Averintsev S. Afterword to the encyclopedic dictionary. Modern Christian revival

J. G. Havies, ed. A New Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship- SCM Press, 1986.

M. Bunson. The Pope Encyclopedia: an A to Z of the Holy See.—Crown Trade Paperbacks, N.Y., 1995.—390 p.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. - Geoffrey Chapman, L., 1994. - 700 p.

D.Altwater. The Penguin Dictionary of Saints. 2nd ed. - Penguin Books, L., 1983. - 352 p.

A. Jones. The Wordsworth Dictionary of Saints. 2nd ed, - Wordsworth Editions Ltd., Ware, Herfodshire, 1994. - 256 p.

Saints, Signs and Symbols. A Concise Dictionary. 2nd ed. / W. Ellwoud Post. - SPCK, L., 1994. - 96 p.

W. A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. - Baker Book House, Mich., 1984. - 1204 p.

E. L. Towns. Evangelism and Church Growth. A Practical Encyclopedia, - Regal Books, Ventura, CA, 1995. - 430 p.

The Church of England A-Z.

A glossary of terms. 2nd ed. - Church House Publ., L., 1994. - 42 p.. / A New Dictionary for Episcopalians J. N. Wail, Jr.

- HarperSan Fran cisco, 1985, - 180 p.. / Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith D. K. McKim, ed.

. - Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1992 - 414 p. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. / S. M. Burgess & . B. MeGee, ed.

— Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Ml, 1990.—914 p. R. A. Muller. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms

(Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology). - Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Ml, 1985. - 340 p.. F. S. Mead Handbook of Denominations in the United States . New 9th ed. / rev. by Samuel S. Hill.

- Abingdon Press. Nashville, 1990, - 316p.. / The Religious Bodies of America F. E. Mayer. 4th ed. / Rev. by C. Piepkorn

. — Coneordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1961. - 598 p. East-West Christian Organizations . A Directory of Western Christian Organizations working in East Central Europe and the Newly Independent States Formerly Part of the Soviet Union. / Sh. Linzey, V. H. Ruffin, M. R. Elliot, ed. - Berry Publishing Services, Inc., Eanston, IL, 1993, - 240 p. (: Russian translation Western Christian organizations

. M.: Christian Research Center, 1993. - 256 p.) Diane Apostolos-Cappadona

. Dictionary of Christian Art. — Continuum, New York, N.Y. 1994. - 376 p. The Dictionary of Bible and Religion. / W. H. Gentz, gen. ed

Smith, William, sir. A Dictionary of the Bible. - Thomas Nelson Publishers: 1986. - 770 p.

Zondervan Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. / L. O. Richards. - Zondervan, MI, 1991. -720 p.

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, / J. B. Green & S. McKnight, ed.. - InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL & Leicester, England, 1992. - 934 p.

D. Bergant, C.S.A.. The Collegeville Concise Glossary Of Biblical Terms.— The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN. — 100 p.

J.Strong. The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. —Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Who's Who in the Bible. /~P. Calvocoressi. — Penguin, 1987 — 272 p.

L. A. Loetscher, ed.. Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. An Extension of The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol. I-II. - Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, MI, 1955

The Continuum Dictionary of Religion. / M. Pye. ed. - Continuum, N.Y., 1994. - 320 p

John R. Hinnells, ed. The Penguin Dictionary of Religions. — Penguin Books: 1984. — 560 p

Making Sense of English in Religion. / L. Twaddle. - Chambers, Edinburgh, N.Y., 1992 - 176 p.

A Dictionary for Believers and Nonbelievers. - M.: Progress, 1989. - 622c.

Other English dictionaries

The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dtctlonary. Vol. I-II, Corrig, - Oxford University Press, 1971.

Karsavin L.P. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. M., 1994.

Mayorov G.G. The formation of medieval philosophy: Latin patristics. M., 1979.

Meyendorff I. O. Introduction to Patristic Theology. 2. ed. Vilnius - Moscow, 1992.

Florovsky G.V. Eastern Fathers IV-VIII centuries. Reprint. M., 1992. (AST, 2003)

History of philosophy. West – Russia – East / Ed. N.V. Motroshilova. Book 1. Part II. M., 1995.

History of Philosophy / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova, D.V. Bugaya. Section III. Ch. 1. M., 2005

additional literature

Bolotov V.V.. Collection of church historical works. M., 1999.

Bychkov V.V. Aesthetics of Late Antiquity. M., 1981.

Garnak A. The essence of Christianity. St. Petersburg, 1907.

Cyprian (Kern) archimandrite. Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. M., 1996.

Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology. M., 1991.

Reale J., Antiseri D. Western philosophy from its origins to the present day. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1994.

Spassky A.A. History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils. T. I. Trinitarian question, Sergiev Posad, 1906. (Reprint. 1995.)

