Bulgakov

The primary identity of the Church as ‘Body of Christ’ in her relation with God is questioned. Understood somatically, since the Logos is the hypostasis of Christ, it fails to give the necessary ontological space for Creation to respond to God’s love.

Congar’s ecclesial ontology, formulated as Body of Christ, is investigated. His hierarchical interpretation of the relation between church structure, whose ontos as visible Body derives apneumatically from the incarnate Logos, and the Spirit, which vivifies the mystical Body through faith and the sacraments, is drawn from the filioque, subordinating the Spirit to the Institution. Souls united with God are eschatological ‘brides’, the reality for which the institution temporarily exists. Christ, or the Spirit, is the ‘I’ of the Church, which is not a ‘person’. Ultimately, souls are to be catholic, transparent to each other and God’s love. There is no explicit relation of Church to Creation.

Bulgakov identifies humanity as the hypostatic centre of Creation. In creating, God kenotically gives away his own being (Sophia) establishing temporality and otherness. Humanity is spirit-embodied earth, hypostasising created Sophia, drawn, through deification by the Spirit, into communion with God. The Trinitarian communion of the Godhead is imaged in Creation as the kenotic, hypostatic transparency of the Church. The Incarnation is a synergism between the Logos and Mary, who thereby participates in the salvific activity of the Son and the Spirit, as Spirit-bearer. She is the ‘Bride’ in whom all others participate.

Congar’s eschatology and Bulgakov’s kenotically hypostasised Creation proffer an understanding of the Church as the invited ‘yes’ of the personalised cosmos, reborn from Christ through the Cross, eschatologically irradiated by the Spirit with the glory of God, unified in kenotic love, whose communion with the Trinity as the ‘fourth’ hypostasis, ‘the Bride,’ proceeds through her nuptial union with the Son.

Vladimir Solov'ev (1853–1900) is one of the major influences on Sergii Bulgakov's “sophiology” and has been praised by both Hans Urs von Balthasar and John Milbank. However, his theology has often been read as a mere “religious philosophy” unduly influenced by Gnosticism and German Idealism. The article argues that Solov'ev's theology is more accurately understood as a unique form of Christology which integrates Gnostic and Idealist thought into Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Solov'ev's most important contribution is a sophiological reading of Christology which attempts to found the created on the uncreated without collapsing one into the other or ontologically juxtaposing them.

Bulgakov’s psychological and spiritual evolution can be reckoned as representative for his entire generation. Moving from Marxism to Idealism and finally conceiving his best known theory, namely Sophiology, he was considered by many one of the most influential and sometimes controversial Orthodox thinkers of the 20th century. The theory of Sophiology, his most disputed premise which lies at the center of his theological vision, is considered “a systematic attempt to work out the basis on which political action and policy could be seen as philosophically – and, eventual, theologically - legitimate” . If we reflect on our present cultural and political context we will find a renewed relevance in studying the evolution of Bulgakov’s theological and politic thought, due to the similarities of both periods. Just like in the last turn of the century, we also face issues of legitimacy of the political action, a new cultural paradigm and an economical crisis.

In this paper I will explore three different visions of ecumenism found in three Orthodox thinkers of the last century, Nikolai Berdyaev, Fr Sergius Bulgakov and Vladimir Lossky. With the exception of Bulgakov, they are not the most frequently cited figures in relation to the ecumenical movement, and yet they all were deeply engaged in conversations and cooperation with Christians from other churches, and tried to spell out what these relationships meant for them and in what sense they made visible both already existing and desired unity. As they all are related to the controversial figure of Vladimir Solovyov, I will first briefly turn to him. Then I turn to Berdyaev's discovery of creative and free Orthodoxy, which should be instrumental in overcoming the divided life of the Christian world, followed by Bulgakov's sophianic and pastoral concepts of unity, and finally to Lossky's mystical-eschatological reading of the Christian sources and his devotion to various saints which did not follow divisions into confessional camps. In the conclusion I will ask what of these ecumenical visions could be fruitfully revived to provide inspiration in our search for unity, and strengthen our focus on what is experientially real.

Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), with his “neo-patristic synthesis”, is perhaps the most influential modern Orthodox theologian, having mentored and/or taught such theologians as Lossky and Zizioulas. However, his theology enshrines a troubling paradigm where a Pan-Orthodox Eastern identity (“Christian Hellenism”) is asserted over against the heterodoxy of an Other which is often the West. The article traces this paradigm then argues that Florovsky's construction of Eastern Orthodoxy is dependent on German Romanticism and that his polemicism blinded him to this fact. It briefly suggests, on the basis of the Chalcedonian definition, a new "dialectical" theology of ecclesial identity where identity is established in an encounter with the Other, rather than in demonizing it.

