No comments about A History of Russian Christianity: The Synodal Era And the Sectarians 1725 to 1894.

No comments about Doubly Chosen: Jewish Identity, the Soviet Intelligentsia, and the Russian Orthodox Church.

No comments about Lectures on Godmanhood.

No comments about The Russians and Their Church.

No comments about The Russian Orthodox Church: A Contemporary History.

No comments about The Religion of the Russian People.

1 comments about The Diary of a Russian Priest.

1. Fr. Alexander Elchaninov(1881-1934) was a genuine Russian priest to the backbone. A simple childlike ascetic and at same time a thoroughly educated man which this book show. With a background as a teacher and member of the intellectual elitè of pre-revolutionary St. Petersburg for a decade(1900-10) he knew personally many of those who came to form a "revival" of religion and philosophy of the time. But he was of different material. He soon gave up teaching, fled to France in the 1920's and stayed there until his pre-mature repose of a complicated ulcer in 1934.

   It's an odd book this. Small notes, cards, papers, parts of manuscripts for books he never finished - all this was collected by his loving wife Tamara and published after his death. It's more like a big collection of notes and ideas the priest jotted down on pieces of paper in between his enormous workload as spiritual father for many, many emigré Russians in France. This is not Ernest Hemingways France - the moveable feast, but quite another picture. Elchaninovs France is seldom on the sunny side of the street. But spiritually it's inspiring.

   Thomas Merton once wrote in his diary that he was at his best when he wrote short filosofical or religious comments on a piece of paper, than when he wrote even his most popular books. Fr. Alexander never came around to write any books, the workload being too heavy and the time too short, but his notes are thought-rendering and close to Mertons diaries. And one can read clearly out of this book that he loved and treasured his vocation.

   The minuses, but also in it's own way the pluses, is of course the briefness of Fr. Alexanders thoughts and reflection about his ministry and spirtuality, and lack of thorough descriptions of the enviroment he lived in. But still one can feel his warmth of heart and some few larger sections that covers at least to a certain degree some of his experiences.

   Sip this cream in small portions.

1 comments about Sophia, the Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology (Library of Russian Philosophy).

1. Sophia: The Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology is one of the most controversial works of 20th century Orthodox theology. Written by the highly-regarded theologian Sergius Bulgakov, it is an attempt to write a theology of the Wisdom of God - a concept found in the Christian Bible, considered from time to time by the Church Fathers and, most importantly, architecturally articulated throughout the Orthodox world in churches such as the famous Hagia Sophia (Holy Wisdom) in Constantinople, which is dedicated to the Wisdom of God.
   
   It is with the church buildings themselves that Bulgakov begins his inquiry - a rather unique place to begin a work of speculative theology. Thus, Bulgakov takes the very existence of Orthodoxy's most famous cathedral and turns it into a theologically valid - the theologically valid - point of entry into the question of what the Wisdom (Sophia) of God is. Grounding theology in the very brick and mortar of a church structure is not a new thing in the history of Christendom - the late-16th century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker did something similar in Book V of his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, the Abbot Suger also turned to the aesthetic of architectural beauty in his theological writings on the Cathedral of St. Denis in the 12th century and, within the Orthodox tradition itself, the arguments about icons in the 8th and 9th century were arguments about the inside of the church building as much as an argument about religious artwork qua religious artwork - but it remains an unusual thing. Thus, it would have been welcome for me if Bulgakov had given a greater methodological consideration to and explanation of the validity of this perspective. Like Hooker, the implication seems to be that the worshiping community itself, by worshiping in a particular church building, both validates and shows the validity behind the naming of a particular church whether after a saint, or a Biblical figure or, as in this case, in honor of the Wisdom of God. And so, the lived experience of the community that worships God in Hagia Sophia - the lived experience of the community that worships God in Holy Wisdom - is the beginning part of this book.
   
