|
Русская Православная Церковь
ПРАВОСЛАВНЫЙ АПОЛОГЕТ
|
«Никогда, о человек, то, что относится к Церкви, Свт. Марк Эфесский Интернет-содружество преподавателей и студентов православных духовных учебных заведений, монашествующих и мирян, ищущих чистоты православной веры. |
|
Проблемы современного богословияBlessed Augustine of Hippo: His Place in the Orthodox Churchблаж. Августин, епископ Иппонский: его положение в Православной Церкви A Corrective CompilationAn Article from Orthodox TraditionThere are those who argue that Saint Augustine (†430) wrote a number of things inconsistent with the consensus of the Fathers, especially with regard to sin and human guilt before God and the nature of Grace. This is partly because distortions and overstatements of certain among his theological precepts by Medieval and Reformation thinkers have been unfairly attributed to the Saint himself. In fact, though, one would be hard-pressed to find in the writings of St. Augustine evidence of an intentional distortion of the Church’s teachings or signs of tenacious resistance to correction by his contemporaries. Indeed, Pope Vigilius [†555], in reconciling himself to the decisions of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod, invoked the memory, among "...our Fathers," of the "blessed Augustine" for his willingness to retract and correct various among his "writings" and "sayings" ("Decretal Letter," The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. XIV). Rather, St. Augustine’s works are marked by profound personal piety, a spirit of contrition, and a relentless deference to the teaching authority of the Church: traits of spiritual enlightenment. Moreover, while some may argue that his notions about "created" Grace are incompatible with Orthodox teachings about our illumination by Uncreated Grace, this does not mean, if such were indeed true, that he did not experience true Glorification, as his lofty spiritual writings clearly affirm. A purported inability to describe the ineffable, or the perpetuation of supposed conceptual ambiguities in doing so, it seems to us, does not necessarily obviate the possibility of one’s experiencing it. We can also note that such historical luminaries as St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome (†604), St. Photios the Great (†895), and St. Mark of Ephesus (†1444 or 1445), while citing him, in specific instances, with certain qualifications, nonetheless also paid homage to his sanctity: In his letter, "To Innocent, Prefect of Africa," Pope Gregory calls St. Augustine "blessed" (see Epistles, 10.37 [NPNF, 2nd series, Vol. XIII]), and St. Photios refers to him as the "divine Augustine" ("Augoustinon ton hieron") (see his "Epistle to the Archbishop of Aquileia," Patrologia Graeca, Vol. CII, col. 809D), as does St. Mark in the thirty-fourth of his syllogistic chapters in defense of the Orthodox Faith against the Latins at the Council of Florence ("Syllogistika kephalia pros Latinous" ) . (While it may be argued, here, that many Eastern Church Fathers held the Blessed Augustine in high esteem simply because they had not read his writings, both St. Photios and St. Mark, once more, were at least familiar enough with his works to evaluate, qualify, and, more significantly, praise his theological discourses.) In our own times, quoting St. Augustine in his arguments against the Latin teaching on the immaculate conception—indeed, from a passage in which the Bishop of Hippo speaks of sanctification and individual union with God (Glorification) in a way consistent with the most exalted teachings of the Church Fathers—, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco (†1966) also refers to him as "blessed" (see The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God [Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1987], p. 42). A rather more balanced assessment of St. Augustine than one usually finds among Western writers is that of the late Hieromonk Seraphim of Platina, who, in his monograph The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1983),* writes:
Though Father Seraphim’s view is, as we have noted, more balanced than most, we are obliged to say that his observations, too, evidence a critical approach to sanctity that can obfuscate its true dimensions. It is in their fidelity to the common phronema of the Church, and not in the expression of personal opinions that may or may not reflect that commonality, that our Fathers and Saints make manifest their holiness. It is also in their universal recognition by the Orthodox Church that the verity of their witness is ultimately established. It is, thus, worthy of note that our Father among the Saints Augustine is cited as "shining forth most resplendently among the African Bishops" in the Acts of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod (553) ("Ruling of the Synod," P. Labbe and G. Cossart, Sacrasancta Concilia, 1671, Vol. V). Similarly, in his epistle to the Fathers of the same Synod, St. Justinian (†565) includes, in his references to the "holy Fathers," Augustine among such luminaries as Sts. Athanasios (†373), Basil (†379), Gregory the Theologian (†389), Gregory of Nyssa (†395), John Chrysostomos (†407), Cyril of Alexandria (†444), et al. (ibid.). * We should observe in passing, incidentally, that among his collected testimonials from the Fathers to the sanctity of the Blessed Augustine in this work, Father Seraphim wrongly attributes to St. Gregory the Dialogist a reference to "Saint" Augustine in a letter which was, in fact, not written by the Saint, but addressed to him by Licinianus, the Bishop of Carthagena, in Spain. Using Russian sources for other of his references, his citations from various Greek Fathers are also, at times, not wholly faithful to the original Greek. Finally, the use of the words "blessed" and "saint" to distinguish between two categories of holiness, while a common device in some Orthodox circles, has no counterpart in the Patristic literature. The words "divine," "blessed," "righteous," and "holy" (the actual meaning of the title "saint," which in Greek is expressed in two words "hagios" and "hosios"), among others, are used interchangeably to refer to the sanctified. Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV, No. 4, pp. 33-35.
+ + +
Excerpt from a Book ReviewThe Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church, Vol. 1, God, Creation, Old Israel, Christ. By Michael Azkoul. Ed. by Archimandrite Gregory. Buena Vista, CO: Dormition Skete, 1986. Reviewed by Bishop [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 32 (87), pp. 101-103: Thirdly, this volume does just what it says it will not do. It presents a personal theology. I have already hinted at this in noting that Father Michael is not always fair in his treatment of heterodox views. This hint becomes an open statement in the book's treatment of Saint (the Blessed) Augustine, who has always held, despite Father Michael's unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, a high position of respect in the Orthodox Church. The various theological errors found in some of Augustine's work are brought together, in numerous references in the book, to paint the portrait of someone who, we are told, may have been a heretic, who may have contributed to the downfall of Western Christianity, and who may have had roots in abstruse Jewish thought or pagan Hellenism. Father Michael's curious preoccupation with the errors of Saint Augustine, which may disfigure some of the theological writings of this Father, but which in no way compromise his sanctity and the enduring beauty of the bulk of his writings, betrays a certain personal problem with this figure. One can only speculate the author's early education in a fundamentalistic Protestant college brought this figure, so important to many reformed theological traditions, into some kind of negative focus. At any rate, so extreme is his view that, violating scholarly propriety, he juxtaposes, wholly out of context, Father Georges Florovsky's comments on a process of "pseudomorphosis" in the theological development of the Church with his own assessment of Saint Augustine. As those of us who knew Father Florovsky and who benefited from his teaching can attest, at no time did he question the position of Augustine of Hippo in the ranks of the Fathers and saints of the Orthodox Church. Suggesting such a thing even by moot juxtaposition is wholly wrong. I should add that Father Michael softens some of his views about Saint Augustine in an appendix—an addition which must reflect the reaction of other critics to references within the text to Saint Augustine. Here, Father Michael notes that Augustine never had much impact on the Orthodox world, and thus his heretical views did not change the Church's teachings. (We might then ask why such great attention is placed on the "errors" in Augustine's teachings in a book which purports to examine the teachings of Orthodoxy.) He restates his view that the Fathers of the Church who did cite Saint Augustine did not know his writings (a completely erroneous claim). He comments on the sincerity of Saint Augustine, while wondering why some Orthodox writers have ranked him among the saints of the Orthodox Church (and, by extension, questions the authority of the Church to place Saint Augustine in its list of saints). In effect, his appendix attempts to place his personal views on Augustine within the consensus of the Fathers and the conscience of the Church. He fails. Let me illustrate this point in two ways. While many Orthodox writers have questioned some of Saint Augustine's views (see, for example, Father John Romanides' Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine [Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981]), even attributing later Western heresies to his theological errors, they have always done so with a certain moderation. This is a point which we should not overlook. It is one which reflects rather negatively on Father Michael's polemical treatment of Saint Augustine. Moreover, there is a popular veneration of Saint Augustine among the Orthodox faithful, especially in Greece, which belies Father Michael's idea that the saint is an unimportant one. Veneration does not survive in the Orthodox Church (even if it is only a few hundred years old, as Father Michael claims—a point easily challenged by Father's own admission of Russian and Byzantine references to the Saint through the course of many centuries—, if it does not express the faith of the people and divine Providence. Nor does it reach the highness of expression that we see in the comments of one very respected Greek writer in his recent book on Saint Augustine, The Son of Tears: The Divine Augustine (Archimandrite Theodore K. Berates) [Thessalonike, 19851 [in Greek]: "More than all else that he was, the Divine Augustine was a soul which struggled.... In the life of Saint Augustine of Hippo is one of the greatest figures of our Church and, more generally, of history." If, as Father Michael says, Saint Augustine is a figure whom "it would be inappropriate to hold up as a teacher" in the Church, this opinion is largely his and that of a small minority of Orthodox somewhat excessive in their zeal.
+ + +
Book ReviewThe Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church. By Seraphim Rose. Introduction by Alexey Young. California: Saint Herman of Alaska Press, 1982. Paperbound. Pp. 45 + addenda. In certain ultra-conservative Orthodox circles in the United States, there has developed an unfortunate bitter and harsh attitude toward one of the great Fathers of the Church, the blessed (Saint) Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). These circles, while clearly outside the mainstream of Orthodox thought and careful scholarship, have often been so vociferous and forceful in their statements that their views have touched and even affected more moderate and stable Orthodox believers and thinkers. Not a few writers and spiritual aspirants have been disturbed by this trend. So it is that I am absolutely delighted to have a copy of Father Seraphim's small, but powerful, tome on the significance and status of Saint Augustine in the Orthodox Church. His book is particularly significant since it comes from the pen of a spiritual writer, who, before his untimely death in 1982, was a chief advocate of moderation and careful, charitable thinking about the Church and her Fathers among some of the most conservative Orthodox elements in this country—an advocacy that earned him, more often than not, the flat condemnation of the ultra-conservative factionalists mentioned above. It is certainly true that, in terms of classical Orthodox thought on the subject, Saint Augustine placed grace and human free will at odds, if only because his view of grace was too overstated and not balanced against the Patristic witness as regards the efficacy of human choice and spiritual labor. Likewise, as an outgrowth of his understanding of grace, Augustine developed a theory of predestination that further distorted the Orthodox understanding of free will. And finally, Augustine's theology proper, his understanding of God, in its mechanical, overly logical, and rationalistic tone, leads one, to some extent, away from the mystery of God-which is lost, indeed, in Saint Augustine's failure to capture fully the very mystery of man. About these general shortcomings in Augustinian thought there can be no doubt. And it is with these precise weaknesses in mind that Father Seraphim formulates his understanding of Augustine's place in Orthodoxy. Father Seraphim convincingly argues, with a multitude of primary references, that, while Augustine's ideas may have been used and distorted in the West to produce more modern theories (such as Calvinistic predestination, sola gratia, or even deism), the Saint himself was not guilty of the kind of innovative theologizing that his more extreme detractors would claim he championed. Indeed, Father Seraphim shows that Augustine never denied the free will of the individual; that his view of grace was one which, in later years, largely through the influence of his Western contemporaries, he felt compelled to revise; and that his understanding of God, despite his overly logical approach to theology, was derived from a deeply Orthodox encounter with the Trinity—something which a passing interest in his Confessions would aver. Attached to his argument for a moderate understanding of Saint Augustine are gleanings from Father Seraphim's study of the Patristic reaction to Augustine. To a number, the great Fathers of the Church whom he cites count Augustine among the great Fathers, qualifying their praise with precisely, the words of the author of this little book: that Saint Augustine wrote from an Orthodox heart and with an Orthodox mind, but erred in expressing himself with too much dependence on human logic and philosophical rigor, thus exposing his teaching to later gross distortions, making his small errors great ones. What is most impressive about this book is that one can see clearly that Father Seraphim has read. This may startle some of my readers, but it is an important point. I have been reading the Fathers for almost twenty years, and every extreme statement that I read on this or that Patristic figure or witness rings a certain bell in me. Almost without exception, this polemical literature begins with an exposition of what is 'wrong' with a person or issue, never weighing against this the positive elements. I have come to understand that this is simply because these polemicists do not, in fact, have a reading knowledge of the Fathers; they have gleaned from indices and secondary sources, controversial material, which they then proceed to attack, never having read this material in context. Moreover, their polemical tone and ugly treatment of often sincere figures belie the spirit of charity and gentleness which is so much more present in the Fathers than the occasional (though necessary) outbursts of righteous indignation. I recently read a 'first draft' of a work by one of the ultra-conservative theologians whom Father Seraphim tries to answer in his little book. Though this theologian is hailed as "the foremost Orthodox thinker of this time," he is unknown outside his own circles. His grasp of basic English is abominably poor, and his writings have the telltale signs of the kind of selective reading I mention above. I am sure that this man is wholly sincere, but as I compared his work to that of Father Seraphim, I began to see that he had depersonalized his subjects, making great Fathers of the Church nothing but cold, stone figures. What Seraphim has done in this small book is to personalize Saint Augustine—to bring a man, a human being, before us, demonstrating to us how the greatness of God, nonetheless, worked through the littleness of the man (if, indeed, we can but rhetorically call so great a man as Augustine 'little'). It is this personal element which commends Father Seraphim's book to the Orthodox believer and the Orthodox scholar alike. I might lastly add that the Introduction to this book, by Father Alexey Young, is a useful piece of writing in itself. With an almost 'pastoral' tone, it sets the stage for Father Seraphim's scholarly drama—and that is just what the book is: a drama. It brings to life a character and, in so doing, throws a shadow of grave doubt over the writings of those who would make the 'divine Augustine,' as Saint Mark of Ephesus calls him, the Father of heresies and the source of all Western error. In fact, the shadow throws not only doubts but unbelief. I highly recommend this excellent book to anyone interested in a fair and profound view of the great Father Augustine of Hippo. —Archimandrite [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos Orthodox Tradition, Vol. II, Nos. 3&4, pp. 40-43.
