Changes

: ''This article is about the Russian theologian and philosopher by this name. For the author of the ''Handbook for Church Servers'', see [[Sergius V. Bulgakov]].'' '''Fr. Sergei Sergius Nikolaevich Bulgakov''' was a [[priest]] of the [[Church of Russia]] in the early twentieth century. He was noted as an Orthodox [[theologian]], philosopher, and economist. After an early interest in Marxism, he returned to his religious roots in Orthodox Christianity. He wrote extensively, and after being exiled by the new Communist government of Russia, he became part of the community of Russians in Paris, taking part in the founding the of [[St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute (Paris, France)|St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris]].

On [[December 30]], 1922, Bulgakov was among the approximately 160 prominent intellectuals, including also [[Nikolai Berdyaev|Nicholas Berdyaev]], who were exiled by the Bolshevik government. Bulgakov initially settled in Prague, Czechoslovakia. In May 1923, he was named professor of Church Law and Theology at the Russian Research Institute in Prague. From Prague he moved to Paris, which was his home until his death. In 1925, he participated in the establishment of the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute. He became the head of the institute, where he also was the professor of Dogmatic Theology.

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: [[ROCOR|Russian Orthodox Church Abroad/Outside of Russia (Sremski Karlovtsi Karlovtzy Synod )]] under [[Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev|Met. Antonii Anthony (KhrapovitskiiKhrapovitsky)]]; the [[Church of Russia|‘Patriarchal’ church ]] answering ultimately to [[Sergius I (Stragorodsky) of Moscow|Met. Sergii Sergius (StragorodskiiStragorodsky) ]] of Moscow (of which the young [[Vladimir Lossky]] was a member); and the [[Patriarchal Exarchate for Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe|Russian Church in Western Europe ]] (Bulgakov’s own jurisdiction as well as the church of [[Georges Florovsky]]) under [[Eulogius (Georgievsky) of Paris|Met. Evlogii Evlogy (GeorgievskiiGeorgievsky) ]] that was under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch [[Church of Constantinople. In a famous first ukaz of 7 September, 1935 of Met. Sergii (not confirmed by the Synod) Bulgakov’s teaching on ‘Sophia’ was described as ‘alien’ to the Orthodox faith. {{ref|2}} This ukaz was largely based on the epistolary reports (letters with a catenae Patriarch of ‘suspect’ quotations from Bulgakov’s works) of Alexis Stavrovskii. Stavrovskii was an exConstantinople]] --student of the St Serge Institute who due to a disciplinary problem though in 1934, Metropolitan Evlogy was forced privately reconciled to leave the school Metropolitan Anthony, and was later expelled from France in 1935 he went to Karlovtzy 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]]a special reunion conference, at which time the vice-president, schism betwen him and Evgraf Kovalevskii [later ROCOR was healed<ref>[[Jean-Nectaire Kallistos (KovalevskyWare) of Saint-Denis]Diokleia|Timothy Ware]] were also amongst the 12-15 young laymen who made up its numbers) whose members had left the jurisdiction of Met. Evlogii for that of Met. Elevtherii of Lithuania. This exodus was in reaction to Met. Sergii having removed, on 10 June, 1930, Met. Evlogii as the head of the Russian ''The Orthodox Church in Western Europe '' (since Met. Evlogii had continually refused to agree to the 30 JuneLondon: Penguin Books, 1927 Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet government1964) and named Elevtherii as his replacementp. In late 1935, Met. Evlogii appointed a commission to look into the charges of heresy levelled against Bulgakov. The commission quickly broke into factions184. </ref> In June of 1936 the majority report (prepared by Vasilii Zenkovskii, Anton Kartashev and others) rejected Metropolitan Evlogy again cut his ties with ROCOR, quite possibly because of the charge of heresy but had serious objections about Sophiologycontroversy over [[Sophianism]]. The minority report of 6 July<ref>Protopresbyter George Grabbe, 1936 was prepared by Fr Sergii Chetverikov and reluctantly signed by Fr Georges Florovsky who had only joined the commission when Met. Evlogii had insisted so that it would not be viewed as a whitewash. (Florovsky had ''Toward a very close relationship with Bulgakov despite their theological differences. Some History of this closeness was no doubt due to the fact that Bulgakov was for at least a spell in the early 20’s Ecclesiastical Divisions Within the confessor/spiritual father of Florovsky). MeanwhileRussian Diaspora'', Living Orthodoxy, the Church Abroad formally accused Bulgakov of heresy in 1935Vol. The 1935 decision of the Church Abroad was based on Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar’s Novoe uchenie o Sofii (SofiaXIV, 1935)No. Bulgakov responded to the heresy accusation in his Dokladnaia zapiska Mitropolitu Evlogiiu prof. prot. Sergiia Bulgakova (Paris4, 1936). Archbishop Serafim then rebutted Bulgakov in his Zashchita sofianskoi eresi (SofiaJuly-August, 1937). No final report was prepared on the sophiology controversy by the commission set up by Bulgakov’s own jurisdiction. However1992, Metpp. Evlogii convoked a bishop’s conference on 2637-9 November 1937 to bring closure to the matter. The bishops in their statement were working from reports by Archimandrite Cassian (Bezobrazov) and Chetverikov and they concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction. The future understanding of sophiology depends much on both the reconstruction of political events in church history in the 1930’s and a careful reading of Bulgakov’s teaching informed by his own multifarious sources (from German Romanticism to the newly discovered Gregory Palamas).39</ref>

