Molecularity and ‘Sobornost’ on the way to church unity: archpriest Sergey Bulgakov’s theological controversy on the question of eucharistic communion with the non-orthodox

Julia Antipina
{"title":"Molecularity and ‘Sobornost’ on the way to church unity: archpriest Sergey Bulgakov’s theological controversy on the question of eucharistic communion with the non-orthodox","authors":"Julia Antipina","doi":"10.15382/sturi2023106.44-65","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the theological content of the controversy that unfolded between the leaders of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius in connection with the proposal of Archpriest Sergiy Bulgakov on the \"partial intercommunion\" – the Eucharistic communion of Anglicans and Orthodox, members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. The Fellowship was founded at the second Anglo-Orthodox Congress in St. Albans in 1928. Bulgakov put forward a proposal for communion at one of the annual conferences of the Fellowship in 1933, i.e. after five years of its existence. According to Bulgakov, partial intercommunion could not replace the whole reunion of churches, but could serve as its beginning. Bulgakov's proposal for communion caused a heated discussion that lasted for three years. Opinions were divided on both the Anglican and Orthodox sides. The discussion was preserved on the pages of the Journal of the Fellowship and in the confidential correspondence of the members of the Executive Committee and the Paris Group, which was conducted in English. The main exponents of the opposite positions were Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov and Archpriest George Florovsky. At the heart of these disagreements was a different idea of the nature of the Church. Both sides assumed that the Church is one and catholic (\"sobornaya\"), but they understood the content of these concepts differently. In Florovsky's understanding, \"sobornost\" should have a dogmatic basis, while Bulgakov believed that \"sobornost\" has a mysterious-charismatic basis. In practical terms, the discussion turned around two possible ways of the ecumenical movement and their combination: the \"diplomatic\" method of reunification and the \"molecular\" action. The translation of several documents from the correspondence of the members of the Executive Committee of the Fellowship and the Paris Group is published as an appendix for the first time: a confidential note by A.F. Dobbie-Bateman to the members of the Executive Committee, letters from A.V. Kartashev and Archpriest George Florovsky, as well as a letter from N. Zernov, which outlines the discussion of Bulgakov's project at a meeting of the Brotherhood of Saint Sophia on October 29, 1933 in Paris.","PeriodicalId":407912,"journal":{"name":"St. Tikhons' University Review","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","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/sturi2023106.44-65","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

The article examines the theological content of the controversy that unfolded between the leaders of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius in connection with the proposal of Archpriest Sergiy Bulgakov on the "partial intercommunion" – the Eucharistic communion of Anglicans and Orthodox, members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. The Fellowship was founded at the second Anglo-Orthodox Congress in St. Albans in 1928. Bulgakov put forward a proposal for communion at one of the annual conferences of the Fellowship in 1933, i.e. after five years of its existence. According to Bulgakov, partial intercommunion could not replace the whole reunion of churches, but could serve as its beginning. Bulgakov's proposal for communion caused a heated discussion that lasted for three years. Opinions were divided on both the Anglican and Orthodox sides. The discussion was preserved on the pages of the Journal of the Fellowship and in the confidential correspondence of the members of the Executive Committee and the Paris Group, which was conducted in English. The main exponents of the opposite positions were Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov and Archpriest George Florovsky. At the heart of these disagreements was a different idea of the nature of the Church. Both sides assumed that the Church is one and catholic ("sobornaya"), but they understood the content of these concepts differently. In Florovsky's understanding, "sobornost" should have a dogmatic basis, while Bulgakov believed that "sobornost" has a mysterious-charismatic basis. In practical terms, the discussion turned around two possible ways of the ecumenical movement and their combination: the "diplomatic" method of reunification and the "molecular" action. The translation of several documents from the correspondence of the members of the Executive Committee of the Fellowship and the Paris Group is published as an appendix for the first time: a confidential note by A.F. Dobbie-Bateman to the members of the Executive Committee, letters from A.V. Kartashev and Archpriest George Florovsky, as well as a letter from N. Zernov, which outlines the discussion of Bulgakov's project at a meeting of the Brotherhood of Saint Sophia on October 29, 1933 in Paris.
分子主义和“Sobornost”在通往教会团结的道路上:大祭司谢尔盖·布尔加科夫在与非正统圣餐共融问题上的神学争议
这篇文章探讨了圣奥尔班和圣谢尔盖团契的领导人之间展开的争论的神学内容,争论涉及大主教谢尔盖·布尔加科夫关于“部分互领”的建议-圣公会和东正教的圣餐共融,圣奥尔班和圣谢尔盖团契的成员。该奖学金成立于第二盎格鲁东正教大会在圣奥尔本斯于1928年。布尔加科夫于1933年,即在该协会成立五年后,在该协会的一次年会上提出了共融的建议。根据布尔加科夫的说法,部分的相互交流不能取代整个教会的团聚,但可以作为它的开始。布尔加科夫的圣餐提议引起了一场持续了三年的热烈讨论。圣公会和东正教两派对此意见不一。讨论的内容保存在《研究团日刊》和执行委员会成员和巴黎集团的机密信件中,这些信件是用英文进行的。相反立场的主要代表是谢尔盖·布尔加科夫大祭司和乔治·弗洛罗夫斯基大祭司。这些分歧的核心是对教会本质的不同看法。双方都假定教会是唯一的和天主教的(“sobornaya”),但他们对这些概念的内容理解不同。在弗洛洛夫斯基的理解中,“sobornost”应该具有教条式的基础,而布尔加科夫则认为“sobornost”具有神秘魅力的基础。实际上,讨论围绕着大公运动的两种可能的方式及其结合:统一的“外交”方法和“分子”行动。从研究金执行委员会成员和巴黎集团的通信中摘录的几份文件的译文首次作为附录出版:a·f·多比-贝特曼给执行委员会成员的机密笔记,a·v·卡尔塔舍夫和大祭司乔治·弗洛夫斯基的信件,以及n·泽诺夫的一封信,其中概述了1933年10月29日在巴黎举行的圣索菲亚兄弟会会议上对布尔加科夫项目的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信