+ + +
Excerpt from a Book ReviewFr. Michael's The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 It is hard to put up with all these shortcomings. But to them is added yet a further blemish—a perfectly rabid hatred of the blessed Augustine. The blessed Augustine is mentioned not only in a special appendix devoted entirely to him, but also several times in each chapter. Each time, he is dubbed "the greatest heresiarch" (p. 54) or the like. Thus it would sometimes seem the author really wanted to write a book on the blessed Augustine. To him he ascribes all the ills and misfortunes that arose in the West, and, of course, among Orthodox who were influenced by the West. Judging by this book, I am afraid that poor Fr. Michael Azkoul is himself the first victim of such Western influence! If he stood on purely Orthodox foundations, he would not express himself with such hatred. On the last page (206), he blames the blessed Augustine for Calvinism. This shows us the dishonesty of the author's approach. We all know the weaknesses in the writings of the blessed Augustine. But the Church never passed judgement on him for this, especially as he constantly emphasized that he was expressing his personal opinion and did not wish to impose it on others. Many of his writings he reworked and rewrote before the end of his life. We can find equally weak points in the writings of almost all the Holy fathers, but we are not about to cross out the name of St. Basil the Great from among the saints because he made—from our point of view—incorrect expressions about the Holy Trinity, which are due partly to his caution in polemic with heretics and schismatics and partly to the imperfect theological thought of his time. If the author refers to the lack of a service to St. Augustine, he should look further and seek the reasons in something one might call Greek chauvinism. Must we really give up celebrating the Presanctified Liturgy because the Greeks did not trouble to compose a service in honor of St. Gregory the Dialogist? In the Russian Church it is customary to call Augustine of Hippo "the blessed." Concerning his significance and veneration, the late priestmonk Seraphim (of Platina) wrote a splendid and truly Orthodox book. With his book one can fully agree. The Synod of Bishops' least novice, +BISHOP [now ARCHBISHOP] MARK of Berlin and All Germany Translated from the Russian text as published in Church Life, No. 11-12, November/December 1986, the official organ of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Translated from the Russian by Archpriest John R. Shaw.
+ + +
Footnote from The Rudder for Canon 81 of the Synod of Carthage (p. 652)by St. Nikodemos the HagioriteNote from the present Canon that other Councils were also held in Africa, both in Hippo and in other parts of that country, besides the present one in Carthage. There were two cities by the name of Hippo subject to the province of Numidia in Africa, in one of which sacred Augustine, that wonderful man, was bishop, who was so great a theologian of the Church, in which he also died as an old man at the age of seventy, engrossed in prayer, and ill, and deeply grieved on account of the inroad which the Arian Vandals had made into Africa. Notwithstanding that this Hippo itself was burned down by them, the library in it was preserved unharmed, by divine, and not by any human, power. Hence the writings of the saint, which were far more noteworthy and robust than any cedar tree, were preserved unburned, despite the fact that thereafter they were garbled by heretics. That is why Orthodox Easterners do not accept them in toto and as a matter of course, but only whatever agrees with the common consensus of the catholic Church.
+ + +
On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spiritby St. PhotiosWebmaster Note: It is clear from the numerous statements by St. Photios in his Mystagogy that he considers Augustine and Ambrose, et. al, to be Fathers of the Church. He does not, however, place the word "Saint" before any of the Fathers he cites throughout his text. Ch. 68: Who is it who says that Ambrose or Augustine or anyone else affirmed things contrary to the Lord's word? If it is I, I insult your fathers. But if you say it, while I deny it, then you insult them, and I condemn you as a blasphemer of the fathers. But, you retort, they have written so, and their works contain the statement that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. What of it? For if they had been instructed and did not change their opinion, if after just rebukes they were not persuaded (this is again another calumny against your fathers), then you may reckon your own deed and ascribe your own incorrigible opinion to their doctrine. Although in other things they are of equal stature with the best, what does it have to do with you? For if they have either slipped into some error or been subject to any negligence—for such is the human condition—when they were admonished, they did not contradict, nor were they contumacious when corrected. How will they who bear no resemblance to you help deliver you from ineluctable judgment? Although they were admirable by reason of many other qualities which manifest virtue and piety, they professed your godless error either through ignorance or through negligence. But if they in no manner shared the benefit of your advantages, why do you introduce their human defect as a mandate for your blasphemous belief? By your mandate, you attest that men who have legislated nothing of this sort are open transgressors, and so you demand a penalty for the uttermost blasphemy under the mask of benevolence and love. The results of your attempts do not benefit you. Observe the impious exaggeration and the stupidity of a base mind. Ch. 70: I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by them, but if they happened to express some such thing, if they happened to fall into something unbecoming, then I would imitate the good sons of Noe [Noah] and hide my father's shame, by using silence and gratitude as a cloak. I would not follow Chain's [Ham's] example, as do you. Rather, you are crueler and more impudent than he, for you publish abroad the shame of those you call your fathers. Now, he fell under the curse, not because he uncovered his father, but because he did not cover him. You, however, both uncover your fathers and vaunt your audacity. He tells the secret to his brothers; you tell yours not to brothers, or to one or two persons, but turning the whole world into a great theatre, you trumpet with all urgency and shamelessness that your fathers are ignominous. You revel in their shame and delight in their dishonor, and you seek out fellow revelers with whom to make more conspicuous festival of their disgrace and shame. But you did not consider that they were human, and that no one constituted from clay and mutable matter can maintain himself forever superior to a human blunder. Indeed, it happens that a trace of some blemish clings even to the best of men. Ch. 71: Augustine and Jerome said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. How can one trust or vouch with confidence that their writings have not been maliciously altered after the passage of so much time? For do not think that you are the only one eager for impiety and bold in things not to be dared. Rather, from this very condition of your own mind, consider that nothing hindered the guileful enemy of our race from finding vessels for such a deed. Ch. 72: Augustine and Jerome said these things. But perhaps they spoke out of the necessity of attacking the madness of the pagans or of refuting another heretical opinion or of condescending to the weakness of their hearers, or out of the necessity of any one of the many other reasons that human life daily presents. If such a statement perchance escaped their lips because of one or more of the above reasons, why do you make a dogma and law of what was not spoken by them with dogmatic significance and so bring irreparable ruin upon yourself by contentiously enlisting them in your dementia? Ch. 73: That preacher of the whole world, the contemplator of the ineffable who ennobled nature with his manner of life, what did he say when he opposed himself to the Hellenists who were gushing forth a spate of words? He condescended to their infirmity and prepared to bring down their haughty brow. "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, 'To the Unknown God.' Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you." What then? Will you make dogma those utterances of Paul by which that doctor of the Church captured the wise men of Greece and led them by the hand from impiety to piety? Will you dare to denounce Paul, the caster down of idols, of having preached that same one whom the Greeks were worshipping and naming the unknown god? It would not be remarkable when we consider the operation of your wisdom and the web of your quibbling sophistries. Although that altar was erected to Pan, the city of Athens did not know the name of him whom the altar previously honored and so inscribed upon it: "To the unknown god." Now because that adroit and heavenly man saw that the heathen were not convinced by the pronouncements of the prophets and the oracles of the Lord, he recalls them from those execrable devotions to the worship of the Creator. He uses the very proclamations of the devil to condemn the devil's tyranny; from the devil's citadel, he destroys the dominion of his authority; he cultivates piety amidst impiety and produces for us shoots of salvation out of perdition; from the snare of the devil, he strengthens them to run the course of the Gospel; he makes the summit of apostasy a portal of access through which they can enter into the bridal chamber and immaculate nuptials of Christ: the Church. Just so was that sublime mind, wherein was borne strength from on high, vigorous to wound and to subjugate the enemy by the enemy's own weapons. What then? Because Paul overcame him with the enemy's own weapons, will you on that account honor those weapons and call them divine and wield them for your own slaughter? How many like examples can be found in him who wisely disposed all things in the strength of the Spirit! Ch. 74: But what need is there of examples? He himself says with a clear voice: "unto the Jews I become a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law; to them that are without Law as without Law, (being not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without Law." Will you then, on that account, restore Judaism, or will you legislate lawlessness instead of the divine and human laws for the conduct of our life and shamelessly—nay, rather godlessly—say that such are the commandments and such is the preaching of Paul? Ch. 75: Indeed, in how many of our blessed and holy fathers is it possible to find such things! Look at Clement, the high priest of Rome, and the books which are known from him as Clementine (I do not say write, since ancient report has it that Peter the Coryphaeus commanded that they be written). Consider Dionysios of Alexandria, who from his opposition to Sabellios all but joins hands with Arius. Consider that splendor of sacred-martyrs, Methodios of Patara, who does not reject the belief that the angels had fallen into mortal desire and bodily intercourse, although they are of a bodiless nature and without passions. I shall pass over Pantaenos and Clement, as well as Pierios and Pamphilos and Theognostos, sacred men and teachers of sacred learning, whom we celebrate with great honor and acceptance, especially Pamphilos and Pierios, distinguished by the trials of martyrdom. Although we do not accept every one of their statements, we grant them honor for a distinguished life and for their other doctrines. Along with the aforementioned, we shall also pass by the Fathers from the West: Irenaeus, high priest of God, who received the supervision of sacred things in Lugdunum [i.e., Lyons], and his disciple Hippolytus, the martyr among high priests: men wonderful in many respects, though at times some of their writings do not refrain from digressing from exactitude. Ch. 76: Will you then apply your disjunctive premise against all of these men and, with raised brows, say: "Either these men ought to be honored and their writings should not be rejected, or, if we reject some of their words, we should at the same time reject the men themselves"?.... On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by Saint Photios, Patriarch of Constantinople, trans. by Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Studion Publishers, Inc: 1983), pp. 98-103.
Кто не изволяет со всей любовию и желанием в смиренномудрии соединиться с самым последним (по времени) из всех святых,
Это новое поколение ученых вышло первоначально из так называемой «парижской школы» православной мысли, представителями ее были в основном русские интеллигенты. Еще в России многие из них (например, Петр Струве, переведший на русский «Капитал» Маркса) немало потрудились на благо революции. Видя все ее ужасы, эти люди покаялись в своем увлечении марксизмом, но поздно — зло свершилось, и господам этим пришлось покинуть Россию. В Париже они основали эмигрантское землячество, замышляя вернуться к культурному и духовному наследию России. С Православием вышло иначе: они, скорее, домыслили его, нежели вернулись к старым традициям. Они свысока взирали на «простое благочестие простолюдинов» и полагали своей обязанностью, как люди высокообразованные, «возвысить» и «облагородить» Православие. Самыми выдающимися представителями «парижской школы» были русские философы Николай Бердяев и о. Сергий Булгаков. Они защищали целую систему взглядов, осужденных позже Церковью как в Советском Союзе, так и в свободном мiре. Следующее поколение религиозных философов держалось более умеренных и осторожных взглядов, уже не принимая учений, противных Церкви, однако направленность их работы оставалась прежней. Некоторые из них переехали в Америку вместе с багажом своих воззрений. Виднейшим их представителем был о. Александр Шмеман. Он приехал в Нью-Йорк из Парижа в 1951 году и вскорости стал неоспоримым авторитетом в Американской Митрополии. Многое, по его мнению, предстояло изменить. Как и его предшественники, он критиковал «старомодное благочестие», особенно дореволюционной России, полагая, что подобная «набожность» (даже само слово он употреблял с уничижительным оттенком) — результат «культурных наслоений». Современным ученым предстоит оценить их заново и удалить слой за слоем. Шмеман утверждал, что Православие попало в «западное пленение», что в его богословии в последнем столетии преобладало «западное влияние». Он высказывался за поиск «новых путей православного богословия», за «переосмысление истории» и тем самым за «восстановление Православия в его чистом виде». В этом он видел задачу нового богословского «движения», возникшего в 20–х годах, — заменить старое, «отжившее» понимание Православия. Как писал о. Серафим: «Для Шмемана всё Православие — череда необычайно важных “проблем”, разрешить которые способны лишь редкие ученые головы».