This is the first in a series of articles that addresses what is necessary for the development of a new community of the Grail, a spiritual knighthood such as that pointed to by both Rudolf Steiner and Valentin Tomberg. Such a community would be the guardians of modern grail wisdom both protecting and sharing such knowledge under the guidance of the modern time spirit. This article seeks to enumerate the prerequisites for spiritual knighthood exploring the idea that its members must "remain true to the spirit" remaining independent of teachers and teachings, of groups and organizations by rising to independent thinking that is social nevertheless and based on a profound inner knowledge of the Christ.

Introduction and Notes: “Georges Florovsky and Russian Idealism: Two Unpublished Papers” (“Russian Philosophy at the Turn of the Century”; and “The Renewal of Orthodox Theology—Florensky, Bulgakov and the Others: On the Way to a Christian Philosophy”), St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 65:1-2 (2021), 187-222.

The author contextualizes the Problem of Evil in Open Theism system, listing its main theses, primarily the logic-of-love-defense (and free-will-defense) connected to Trinitarian speculation. After evaluating the discussion in Analytic Philosophy of Religion, the focus is on the personal mystery of evil, claiming that, because of mystery and vagueness, the Problem of Evil is undecidable. Recalling other schools of thought (Pareyson: ontology of freedom; Moltmann: Dialectical theology; Kenotic theology; Original Sin hermeneutics), the author tries to grasp their common insights. One of them is the evident explanatory failure of theodicies, expressed in the antinomian statements 'God is not innocent'. The author follows these insights, developing the concept of Eternal Immolation (Bulgakov), arguing that, without a proper understanding of its mystery (what is, and what is not), theistic theodicy could remain compromised. 'Eternal Immolation' is considered consequent – or already present – in recent speculations, it stands or falls when we accept that these reveal some unresolved points in Christian doctrine. Hence, 'Eternal Immolation' becomes a coordinating-concept, able to bring together their assumptions: several kinds of kenosis, the ontology of freedom with a logic-of-love defense, strongly linked to a libertarian human freedom, and the acknowledgement of the unresolved mystery of evil.

The history of ecumenism with Christians in the Middle East does not receive as much attention as with other groups; however, it has proven to be no less fruitful. Such is the story of the encounter between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Coming out of centuries of isolation, the encounter of the Eastern Orthodox with the Copts of Egypt was a deeply moving one. The Eastern Orthodox being at the peak of their theological revival in the Russian diaspora (known as the Russian Religious Renaissance), their experience of modern ecumenism dates back to their encounter with Anglicans at the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. Critical to this was Sergius Bulgakov’s notion of “spiritual communion” – communion as close to actual eucharistic communion as can be despite its absence. Ecumenical encounter between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox from the 1960s onwards might be regarded as another example of spiritual communion. Eucharistic communion is not yet restored, however, the congruency of heart and in mind that manifested then and continues to exist constitutes evidence of this. This recognition of spiritual communion gives hope to the prospect that the reality of eucharistic communion between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox can be restored. Progress in ecumenism might be facilitated by closer collaboration in recognition of a common direction; this in turn, might engender the trust that makes further ecumenical progress a reality.

Saggio di critica letteraria di DANILO CARUSO / Palermo, marzo 2019

INDICE
Introduzione pag. 1
1. Il machiavellico disegno della “follia” erasmiana pag. 1
2. Pascal e le ragioni del cuore pag. 10
3. La platonico-junghiana dicotomia “Narciso/Boccadoro” pag. 13
4. Il non umano e il distopico ne “La metamorfosi” kafkiana pag. 22
5. Il diavolo bulgakoviano e la strega Margherita pag. 24

The notion of eucharistic ecclesiology is one of the most definitive ideas in modern ecclesiology. Adapted by theologians such as Henri de Lubac, it was coined by Nicholas Afanasiev in his essay The Lord’s Supper to explain the notion of “concelebration”: the president presiding over the eucharist together with the entire eucharistic assembly.  Afanasiev identified eucharistic ecclesiology in the life of early Christianity, and it is proper to regard John Zizioulas as building on it. However, there is evidence to suggest that the conceptual basis of eucharistic ecclesiology – the eucharist being the focus, or nexus, of unity of the Church – predates Afanasiev. Reading Sergius Bulgakov reveals this to be the case, one example being his approach to ecumenism and the other being the source of unity in ecclesial hierarchy. Afanasiev’s place in the development of eucharistic ecclesiology must therefore be reconsidered: he coined a term and identified with the early Church an idea that was present to the theologians of the Russian diaspora.

