. V. Bulgakov". This text is king of all clergy reference text in Russian, and so in that context people have no doubt about who is being referred to, but I suppose it would be easy to be confused. I would create an article about this author, but I don't have any material on his life that I have come across. Frjohnwhiteford 00:12, June 3, 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that they were two different writers. (My guess is that others may be under the same impression, too.) In any event, it might be worth it to create an article titled Sergius V. Bulgakov which, at the very least, notes that he is the author of that text. It's at least worth a stub, IMO.
Both this article and the other could have an italicized note at the top linking to the other. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 12:09, June 3, 2008 (UTC)