Одним из «прогрессивных» направлений христианской мысли считалось принижение так называемой «личной добродетели». Начало этому положил Томас Мертон, а Шмеман внес свою лепту, заявив, что благочестие Православия сделалось чересчур эгоцентричным и индивидуалистичным, т. е. нацеленным только на спасение одной собственной души. Однако Шмеман не заходил в своих выводах столь же далеко, как Томас Мертон или патриарх Афинагор, он не принимал всех подобных ответвлений современной философской мысли, а старался объединить их в некоем высокодуховном синтезе с Православием[1]. Очень скоро Шмеман снискал широкое признание как «деятельный и искусный глашатай Православия». Отец Герман познакомился с книгами о. Александра Шмемана, еще учась в Джорданвилле. Он вспоминает: «Приехав в Джорданвилль, я прочитал три книги, послужившие моему обращению в Православие: житие преп. Серафима Саровского, житие старца Амвросия Оптинского и “Откровенные рассказы странника своему духовному отцу”. Я обнаружил, что самое интересное в Православии — его подвижники, они проясняли смысл сказанного Иисусом Христом о Царстве Божием. А потом кто-то посоветовал мне: «Хочешь знать сегодняшнее Православие — читай Шмемана». Я так и поступил, но скоро чтение это мне прискучило. Я не отступился, но, увы, результат оказался тот же. В чём же загвоздка? Наконец я понял: о. Александр говорит о Православии обще (хотя и велеречиво), а подвижники — исходя из реально пережитого опыта. И мне подумалось: эка важность — просто читать книги и рассуждать о них! Так и я могу. Только вот представление мое кажется “плоским”, а не “объемным”, как у святых, ибо они искали и обрели Царство Божие и Божию праведность. И свой опыт они пытаются донести до нас, и лишь наше дремучее невежество мешает постичь его». Отец Серафим еще более непримиримо отнесся к современной богословской науке. Однажды, когда о. Герман читал ему какой-то богословский журнал, он вознегодовал: «Начитаешься такого и начнешь принимать всерьез, невольно умалишь те духовные книги, которые дали тебе жизнь!» Из любви к Истине о. Серафим, как известно, отказался от светской карьеры, покинул научный мiр, лишь забавляющийся разными теориями. Сейчас перед ним было то же самое, только забавлялись не с наукой, а с самым для него дорогим — православным христианством. Как и другие современные ученые, нынешние богословы тщились сначала «добить» предмет своего исследования, затем выхолостить его и расчленить для более «удобного» изучения. Зачастую их дискуссии сводились к жонглированию богословскими терминами вне конкретного приложения. Конечно, какие-то работы удавались им больше, другие — меньше. Но, как отмечал о. Серафим, «идеи, заложенные в лекциях, статьях, на удивление слабы, лишены всякой духовной силы». В «Православном Слове» он писал: «Православие сегодня — и священство, и богословы, и верующие — обмiрщилось. Молодежь живет в удобных уютных домах и ищет такую религию, которая бы соответствовала их самодостаточной жизни — иной они не знают; профессора и лекторы пребывают в «научном» мiре, где, увы, ничто не принимается всерьез, ничто не является вопросом жизни и смерти, и сама атмосфера пропитана духом самодостаточности и обмiрщенности. При подобном существовании в искусственных, тепличных условиях невозможно затронуть сокровенные уголки души, сколь бы воодушевляющими ни были провозглашены истины Православия или откровения святых: и говорящий, и слушающий обращены к мiрскому, и глубокого отклика — столь естественного для православного христианина — в их душах не найти. В среде русских эмигрантов “богословов” новой школы (тех, кто поспевает за всеми философскими модами, щеголяет цитатами из наисовременнейших авторитетов католичества или протестантства, готов примириться с обыденностью современной жизни и, особенно, жизни научного мiра) метко назвали “богословами с сигаретой”. Слово их мертво, ибо сами они — от мiра сего и взывают к мiру в обстановке обмiрщенности. И порождают лишь пустые, выспренные речи, а отнюдь не идею православного подвига». Говоря о 80-летнем о. Николае Депутатове из Австралии, «живом связующем звене» со святоотеческими традициями, о. Серафим отмечал, что таких подлинных богословов «не сыскать ни в православных академиях, ни на престижных “богословских конференциях”. Их можно найти в “глубинке”, да и не станут они величать себя “богословами”. Равно и не считают дело свое — передачу святоотеческих традиций — чем-то особенным, большим, нежели просто “верностью святым Отцам”. Но именно эта верность, это смирение и отличает носителей истинной традиции Православия, именно этих черт и не хватает самым известным и именитым сегодняшним “православным богословам”».
* * * Еще в 1957 году о. Серафим прочитал у Рене Генона о тех современных ученых, кто интересуется традиционными религиями только «чтобы найти нечто сообразное их собственным взглядам» и на этом основании доказывать: они, мол, держатся истинных и глубоких корней, «а все прочие ответвления — более поздние, искажающие первоначальное учение». Отец Серафим понимал: это типичный подход теперешних православных богословов. Они не пытаются восстановить Православие в ныне утраченной людьми чистоте, а «обновляют» его, подгоняя под мерки сегодняшних весьма субъективных доктрин. На словах не принимая новейшего преобразования Церкви, они на деле смыкаются с протестантами, о которых Генон писал: «Предавая Божественное Откровение человеческому толкованию, протестантство по сути отрицает его. Оно породило пагубное “критиканство”, ставшее в руках так называемых “историков религии” грозным оружием против самой религии». В своей книге «Введение в Литургическое богословие» о. Александр Шмеман подверг критике самую суть православного богослужения, исходя из взглядов протестантства, нежели Православия. Он опирался на западные неправославные источники, однако утверждал, что избежал «западного плена» в литургике. Он отвергал традиционное православное о «богоначертанной и провиденциальной» истории богослужения и рассматривал его как результат простого исторического развития. Как и богословы-протестанты, он с сомнением отзывался о переменах в начале Константиновой эпохи, дескать, они означали не новую форму выражения прежнего исконного благочестия, а «перерождение восприятия богослужения и отклонение от первохристианских литургического духа и форм». Истинное, «эсхатологическое» богослужение, как он полагал, во многом подменено «мистериальным благочестием», толкованием символов и «индивидуальным освящением», в чём зачастую «повинно» монашество. Соответственно, и богословский смысл служб суточного круга он находил «затемненным вторичными пластами устава» и возродить его — полагал задачей современных богословов. «Вторичными пластами» Шмеман считает как раз то, от чего уже отказалось протестантство: таинство Евхаристии как личностное освящение; разделение на клир и простых верующих; выделение церковных праздников; прославление святых, почитание мощей и т. д. Отец Александр всё это обозвал «культом мистерий» и «культом святых». Он усомнился в «окончательной литургической состоятельности Православия», резко осудил современное «литургическое благочестие», заявил, что Церковь находится «в литургическом кризисе».
О самом авторе «Введения в Литургическое богословие» о. Михаил писал: «Он отдает дань методу, целиком господствующему в современной науке: он, оставляя в стороне идею благодатного осенения, мысль о святости созидателей богослужебного строя, ограничивается целым рядом причин и следствий. Так позитивизм вторгается ныне в христианскую науку, в область истории Церкви во всех ее разветвлениях. Но если позитивный метод признан как научно-рабочий принцип в науках естественных, то его никак нельзя приложить к живой религии, а значит и ко всем областям христианства и Церкви, поскольку мы остаемся верующими». Трудно сказать, был ли в душе о. Александр таким ярым протестантом, каким казался, или он лишь пытался привлечь внимание неправославных богословов, употребляя модный «научный» стиль с претензией на «объективность». При канонизации преп. Германа он сам испытывал в высшей степени, что такое «культ святых», заявив, что ощутил «всю суть веры». Отец Серафим так прокомментировал его слова: «Сердцем он всё еще православный, однако ум его нацелен на “реформу” Американской Митрополии и Православия в целом, и грядущим поколениям просто не удастся испытать чувств, которые изведал Шмеман. Справедливости ради следует сказать, что, возможно, сам он и не видит себя в роли “реформатора”, а лишь грядущие поколения, души менее искушенные и еще более далекие от подлинно православной жизни, вынесут богоборческий вердикт, основываясь на протестантских воззрениях о. Александра Шмемана». Как писал Рене Генон, «восстание против традиционного мировоззрения на полпути не остановить». Необходимо отметить, что все «реформы» Шмемана суть искренние попытки поднять дух современной приходской жизни. В одной из статей он указывал, что «финансовая несостоятельность Митрополии обнажает и отражает несостоятельность духовную, равнодушие и упадничество». Он совершенно точно определил недуг, как заметил о. Серафим, но прописал не то лекарство. Правящий иерарх Митрополии, Владыка Ириней, пытался как-то спасти положение и сохранить хотя бы частично литургическое богослужение Русской Церкви. Однако Шмеман считал, что даже эта малая часть кажется прихожанам бессмыслицей. Отец Серафим писал: «Он (Шмеман) готов переписать типикон (устав богослужений) в свете современных исторических познаний. Короче говоря, богослужения должны соответствовать уровню духовно несостоятельных людей! Шмеман бросается “из огня да в полымя”, ратует за новый типикон низшего порядка, но ведь и его последующие поколения прихожан Митрополии сочтут “бессмысленным” и чересчур “строгим”!» Отец Серафим также отмечал, что «новые поколения православных приспосабливают веру к своему низкому духовному уровню — таково, за редким исключением, “веяние” современности». Подтверждением служит подготовительная встреча к 8-му Вселенскому Собору, созванная в 1971 г. радетелями реформ. Он должен был сыграть роль 2-го Ватиканского Собора, только для православных. Один из докладов назывался «Пересмотр церковных предписаний, касающихся поста, в соответствии с требованиями нашего времени». В нем предлагалось — коль скоро большинство православных не соблюдает всех установленных Церковью постов — облегчить сами посты, «дабы избежать конфликтов верующих с собственной совестью из-за нарушения церковных правил». «Такой подход совершенно чужд Православию, — писал о. Серафим. — Он являет собой очевидное и неприкрытое подражание реформистскому духу католической Церкви. Там дело кончилось почто полной отменой постов. Православное правило пощения служит не для того, что предотвратить “конфликты с совестью”, а для того, чтобы призвать верующих на стезю смиренной, но вдохновенной христианской жизни. И если им не по силам следовать по этому пути, они по крайней мере сознают, сколь далека их жизнь от образца, от извечной незыблемой нормы. Порочный современный принцип самодостаточности, провозглашенный римскими папами, либо “попускает” верующим отход от этой нормы (что уже проникло и в некоторые православные Церкви), либо изменяет саму норму, чтобы облегчить задачу верующего — и тот опять доволен собой: ведь он “соблюдает все правила”! В этом суть различия мытаря и фарисея: православный всегда чувствует себя грешником, ибо не соответствует высоким требованиям Церкви (как по форме, так и по существу); “современный” человек ищет покоя в самооправдании, а не угрызений совести из-за своего нерадения». Отец Серафим понимал, что исцеление от этого недуга не в «хирургическом» расчленении Православия, а в воссоздании единого учения, цели, к которой стремились бы люди. Он писал: «Мы — христиане последних времен — далеки от нормальной благочестивой православной жизни». Сколько ж нужно сил и усердия, дабы к этой жизни вернуться! Но сколь вдохновляет путь к ней! «Просвещенные умы» критикуют православное благочестие, тем самым уводя людей от главного. Отец Серафим указывал, что сейчас нужен «священник “старого уклада”, сердце у которого пламенеет Православием и кто так радеет о спасении своей паствы, что не попустит им грехи и мiрские привычки, но понудит к высокой духовности». * * * С болью в сердце смотрели о. Герман и о. Серафим на попытки Шмемана создать «американскую» Церковь. Поскольку у Америки нет глубоких, прочных православных корней, пресекать связь с живой традицией — губительно. По словам о. Серафима, Шмеман торил дорогу новому, лишенному корней Православию, и грядущие поколения американцев «даже не узнали бы, чего лишились». Он хотел построить чисто американское, совершенно независимое Православие, основанное на современном научном богословии, а не на живой передаче духовной мудрости ее святыми носителями. Отец Серафим на своем опыте убедился, сколь животворяща такая передача: не будь ее, он бы не приобщился самого сокровенного в православной жизни, ради чего отринул всё мiрское. Исчезни эта связь — и ее не восстановить. Шмеман не придавал значения живым носителям православных традиций, «связующим звеньям со святоотечеством». Св. Симеон Новый Богослов учил, что только благодаря им можно соприкоснуться со святыми древности. Шмеман полагал, что идея «Святой Руси» — не более, чем тоска по романтическому прошлому. А ее святые сыны, занесенные Божественным промыслом на берега Америки, — не более чем кучка эмигрантов, чье влияние весьма ограниченно и чье устаревшее мировоззрение, основанное на «благочестии последних времен», не подходит «к современной миссии православного богословия». И как опровержение тому всего в 20-ти милях от Шмемана жил о. Адриан, живой преемник оптинских старцев, сам стяжавший дар ясновидения и духовного наставничества. Он без предубеждения относился к мыслителям вроде Шмемана, однако тот, зная об о. Адриане, предпочитал черпать мудрость из новомодных источников. На примерах богословов нового поколения о. Серафим впервые увидел, сколь опасны взгляды тех, кто «мудрее мудрецов», как мешают они передавать живую традицию. Он писал: «В наше смутное время, когда от имени Православия выступает целый сонм самых противоречивых глашатаев, важно понять, кому из них можно доверять, кто представляет истинное Православие. Мало ратовать за Православие святых Отцов, нужно самому проникнуться исконными традициями, не просто заново открыть их на лекциях в современных академиях и семинариях, а получить их непосредственно от живого носителя святоотеческой мудрости. Тот, кто умно толкует ее, не обязательно проникается ею, умудрен лишь тот, кто не полагается на собственное суждение, а постоянно спрашивает своих духовных наставников, как правильно подходить к святоотеческому учению».