Inhaltsverzeichnis
Einleitung
1. Von „La lumière russe“ bis GOĖLRO
2. Kulturelle und mediale Kontexte des russischen „Licht-Schaffens“ (svetotvorčestvo)
3. Brüche und Kontinuitäten der russischen Filmgeschichte
4. Kino als ,Kirche’ in der frühen Sowjetzeit
5. Die „andere Ordnung des Lichts”
6. Film als Sprache
6.1. Zu den Filmschriften der russischen Formalisten
6.2. Zaum’ – Photogenie – „Schattenmalerei“ – Zufall – „ein Stück verfilmte Theorie”
7. Film als Schrift und denkendes Kino
8. Lichtordnungen – Sichtbares – Medium – Kino – Theorie
9. Filmische theoria zwischen Licht und Sprache
10. Zur Gesamtanlage der Arbeit

I. Präliminarien zur Mediengeschichte des russisch-sowjetischen Kinos
1. Kulturelle Bedingtheit von Medien und mediale Bedingtheit von Theorie
2. Mediengeschichte des Kinos in Russland
3. Schreiben über den Film in Russland 1896-1918
4. Filmzensur in der Zarenzeit
5. Das „wichtigste aller“ Medien (die frühe Sowjetzeit)
6. Aufwertung des Kinos in der UdSSR

II. Nicht-sprachliche Medien der theoria: Vision, Bild, technische Vorrichtung
1. Antike theoria
2. Christliche theoria und die „ikonische Wendung“
2.1. Orthodoxe theoria als „Schau Gottes“
2.2. Bildertheologie und Emanation (izlučenie)
2.3. Mysterienkulte und Tabor-Licht im Hesychasmus
2.4. Von der simplex visio mentis zum orbis pictus
3. Neuzeitliche Theorie und die Ikone als theologischer Traktat
4. Poiesis, Praxis und Theorie im Kinematographen
5. Optische Techniken als Medien von theoria
5.1. Sehen als Abbilden
5.2. Sehen und theoria
5.3. Technische Medien des Sehens und Theoriefähigkeit von Film
6. Mediale Philosophie, visuelles Denken und Lichtemanation 137
6.1. Kino als Epiphanie
6.2. „Cine-Thinking“ und erkenntnistheoretisches Kino
6.3. "Bilder-Ontologie“ und filmische Emanation

III. Die Ikone als Medium des Sehens
1. Einführende Bemerkungen zur Ikone als Bild aus Licht
2. Privilegierung des Sehens bei Florenskij
2.1. Lichtordnungen in Kirche und Kino
2.2. Die „optischen Systeme“ der Ikone
3. Die Optik in der russischen Ikone (Licht, Farbe und Bewegung) – Trubeckoj und Florenskij
3.1. svet (,Licht’) – svjat (,heilig’) und der Spiegel als Medium
3.2. Der metaphysische Staub der Sophia als Medium (sreda) des göttlichen Lichts
3.3. Visuelle Theologie der Ikone: Taborlicht, Sophienpurpur und Maria als Prisma
3.4. „Wir sehen jetzt durch einen Spiegel in einem tunckeln Wort“
3.5. Die Ikone als Tür, aus der die Heiligen treten
3.6. Bewegungsillusion durch das Flimmern des Mosaiks und das Eigenlicht der Ikone
4. Acheiropoieta aus medientheoretischer Sicht
5. Florenskij zu den Kameramedien
6. Die Ikone als Bild-Wiederholung
7. Das Licht der Ikone in der sowjetischen Avantgarde
7.1. 1913: Der lučizm / Rayonismus (N. Gončarova und M. Larionov)
7.2. K. Red’kos „Ikone der Revolution“
7.3. „Verchom na luče“ - „Rittlings auf dem Strahl“ (Leo Mur 1926)