   There is a second important point that Bulgakov makes early in the book which must be kept in mind: the distinction between the Glory of God and the Wisdom of God. Both Glory and Wisdom are written of in Scripture as being *of* God; Bulgakov's desire to give a theological explanation of the Wisdom *of* God can thus be read, methodologically, as applying equally to the Glory *of* God. There is an unusual amount of Biblical exegesis in this book - that is, unusual for a work of Orthodox theology. I do not mean that Orthodox take no interest in Scripture! Rather, because Scripture is understood as the font of Tradition, all of Tradition is an equally valid resource in Orthodox thought for discussing theology (both as dogma and as mysticism). Bulgakov pays attention to the Fathers, as the Orthodox are well known for doing, but the point nonetheless remains: there is an unusually high level of Biblical exegesis in the book. For me, it is a welcome departure, although because I do not know how the Orthodox have historically approached the Biblical statements about the Wisdom *of* God, I can't tell whether or not Bulgakov is reflective of his own tradition on this point.
   
   The major difficulty with writing a theology of the Wisdom *of* God - it would presumably be the same difficulty that would accompany a theology of the Glory *of* God - is avoiding the implication that Sophia is a fourth person in the Godhead. Bulgakov's Trinitarian theology is thoroughly orthodox; at no point does he claim that Wisdom is a fourth hypostasis (person). Rather, he claims that because Wisdom is *of* God, this means that it a) belongs to the undivided essence of God, which means that b) all three persons of the Trinity - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - partake of Wisdom in a way which is according to their own personhood. Thus, Wisdom is shared equally and in an undivided fashion among the persons of the Godhead. Presumably, given Bulgakov's distinction between the Wisdom and the Glory *of* God, we could say the same of Glory: it belongs to the essence of God and is therefore partaken of by each person of the Trinity in a way that is according to their personhood. Bulgakov does not claim such in this book, but it seems to me to be the implication he leaves us with.
   
   Although an unusual topic of theological investigation, up through this point it seems to me that Bulgakov is really quite thoughtful and insightful and, above all, thoroughly orthodox. Where his speculation seems to run aground is late in the book where he claims that there is the uncreated, eternal Wisdom *of* God, but also a created, creaturely Wisdom. He further claims that it is the union of eternal Wisdom with created Wisdom that unites God and the created order in relation to one another. While I would think that there would be ways that Bulgakov could take this that would resolve any confusion, the problem is that he doesn't - that is, he doesn't really explain what or who created Wisdom is. What, then, are we to understand created Wisdom to be? If it were humanity in its undefiled state, then it would be clear that the union of eternal Wisdom with created Wisdom was a reference to the incarnation. But again, this isn't made explicit. I think that claiming that creation and God are united in Wisdom - and, one may presume, Glory as well - is a pretty beautiful thing to claim, and a pretty beautiful worldview to have. But, it needs to be clarified how and I just don't think that Bulgakov does this. So, it's not a heretical work, but a potentially confusing one (and the potential confusion is just made worse by the fact that it is a book that advances a "feminine" view of the Godhead, which isn't the point of the book at all, but to consider the theological meaning of a series of feminine Biblical images; I can't help but think that Bulgakov would have cringed at being seen as some sort proto-feminist). Nonetheless, I think it is worth reading, because it presents us with a point of departure for what we all orthodox (ie, Nicene) Christians already believe: that Wisdom is truly of God. How to articulate that fully seems to me to be one of the more important topics for theology today - and Bulgakov does help us get there, even if not perfectly.

1 comments about The History of Russian Christianity Volume 1: From the Earliest Years Through Tsar Ivan IV.

1. This first volume of the history of Russian Christianity deals with the period from Apostle Andrew to the death of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, a period of almost 1600 years. The information provided is intensive and objective, dealing with the events, people and politics of the development and expansion of Christianity in Russia. The book covers the earliest of traditions, the rise and dominance of the Russian Orthodox Church, the many dissenters and sectarians that evolved over the centuries and their persecution, and the influx of Catholicism and Judaism and other minority religions into Russia. The history covers the involvement of tsars and princes, as well as saints and serfs, and monks and mystics .
   (This 3-volume series of the history of Christianity in Russia will extend to the conclusion of Soviet authority in 1990.)

5 comments about The Russian Church and the Papacy.