Писал о «новых богословах» и сам архиеп. Аверкий: «Увы! Как мало в наше время, даже среди образованной публики, а порой и среди современных “богословов” и священнослужителей, таких, кто понимал бы, что такое Православие и в чём его суть. Об этом они судят поверхностно, формально, наивно, не замечают ни глубины его, ни всей полноты его духовного содержания». Истинного исследователя святых Отцов, архиеп. Аверкия, отличало от «толкователя» святоотеческого учения наших дней еще то, как он относился к православным взглядам на пророчества о конце времен. Продолжая линию истинных пророков, он смело говорил многое, что коробило привязанных к мiрскому людей. Современное богословие, само донельзя обмiрщенное, на такое было уже неспособно. Отец Александр Шмеман, к примеру, писал: «Если христианская вера действительно эсхатологична, это не значит, что она апокалиптическая. Апокалиптичность мышления — поистине ересь». Не только архиеп. Аверкий, но и все святой жизни люди четко и определенно говорили о грядущих испытаниях и кознях лукавого. Современные богословы, которым чужд традиционный взгляд, обзывают пророков «неврастениками» и «пораженцами». Отцу Серафиму было ясно, что современное «научное» богословие никак не совместить с понятием о монашестве. Все попытки ранее кончались неудачей и по вполне очевидным причинам: современное богословие размыто и абстрактно, монашество — конкретно и жизненно; первое — рассуждение о сложных богословских «проблемах», второе — простота сердца; первое — порождение мiрского мышления, второе идет вразрез с мiрскими мерками. Конечно, из всех ученых богословов наших дней, Шмеман обладал наиболее «живым» представлением о Православии в Америке, но это лишь немного поднимало верующего над обмiрщенным современным христианством. Такой взгляд не способен вдохновить верующего взойти на ступень лествицы Божественного восхождения — ступень самоотречения. На словах Шмеман высоко ставил монашество, на деле относился к нему с недоверием из-за «изьянов», т. е. пагубного влияния благочестия и церковных традиций, чего Шмеман не принимал. Монашеское подвижничество, по его убеждению, шло вразрез с «православием мирян», замышляемым им. Он не понимал, что именно монашество со своими традициями и подвигнет мирян на жизнь истинно христианскую. Отец Серафим писал: «Церковные богослужения построены по образцу монастырских служб, потому что именно монашество наиболее ярко выражает идеал, к которому устремляется вся Церковь верующих. Во всякое время именно состояние монашества лучше всего определяет духовное здоровье как Церкви в целом, так и любой конкретной Церкви. И соответственно этому: чем сильнее тянутся приходы к идеалу монастырских служб, тем выше духовность проводимых там служб».
* * *
Отец Серафим отчетливо видел окончательное расхождение современного богословия со святоотеческим Православием. Судил он по плодам: традиционное Православие даже при его «культурных наслоениях» и «замутненности» и поныне дает мiру святых; «обновленное» Православие при всех его претензиях на «чистоту» и более обширные знания дает мiру, в лучшем случае, лишь умных людей. Отец Серафим отмечал, что оно утеряло ощущение духа благочестия, т. е. ту атмосферу, в которой взращиваются святые. Ученые богословы старались воодушевить новое поколение православных американцев «новыми задачами православной науки», о. Серафим — подвижничеством: «Главное — жить духовной жизнью, а не рассуждать о ней». Именно подвиг позволил величайшим проповедникам, этим «живым звеньям святоотечества», самим приобщиться святости и именно подвиг породит новых святых на американской земле. По словам архиеп. Аверкия, «Православие — вера подвижническая, она призывает к аскетическому труду для того, чтобы с корнем вырвать греховные страсти и насадить христианские добродетели. Преп. Иоанн Лествичник и другие святые Отцы учили: прежде, чем делать первый шаг в богословии, человек должен победить свои страсти». Почти в каждом номере «Православного Слова» о. Серафим и о. Герман помещали житие того или иного подвижника, истинного боговедца. Отцы знали, что в первую очередь людей к подвижничеству приведет любовь к самим подвижникам. Однако в новомодных богословских журналах не найти и следа этой любви. Отец Серафим замечал, что без любви к святым православный, что слепец, не знает, куда идти, ибо святые суть пример для подражания. В 1973 году отцы принялись публиковать жития пустынников Северной России, а до того положили немало трудов, чтобы собрать эти жития по крохам из редких труднодоступных источников. Цель их — по их же словам — показать примеры «не мертвой истории, а живой традиции». Не успели они опубликовать всю серию, как один из ведущих богословов попенял им в печати на то, что они, дескать, «влекут в несуществующие пустыни», а сами жития, по его разумению, взывают к романтическому прошлому, ничего общего не имеющему с современными условиями жизни. Наконец, когда все жития были собраны и опубликованы отдельной книгой под названием «Северная Фиваида», о. Серафим счел возможным ответить на критику: «И впрямь, почему мы должны воодушевлять современную православную молодежь примером Северной Фиваиды, более привлекательной и доступной нынешнему ревнителю веры, нежели выжженная египетская пустыня? Прежде всего, описываемая нами монашеская жизнь не бесследно канула в лету, и по сей день возможно найти православный монастырь, исповедующий традиции святых Отцов, и сегодня можно вести подобную жизнь православного монаха, исполненную самоукорения, — сколь же далека жизнь современных подвижников от жития древних Отцов. Однако и в нашем бесплодном XX веке истинно и с умом ищущий обретет свою “пустынь”. Впрочем, книга наша предназначена не только этим счастливцам. Всякий православный христианин обязан знать жития пустынников, равно и мучеников, дабы вдохновиться примером христианской борьбы в собственной жизни. Всякий должен знать о Валааме, Соловках, Свири, Сии, Обноре, Белом Озере, Сорской пустыни, о людях, которые жили там и еще до восхищения на Небо уподобились Ангелам. Они вели истинно православную духовную жизнь, к коей призван каждый православный — в меру его сил и обстоятельств жизни. Всякий христианин почерпнет вдохновение в житиях этих людей, в их борьбе, в их неотмiрности. И ничего “романтического” в этом нет. Кого и можно назвать “романтиками”, так это нынешних “обновленцев”, “парижских реформаторов”. Они отвергли подлинные православные традиции и тщатся провозгласить святым всё мiрское, предать духовные традиции в угоду “жизни мiра”[2], заменить истинно православное мiропонимание обмiрщенной подделкой, основанной на современной западной философии. Духовная жизнь в подлинно монашеских традициях — норма нашей христианской жизни, и недурно бы знать о ней до пришествия ужасного последнего дня, когда нас призовут к ответу за нерадивую жизнь. И судимы будем не за то, что не знаем модных богословских словечек, а, несомненно, за то, что избегали духовной брани на пути к спасению. Коли нам не под силу жить по меркам святых, надобно хотя бы умножить наши, пока, увы, слабые попытки бороться, дабы приблизиться к Богу, наши горькие слезы покаяния, наш непрестанный упрек себе за то, что столь далеки мы от примеров совершенства, кои Господь показал нам в своих чудесных святых».
* * *
В более поздних работах (предназначенных не столько богословам, сколько простым православным) о. Александр Шмеман сумел дать практические наставления, не вникая в критику «изъянов» традиционного Православия[3]. Но и для него, и еще более для его последователей святоотеческой преемственности не существовало. В лекциях неоднократно ссылаясь на преп. Серафима Саровского, о. Александр Шмеман лишь частично мог оценить великого старца, не в силах проникнуться его подвижническим и провидческим духом (что, к примеру, подтверждается «Великой Дивеевской тайной»), так как сам прервал духовную связь со святыми наших дней, даже с теми, которые следовали духовным заветам самого преп. Серафим Саровского[4] и жили невдалеке. Им выпала тяжкая задача — сохранить живую связь времен в православной Америке, оттого столь непримиримо высказывались они против «обновленчества». «Шмеманизм» представлял реальную угрозу, но мудрые отцы умели не смешивать явление и личность. Нельзя принять или смириться с извращением Православия, но можно простить человека. Отец Серафим не питал к Шмеману личной вражды, напротив, даже уважал его за твердое стремление донести православную веру до соотечественников-американцев. Опасаясь, что о. Александр может истолковать критику как личное оскорбление, о. Герман вскоре после смерти о. Серафима навестил его, склонился перед ним в земном поклоне и испросил прощение своему покойному брату. Отец Александр Шмеман, чей смертный час тоже был не за горами, с готовностью простил о. Серафима[5]. Так, Божией милостью души о. Серафима и о. Александра примирились для будущей жизни. Нет доказательств, что Шмеман хотя бы частично принял взгляды о. Серафима, однако, несомненно, он отдавал ему должное: как-никак о. Серафим — плод американского Православия, которому Шмеман посвятил бóльшую часть жизни. Отец Серафим — не эмигрант, родившийся еще в XIX веке в России, кто призывал американцев к православному благочестию старого уклада, а чистокровный американец, взращенный в мiру среди множества религиозных течений, понятия не имевший о Православии. Сызмальства его воспитывали в духе «американской мечты», которую он отверг. Незадолго до смерти о. Александр Шмеман ознакомился с жизнью о. Серафима, жизнью американского православного монаха, и сказал: «Вот человек, за которым будущее».
——————————————————————————
[1] К примеру, в книге «Церковь, Мир, Миссия» он закладывает основание для «взаимообмена» идеями между обмiрщенным христианством папы Павла VI и православным «литургическим движением». [2] Так называлась одна из книг о. Александра Шмемана. [3] Лучшей в этом отношении является его книга «Великий пост», если исключить Приложение, в котором автор выступает против обязательности исповеди перед причастием. [4] Отец Адриан, архиеп. Аверкий, архим. Герасим и множество других Божиих угодников были наряду с Серафимом Саровским духовными преемниками преп. Паисия Величковского. [5] Примирился о. Герман и со сподвижником Шмемана, о. Иоанном Мейендорфом, за год до смерти последнего. Промысл Божий свел обоих на всенощной в канун Преображения в 1991 году. Служба проводилась в Донском монастыре в Москве впервые за 70 лет с той поры, когда монастырь был закрыт. Отцы Герман и Иоанн вместе подошли к елеопомазанию, поцеловали друг другу руки, и о. Герман попросил прощения.