==Reference==*{{noteIn [[Sophianism#Decree_of_the_Moscow_Patriarchate|1}} For commentaryan ukaz of 24 August, texts and a fuller account 1935]] of Met. Sergius, Bulgakov’s teaching on ‘Sophia’ was described as ‘alien’ to the sophiological controversy see Antoine Arjakovsky, Essai sur le père Serge Boulgakov (1871-1944), philosophe et théologien chrétien (ParisOrthodox faith.<ref>Bulgakov responded to the ukaz in his O Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiei: Les Éditions Parole et Silence, 2006), ppUkaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski prot.99-125 and La génération des penseurs religieux de l’émigration Russe: La Revue ‘La Voie’ (Put’), 1925-1940 Sergiia Bulgakova Mitropolitu Evlogiiu (Kiev/Paris: L’Esprit et la LettreYMCA, 20021935), pp.433ff20-51., N. T. Eneeva, [[Vladimir Lossky]] then published a well-known critical analysis of Bulgakov’s response to the ukaz as ''Spor o sofiologii v russkom zarubezh’e 1920-1930 godov Sofii'' (Moscow: Institut vseobshchei istorii RANParis, 20011936).</ref> This ukaz was largely based on the epistolary reports of Alexis Stavrovsky, Igumen Gennadii the president of the Brotherhood of St Photius (Eikalovich)[[Vladimir Lossky]], Delo prot. Sergiia Bulgakova: Istoricheskaia kanva spora o Sofii (San Francisco: Globus Pub.was the vice-president, 1980), Bryn Geffert, ‘Sergii Bulgakov, The Fellowship of St Alban and St SergiusEvgraf Kovalevsky, Intercommunion Leonid Ouspensky and Sofiology’, Revolutionary Russia, 17:1 (June 2004later monk and famous iconographer), pp.105Gregory Krug were also amongst the 12-41, ‘The Charges 15 young laymen who made up its numbers) whose members had left the jurisdiction of Heresy Against Sergii Bulgakov: The Majority and Minority Reports Met. Evlogy for that of Evlogii’s Commission and the Final Report Met. Elevthery of the Bishops’ Conference’Lithuania. This exodus was in reaction to Met. Sergius having removed, on 10 June, ''St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly''1930, 49Met.1-2 Evlogy as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe (2005), ppsince Met.47-66 and especially Alexis KlimoffEvlogy had continually refused to agree to the 30 June, ‘Georges Florovsky 1927 Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet government) and the Sophiological Controversy’, ''St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly'', 49named Elevthery as his replacement.1-2 (2005)In late 1935, ppMet.67-100Evlogy appointed a commission to look into the charges of heresy leveled against Bulgakov.

*{{noteThe 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 signed by Fr [[Georges Florovsky]], who despite his personal respect for Fr. Sergius, remained an ardent critic of Sophianism for the remainder of his life. 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|2}} 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>  Bulgakov responded to the ukaz heresy accusation in his O Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiei: Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski ''Dokladnaia zapiska Mitropolitu Evlogiiu prof. prot. Sergiia Bulgakova Mitropolitu Evlogiiu '' (Paris: YMCA, 19351936). Archbishop Seraphim then rebutted Bulgakov in his ''Zashchita sofianskoi eresi'' (Sofia, 1937). No final report was prepared on the sophiology controversy by the commission set up by Bulgakov’s own jurisdiction. However, ppMet.20Evlogy convoked a bishop’s conference on 26-519 November 1937 to bring closure to the matter. The bishops in their statement were working from reports by Archimandrite Cassian (Bezobrazov) and Chetverikov and they concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction. [[Vladimir Lossky]] then published responded to Bulgakov's self-apology in a well-known critical analysis of Bulgakov’s response to the ukaz as large and deep study : ''Spor o Sofii'' (The Debate on Sophia, Paris, 1936), pointing out the various dogmatic errors of Bulgakov's theology.

*''The Lamb of God''''''Italic text''''. Eerdmans, 2007. (ISBN 978-0802827791)

*''Philosophy of Economy''. Yale, 2000. (ISBN 978-0300079906)*''Sophia, the [[Holy Wisdom |Wisdom]] of God: An Outline of Sophiology''. Lindisfarne, 1993. (ISBN 978-0940262607) ==Notes== <div class="references-small"> <references /> </div>