1. Russian theologian Vladimir Soloviev had an encyclopedic knowledge of world and Church history, yet he was able to distill much of its essence into this compact but powerful volume. Part One, "The Papacy and Six Centuries of Eastern Heresies," is a real eye-opener and a must-read for anyone interested in ecclesiastical history.I found his analysis of the three main parties to these controversies particularly insightful and right on target.
   Soloviev's descriptions of the nefarious and shameful goings on at the Latrocinium (the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449) and the response of the Church at the Holy Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon were based on primary sources. They are extremely helpful in cutting through the fog of modern ecumenist waffling on and revisionist assessments of the great councils of the Church, especially Chalcedon.
   The Russian theologian's God-given wisdom and equally God-given writing ability enabled him to dissect Byzantine caesaropapism with surgical skill and to allow us to see it for what it was.
   This is a great book, one of the greatest I have ever read. I recommend it without reservation.



2. Soloviev's 'The Russian Church and the Papacy' is an absolutely brilliant tour de force apologetic work in defense of the papacy and easily the very best I've ever read. A must-read for non-Catholics who still maintain that the papacy is an invention of the Roman Bishops or that the Pope has a 'primacy of honor' only. An objective read of this book would almost force one to accept the historical Catholic view of Papal authority and infallibility - period!



3. This is a spirited defense of the papacy written by a Russian Orthodox theologian who was frustrated with the lack of interest displayed by his co-religionists regarding his proposals for reunion with Rome. It provides useful material for Catholics who need to defend papal primacy in an apologetics situation, especially when dealing with Orthodox polemicists.
   
   Some Orthodox readers may find this book interesting; others may simply be irritated and exasperated by Soloviev's polemical style. For the latter, I recommend Oliver Clement's book _You are Peter_.
   
   I found most helpful and interesting his argument that since the content of the Vatican I definitions of papal primacy can be found in the writings of Pope Leo, that Eastern Orthodox Christians of Leo's time supported these ideas, and that even now the Orthodox still consider him a saint, that there is no basis for the Orthodox to consider the modern Roman church to be heretical. He buttresses this argument with extensive quotations from primary sources.
   
   The book was written in the late 19th century. Consequently, Soloviev's references to "current events" in Russia, Bulgaria, and so forth can seem odd. Reminiscent of his friend Dostoyevsky in _The Brothers Karamozov_, Soloviev seems to have seen Russia to have a Christian mission to spread the gospel, reinforcing the anachronistic feel of some of the text.
   
   As mentioned earlier, this book is strongly polemical in tone. It is more useful for apologists than ecumenists. For the latter, I recommend Klaus Schatz's book _Papal Primacy: From its origins to the present_. The latter book gives a sweeping and detailed historical overview of papal primacy in a non-polemical fashion, from a Catholic viewpoint. I also highly recommend Oliver Clement's book _You are Peter_, which approaches this topic from an Orthodox perspective that is respectful of Catholic theology. It is really interesting to see Clement and Soloviev interpret the same historical events in dramatically different ways.
   
   If you have the money, I recommend all three books. If not, I recommend first the Schatz book, then Clement, and then Soloviev.



4. Soloviev is not a familiar name to western Christendom. Until this great theologian's work was revealed to us through Pope John Paul II, it would have been difficult to find anyone in the west familiar with this fiery Russian theologian. In this work, Vladimir Soloviev gives stinging rebuke to his fellow Russian Orthodox theologians concerning their rejection of papal authority. He demonstrates in the beginning of this work through an uncompromising polemic that the Orthodox church has inevitably traded the primacy of the Church of Rome for the primacy of Ceasar. In this stinging rebuke he furthers makes the case that Islam is the logical, necessary, and ultimate conclusion of Eastern Orthodox thinking. Islam, in that sense, is not a religion in itself but an eastern Christian heresy carried to its logical conclusion. The Islam heresy theory is not one Dr. Soloviev details here but he provides enough that it makes us want to give that theory and its implications much thought.
   
   Dr. Soloviev continues in rather harsh polemic strains demonstrating that Orthodoxy leads ultimately to a church that has lost the ability to affect true reformation of culture but instead becomes the servant of that self-justifying culture. It salt that has utterly lost saltiness and that never challenges the state that tramples it underfoot.
   