IV. Kulturen des svetotvorčestvo 1890-1920 in Russland
1. Vom prosveščenie zur Lichtmotivik im Symbolismus und zum Licht im Kino
2. Der russische Symbolismus und das Kino
2.1. Symbol-Begriff: realia und realiora, stumme "Sprache der Dinge" (Blok)
2.2. Symbolistische Rezeption des Kinos
2.3. Religiöses und säkulares Licht („Religionskunst“ und „Kunstreligion“)
2.4. Gor’kij 1896 im Kino: die Schrecken eines symbolistischen Schattenreichs
2.5. Symbolismus ↔ Kino
2.6. Das frühe Kino von und mit Andrej Belyj
2.6.1. Das Kino als Ort der neuen sobornost’
2.6.2. Die elektrifizierte Stadt, astrale Reisen und das Motiv der Laterne (fonar’)
2.6.3. Sophiologie im Kino: Herabgestiegene Sterne und filmische Spitzenschleier
2.6.4. Sinema macht sinjaki: Groteske Explosionen im Kino und in Peterburg
3. Das svetotvorčestvo von E. Bauėr
3.1. Die Wiederentdeckung des Evgenij Francevič Bauėr (1867-1913)
3.2. Von der elektrifizierten Operette zum Film
3.2.1. Jabločkovs „Russisches Licht“
3.2.2. Elektrische Mysterien
3.2.3. Funktionen des elektrischen Licht auf der Bühne und im Film
3.3. Bauėrs „Lichtschaffen“ in der Filmkritik und -theorie (Turkin, Achramovič, Kulešov)
3.4. Bauėrs filmischer Symbolismus: Zwielicht, illuminatio und Panerotizismus
3.4.1. Sumerki ženskoj duši: Lichtschöpfen im Zwielicht der weiblichen Seele
3.4.2. Posle smerti: Die Liebe des Photographen beginnt „nach dem Tode“
3.4.3. Präsentation von Traum, Erinnerung und Halluzination im Film
3.4.4. Irr-Lichter und erotisierendes Licht aus dem Jenseits
3.5. Bauėrs Licht-Malerei
3.5.1. Zum „russischen Stil“ des Kinos der 1910er Jahre
3.5.2. Statischer Schauspielstil, „Epoche der Einstellung“ und die mise-en-scène
3.5.3. Einsatz der Grossaufnahme in Bauėrs Nach dem Tode
3.5.4. Der deep focus der europäischen Barock-Malerei in Bauėrs Filmen
3.5.5. Übersehene Vorgängermedien: Tableaux vivants und Piktorialismus im Film

Epilog: Zwei konkurrierende Lichtordnungen von den 1890ern bis zu den 1920ern"

Reviewed by Christian Zehnder in: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 71 (2013), 389-402.

Русский Сборник: Исследования по истории России / Ред.‑сост.
О. Р. Айрапетов, Ф. А. Гайда, И. В. Дубровский, М. А. Колеров, Брюс
Меннинг, А. Ю. Полунов, Пол Чейсти. Т. XXIX. М. : Модест Колеров,
2020. 664 с.
Электронные версии «Русского Сборника» доступны в интернете:
www.iarex.ru/books

В статье анализируется постановка проблемы личности в философском и богословском творчестве прот. Сергия Булгакова в контексте проблематики богословского персонализма XX века. В первой части статьи в качестве основного текста, в котором персоналистическая установка мыслителя предстает с наибольшей ясностью, рассматриваются опубликованные
в конце 1920-х гг. «Главы о Троичности». В связи с этим рассмотрением возникают вопросы об истоках персонализма Булгакова и его соотношении с теми элементами его мысли, которые дают повод для упреков в имперсонализме (прежде всего, софиологией). В поисках ответов на эти вопросы
автор последовательно анализирует тексты дореволюционного периода творчества Булгакова: «От марксизма к идеализму» (1903), «Два града» (1911), «Философия хозяйства» (1912), «Свет Невечерний» (1917). Проведенный анализ позволяет выявить те тенденции в мышлении Нового времени, которые обусловили становление персонализма, как стиля философского
и богословского мышления, вскрыть ряд внутренних проблем персоналистического богословия.

In March 2017, the Fondazione Corrente in Milan hosted a round of "Esthetic Conversations" every Wednesday, organized by Roberto Diodato, Elio Franzini, Fulvio Papi and Gabriele Scaramuzza. The cycle ended with a meeting held by Gabriele Scaramuzza and Sabrina Peron, titled The Remains of God, during which the theme of God's existence in the world of culture was tackled, starting from the reflection of the unthinkability of this World without cathedrals, prayer, religious practices, and treatises of theology. Moving from the philosophy of Banfi's religion, confrontation has widened to broader reflections that included Dostoevsky, Mann, Bulgakov and Yourcenar, and the eternal conflict between good and evil. This work is my report to the conference, while Gabriele Scaramuzza's presentation is being published in Filosofia e Teologia.