http://www.blagogon.ru/digest/280/
Строгость (акривия) и икономия Резолюция Архиерейского собора Зарубежной Церкви в отношении принятия обращаемых в Православие и комментарий протопресвитера Георгия Граббе Strictness and EconomyResolution of the ROCA Synod of Bishops on the Reception of Convertsby Protopresbyter George Grabbe
В период, когда ереси и расколы оказывали противодействие авторитету Церкви, то возникал вопрос, как правило с большей или меньшей остротой, относительно того, какие меры могут быть наиболее целесообразными и принимаемы в борьбе с ними и для того,чтобы защитить паству от вредных влияний. В некоторых случаях было сочтено применять акривию-строгость , а в других делать уступки, проявлять терпимость. In the period when heresies and schisms developed in opposition to the authority of the Church, the question arose, always with greater or lesser acuteness, as to which measures could most expediently be taken in the struggle with them and in defence of the flock from their detrimental influences. In some cases, strictness was seen to be essential, in others, concession and toleration. The Church is concerned with human souls; she educates us and, aside from passing on general principles, is ever concerned with the need for an individual approach towards various people and situations. In the third canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which deals with the question of the marriage of clerics, we find an indication of a different approach to this question: "Seeing that the most holy Church of the Romans is disposed to observe the canon of strict conformity; while, on the other hand, we under the throne of this God-guarded and imperial capital city, have neither carried meekness to excess, nor have left an arid impression of austerity; and especially in view of the fact that failure due to ignorance extends to a multitude of not a few men—therefore we concur in decreeing that. . ." and so on. The two approaches to the question indicated in this canon are usually called strictness and economy. However, the word "economy" does not at all mean an absolute concession. In the first canon of St. Basil, it is translated from the Book of Canons as a "certain discretion", that is, a measure intended for the building up of the Church. This principle is set forth with particular fullness and clarity in canon 102 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, concerning the "art of spiritual healing". There it is explained that "all that matters to God and to the person undertaking pastoral leadership consists in the recovery of the straying sheep, and in healing the one wounded by the serpent. Accordingly, he ought not to drive the patient to the verge of despair, nor give him rein to dissoluteness and contempt of life, but, on the contrary, in at least one way at any rate, either by resorting to extreme and stringent remedies, or to gentler and milder ones, to curb the disease, and to put up a fight to heal the ulcer for the one tasting the fruits of repentance, and wisely helping him on the way to the splendid rehabilitation to which the man is being invited." This canon shows that ecclesiastical economy or Church benefit can at times demand strictness and at times concession. Bishop John of Smolensk in his commentary on the forty-fifth Apostolic canon, as Bishop Nikodim (Milash) notes, "quite wisely observes" that the canons strive not only to protect the Orthodox from infection by an heretical spirit, but also to guard them from indifference to the faith and to the Orthodox Church. It is well known that the question of strictness or concession in receiving converts from heresy was particularly acute in the third century. It is generally conceded that the dispute on this question took place between the holy Hiero-martyr Cyprian and Stephen, Pope of Rome. Their names stand out, but important opinions were also articulated by many other fathers of the Church. The dispute concerned the order for receiving heretics and schismatics. It is an historical fact that in different places and at different times, the Church had different practices for receiving converts. Sometimes baptism and the imposition of hands were performed on converts in every case without fail, but sometimes this was not done and they were received, in their status, through repentance, chrismation or the imposition of hands. St. Cyprian had a clear, logical view: the grace of the Holy Spirit can be received only in the one Church of Christ; outside her, there can be no grace-filled life and, consequently, no mysteries. On the other hand, the view of Stephen was akin to contemporary ecumenism. This has been condensed to a formula with perfect clarity by Archbishop Hilarion: "All heresies have the grace of baptism and it is not necessary to baptize converts to the Church" (There is no Christianity without the Church, Sao Paolo, 1954, p. 101 [in Russian]). The principle of economy, in the sense of the practice of concession, has most often been applied with regard to the reception of heretics and schismatics into the Church. The most ancient of the canons have established the teaching that there are no mysteries outside the true Church and have forbidden any religious communion with heretics and schismatics. Prayer in common with them and even presence at their prayer meetings is prohibited (Apost. 45, 65; Laodicea 33). Their presence at divine services is not permitted, nor can they participate in the prayer of the faithful (St. Tim. of Alex. 9). Ordination by heretics is not considered true ordination (Apost. 68), the baptism of heretics should not be recognized and it is laid down that those who are baptized by them should be "re"-baptized (Apost. 47, 68; Laodicea 8). Bishop Nikodim begins his commentary on the forty-sixth Apostolic canon with a clear statement of principle: "According to the teaching of the Church", he writes, "every heretic is outside the Church, and outside the Church there can be neither true Christian baptism nor true Christian sacrifice, and, in general, no true holy mysteries. The present Apostolic canon expresses this teaching of the Church with reference to Holy Scripture, and permits no communion between one who confesses the Orthodox faith and one who teaches against it. We also read this in the Apostolic Constitutions (IV, 15), and the fathers and teachers of the Church have taught this from the very beginning" (The Canons of the Orthodox Church with Commentary, Vol. I, St. Petersburg, 191 1, p. 1 16 [in Russian]. In the first two or three centuries, the persecuted Church had little experience with mass conversions of heretics and schismatics. This experience came largely with the conversion of the Donatists and Novatians and later became more widespread in the century of Emperor Constantine and successive Orthodox emperors. The Church turned from individual problems to the mass conversion of heretics when the Christological heresies lost their force and tenacity. The hierarchy was faced then with the task of facilitating conversion to the true Church by way of concession instead of an exclusively strict practice, which was especially necessary in periods of persecution in so much as such a practice could move them to steadfastness. The Church could thus move from a defensive position to a missionary offensive, employing concessions or economy which weakened that tenacity of the heretics. St. Basil the Great expressed this in his first canon. He explains the absence of grace in the baptism of the Cathari whom "the ancients ordered to be cleansed anew by a true Church baptism", but then writes that "inasmuch however, as it has seemed best to those in the regions of Asia for the sake of extraordinary concession [or 'economy'] to the many, to accept their baptism let it be accepted." In other words, while regarding their baptism as invalid, for the sake of practical missionary objectives, the holy father recognizes the possibility of accepting them without re-baptism, but with recantation of their heresy. He explains likewise the inadmissibility of the baptism of the Encratites who were malicious gnostic heretics. "But," he then writes, "if this is to become an obstacle in the general economy [of the Church], we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men from being saved because of their being too indolent in regard to baptism." Thus in this canon, which is confirmed by the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, the holy father admits, in principle the possibility of a practice which is both strict and concessional with regard to those very heretics who have been deprived of all grace. We see the very same thing in the forty-seventh canon of St. Basil the Great. Bishop John of Smolensk, in his commentary on the seventh canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, speaking of the reception of the various heretics mentioned therein, notes that "a rule of Concession was laid down for them, particularly because by such condescension to the heretics their conversion to the Church was facilitated" (Vol. I, pp. 51 1-512). However, concessions in the rites of reception have often been taken as recognition of the validity of the mystery of baptism of heretics. An incorrect dogmatic conclusion was drawn from the existing practice, and this has now taken root in many minds despite its absence of logic. We find an example of this even in the well-known canonist Bishop Nikodim Milash. I have already quoted his words in his commentary on the forty-sixth Apostolic canon. I will now quote from his commentary on the forty-seventh Apostolic canon: "Baptism," he writes, "is an essential condition for entry into the Church and for becoming a true member thereof. It must be celebrated according to the Church's teaching (Apost. canons 49-50) and only such baptism is called true according to this canon... From true baptism the canon distinguishes false baptism which has not been performed by an Orthodox priest according to the Church's teaching, and which not only does not cleanse a man from sin but, on the contrary, defiles him" (op. cit,Vol. I, p. 117). On page 283 of the same book, in his commentary on the seventh canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, Bishop Nikodim reaffirms this position, but, passing to the practice of concession, ascribes to it not practical but dogmatic significance in relation to baptism among the heretics and thus introduces confusion into his confession and understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology. He writes: "But if there are other Christian groups who are outside the Orthodox Church and who have conscientious intention to bring a newly-baptized person into the Church of Christ (that is, they intend to impart divine grace to him through baptism, that by the power of the Holy Spirit he will become a true member of the Body of Christ and a reborn child of God), then the baptism received in such a group will be considered valid insofar as it has been performed on the basis of a faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; for when baptism is given and received with faith, it must be effective to impart grace and Christ's help will not fail to be made manifest. Any group with a distorted teaching on God which does not recognize the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, cannot perform a valid baptism, and any baptism which is performed by them is not a baptism because it is outside Christianity. On this account, the Orthodox Church recognizes as valid and salvific the baptism of any Christian group which is outside her confines, whether heretical or schismatic, but whose baptism is truly performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Undoubtedly, Bishop Nikodim's reasoning is here in accord with the present teaching of Roman Catholics and with arguments often encountered among intellectuals who have no theological education. However, it is decidedly unworthy of an Orthodox theologian and in no way accords with Bishop Nikodim's own opinions which we cited above. Primarily, there is no basic logic in what he says here. In what way can a group, which does not belong to the Orthodox Church, "have a conscientious intention to bring a newly-baptized person to the Church of Christ and impart grace to him" by baptism and make him a true member of the Body of Christ? Only a person who belongs to the Church can be such a member. By receiving baptism in a heretical group, a man unites himself to that group and not to the Church. Can a priest or a pastor who himself does not belong to the Church bring someone to her? On the other hand, as we have seen, Bishop Nikodim himself has recognized this as impossible. How can a person who has joined a heretical or schismatic group, which is outside the confines of the Church, be within the true Church by receiving baptism from that group? Baptism is not a magical act with an important formula of incantation which takes effect independently of the position of the person pronouncing it and of the faith of the person being baptized. Nowhere in the Orthodox Church can we find a faith of this sort in a parallel church, in a salvific Christian group which does not belong to her. On the contrary, the Apostle writes: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). Bishop Nikodim could have arrived at such an ecumenical concept only as a result of an incorrect premise. Obviously, his train of thought was such: if the Church accepts a heretic without "re"-baptism, this means that she accepts his heretical baptism as true and valid. Having accepted such a premise he tries to adjust his subsequent opinion to it and falls into a contradiction of that teaching of the Church which he himself had set forth correctly a few pages earlier. This happened because he attempted to give an explanation of a practice of the Church in the reception of heretics and schismatics which bears no relation to general Orthodox ecclesiology, that is, the teaching of the unity of the Church. Only in such a way could he, by yielding to the Roman Catholic and Protestant type of reasoning, conclude with the words cited above, that the Church recognizes as valid the baptism of any Christian group "be it heretical or schismatic." There is no such teaching in any of the holy fathers or in any canon. Faith, by virtue of a correctly pronounced sacramental formula, independent of the person pronouncing it, whether he is defrocked or deprived of his orders, is peculiar to the Roman Catholics, not to the Orthodox Church. If one carries the thought of Bishop Nikodim to its logical conclusion, one arrives at the position where the regenerating gift of baptism can be given outside the Church. But what exactly do we receive in baptism? Can this gift be received outside the Church? We sing: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." One would like to ask Bishop Nikodim if this is achieved outside the bounds of the Church, in an heretical or schismatic group. Can the water in the font of such a group be sanctified and become "the water of redemption, the water of sanctification, the purification of flesh and spirit, the loosing of bonds, the remission of sins, the illumination of the soul, the laver of regeneration, the renewal of the Spirit, the gift of adoption to sonship"? Can the water of an heretical or schismatic priest transform the person being baptized, "that he may put away from him the old man, which is corrupt through the lusts of the flesh, and that he may be clothed upon with the new man, and renewed after the image of Him Who created him"? By receiving baptism from such a group, will he, "being buried after the pattern of Thy death, in baptism, in like manner, be a partaker of Thy Resurrection"? It is only possible to speak of the validity of baptism outside the Orthodox Church in superficial terms; and only if one forgets that a truly baptized person is liberated from his sins and, by renouncing the devil, is joined to Christ as Head of the Church. He becomes a member of the Body of Christ, that is, of the divine-human organism. Herein lie the purpose of baptism and its fruit; and according to the sixty-eighth apostolic canon, persons baptized or ordained by heretics "cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergymen." Therefore, when any heretic or schismatic is accepted into the Church without "re"-baptism, this does not signify recognition of the validity of the heretical rite or mystery. It simply means that he received the grace of baptism by another rite. In Chapter 60 of the Book of Canons, St. Timothy of Alexandria explains why some heretics are accepted without "re"-baptism. He replies that in the opposite case, a person would not quickly be converted from heresy, being ashamed to be baptized a second time; "however, through the laying on of the priest's hands and the prayers, the Holy Spirit may descend, as the Acts of the Holy Apostles testify" (this is from the contemporary Russian translation). This explanation is in accord with that of A. S. Khomiakov in his third letter to Palmer. But if St. Basil the Great recognized the reception of heretics and schismatics on the basis of economy without "re"-baptism as possible, St. Cyprian, on the other hand, has pointed out the practical advisability of the strict practice. In his Epistle to Jovian, he points out that in his case the strict practice contributed to his conversion from heresy and did not hinder him. He referred to the economy of strictness. The Roman Catholic belief that any action of a priest (if done correctly and with a definite intention) is valid, is a belief in the invocatory power of a formula and makes any struggle against schism extremely difficult for them. For example, they have been powerless in their clash with Archbishop Lefebvre. The pope suspended him, but, according to Roman Catholic theology, this did not deprive his priestly acts of validity. He would be deprived of nothing even if he were defrocked. Thus, the pope has not wished to resort to such a measure. Whatever the strictures might have been, the Roman Catholic Church would have to recognize the validity of the sacraments performed by him. In the Orthodox Church we know that however exactly a rite is observed, if it is performed neither within the Church nor in accordance with the Church's authority, it is devoid of grace. This is precisely defined in the fourth canon of the Second Ecumenical Council which concerns Maximus the Cynic and his uncanonical consecrations. The canon says: "Maximus neither became nor is a bishop, and that neither are those ordained by him entitled to hold any clerical rank whatsoever." If in some cases a concession might be deemed expedient, on the other hand the danger arises that it can give rise to indifference, which Bishop John wisely warns against in his interpretation of the forty-fifth Apostolic canon. Thereby are ecumenical feelings and opinions encouraged, which Archbishop Hilarion has accurately defined as dreams about a "Churchless Christianity" He correctly notes that, "not to mention the very obvious contradictions of this Churchless Christianity, one can always see that it is completely void of the genuine grace of Christian life and the grace-filled inspiration and quickening of the Spirit" (Christianity or the Church?, p. 35). It is very interesting and important that the fathers at Carthage, in their canons against the Donatists were, on psychological, tactical grounds, lenient towards those who wished to reunite with the Church. However, in their sixty-sixth canon, the fathers of the Council of Carthage who did not agree with the proposal of Anastasius, Bishop of Rome, concerning a more strict practice stipulated that the Orthodox Church is "the sole Mother of Christians" and that "in [her] all the sanctifying gifts, soterially everlasting and vital, are received which, however, inflict upon those persisting in the heresy the great punishment of damnation, in order that what to them in the truth was something brighter that they ought to follow for the purpose of gaining everlasting life, might, in fact, become to those in the error darker and still more damned." One should note that the earlier in the history of the Church an attitude existed regarding the rite for the reception of heretics and schismatics, the stricter it was, thus confirming the opinion which I have expressed, that economy in the reception of schismatics became expedient after the Church's position strengthened following the victory of Christianity over paganism." History shows us that the Church was most strict with regard to heretics and schismatics when their activities commenced, but practiced economy when they began to weaken. We must take all these lessons into account in the resolution of modern problems which have arisen with the growth, not only among heretics, but also Orthodox, of inter-confessional, ecumenical tendencies that obscure the boundaries between truth and error. Translated from Orthodox Russia, No. 22 (1144), November 15/28, 1978, pp. 1-3. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD15/28 September, 1971 On the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy the following resolution was passed: The Holy Church has from old believed that there can be but one true baptism, namely that which is performed within her bosom: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5). In the Symbol of Faith "one baptism" is also confessed, while canon 46 of the holy apostles decrees: "we order any bishop, or presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed." However, when the zeal of any of the heretics weakened in their battle with the Church, or when the question of their mass conversion to Orthodoxy arose, the Church, to facilitate their union, received them into her bosom through another form. In his first canon, which was incorporated into the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, St. Basil the Great indicates the existence of various practices in the reception of heretics in different countries. He explains that every separation from the Church deprives one of grace and writes concerning schismatics: "The beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the fathers and with the impartation of their hands had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore, they [the ancient partisans of Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian] bade that those baptized by them [the heretics] should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that, when they came to join the Church, they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church". However, "for the sake of the edification of many," St. Basil does not object to the use of another form of reception for the schismatic Cathari in Asia. Concerning the Encratites he writes: "If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy" [of the Church], another practice may be employed, explaining it in this way: "For I am inclined to suspect that we may, by the severity of the prescription actually prevent men from being saved. . ." Thus, St. Basil the Great, and through his words the Ecumenical Council, while confirming the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church there is no true Baptism, allows through pastoral condescension the reception, called economy, of certain heretics and schismatics without a new baptism. In conformity with such a principle, the Ecumenical Councils permitted the reception of heretics in various ways, corresponding to the weakening of their embitterment against the Orthodox Church. The Kormchaya Kniga (the Slavonic Rudder) cites an explanation of this by Timothy of Alexandria. To the question: "Why do we not baptize heretics who have converted to the Catholic Church?" he replies: "If this were not so, man would not readily turn away from heresy, being ashamed of baptism [i.e. a second baptism], knowing moreover that the Holy Spirit comes even through the laying-on of a priest's hands and through prayers, as the Acts of the Holy Apostles testify." With regard to Roman Catholics and Protestants who claim to have preserved baptism as a mystery (e.g. the Lutherans), in Russia since the time of Peter I the practice has been followed of receiving them without baptism, through the renunciation of their heresy and by the chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Until Peter's reign, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece the practice also varied, but for the past almost 300 years after a certain interval, the practice of baptizing those converting from Catholicism and Protestantism was again introduced. Those received in another manner are not recognized as Orthodox in Greece. There have been many cases in which such members of our Russian Church have not been admitted to Holy Communion. Having in mind this circumstance and the growth today of the heresy of ecumenism, which attempts to eradicate completely the distinction between Orthodoxy and all the heresies, so that the Moscow Patriarchate, in violation of the sacred canons, has even issued a resolution permitting Roman Catholics to receive Communion in certain cases, the Council of Bishops recognizes the necessity of introducing a stricter practice, i.e. that baptism be performed on all heretics who come to the Church, excepting only as the necessity arises and with the permission of the bishop, for reasons of economy or pastoral condescension, another practice of reception in the case of certain persons (i.e. the reception into the Church of Roman Catholics and those Protestants who perform their baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity) through the renunciation of their heresy and by chrismation. Translated from Orthodox Russia, Vol. 42, #20 (15/28 Nov., 1971), p. 12. This article and the resolution was published in Orthodox Life, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1979, pp. 35-43.