   With the tone of the first portion of this book, many may not last to the end and that is unfortunate. Those who endure to the end will reap a rich reward in the form of the scriptural exegesis Dr. Soloviev provides in support of the primacy of Peter. It is, perhaps, one of the most concise and convincing cases ever written for this key distinctive of the churches in union with Rome. It is a good summary of the key scriptures and how they are interrelated with the entire body of scripture to form the big picture of the Church that Jesus founded 2000 years ago.
   
   Although the early chapters may be too harsh for some readers, the final summary of the scriptural basis of the papacy is worth the effort. It is an historic challenge to the eastern church from one of it's own and it is a challenge that should be difficult to ignore.



5. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18.
   
   This book _The Russian Church and the Papacy_ is an abridgement of the work _Russia and the Universal Church_, first published in Russian in 1889 and republished here by Catholic Answers, by Russian mystic and philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, who was a Russian Orthodox Christian who leaned towards Roman Catholicism, is an interesting study and defense of the papacy from the perspective of Russian Orthodoxy. Vladimir Soloviev (1853 - 1900) was a Russian philosopher and mystic who is perhaps best known for his teachings on the Divine Sophia. While Soloviev was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, he took an interest in Roman Catholicism (and may even have converted) and offered some profound thoughts on the necessity and importance of the papacy. In this way, Soloviev (along with others such as Leibniz) remains an important figure amongst those who have sought to achieve a re-unification of the churches. In this book, Soloviev argues that the papacy plays a central role in Christian history and that the Russian Orthodox are at fault for rejecting it. Nevertheless, Soloviev maintains that the Orthodox have their own unique heritage and contribution to make and that their Eastern traditions must be preserved. As is noted by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, O.P. in the Foreword to this book, "Never before in Christian history has a leader of one tradition written so appreciatively, so incisively, about the heritage of another tradition." In this way, Soloviev's writings can be compared to the later writings of John Paul II, who in 1995 wrote in an apostolic letter _Orientale Lumen_ that Catholics must be helped to understand the vast rich heritage of their separated brethren in the Eastern Churches. As such, this book offers a unique foundation upon which to build the ensuing dialogue between the separated Eastern Churches and the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as that concerns the office of the papacy.
   
   This book begins with a Foreword by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, O.P. which relates the goals of the late Pope John Paul II to those of the philosopher Soloviev, showing that Soloviev remains unique amongst Orthodox thinkers in this respect. Following this, appears a Preface by Scott Hahn which outlines the life of Soloviev and his opposition to the "positivists" as well as commenting on him from the likes of the Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar, who ranked Soloviev second only to St. Thomas Aquinas as "the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought". This is followed by an Introduction by Fr. Ray Ryland which lays out the thinking of Soloviev, noting his relationship to the famous novelist Dostoyevsky, and explains the role of the Eastern Orthodox churches in the life of Soloviev.
   