Review of the text by S.N. Bulgakov, translated for the first time into Western language, in which the author develops his thoughts on theodicy in the light of his experience of physical suffering that characterised the last years of his life.

Reacting to the failed revolution of 1905, the contributors to Vekhi (Russian for “Landmarks”),  including Nicholai Berdiaev, Sergei Bulgakov, S. L. Frank, and four others, set out in 1909 to critique the young, Russian intelligentsia for their materialistic myopia in all realms of life. The intelligentsia had been impotent in Russia’s new, constitutional polity, revealing deeper ideological flaws. To Berdiaev, the intelligentsia scorned all true intellectuals, leaving their philosophy emaciated.  Bulgakov critiqued them for replacing the ascetic saint—the traditional Russian ideal—with the revolutionary student and putting man in the place of Providence.  Frank critiqued the utilitarianism of the intelligentsia as fundamentally nihilistic, leaving them with a negative view of spiritual and material wealth that prevented them from enriching the poor.  Together, the Vekhi contributions amounted to a tour de force against the prevailing wisdom of a youthful, academic class increasingly and incurably enchanted by the promises of revolution, drawing the ire even of Vladimir Ilyin Lenin himself.
For a volume published in Russian, about Russian politics and cutlure, permeated with Russian philosophical and religious thought, it is somewhat surprising what a great deal of literature has been published on Vekhi in English alone. There are general overviews of the volume,  analyses of the continuity and discontinuity among its contributors,  as well as other literature that addresses Vekhi in the context of broader studies.  Among the relevant literature, perhaps the studies of Horowitz, Murarka, Pipes, Poltoratzky, Schapiro, and Schatz and Zimmerman are most helpful for their clear summaries of the content, historical context, and reception.  This essay seeks to make a modest contribution to that scholarship in examining the response of Berdiaev, Bulgakov, and Frank to the popular Marxism of the Russian intelligentsia at the time, examining Lenin’s response, and concluding with a reflection on Vekhi’s continuing, contemporary relevance.

The article covers  Woland sacral essence, one of the main characters  of the novel "The Master and Margarita"  by the author Mikhail Bulgakov. Strictly saying, he is not a fictional character made by the author, but a real Strength of the Universal that rules and controls it.
_____________________

Современное ложное представление о Сатане (от ивр. ‏שָׂטָן‏‎‎‎, сатан — «противник», «клеветник») как сугубом зле, антагонисте Творца и людей, коренится в незнании сущности его имени, отождествляющем «противника» с врагом, — а исконно он значит «стоящий напротив», «другой, чем я» — спутник, напарник, слуга. Таково-то значенье санскритского Сат|ан|а: парный Истине, Сат: Богу, Солнцу — Его тень. За Богом второй, Сатана с тем и есть число Два: пара Благо – Зло. Благо, он есть слуга Господа верный; зло, он Его враг: эгоист неслужáщий. С тем, Дьявол двояк и в основе своей благ: ведь Благо – корнь Зла.

Sergius Bulgakov continues to be a contentious figure in the modern revival of Orthodox theology. His reputation continues to be damaged by the consequences of the Sophia Affair, which means that the entirety of Bulgakov's theology is yet to be fully appraised. The present article considers the development of Bulgakov's ecclesiology, emerging out of his Christology, over the course of his life. While not unrelated to his sophiology, it is not contingent on it. The paper follows the development of Bulgakov's ecclesiology, beginning with his philosophical writings, into his major contributions to the émigré journal

Soul, reason, spirit in The Master and Margarita, by Bulgakov. The paper proposes an interpretation of the famous novel The Master and Margarita, by Mikhail Bulgakov, as the confrontation between soul, reason and spirit. I sugest that the level of soul to be represented by Margarita, the level of reason has as its major character Ivan Nicolaevici Ponîrev, and the level of spirit can be ilustrated by the Master.

In the essay the hermeneutical views of Jean–Luc Marion, as they are expressed in his God without Being: Hors–Texte in relationship with the Eucharist and the story of Luke 24, are presented and critically assessed. The criticisms registered touch in the first place upon the concept of in persona Christi, which concerns the relation between the celebrant and Christ. Furthermore, the issue of the relationship between the eucharistic minister and his (or her) community and thereby the hermeneutical function of the Eucharist as a celebration of the whole community is discussed in dialogue with Marion's views.

Существование смысловых параллелей в русской классической литературе может говорить о гомологии, то есть о родстве происхождения произведений, принадлежащих разным авторам. Это позволяет взглянуть на русскую литературу совершенно с иной точки зрения и провести значительно более глубокий анализ её идеологического содержания.