Митр. Иларион: «У некоторых богословов появилась идея приблизить модель Православной Церкви к модели католической» и комментарий «Православного Апологета»
2 марта 2013 года гостем программы «Церковь и мир» на телеканале «Россия 24», которую ведет председатель ОВЦС митр. Иларион (Алфеев), стал католик - латинский теолог и известный экуменический деятель доминиканец Иасинт Дестивель.
Одной из тем, затронутых на встрече, стала тема так называемого православно-католического богословского диалога.
«Владыка, как раз во время понтификата Бенедикта XVI был возобновлен общеправославно-католический богословский диалог. Не могли бы Вы сказать, как Вы видите его проблемы и перспективы? Отличается ли позиция Русской Православной Церкви от других автокефальных Православных Церквей по этому поводу?» - спросил Дестивель.
Митр. Иларион с сожалением отметил, что в этом диалоге они, экуменисты столкнулись с непредвиденными трудностями, «потому что помимо того, что существуют определенные разногласия между православными и католиками, существуют также некоторые разногласия внутри Православных Церквей. Эти разногласия как раз касаются роли и значения первого епископа во Вселенской Церкви» – сказал митр. Иларион.
«Как известно, в католической церкви первый епископ, то есть папа римский, обладает важными функциями. Он утверждает решения Соборов, он как бы является источником власти и авторитета, распространяющейся на всю Церковь. В Православной Церкви никогда не было такого первого епископа, который обладал бы подобными функциями. У нас всегда существовала и сохраняется сейчас система автокефальных Церквей, которые независимы одна от другой, которые не подчиняются одна другой. У каждой из них своя администрация и свой Предстоятель. При совместном сослужении эти Предстоятели располагаются по определенному диптиху, и один становится первым, другой — вторым и так далее.
В силу исторических обстоятельств, после разрыва с Римом, первым у нас оказался Патриарх Константинопольский, хотя согласно канонам Вселенских Соборов он является вторым после епископа Рима. У некоторых богословов появилась идея приблизить модель Православной Церкви к модели католической церкви и сказать, что как в Троице есть монархия Бога Отца, от которого исходит Святой Дух и рождается Сын, как в Троице есть соборность и первенство, так же и в церковной жизни на всех уровнях должно быть сочетание соборности и первенства. Следовательно, у Православной Церкви, как и у католической, тоже должен быть некий Вселенский Первоиерарх, которые обладает первенством не просто чести, но и первенством, выражаемым в каких-то конкретных властных полномочиях. Мы столкнулись с этой темой в православно-католическом диалоге и пока не можем его решить между собою – то есть внутри нашей православной семьи».
Источник: Служба коммуникации ОВЦС
http://rusfront.ru/5063-mitr-ilarion-u-nekotoryh-bogoslovov-poyavilas-ideya-priblizit-model-pravoslavnoy-cerkvi-k-modeli-katolicheskoy.html
Недопустимость реорганизации Православной Церкви по типу, предлагаемому богословами:
Учение о монархии Отца абсолютно неприменимо для той модели Православной Церкви, которую предлагают упомянутые митрополитом Илларионом «современные богословы», поскольку: а) внутритроичные отношения в Боге не предполагают никакого соподчинения, суборционизма, б) эти отношения являются исключительной принадлежностью нетварной божественной природы, в) они абсолютно непостижимы для человеческой логики, так как выходят за рамки постижения разумом, являясь откровение Бога о Самом Себе.
Наделение какого бы то ни было первоиерарха особыми привилегиями и полномочиями, которые возвышали бы неизбежно его над остальными сразу нарушит принцип равенства всех епископов по чести и достоинству и по власти. Предлагаемая «богословами» модель в любом случае является и выражением полного непонимания евангельского осмысления власти как «председательства в любви» (ἡ πρεσβεῖα ἐν ἀγάπη), по выражению свмч. Игнатия Богоносца, и внесением мирского понимания власти как силы (ἐξουσία ὡς δύναμις). Поэтому хотя Константинопольский архиепископ и является в Православной Церкви первым (πρώτος), но это первенство имеет исключительно исторический характер, подчеркивающий особую значимость его как епископа «города, где пребывает царь и синклит» (τὴν Βασιλείᾳ καὶ Συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῑσαν πόλην).1 Это же правило нам указывает и на причину особого положения Римского епископа в Древней Церкви - «ибо престолу ветхого Рима Отцы прилично дали преимущества (τὰ πρεσβεῖα): поелику то был царствующий град (τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην)». Эти преимущества заключались в основном в том, что к епископу Рима и Константинополя могли обращаться за апелляциями другие епископы, а также что эти епископы занимали первенствующее место во время соборов. И источником этих привилегий были вовсе не богословские основания и евангельские, а исключительно государственно-правовые. Собственно говоря деление Церкви на митрополии был также ориентировано на деление Римской империи на префектуры. Поэтому это еще раз доказывает, что бессмысленно искать поводы для введения некоего особого главы в Православной Церкви в богословии. Исходя из определения апостолом Павлом Церкви как тела Христова, необходимо сделать также вывод о бессмысленности искать поводы к появлению в Теле кроме Христа еще одной некой главы. О. Георгий Флоровский совершенно справедливо подчеркивает, что «идея организма в приложении к Церкви по-своему ограничена. С одной стороны, Церковь составляют человеческие личности, которые никак нельзя рассматривать просто в качестве элементов или клеток целого, поскольку каждая личность находится в прямом и непосредственном единении со Христом и Его Отцом — личностное не должно быть принесено в жертву корпоративному, растворено в нем; христианская «общность» не должна перерождаться в безличность. Идея организма должна быть дополнена идеей симфонии личностей, в которой отражается тайна Пресвятой троицы, что является самой сутью понятия «кафоличности».2 Приснопамятный старец архимандрит Софроний (Сахаров), которого в свое время не раз посещал митрополит Илларион, в одном из своих писем подчеркивает, что между Православной Церковью и Римо-Католической существует принципиальное расхождение в понимании и Церкви и единства. Корнем этого расхождения, как подчеркивает архимандрит Софроний, является «навязывание Римской церковью внешнего авторитета, всякое несогласие с которым порождает в них болезненное состояние обеих сторон».3 К глубокому сожалению в Российской Церкви при признании принципа соборности, реально этот принцип почти что отвергается. Он отвергается на уровне епархии и на уровне всей поместной церкви в практической жизни, поскольку епископ ставит себя в искусственное и не евангельское положение запрета на всякие советы со стороны и критику его действий, подчас несогласных с церковной традицией. То есть за личностью не признается право быть «кафоличной личностью» и корпоративность поглощает личность, превращая ее в бесправное существо, безжизненную клетку. Происходит именно то, чего не должно допускать. И католическая модель церковной общности с сильным навязыванием внешнего авторитета со стороны т. н. «церковной администрации» активно вводится в нашу реальную жизнь. Однако этому явлению необходимо противиться и не допускать ему развиваться, доказывая и указывая на то, что в Православной Церкви не существует внешнего института с непогрешимым авторитетом. Таким авторитетом обладают только достигшие совершенства и обожения, которые являются плодом строжайшего аскетического подвига. Поэтому мы настоятельно рекомендуем Высокопреосвященнейшему митрополиту Иллариону отказаться от бесплодных поисков решить вопрос о статусе «первого епископа» в Православной Церкви и стремления свершить церковно-административный переворот в историческом устройстве Церкви. Кроме того. Подобного рода поиси будут неизбежно вступать в конфликт со словами Христа Его ученикам, которые домогались первенства в Его царстве: «вы знаете, что почитающиеся князьями народов господствуют над ними, и вельможи властвуют ими. Но между вами да не будет так: а кто хочет быть большим между ваи, да будет вам слугою; и кто хочет быть первым между вами, да будут всем рабом»(Мк. 10, 42-43) Бл. Феофилакт Болгарский в комментарии на эти слова Христа Спасителя замечает важную деталь, ставшую основополагающим принципом во взаимоотношениях апостолов: «Но после увидим, как каждый из них уступал первенство другому». И этому надо учиться всем нам от патриархов и до простых мирян: не домогаться почестей и чести у людей и пред людьми, но являть великодушие пред всеми ради Христа и в подражании Христу. 1См. 28 правило IV Вселенского собора 2Потоиерей Г. В. Флоровский. Церковь ее природа и задача. С, 195//Г.В. Флоровский. Избранные богословские статьи. М. Пробел. 2000. 3Архим. Софроний. Письма в Россию. М. СТСЛ. 2010, с. 207
From the Post-Modern Persona to the Person
A study on the anthropology of Saint Gregory Palamas », 31 July 2012
От персоны пост-модернизма к личности. Антропологическое учение свт. Григория Паламы
архимандрит Ефрем, игумен Великой Ватопедской обители, Святая Гора Афон
The theology of the person, as this is revealed in the hesychast ascetic tradition, is the most significant counter-argument to post-modern individualism and relativism. The ascetics of introversion and of conscious tranquillity (hesychia) is not a psychological proposition but the authentic and only way of transforming the “repulsive mask” into a person.
