The concept of sobornost’ and the problem of church authority in Russian theology late 19th — early 20th centuries

This article is devoted to the problematization of the idea of сhurch authority in Russian theology at the turn of the epochs, which is considered on the basis of the emergence and development of the concept of sobornost’. The reconstruction of the polemical context of A. Khomyakov allows the interpretation of the texts of which the concept of sobornost’ is included in theological thought. It also makes it possible to connect the problem of the authority of hierarchy with the idea of sobornost’ of the Church. In addition to the “Khomyakovsky” context, the author refers to three other authors, considered in chronological order. First, this concerns a collection of articles by Fr. A. Ivantsov-Platonov, in which he interprets the idea of sobornost’ designating it as an ideal characteristic of church structure. Here sobornost’ is associated with conciliar rule, which was not directly suggested by Khomyakov’s concept, and becomes a marker of (un)canonicity. Secondly, the author turns to the spiritual-academic theology at the beginning of the century, in which “sobornost’” is developed at two levels — institutional and mystical. This attempt receives the greatest meaningful development in the texts of Metropolitan Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky), who substantiates the authority of the hierarchy through the development of “personalistic” sobornost’ and the idea of the pastoral “compassionate love” for parishioners. Thirdly, the author considers the documents of the 1917–1918 Local Council in the focus of the connection between sobornost’ and church authority. It is concluded that the inclusion of the idea of sobornost’ into the context of academic theology leads to the formulation of the idea of the hierarchy’s authority, which was expressed in the construction of a new image of patriarchal ministry at the Council.

Reconstruction of argumentation about the possibility of natural theology in confessional polemics at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries

This article describes the problem of the possibility of natural theology, as it was understood in the discussion between Catholics and Protestants at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. The topic is relevant because on the one hand, the category theologia naturalis by this time accumulated a lot of theological and philosophical values, and it is for some traditions a system-forming category that identifies the relation of certain concepts of early modern science. On the other hand, it formed a point around which arguments for and against fundamental decisions were built in the field of ontology, epistemology, anthropology, etc. Thus, the problem of natural theology, its possibilities, composition, and connection with the theology of Revelation (theologia revelata) is a fundamental factor in the development of confessional thought in the early modern period. In studying this problem, emphasis is placed on the ways to conceptualize the idea of natural theology, since this factor determined some strategy of argumentation, that a thinker chooses, justifying a positive or negative assessment of the significance of this problem. A special attribute of the approach is the consideration of how the problem of the possibility of natural theology was understood within the agenda of a specific strategy of theological and philosophical argumentation (in particular, in William Ames’ theological works). The approach allowed us to reveal an authentic understanding of the scope and structure of the problem of the possibility of natural theology, characteristic of authors at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, as well as to describe ways to systematize various arguments into a single strategy for positive or negative evaluation of the phenomenon of natural theology.

St. Gregory Palamas’s gnoseology in light of the dogma of the incarnation of Christ

This article is devoted to the problem of correspondence between the gnoseology of St. Gregory Palamas and the teachings of the Orthodox Church. His gnoseology contains two theses that caused a significant controversy in the 14th century in the Byzantine Empire. These are the uncreated nature of the Tabor Light and the possibility to know God by His uncreated energies, but not by His essence. The author turns directly to the Christological confessions and other dogmatic texts of the Ecumenical Councils to solve the problem. This method has not been largely used. As a general rule, the “palamites” and “antipalamites” used to refer to some particular father or plunged into a strictly philosophical discourse. At the same time, it was not fully taken into the account the fact that the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils contain information to adequately assess St. Gregory’s gnoseology. The article concisely presents the main theses of St. Gregory Palamas’s gnoseology, approved by the local Council of 1351 held in Constantinople. The theses are compared to the confession of the Council of Chalcedon. The texts of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils are considered to be as clarifying as the Chalcedonian confession. The views of St. Gregory’s main opponents are also analyzed in the article. Particular attention is paid to the meaning of key terms in the considered dogmatic texts. The article also takes into account the philosophical aspect of the problem, and expounds one of the arguments of St. Gregory in favor of the uncreated nature of the Tabor Light, which is based on the idea of the inability of human nature to emit light. As a result of the research, it was established that both theses of St. Gregory contradict the doctrine of the Ecumenical Councils about Christ. Instead of St. Gregory’s dubious gnoseology, the Ecumenical Councils offer to cognize the divinity of the Trinity inseparably from the flesh of Christ, and not only in energy, but also essence and hypostasis. As for the natural science argument of St. Gregory, it is refuted by the data of modern science, which proved the existence of biophotons. This discovery, according to the author, does not contradict, but only confirms the Christology of the Ecumenical Councils.

Is Saint Victorinus of Poetovio the author of the homily “On the ten virgins”?

The homily “On the ten virgins” for over 100 years has been a controversial work, since no strong argument has been presented by any scholar in favor of who is its author. The first group of researchers (for example, A.Wilmart, M.Špelič and M.Veronese) believes that its author is St. Victorinus of Poetovio, the first latin interpreter of Holy Scripture. The second group of researchers (for example, M.Dulaey, R.Gryson and N.A.Khandoga) ascribes it to Pseudo-Victorinus of Poetovio, an unknown Latin exegete of the Gospel of Matthew. Proceeding from this, the article makes an attempt at a theological and philological analysis of several quotes from the homily “On the ten virgins” and the original works of St. Victorinus of Poetovio — the treatise “On the creation of the world” and the interpretation of “On Revelation” and the fragment “On the life of Christ” — in order to identify the author of the homily. An important point in answering the question posed in the title of the article is Christology and eschatology as there is not one original writing by Victorinus of Poetovio, in which they would not be given appropriate attention. However, in the homily “On the ten virgins” these theological themes are not adequately addressed.

