{"title":"Émile Mersch and theology of the russian diaspora","authors":"P. Khondzinskii","doi":"10.15382/sturi2022102.29-49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1933 the Catholic scholar Emile Mersch published his work “The Mystical Body of Christ” (Le Corps mystique du Christ), in which the concept of the “mystical body” was traced from early Christian times to the beginning of the 20th century. Having paid tribute to Eastern fathers, Mersch believed that this concept reaches its final synthesis in the works of the “French school” authors in the 17th century, where the concept of personal mystical unity with Christ, dating back to the Rhine mystics, is combined with the idea of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Hilary of Pictavia of the “natural” unity of the Church in the Eucharist. Mersch considered this synthesis to be a complete expression of St. Augustine’s teachings of the Church as the “total Christ” (the whole Christ) - totus Christus. Some authors of the diaspora paid their attention to the Mersch’s monography. M. Lot-Borodina wrote a review to this work. Fr. Sergey Bulgakov used this work as a source of the references to blessed Augustine. But it was Fr. Georges Florovsky who treated this work most thoughtfully. In the description of his response to the Mersch’s work, we need to remember that initially Fr. Georges based on the position, which was formed in Russian theology by representatives of “new theology” at the beginning of the 20th century, first of all – the position of metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky). This position was characterized by the constitution of the unity of the Church on the moral rather than Eucharistic level. The moral level was regarded, because of the personalistic concept of the mutual transparency of persons, as a natural unity. The article traces the gradual evolution of Fr. Georges’s views from the above concept, through an attempt to combine the teaching of totus Christus with the teaching of metropolitan Anthony, to the unambiguously expressed Christological emphasis in ecclesiology. As a result, Florovsky's late ecclesiology reveals a certain closeness to the ecclesiology of the French school, and hence to Mersch’s general conceptual conclusions.","PeriodicalId":407912,"journal":{"name":"St. Tikhons' University Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"St. Tikhons' University Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15382/sturi2022102.29-49","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In 1933 the Catholic scholar Emile Mersch published his work “The Mystical Body of Christ” (Le Corps mystique du Christ), in which the concept of the “mystical body” was traced from early Christian times to the beginning of the 20th century. Having paid tribute to Eastern fathers, Mersch believed that this concept reaches its final synthesis in the works of the “French school” authors in the 17th century, where the concept of personal mystical unity with Christ, dating back to the Rhine mystics, is combined with the idea of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Hilary of Pictavia of the “natural” unity of the Church in the Eucharist. Mersch considered this synthesis to be a complete expression of St. Augustine’s teachings of the Church as the “total Christ” (the whole Christ) - totus Christus. Some authors of the diaspora paid their attention to the Mersch’s monography. M. Lot-Borodina wrote a review to this work. Fr. Sergey Bulgakov used this work as a source of the references to blessed Augustine. But it was Fr. Georges Florovsky who treated this work most thoughtfully. In the description of his response to the Mersch’s work, we need to remember that initially Fr. Georges based on the position, which was formed in Russian theology by representatives of “new theology” at the beginning of the 20th century, first of all – the position of metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky). This position was characterized by the constitution of the unity of the Church on the moral rather than Eucharistic level. The moral level was regarded, because of the personalistic concept of the mutual transparency of persons, as a natural unity. The article traces the gradual evolution of Fr. Georges’s views from the above concept, through an attempt to combine the teaching of totus Christus with the teaching of metropolitan Anthony, to the unambiguously expressed Christological emphasis in ecclesiology. As a result, Florovsky's late ecclesiology reveals a certain closeness to the ecclesiology of the French school, and hence to Mersch’s general conceptual conclusions.
1933年,天主教学者Emile Mersch出版了他的著作《基督的神秘身体》(Le Corps mystique du Christ),其中“神秘身体”的概念可以追溯到基督教早期到20世纪初。在向东方教父致敬后,Mersch认为,这一概念在17世纪的“法国学派”作者的作品中达到了最终的综合,在那里,个人神秘主义与基督的统一概念,可以追溯到莱河神秘主义者,与亚历山大的圣西里尔和Pictavia的圣Hilary的想法相结合,教会在圣餐中的“自然”统一。Mersch认为这种综合是圣奥古斯丁的教会教义作为“总基督”(整个基督)的完整表达- totus Christus。一些散居犹太人的作者注意到了默施的专著。洛特-博罗迪纳先生为这部作品写了一篇评论。谢尔盖·布尔加科夫(Sergey Bulgakov)神父使用这本书作为参考圣奥古斯丁的来源。但乔治·弗洛夫斯基神父对这项工作的态度最为深思熟虑。在描述他对Mersch的工作的回应时,我们需要记住,最初乔治神父基于的立场,这是在20世纪初由“新神学”代表在俄罗斯神学中形成的,首先是大都会安东尼(Khrapovitsky)的立场。这一立场的特点是教会在道德层面而不是圣体层面的统一。由于人与人之间相互透明的个人主义观念,道德层面被视为一个自然的统一体。文章追溯了乔治神父的观点逐渐演变,从上述概念,通过尝试结合的教导totus Christus与安东尼大都会的教学,明确表达基督强调在教会。因此,弗洛洛夫斯基的晚期教会学与法国学派的教会学有一定的相似之处,因此与默施的一般概念结论有一定的相似之处。