Богословие личности, как оно является в исихастской аскетической традиции, является наиболее значимым контр-аргумент ом в отноешнии к пост-современного индивидуализма и релятивизма. Аскетизм уединения и умного безмолвия (исихии) не является психологическим упражнением, но подлинным и единственным способ преображения "отталкивающий маски" в человеке. Человечество является венцом творения. Стремление к совершенству является врожденным. Это можно увидеть в исполнении любой академической деятельности, искусстве или даже профессии. Люди пытаются, в меру своих способностей, достичь совершенства, даже в их повседневной деятельности. И это свидетельствует о том что Бог дал нам потенциальные силы для нашего личного совершенства, как для психосоматического существа и бытия. It has been aptly remarked that what will best characterize the theology of the 21st century is its concern with anthropological questions[1]. If we have not sufficiently investigated anthropological truths in the sphere of theology today, imagine what must be the case in the realms of philosophy, the intellect and the social and human sciences. Today’s post-modern people do not know what a person is. They live, and project, the mask of a persona. What is a mask? It’s a guise which was used in Ancient Greece by actors to take on a variety of roles- personae- on stage in the theatre. So this mask is not something real, it’s artificial, it’s a virtual reality, to use modern IT terminology. We need to remove this false object and replace it with the real one, which, in this case is the person. The Fathers of the Church did not define what a person is. But in order to refer to the magnificence, the enormous worth of the human being, they used the term “person”. Basil the Great writes that persons are the only animals who are God-made[2]. Saint Gregory the Theologian says God made a creature- the person- who was a mixture of visible and invisible nature, who is a second cosmos, “great in miniature”[3]. Saint John Chrysostom stresses that “the person is the most carefully made of God’s living things”[4]. Human beings are the crown of creation. The longing for perfection is innate. This can be seen in the execution of any academic activity, art or even profession. People try, to the best of their abilities, to achieve perfection, even in their everyday activities. And this is evidence of the potential God has given us for our personal perfection and completion as a psychosomatic entity and being. In the created universe, there is nothing superior to us humans. “The lowest orders of beings, even though they have a kind of rationality, still do not have an independent aim, but rather their purpose is to be the material precondition of the existence of humankind. People yearn for a boundless, personal reality (God) Who is superior to them and can nourish them infinitely. They cannot possess this reality, because their potential is limited, but nor will they disappear into it”[5]. It is this personal God Who gives meaning and purpose to our existence. Our human nature, with its countless hypostases, is able to communicate, by energy, with the distinct and mutually-penetrative persons of the Holy Trinity. The late Elder Sophrony, in accord with the holy Fathers, offers no definition of the person. More important for his ascetic theology is his assertion that the person exists, which leads him on to a description of its capacities. The person cannot be defined, but it can be characterized, dynamically and existentially, by the manifestation of its energies”[6]. The person lying in the “hidden being of the heart”[7], emerges when that being, through the Grace of God, discovers the sphere of the heart, the core of our being. Saint Gregory Palamas says something very important and which is the central point of this article: When the nous, our highest faculty, distances itself, through Orthodox ascetic practice, from every perceptible thing, rises above the turmoil of concern for material matters and instead supervises the inner being, it will see the “repulsive mask”, that is the ugly, the hideous mask, which has been put together by passionate attachment to earthly affairs, which is nourished and inflated by sin. So the nous hastens to cleanse this mask with grief and repentance, to remove the unsightly cover through asceticism and observance of God’s commandments. Saint Gregory goes on to say that since the soul is not diverted by the diversity of sin, it discovers the peace of its psychosomatic powers, harmony of the mind, and genuine inner tranquillity, so that it comes to real knowledge of God and of itself[8]. Then the “repulsive mask” is transformed into a face, the persona into person, in the image of the true and eternal face and person of Christ the God/Man. Post-Modern People and their Persona
However much times change politically, culturally and socially, people remain essentially the same, the image of God indelible and tarnished within them. After the fall of Adam and Eve, sin and the passions of evil, whatever they may be- sensuality, lasciviousness, vanity, pride, hatred, malice, anger, temper, condemnation, avarice, greed, hypocrisy- are either fought against or allowed to dominate, depending on whether people are aware of the struggle and resist or are seduced by them, pander to them and foster them. Never at any time, however, has there been such social acceptance and legitimization of sin as in our own day. Perhaps the most important reversal of past conditions is the emergence of the individual. For perhaps the first time in history, individuals have acquired their own value, their own right to existence and their own autonomy. For the first time, they have achieved such a measure of significance and importance that they are held to be superior to the community, the totality, collective cultural and inherited institutions and values and, of course, to the Church[9]. There are many who claim we are living in a post-modern era, which, apart from the autonomy of the individual inherited from modernism, is characterized by fragmentation, saturation, relativism, irrationality, anti-sociability, and the pessimistic desire for the end of history and of the world. The fundamental slogan of modernism was Nietzsche’s classic “God is dead”. Even though we may observe a “return to God” in this post-modern era, a reappearance and resuscitation of religious sentiment, the slogans “you’ve got to enjoy” and “everything’s permissible” are the ones which predominate and hold sway. As presented today, through philosophically, politically, socially and religiously syncretist systems, people are no more than biological units. The model in the post-modern day and age is the star, the actor, whereas in the modern era it was the scientist, and in traditional times, the saint. The centre of subjective gravity in traditional times was the soul, in the modern era reason, and today the body. Today, the post-modern person wants to acquire information, the modernist wanted knowledge and the traditionalist wisdom. People today, self-validating, vain, hermetically sealed within their egos, hedonists and pessimists, are the ones shaping our globalized bioethics, which express the unethical moral diversity of the times. Despite their sharpness of mind, they do not know what a person is, they haven’t exploited their real potential which far exceeds the bounds of life on earth, and have not discovered the eternal dimensions which ontologically belong to us humans. So from these brief comparisons, we can see that people today have regressed, they underestimate the quality and meaning of their lives. In other words, people today have acquired a deeply hostile mask and persona. A mighty struggle is required to rid ourselves of this mask, to transform it into a human face. Even though Orthodox Christians are “strangers and pilgrims”[10] in this world, even though their “commonwealth is in heaven”[11], they still love in the world, within history. They cannot deride what is happening in the political, social, cultural spheres, on the world stage, because all this affects their lives. In our view, people today, who are enslaved to the passions and disorientated as regards the meaning of life, have a greater need than ever before of liberation from this unnatural, aberrant, impassioned state. The accentuation of the person in the hesychastic ascetic tradition The course of treatment that should be followed to ensure a restitution of our natural condition, for us to recover that “ancient and elusive beauty”[12] is recommended in “the experience of tranquillity”, which Saint Gregory Palamas refers to as the “art of arts”[13]. This manner of living tranquillity is also called “hesychasm” in Patristic terminology. Hesychasm is not a theological movement which appeared in the 14th century with Saint Gregory Palamas as its prime exponent, but is rather the traditional road to deification and sanctification[14]. Hesychasm is the quintessence of Orthodox Tradition, the Tradition which preserves the experience of the Holy Spirit, the continuation of Pentecost, which expands under the supervision of Tradition, but which is stifled by formality and conservatism if there is no concomitant acquaintance with it. Hesychasm is not lived only by monastics and those who have foresworn the world. Hesychasm is an inner condition, it is a continuous “dwelling in God and purity of the nous. Hesychasm is the way in which the realm of the heart is revealed, the centre of our existence, that which we may term our person. This is the only way in which people can be reborn spiritually and have their hypostatic (personal) state emerge. Without this ascetic training, there is no point to the sacramental life of the Church, which can act towards perdition as well as salvation. People need to get rid of the persona with the mask of the passions and become persons with a human face. Purifying the heart of the passions needs to become their number one priority in life. In this struggle, they should not attempt to conform to an externally moral life but should carry out the fight in a Christ-centred manner, with their thoughts fixed on Him. Grafted on to the Body of Christ, which is the Church, particularly through the sacraments of Baptism, Confession and the Divine Liturgy, people become an ecclesiological hypostasis[15]- though not yet a person actively- and with all their volition begin the task of repentance. Saint Gregory Palamas makes the point that the preparation and beginning of repentance is self-reproach, confession and avoidance of evil[16]. For repentance to be complete, all three have to be observed together. If people pray with contrition and self-reproach before God and promise to refrain from sin, but do not go to the sacrament of confession, their repentance, their struggle is not valid. Saint Gregory points out that: “Those who sin before God, even if thereafter they refrain from sin, even if they equal it with works of repentance, cannot feel forgiveness for themselves unless they go to a person who has from God the authority to loose transgressions, and receive from him the assurance of pardon”[17]. In this way, they conduct the “legitimate struggle” and take care not to foster the passions by active sin or by giving in to wicked thoughts, because the passions are an unnatural movement of the soul. When the powers of the soul, i.e. desire, emotion and reason, do not function normally, but work unnaturally, then the corresponding passions flourish. Purification from the passions is achieved by the corresponding exercise of the virtues and, according to Palamas, the cure begins with desire[18]. So we place restraint on desire rather than give in to self-indulgence and greed, we apply love to emotion instead of malice and irascibility, and vigilance and prayer to reason in the place of heedlessness and ignorance[19]. Purification of the passions through prayer of the heart The faithful nourish their faculty of reason with the Jesus prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me”. When the name of Christ revolves in the nous of the faithful, it provides divine enlightenment, so that they can discern the thoughts that instigate active sin and then they are able to slay them at birth[20], i.e. before they assume a provocative image. And when the passions are not activated, they gradually die off, with the assistance of divine Grace, or rather are transformed as Palamas explains. When this necrosis/metamorphosis of the passions begins, they enter into contemplation and there, at “the throne of Grace, the heart”[21] they discover another energy within it, that of direct cognition[22].Then there occurs the union of the nous and the heart. Our nous is perhaps the most fundamental theme of ascetic anthropology and the one most difficult to discern for those who are not spiritual, those who are earthly[23]. Many of the Fathers have given descriptions of the nous. By and large they regard it as a power or eye of the soul. Palamas, however, defines the nous and its functions in a unique, revelatory and precise manner. He considers the nous a self-sustaining and supremely active substance[24]. It falls short of its proper function and loses its value when it is restricted to the intellect, which is activated in an earthly spirit which has its seat in the brain[25]. Our nous has substance and energy. The energy of direct cognition which is dissipated outwards through the feelings and mixed up on the inside with reason must return to the substance of the nous, which has its seat in the heart, to the first, bodily, calculating organ[26]. And this return is effected through prayer. If Christians persevere, through repentance, in this state of prayer, God sends them the gift of prayer of the heart. When the nous finds the heart and dwells there as in a comfortable locus of prayer, then we can say that the person is praying directly, from the heart, purely- the terms are identical. When prayer in the heart is activated by the energy of direct cognition, then we can talk of unceasing prayer, then we can apply the command of Paul to “pray unceasingly”[27]. People who have the gift of unceasing prayer are able to say the prayer of the heart, the recollection of Jesus within the heart, while at the same time going about their business with others, working, studying and, in general, pursuing an externally ordinary, natural life. And this can also be achieved in “the world”. The discovery of this energy of direct cognition indicates empirical communication with God. This energy is the umbilical cord by which the faithful are attached to Grace and are nourished spiritually. With the perceptible energy of the prayer of the heart, tranquillity is experienced with clarity, and people begin to live their liberation from the passions of evil; and this is real freedom. Recollection of God fosters and increases divine longing and love for one’s neighbour, because, as Palamas stresses in his homilies, love of others is the result of love of God. Real introspection leads to and cultivates humble and loving social relations. In the state of permanent and perfect enlightenment- i.e. the greatest possible absorption of the gift of Grace, which comes after an extensive period of withdrawal or removal, in accordance with God’s providence in schooling us[28]- all our spiritual and bodily powers acquire their natural function, as in God’s scheme of things. Such people experience Grace as light, as a gentle flame within their hearts. Wonderful peace and sweetness reign in their souls and bodies. The fact that “the body somehow takes on the Grace active in the nous”[29] and that the energies of soul and body are common[30] are central positions in the teaching of Saint Gregory Palamas, who rejected Neo-Platonizing anthropology and epistemology, as expressed by Barlaam. The uncreated light, which they still do not see, gives them amazing knowledge[31], irrefutable and certain, and their intellect is often held hostage to wonderful “visions”, i.e. revelations of God’s supernatural mysteries[32]. The enlightenment of the nous is not the result of study or instruction, but of personal participation in the uncreated knowledge of God. Those engaged in the struggle, continuing in repentance and dependent on the pure Jesus prayer, fashion their hearts so that they become receptors of the vision of the uncreated Light, “the power of the divine Spirit… to the cessation of all intellectual activity”[33], where “they contemplate the glory of [their] holy nature, at a time when God deems them worthy of admittance into spiritual mysteries”[34], as Palamas puts it, rather than when they themselves want. With the vision of the uncreated light, Christians actually experience deification, the direct vision of God[35]. There is no end to this vision, however, but rather continuous progress. This is why “a coruscation is one thing, but the abiding vision of light is another”[36]. Deification, or glorification, is beyond the conception of the human intellect, according to Saint Gregory Palamas. It cannot be explained logically and is ineffable even for those who experience it[37]. It is not merely the unmingled essence of God which remains beyond conception, but also the uncreated energies, even if people have in some sense participated in them. The necessity of the ascetic struggle for those who live in the world It is worth mentioning here some of the exhortations of this great beacon of Orthodoxy, taken from two homilies on the feast of the Transfiguration of Christ. “We must believe, as we have been taught by those who have been enlightened by God and who have experience of these matters …Believing their teaching, therefore, let us go forward toward the brilliance of that light”[38]. Here, it is obvious that he is telling us to progress towards that Light, that is the vision of the uncreated Light, which is “the effulgence, in which God communes with those who are worthy”[39]. This vision, which consists of the experience of Divine Grace, is not a luxury in our lives, it is the purpose of our existence. If we exhaust our powers on the lower levels of the spiritual life, where we achieve a relationship with God that it is no more than intellectual, then this is no more than moralism and intellectualism. And Palamas continues: “When we love the beauty of unblemished glory, then we will cleanse the eyes of our souls of earthly thoughts, spurning everything pleasant and beautiful that is not permanent”[40]. “We will cast off our garments of skin, that is our earthly and carnal way of thinking, and we will stand on holy ground, which is the struggle for virtue and directing our gaze towards God. When we have such assurance, the Light of God migrates towards us and we are illumined and become immortal in the glory and lambency of the triple sun of the Divinity”[41]. On the other hand, if we continue down the wide road, however, sweet and attractive it seems at first, it brings eternal pain, because it clothes the soul with the ugly garment of sin”[42]. And unless we have the garment of divine glory, we shall not be able to enter the “heavenly wedding”, but will, instead, be led to “that fire and outer darkness”[43]. It is important and worth noting that these exhortations to cast off earthly thoughts, to cleanse the heart and to make our way towards God were not expressed by Saint Gregory to a gathering of monastics, but to his flock in Thessaloniki, to married and single people, and are an indication that this is the road we must all follow in order to arrive “by feeling and beyond feeling (at that divine Light which is) ineffable, unapproachable, immaterial, uncreated, deifying, eternal, the brilliance of the divine nature, the glory of the Divinity, the exquisiteness of the heavenly kingdom”[44]. Also related to what we have already mentioned is an incident from the life of Saint Gregory Palamas. When he was a the Skete of Verria, the saint had a very interesting conversation with a virtuous ascetic, Job, concerning the practice of the prayer of the heart by those who were living in the world. The saint urged all Christians to say the prayer while Job was of a different mind, until an angel of the Lord appeared to him and confirmed Gregory’s teaching as being inspired by God and indispensable for the Pastoral theology of the Church[45].