   The book proper begins with Part One, "The Papacy and Six Centuries of Eastern Heresies" which explains the relationship between the churches in the East and the papacy. This part traces the history of the Eastern churches from the time of the Byzantine empire, noting that by maintaining Christendom within the pagan state the emperors were prone to tolerate the heresies. Examples of such heresies are seen in Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, the Iconoclastic heresy, and Arianism. Soloviev also discusses such things as the role of the emperor Constantine (recognized as a saint in Eastern Orthodoxy), the relationship between the Greeks and the Romans, the "robber council" of Ephesus, the _Henoticon_ (a heretical document which sought to reconcile Catholics and Monophysites), the Council of Chalcedon, the Photian schism, and the role of Islam as an anti-Christian heresy which grew from an anti-Christian movement in Byzantium (Indeed, Soloviev writes "Islam is simply sincere and logical Byzantinism, free from all its inner contradictions."). Soloviev notes the rise of an anti-Catholic and anti-Roman sentiment in the East, the role of caesaropapism in the East, and then discusses Charlemagne and the Germanic empire. Soloviev ends this part by praising Roman Catholicism and noting the relationship between East and West. Following this appears Part Two, "The State of Religion in Russia and the Christian East". This part includes chapters entitled "The Russian Legend of St. Nicolas and St. Cassian. Its Application to the Two Seperated Churches" (explaining a legend about these two saints in which St. Nicolas comes to represent the Western church remaining faithful to its apostolic mission and unafraid to plunge itself into the mire of history and St. Cassian represents the Eastern church emphasizing contemplation and withdrawal such as is seen with the monks at Mount Athos), "The True Orthodoxy of the Russian People and the Pseudo-Orthodoxy of the Anti-Catholic Theologians" (noting how pseudo-Orthodoxy exists by negation, by negating dogmas maintained by the Roman Catholic church and by emphasizing difference), "Russian Dissent. The Relative Truth of the `Raskol'. Archbishop Philaret of Moscow and His Conception of the Universal Church" (noting the role of the "raskol" (schism) and the "old Orthodox" and their beliefs about the Russian tsar), "Critical Observations of the Russian Slavophiles and Their Ideas Concerning the Church" (noting the idealistic theories of the Slavophiles and their ideas concerning the church as a moral organism), "Religious Freedom and Ecclesiastical Freedom" (emphasizing the differences between these two types of freedom within churches in East and West and noting the confusion of these two types by the Slavophiles), "Relations Between the Russian and Greek Churches. Bulgaria and Serbia" (noting that while the Russian and Greek churches possess a common faith there is little solidarity between them and discussing the case of the Bulgarian church which was excommunicated for the heresy of phyletism and also the role of the Serbians), "The Fulfillment of a Prophecy. Caesaropapism in Action" (noting how the Eastern church has abdicated in favor of a secular power), and "The Design to Eastablish a Quasi-Papacy at Constantinople or Jerusalem" (noting how such attempts by the Eastern churches have failed). Following this appears Part Three, "The Ecclesiastical Monarchy Founded by Jesus Christ". This part includes chapters entitled "Preamble" (noting the role of Peter in the founding of the church), "The Rock of the Church" (noting the role of Peter as the rock of the church against which the gates of Hades may not prevail), "The Primacy of Peter as a Permanent Institution. The Three Rocks of Christendom" (noting the role of Peter as the rock of the church having the power of binding and loosing), ""Peter" and "Satan"" (noting that Christ refers to Peter as Satan, noting that as a private individual Peter is a hindrance), "The Church as a Universal Society. The Principle of Love", "The Keys of the Kingdom", "The Government of the Universal Church. The Center of Unity" (all noting the role and primacy of Peter as the center of the universal church), "The Monarchies Foretold by Daniel. "Roma" and "Amor"" (noting the role of Rome in the prophecies of Daniel), ""The Son of Man" and the "Rock"", "Ancient and Modern Witness to the Primacy of Peter" (noting witnesses to the primacy of Peter even from outside the Roman church including from secular, Jewish, and even Eastern Orthodox sources), "The Apostle Peter and the Papacy" (noting the importance of the papacy for unity and the failure of the Eastern churches to achieve this universality or even to summon an ecumenical council without the papacy), "St. Leo the Great on the Papacy", "St. Leo the Great on Papal Authority", "The Approval of Leo's Ideas by the Greek Fathers. The "Robber-Council" of Ephesus" (all noting the role of St. Leo the Great in defining the papacy and mentioning the "robber-council" of Ephesus), and "The Council of Chalcedon" (showing how orthodoxy prevailed at this council and noting the recognition of the pope's authority at this council). The book ends with Part Four, "The Pope, The Universal Father". This part discusses the role of the God-man on history, fallen manhood, and the Trinity of God. In the end, it questions why the Orthodox will accept the need for the paternal authority of priests and bishops but not the parternal authority of the pope himself.
   
   In this book, Soloviev offers a brilliant defense of the papacy and a profound critique of the Eastern Church from the perspective of a Russian Orthodox Christian. Such a book offers an important study of the importance of the papacy for the church and the need and hope for re-unification of East and West. This book is especially important in light of recent ecumenical tendencies in both East and West and in light of the writings of some of the recent popes concerning the churches in the East. As such, it offers a profound message of hope for those who pray for the re-unification of the Christian churches in East and West.