A.S. Khomyakov and “people’s thought” in the epic novel by Leo Tolstoy “War and Peace”

The article reveals the deep connections of the “people’s thought” and Tolstoy’s philosophy of history in “War and Peace” with the theological and literary-critical works of A.S. Khomyakova. The author of the work analyzes the dispute between Tolstoy and the cult of an outstanding personality, with the Hegelian understanding of his role in the historical process. Tolstoy is alien to the Hegelian rise of “great personalities” over the masses, the Hegelian liberation of the “genius” from moral control and evaluation. Tolstoy believes that it is not an exceptional personality, but the life of the people that turns out to be the most sensitive organism, catching the will of Providence, intuitively sensing the hidden meaning of the historical movement. Anticipating Tolstoy, Khomyakov sharply criticizes the cult of personality in the church hierarchy, the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, of the unconditional authority of an individual in matters of conscience and faith. Khomyakov reveals deep religious roots that feed the centuries-old Western enmity towards Russia. The article proves that Tolstoy is close to Khomyakov’s idea that Divine Providence overshadows with its grace only the believing people, united into a single organism by Christian love, that the epic basis of “War and Peace” is anticipated in Khomyakov’s literary-critical works “Glinka’s Opera ‘Life for Tsar’”, “On the Possibility of the Russian Art School”, “Ivanov’s Painting. Letter to the editor of ‘Russian Beseda’”. The article proves that “War and Peace” overcomes the conflict between the individual and society, the hero and the people, and reveals the epic horizons lost in the Western European novel.

V. Balance and Imbalance: The Papacy and the Contested Legacies of the Vatican Councils

Toward the end of his magisterial study of Catholic ecclesiological struggles spanning 1300 to 1870 CE, Francis Oakley employed a striking image to illustrate the victory of papalism over conciliarism. After Vatican I, the “solitary horseman” left on a desolate “ecclesiological battlefield” many centuries in the making was “none other than the resilient ghost of Bellarmine.” By this image, Oakley meant that Pastor Aeternus’ twin definitions of papal infallibility and jurisdictional supremacy represented the definitive triumph of the ultramontane school, as typified by the counter-reformation Jesuit Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. For Oakley—and in this point he echoed a common interpretation—Vatican I consigned conciliar and constitutionalist Catholic ecclesiologies to “oblivion.”

Newman and Strossmayer on the Relationship Between the Church and the State (I)

The relationship between the Catholic Church and the state, and between the Church and the state in general, is a very topical issue, and theoreticians at the present time provide various models that render assistance to the comprehension of that relationship. The complexity and extensiveness of the problem necessitates that it should be dealt with in two parts (articles). Basically, our objective was to represent the deliberations of John Henry Newman (1801‒1890) and Josip Juraj Strossmayer (1815‒1905), which we consider to be exceptionally valuable and relevant even today. Through such an analysis, we intended to examine how the deliberations of these two great thinkers of the nineteenth century may contribute to a better cooperation between the Catholic Church and the state in present‐day Europe. In this, the first article, in which we deal with Newman’s and Strossmayer’s perceptions of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the state, at the very outset we feature the context in which Newman and Strossmayer each take a closer look at that relationship. This context is characterized by liberalism, but with numerous negative connotations that suffocate the originally positive meaning of liberalism. A negative context of liberalism is an aggravating circumstance in the comprehension of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the state, and on the other hand, from the position of a modern liberal state, Newman’s and Strossmayer’s comprehension of history, in whose center is the principle of God’s Providence, is also qualified in this way, which simultaneously renders the Catholic Church consistent and authentic, unlike the modern liberal state, which frequently assumes utopian and ideological characteristics. For this very reason, that difference regularly seems insurmountable. Finally, we observe that the issues are additionally complicated by the erroneous notion of the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, which is not understood in the spirit of harmony between the conscience and an Authority.

Ecumenism, Mariology, and the Papacy

This chapter begins with an assessment of Newman as one of the most important influences behind the Second Vatican Council, before moving on to discuss his contributions to ecumenism, or ‘reunion’ as it was usually called, in his own time. After showing how he remained opposed to what he regarded as the system of ‘papalism’ in his Anglican years, even as late as 1841, the chapter moves on to analyse his contribution to the debates of the 1860s that had been sparked by Edward Bouverie Pusey’s response to Henry Manning’s attacks on the Anglican Church of his baptism. Newman in turn responded to Pusey’s Eirenicon which led to a lengthy correspondence and two further volumes from Pusey. The subject-matter, which focused on the doctrines of Mary as well as papal infallibility, revealed important differences between the two former Tractarians. Where Pusey regarded the teachings of the Church as settled and fixed in the written traditions grounded in the early Church, Newman held that Christian life and practice were equally important and were open to change and development. Although the declaration of infallibility scuppered ecumenism for many decades, the debates between Pusey and Newman reveal an openness and sympathy for one another’s opinion that paved the way for a future after Vatican II in which mutual respect would flourish.

Infallibility

This chapter provides a close historical analysis of the development in John Henry Newman’s understanding of infallibility from his days as a leader of the Oxford Movement up through the publication of his 1877 Preface to The Via Media. The essay begins with an overview of Newman’s perspective during the final years of his time as an Anglican, before moving into a discussion of how Newman’s viewpoint developed during the latter half of his life. The examination of Newman’s changing perspective during his Roman Catholic period focuses particularly on his theological struggles with the neo-ultramontanist faction in the Church, contending that Newman’s mature position was intended to counterbalance the maximalist interpretations of papal infallibility being advanced by such figures as Cardinal Manning and William George Ward.

Revelation

This chapter provides a philosophical and theological analysis of Newman’s understanding of divine revelation. It looks schematically at the work of Locke on revelation while clarifying how Newman provides an alternative to Locke’s proposal. Part of the genius of Newman was to argue for a revised account of reason and thereby create space for the ongoing viability of robust forms of Christian faith and practice. His revised account of reason also created space for a fresh rendering of the nature and significance of divine revelation. The chapter also explores the place of the Church, tradition, papal infallibility, assent, and reason in the articulation and reception of divine revelation, the relationship between Scripture and revelation, and the place of revelation in the academic discipline of theology.

Maistre, Joseph de (1753–1821)

Count Joseph de Maistre was a major theorist of the Counter-Enlightenment, whose writings inspired generations of French Catholic royalists and stimulated thinkers diverse as Saint- Simon, Auguste Comte and Charles Maurras. He is known especially for his providential interpretation of the French Revolution, his support for a Bourbon Restoration in France, his opposition to all contractual theories of government, his arguments in favour of papal infallibility, his philosophical speculations on violence and bloodshed, his critique of John Locke’s epistemology and his attack on Francis Bacon’s ‘scientism’.