Deification, the aim of human existence According to the Fathers, deification, or glorification, is not a moral event, but an ontological state. The created human nature is united, “kneaded”, with the Triune God, through the created energies, but not in essence[46]. “Deification was, from the start, the innermost desire of human existence. When Adam tried to embezzle it by breaking God’s commandment, he failed and, instead of his aspiration found decay and death. But God’s love, though the incarnation of His Son, gave us the potential for deification again”[47]. People who do not conform to the hesychastic teaching of Saint Gregory Palamas, which expresses the genuine spiritual experience within Orthodoxy, the way to find the person, demonstrate that they do not have an Orthodox ecclesiastical outlook. Hesychasm is action, not inertia[48]. It is an internal spiritual state. At the beginning, it requires a fierce struggle against the passions, but then a proper spiritual structure and unity in Christ are achieved in the realm of the heart, whence emerges the person, the hypostasis. People then acquire hypostatic prayer, prayer for the salvation of the whole world, they live in unity and love towards all others and towards God, within a “real tranquillity”, which, for Palamas, is “perfection beyond perfection”[49]. In the final stage of deification, which is “beyond understanding and beyond words”, they enjoy, they participate in divine beatitude, in rest and respite. People today have made their lives such that there’s no time for prayer “to be still and know God”[50]. With modern means of communication and transport, we can be in direct contact with lots of people, and in a shorter time than ever before. We know and are in touch with so many people, but, in the end, we do not know ourselves. This disappointment, this existential void, this loneliness that people of our time feel is due, for the most part, to the fact that we don’t know how to pray, we don’t devote time to prayer during the day or night. Our being is expanded through prayer and we embrace the whole world. Prayer is missing from the world, which is why it is in such a sorry state. The value of the human person Although people are created and finite, they can communicate with the uncreated and infinite God through prayer. Created people, through the uncreated energies of God, are able to acquire the uncreated, divine life, to become what God is, by Grace, though not identical in essence. This unity, this personal relationship with God can be achieved by every human person, because, hypostatically, in the person of Christ, perfect divine nature has been united with perfect human nature, indivisible and unconfused. So we see, as the blessed Elder Sophrony said, that God treats people not as objects or subjects but as a fact, as a person[51], because between God and us there is an existential symmetricity[52]. We can become persons, because we have been created in the image of the Divine Word, Christ, who is a Person. Only when we know and are united with the Triune God empirically can we become persons and cast off our “ugly masks”. The Church, as a charismatic state, is a communion of real and eternal persons. Empirical theology points out and preserves the way to find the real person, which is something that academic theology cannot do. Lots of people talk today about the person, but in an intellectualized, philosophical/religious and academic manner[53] which at best results in an alteration of the “repulsive mask” into an “intellectual one” or a “personalization” of the modern individual into one with an Orthodox theological outer garment, but certainly not into a person. Without an ascetic struggle, with theoretical training alone, the Orthodox spiritual life cannot be achieved, the person cannot emerge. As Saint Paul says: “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who observe the law who will be justified”[54]. The Fathers emphasize the fact that real contemplation comes as a reward of real practice, “the practice of contemplation is an entrance”, not the other way round. This is what the blessed Elder Efraim from Katounakia used to say: prayer comes from obedience, and theology comes from prayer. Contemporary blessed charismatic Elders, such as Elder Sophrony, Elder Païsios, Elder Porfyrios, Elder Efraim from Katounakia, Elder Iakovos Tsalikis, Elder Simon Arvanitis and Elder Amvrosios are the most tangible examples of real, eternal persons. The secularization which threatens the Church, the religification of Orthodoxy through external, moralistic, Puritanical forms on the one side, and intellectualized models and unsound cerebral structures on the other are phenomena of our post-modern age- post-Christian according to many. They can be combated only with empirical theology, real communion with the Uncreated, and the discovery of the true person. Theology, the teaching on the person, is a unique and exclusive phenomenon which can be experienced only within the Orthodox Tradition, not in philosophy, psychology nor even in the other Christian confessions. [1] See Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia, Orthodox Theology in the 21st Century. Athens, Indiktos Publications, 2005. [2] Basil the Great, On Fasting, Discourse 2, PG 31, 212B. [3] See Saint Gregory the Theologian, On Theophany, Discourse 38, PG 36, 321D-324A. [4] Saint John Chrysostom, On Dives and Lazarus, PG 48, 1029. [5] Protopresbyter Dum. Staniloae, Ο Θεός ο κόσμος και ο άνθρωπος, Athens 1990, pp. 30-31 and 35. [6] See Fr. Nicholas Sakharov I Love, Therefore I Am: The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Jan 1, 2003. [7] I Peter 3, 4. [8] See Saint Gregory Palamas, On the Life of Saint Peter the Athonite. [9] See Pandelis Kalaïtzidis, Ορθοδοξία και νεωτερικότητα. Προλεγόμενα, Athens 2007, p. 47. [10] I Peter 2, 11. [11] See Phil. 3, 20. [12] Saint Gregory Palamas, Rebuttal of Akindynos [13] See On those Living the Hesychast Life in Sanctity. [14] Kallistos and Ignatios Xanthopoulos, Exact Method and Rule, Philokalia. [15] On the terms “hypostasis of biological existence”, “hypostasis of ecclesiological existence” and “sacramental of Eucharistic hypostasis, see Ioannis Zizioulas, «Από το προσωπείον εις το πρόσωπον», Χαριστήρια εις τιμήν του μητροπολίτου Γέροντος Χαλκηδόνος Μελίτωνος, Thessaloniki 1977, pp. 308-314 and 317. [16] See Saint Gregory Palamas, Homily 47, 8. [17] Idem, Homily 61, 5. [18] See To the Nun Xeni. [19] See Maximos the Confessor, Chapters on Love 4, 80, PG 90, 1068 CD. [20] See Ps. 100, 8. [21] On those Living the Hesychast Life in Sanctity. [22] Ibid. [23] On the difference between earthly and spiritual people, see I Cor. 2, 10-16. [24] «[Νους] αυτοτελής εστιν ουσία και καθ᾽ εαυτήν ούσα ενεργητική», Homily 55, 36. [25] Ibid. [26] For the great weight that Palamas lays on this most specific, greatest and very particular energy of the nous and its distinction from our reasoning energy, see our paper «Η χρήση της λογικής και της νοεράς ενεργείας του ανθρώπου κατά τον άγιο Γρηγόριο Παλαμά», Acts of the International Conferences of Athens and Limassol, Ο άγιος Γρηγόριος ο Παλαμάς στην ιστορία και το παρόν, pub. by the Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi, Holy Mountain 2000, pp. 769-780. [27] I Thess., 5-17. [28] On this extremely important and intense period of trial, see . Γέροντος Ιωσήφ Βατοπαιδινού, Ο Γέροντας Ιωσήφ ο Ησυχαστής, pub. by the Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi, 2001, pp. 280-291, 379-389; Archim. Sophrony, We Shall See Him As He Is, Essex 1996, pp. 193-220, 344-5. [29] On those Living the Hesychast Life in Sanctity, 1, 3, 31. [30] Ibid., 2, 2, 12. [31] «Νοερόν τουτί το φως και γνώσεως παρεκτικόν». Ibid., 1, 3, 50. [32] «Τοιούτον γαρ τι εστι και η εξαιρέτως αληθής υπό των Πατέρων ονομαζομένη θεωρία και η της ευχής εγκάρδιος ενέργεια και η εξ αυτής πνευματική θέρμη τε και ηδονή και το εκ της Χάριτος θυμήρες δάκρυον. Τα γαρ τούτων αίτια νοερά κυρίως καταλαμβάνει αισθήσει». Ibid.,1, 3, 31. Also Homily 53, 40, Ομιλίαι ΚΒ , Οικονόμου, p. 178: «έργοις εδίδαξας ημάς ότι το θεωρείν ουκ αισθήσει μόνον η και λογισμώ τοις όντως προσγίνεται ανθρώποις (μικρώ γαρ αν είεν των αλόγων κρείττους), αλλά πολλώ μάλλον τη του νοός καθάρσει και τη της θείας Χάριτος μεθέξει, καθ’ ην ου λογισμοίς αλλ’ επαφαίς αύλοις τοις θεοειδέσιν εντρυφώμεν κάλλεσιν». [33] Ibid., 1, 3, 17. [34] Ibid., 2, 3, 15. [35] Ibid., 2, 3, 29. [36] Ibid., 2, 3, 35. [37] Ibid., 3, 1, 32. See also Rebuttal of Akindynos, 2, 75. [38] Ομιλίαι ΜΑ, Jerusalem, 1857, Homily 34, p. 194. [39] Προς Αθανάσιον Κυζίκου 14. [40] Ομιλίαι ΜΑ, Homily 34, p. 194. [41] Ibid., Homily 35, pp. 199-200. [42] Ibid., Homily 34, p. 194. [43] Ibid., Homily 34, p. 194. [44] On those Living the Hesychast Life in Sanctity, 3, 1, 22. [45] Ομιλίαι ΜΑ, Patriarch Filotheos, Λόγος εγκωμιαστικός εις τον Θεσσαλονίκης Γρηγόριον τον Παλαμάν, pp. 18-19. [46] See Saint Maximos the Confessor, Epistle 1, PG 91, 376B. Cf. Jn. 17, 21-24. [47] See George Mantzaridis, Παλαμικά, pub. Pournaras, Thessaloniki, 1998, p. 153. [48] Those who insist on intellectualism or moralism are torpid. This is why Gregory Palamas called Barlaam “a professor of indolence”. See also G. Mantzaridis, op. cit., p. 15. [49] Εις τον βίον του οσίου Πέτρου του εν Άθω 20, p. 173. [50] See Ps. 45, 11. [51] See Archim. Sophrony, We Shall See Him As He Is, p. 176. [52] See Fr. Nicholas Sakharov, I Love, Therefore I Am. [53] See Archim. Ierotheos Vlachos, Το πρόσωπο στην Ορθόδοξη Παράδοση, The Holy Monastery of the Birth of the Mother of God, Levadeia 1994, p. 87. [54] Rom. 2, 13.
|
|
|
|
© 2007-2018 «ПРАВОСЛАВНЫЙ АПОЛОГЕТ»
При использовании материалов с сайта ссылка обязательна. Принимаются на рассмотрение совета интернет-содружества «ПРАВОСЛАВНЫЙ АПОЛОГЕТ» востребованные статьи и материалы, замечания и предложения, от преподавателей и студентов и всех благочестивых православных христиан, способных помочь и стремящихся содействовать хранению чистоты Апостольского Кафолического Православного вероучения. Все замечания и предложения просим присылать по почте: mail@apologet.spb.ru |
Отцу Серафиму выпало жить в то время, когда среди ученых и философов модно было порассуждать о «возрождении святоотечества». Само по себе явление отрадное, ибо многие редкие и малоизвестные книги святых Отцов получили известность в современном мiре. Но таилась в этом и опасность. Отец Серафим сам познакомился с православным учением непосредственно от святых и, как ни огорчительно, неизбежно разошелся во мнениях с учеными и богословами, не изведавшими такого приобщения. По его словам, они «вырабатывали совершенно новый подход к Православию», и само время требовало, чтобы о. Серафим высказал свою точку зрения.
Шмеман полагал, что Православие только выиграет, если отринет «старомодное» мышление. Он и иже с ним хотели, чтобы Православие признали авторитеты современного богословия и экуменического движения, чтобы Православие участвовало в диалоге с западным христианством и смело, по-новому подходило к обсуждаемым «проблемам». Конечно, чтобы достичь этого, требовалось идти в ногу с современной богословской модой, жонглировать примелькавшимися словечками вроде «кризис», «освящение мiра» (термин, введенный Шарденом).
Неудивительно, что книгу Шмемана высоко оценили неправославные богословы. Однако других, как, например, о. Михаила Помазанского, одного из наставников о. Германа в Джорданвилле, взгляды Шмемана встревожили. Отец Михаил, получивший богословское образование еще в дореволюционной России, счел себя обязанным отозваться на книгу Шмемана. 
После смерти архиеп. Иоанна таким наставником для о. Серафима стал архиеп. Аверкий — именно к нему отсылал братию за советом Владыка Иоанн. Отец Серафим отмечал, что «архиеп. Аверкий твердо держится святоотеческих традиций — таких среди нынешних православных отцов осталось совсем мало. Будучи учеником великого богослова XX века, архиеп. Феофана Полтавского, он сам не только несет, но и передает истинное святоотеческое учение — не прерывается непосредственная связь с прошлым, которому грозит забвение нынешним поколением молодых “богословов”, затмивших мудрость святых отцов своим горделивым умствованием. В последние годы голос архиеп. Аверкия как никогда громок и суров, ибо он пытается донести истинное учение до православных христиан, которые почти утеряли “вкус Православия”».