Ecclesiastes as a representative of Jewish theological education

This article deals with the study of the author’s personality of the Book of Ecclesiastes as a representative of theological education. Many Western scholars of the Book of Ecclesiastes assume that its author was a Jewish teacher. Since the author calls himself Ecclesiastes (ἐκκλησία, gathering of people) or Qoheleth (qahal, gathering), it seems that he gathered people for teaching. A reference to this is in the book itself: “In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge” (Eccl 12:9). Thus, he appears to have served as a teacher of young people (Eccl 11:9) and had a group of disciples to whom he gave practical advice about life. It was a time of great changes in Israel, new circumstances of life demanded new answers, and Ecclesiastes, through studying the Holy Scriptures and through personal experience and reflection, made a critical analysis of the reality around him and those teachings that were spread among the Israelites. On the basis of this analysis, he provided answers to young people, trying to form a holistic worldview and save them from temptations: “The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil” (Eccl 12:13–14). These words have not lost their relevance today. As a result, this work can be useful for analyzing the modern education system, through the prism of Jewish religious education, which is closely related to Christian education.

The specificity of early Christian ideas about divine providence in the context of ancient philosophy (from the 1st to the 3rd centuries)

This article outlines the key features of the Christian understanding of divine providence in comparison with the philosophical trends of Antiquity from the 1st to the 3rd centuries (before Neoplatonism). The author identifies three paradigms of understanding divine providence in the ancient pagan philosophy of this period (atheistic, pantheistic and deistic) and in this context defines the Christian paradigm as “dialogical panentheism”. According to the author, Christianity at its core offers a worldview, which is uncharacteristic for paganism: the cosmos is focused on the implementation of a dialogue between man and God and the achievement of existential intimacy between the Creator and creation. It is also noted that Christianity, in contrast to ancient thought, placed an emphasis on the fact that the fundamental property of the higher Deity is His openness in relation to the Other, and not just self-contemplating or self-contained calmness. This, in turn, determines two other aspects in the Christian doctrine of providence: the all-pervading participation of God in the life of the world and His concern for the individual and those who are flawed. The author also says that the Orthodox understanding of providence is a harmonious middle between the extremes of pantheism and deism.

The “absolute I” and the “absolute” in the philosophy of Johann Gottlieb Fichte

The article deals with the relationship between the concepts of the “absolute I” and “absolute” in the philosophy of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the relationship of the latter with faith and religion. These concepts play the role of the principle of his philosophy in the early and late period of his work, respectively. The topic of the article is relevant to the issues of religion and theology, first of all, in the sense that in the tradition of interpretation of Fichte’s doctrine, the following two ideas are fixed. First, the principle of the “absolute I” is interpreted as subjective-idealistic, which is why Fichte in the early period of his work had to place the object of faith outside and above knowledge. Second, many researchers are of the view that in his later years, Fichte proceeds to a religious motivated philosophizing that finds expression in his doctrine to change the principle of the “absolute I” with the principle of “absolute”, which is the philosophical equivalent to the concept of God. In the first part of the article, based on the texts of Fichte himself, the unsatisfactoriness of these ideas and the identity of the content of the concepts of the “absolute I” and “absolute” in Fichte are shown. Further, it is demonstrated that the identical content of these concepts is the unconditional first cause of both being and cognition. From the beginning of his work, Fichte sought to understand the true nature of the original and thereby reveal his own definiteness of the subject of religious faith. According to Fichte, his philosophy should overcome the limitations of the theological teachings that preceded it in questions about the essence of the first cause, divine creation and the possibility of its knowledge, and therefore, in fact, represents the experience of creating a new theology.

The unity of the divine and the human in Christ: The Chalcedonian definition and Paul Tillich’s Spirit Christology

The Christological disputes of the 6th–7th centuries (the polemics of Leontius of Byzantium with the Nestorians and Eutychians, and Maximus the Confessor with the monoenergistes/monothelites) showed that the Chalcedonian definition gives rise to a number of problems that cannot be solved within the framework of traditional theology: the unclear ontological status of human nature without a human hypostasis; the inconsistency of the ontological models underlying trinitology and Christology; the need to resort to an artificial interpretation of the gospel testimonies about Christ. However, the Chalcedonian definition is only one possible way to describe the unity of the divine and the human in Christ. The Christology of Paul Tillich is considered as an example of an alternative description in which the above problems do not arise. Tillich’s idea is to replace the traditional concept of the Logos incarnated in man with the concept of the Spirit of God transforming man. According to this view, God does not act on human nature without hypostasis, but on the hypostasis of man through its unifying center. During the earthly life of Christ, this effect occurred only in the hypostasis of Christ as man. And after (and thanks to) the death on the cross and the resurrection of Christ, it extends to all people.

Beauty by Roger Scruton

This review discusses the book Beauty by Roger Scruton (1944–2020), translated into Russian by the Theoaesthetics Foundation. Scruton opposes relativism with regard to beauty because beauty as a concept, as an object of attention in the 20th century, has moved to the periphery of art and its place has been taken by “interesting” and “impressive”. Scruton notes an important thing: the disdain for humanitarian knowledge that has been prevalent in society in recent decades can be linked to the rejection of beauty, which leads to the destruction of the humanities. They are perceived as something not as serious compared to exact sciences. Scruton shows that when someone talks about beauty, he is not talking about his own condition, but about the subject itself: “I am describing it, not myself”. This observation indicates that beauty is not just something subjective and relative. Nevertheless, the philosopher does not share the metaphysical understanding of beauty as one of the properties of God; he tries to reveal this concept without turning to theology. All this, as the author of the review shows, allows us to start a conversation about beauty and theological aesthetics.