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 [[Church of Constantinople|Patriarch of Constantinople]] -- though in 1934, Metropolitan Evlogy was privately reconciled to Metropolitan Anthony, and in 1935 he went to Karlovtzy for a special reunion conference, at which time the schism betwen him and ROCOR was healed<ref>[[Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia|Timothy Ware]], ''The Orthodox Church'' (London: Penguin Books, 1964)p. 184.</ref> In 1936, Metropolitan Evlogy again cut his ties with ROCOR, quite possibly because of the controversy over [[Sophianism]]. <ref>Protopresbyter George Grabbe, ''Toward a History of the Ecclesiastical Divisions Within the Russian Diaspora'', Living Orthodoxy, Vol. XIV, No. 4, July-August, 1992, pp. 37-39</ref>

In a famous first [[Sophianism#Decree_of_the_Moscow_Patriarchate|an ukaz of 7 September24 August, 1935 ]] of Met. Sergii (not confirmed by the Synod) Sergius, Bulgakov’s teaching on ‘Sophia’ was described as ‘alien’ to the Orthodox faith. {{<ref|2}} >Bulgakov responded to the ukaz in his O Sofii Premudrosti Bozhiei: Ukaz Moskovskoi Patriarkhii i dokladnye zapiski prot. Sergiia Bulgakova Mitropolitu Evlogiiu (Paris: YMCA, 1935), pp.20-51. [[Vladimir Lossky]] then published a well-known critical analysis of Bulgakov’s response to the ukaz as ''Spor o Sofii'' (Paris, 1936).</ref> This ukaz was largely based on the epistolary reports (letters with a catenae of ‘suspect’ quotations from Bulgakov’s works) of Alexis Stavrovskii. Stavrovskii was an ex-student of the St Serge Institute who due to a disciplinary problem was forced to leave the school and was later expelled from France for reasons that are not made clear in the sources. He was also Stavrovsky, the president of the Brotherhood of St Photius (Alexis Stavrovskii was president; [[Vladimir Lossky]], was the vice-president, and Evgraf Kovalevskii [Kovalevsky, Leonid Ouspensky and (later [[Jean-Nectaire (Kovalevskymonk and famous iconographer) of Saint-Denis]]] Gregory Krug were also amongst the 12-15 young laymen who made up its numbers) whose members had left the jurisdiction of Met. Evlogii Evlogy for that of Met. Elevtherii Elevthery of Lithuania. This exodus was in reaction to Met. Sergius having removed, on 10 June, 1930, Met. Evlogy as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe (since Met. Evlogy had continually refused to agree to the 30 June, 1927 Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet government) and named Elevthery as his replacement. In late 1935, Met. Evlogy appointed a commission to look into the charges of heresy leveled against Bulgakov.

This exodus was in reaction to MetThe commission quickly broke into factions. Sergii having removed, on 10 In Juneof 1936 the majority report (prepared by Vasilii Zenkovskii, 1930, MetAnton Kartashev and others) rejected the charge of heresy but had serious objections about Sophiology. Evlogii as the head The minority report of the Russian Orthodox Church in Western Europe (since Met6 July, 1936 was prepared by Fr Sergei Chetverikov and signed by Fr [[Georges Florovsky]], who despite his personal respect for Fr. Evlogii had continually refused to agree to the 30 JuneSergius, 1927 Declaration remained an ardent critic of Loyalty to Sophianism for the Soviet government) and named Elevtherii as remainder of his replacementlife. In late 1935Meanwhile, Met. Evlogii appointed a commission to look into the charges Church Abroad formally accused Bulgakov of heresy levelled against Bulgakovin 1935.

[[Sophianism#Decree_of_ROCOR|The commission quickly broke into factions. In June 1935 decision of 1936 the majority report Church Abroad]] was based on Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar’s Novoe uchenie o Sofii (prepared by Vasilii ZenkovskiiSofia, 1935), Anton Kartashev and othersas well as on the arguments of St. [[John Maximovitch|John (Maximovitch) rejected ]].<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 charge [[sophianism]] of Sergius Bulgakov is [[heresy but had serious objections about Sophiology]], specifically one as destructive as [[Nestorianism]]. The minority report Speaking of 6 Julythose who attempt to deify the Theotokos, 1936 was prepared by he wrote: :In the words [of Fr Sergii Chetverikov . Sergius Bulgakov], when the Holy Spirit came to dwell in the Virgin Mary, she acquired "a dyadic life, human and reluctantly signed by Fr Georges Florovsky who had only joined divine; that is, She was completely deified, because in Her hypostatic being was manifest the living, creative revelation of the commission when MetHoly Spirit" (Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, 1927, p. 154). Evlogii had insisted so that it would not be viewed as "She is a whitewashperfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis" (Ibid., p. 175), "a creature, but also no longer a creature" (Florovsky had a very close relationship P. 19 1)....But we can say with Bulgakov despite their theological differencesthe words of St. Some Epiphanius of this closeness 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 no doubt due a woman by nature, not to be distinguished at all from others. Although the fact history of Mary and Tradition relate that Bulgakov it was for at least a spell said to Her father Joachim in the early 20’s desert, 'Thy wife hath conceived,' still this was done not without marital union and not without the confessor/spiritual father seed of Florovskyman" (same source). Meanwhile"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 Abroad formally accused Bulgakov , highly exalting the Mother of heresy God in 1935its 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>

The 1935 decision of the Church Abroad was based on Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Boguchar’s Novoe uchenie o Sofii (Sofia, 1935). Bulgakov responded to the heresy accusation in his ''Dokladnaia zapiska Mitropolitu Evlogiiu prof. prot. Sergiia Bulgakova '' (Paris, 1936). Archbishop Serafim 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, Met. Evlogii Evlogy convoked a bishop’s conference on 26-9 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. Vladimir Lossky responded to Bulgakov's self-apology in a large and deep study : ''Spor o Sofii'' (The future understanding of sophiology depends much Debate on both Sophia, Paris, 1936), pointing out the reconstruction various dogmatic errors 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)Bulgakov's theology.

*''Sophia, the [[Holy Wisdom |Wisdom]] of God: An Outline of Sophiology''. Lindisfarne, 1993. (ISBN 978-0940262607)

==ReferenceNotes==*{{note|1}} For commentary, texts and a fuller account of the sophiological controversy see Antoine Arjakovsky, Essai sur le père Serge Boulgakov (1871<div class="references-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 (Kievsmall"> <references /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.</div>