Literature about Gnosticism

Afonasin E.V.“In the beginning it was...” Ancient Gnosticism in the testimonies of Christian apologists. St. Petersburg, 2002.

Posnov M.E. Gnosticism of the 2nd century... Kyiv, 1917. Reprint. Brussels, 1991.

Khosroev A.L. Alexandrian Christianity (texts from Nag Hammadi). M., 1991.

A pearl of great price or From the shores of the Bosphorus to the Banks of the Euphrates / Per. and comm. S.S. Averintseva. (Various editions.)

Directories

New philosophical encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Mysl, 2000–2001.
^

Christianity. Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 3 volumes. M., 1993–1995.

Internet resources

Translations of medieval authors, as well as books, articles and chapters from textbooks on patristics and medieval philosophy on the website of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences: www.philosophy.ru

In the Internet library of Yakov Krotov: www.krotov.info

Seminar lesson plans.

Seminar 1.

1. What does philosophy study?

2. Why is it so important to understand the “beginnings” of every thing?

3. How do you understand Aristotle’s words “Philosophy begins with wonder”?

4. Why does Aristotle consider philosophy a useless science and therefore

5. Is there a difference between wisdom (sophia) and philosophy?

6. Why does Aristotle call the first philosophers physicists (physiologists)?

What is physics?

7. What did the first philosophers consider to be the origin of the universe?

Literature

Sources

Aristotle "Metaphysics" (book 1, see attachment) - a must read

additional literature

1. History of philosophy (edited by Vasiliev, Krotov, Bugai, pp. 47-55)

2. Gasparov M.L. "Entertaining Greece" (see attachment)

Workshop 2

Philosophy of Pythagoras.
1. The nature of the Pythagorean union as a philosophical and religious-political association. "Mathematicians" and "Acousmaticians".
4. Cosmogony of the Pythagoreans.
5. Orphic-Pythagorean doctrine of “metempsychosis”.
6. The concept of arithmos. The theory of even and odd numbers, the doctrine of harmony, proportions, the “sacred tetractys”, the discovery of harmonic intervals, the construction of regular polyhedra.

Literature.
Sources
1. Fragments of early Greek philosophers, ed. A. V. Lebedeva

2. Diogenes Laerstsky “On life, teachings and sayings” famous philosophers”
(Chapter VII)
http://psylib.org.ua/books/diogenl/txt08.htm

additional literature
1. Gaidenko P.P. “The evolution of the concept of science.” Chapter “Pythagoreanism”.
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/gaid/2.html
2. History of Philosophy / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova, D.V.
Bugaya. Pages 49-51.

Seminar 3. Philosophy of Heraclitus

1. Heraclitus of Ephesus. Biographical evidence.
2. The problem of reconstructing the work “On Nature” (Diels-Krantz,
Markovich, Lebedev).
3. On the meaning of Heraclitus’ “logos”. What, according to Heraclitus, is
true knowledge and what is multi-knowledge. Heraclitus' ideas about wisdom
(sophia) as a revelation (aletheia) of nature (physis).
4. The fluid nature of the sensory world and the cycle of things in it. Doctrine of
elements and world fire. Ekpurosis. The way up and the way down.
5. The struggle and unity of opposites.
6. The idea of the soul as the beginning of sensation and thought in a person.
7. Interpretation of sayings.

1) Much knowledge does not teach one to be smart, otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and
Pythagoras, as well as Xenophanes and Hecataeus.
2) War is the father of everything and the king of everything; she determined one to be gods,
other people; She made some slaves, others free.
3) Hidden harmony is better than explicit.
4) Immortals are mortal, mortals are immortal; they died each other
they live, they die by each other's life.
5) Death of fire - birth of air and death of air - birth of water. From
from the death of the earth, water is born, from the death of water, air is born, [from
death] air-fire, and vice versa.
6) Nature loves to hide.
7) This cosmos, the same for everything that exists, did not create any
God and no man, but he always was, is and will be forever alive
a fire that ignites in proportions and goes out in proportions.
8) You cannot enter the same river twice.

Literature
Sources
1.Dynnik M. Fragments of Heraclitus (fragments from the text of Heraclitus +
research on Heraclitus)
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/antiq/geraklit/index.html
2.Fragments of early Greek philosophers, ed. Makovelsky
http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000120/index.shtml
3. Fragments of early Greek philosophers, ed. A. V. Lebedeva
http://naturalhistory.narod.ru/Person/Lib/Filosoph/N_9.htm
4.Diogenes Laertius. About the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers /
Per. M.L. Gasparova. M., 1979 Chapter “Heraclitus of Ephesus”

additional literature
1.History of philosophy / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova, D.V.
Bugaya.. M., 2005. pp. 51-52.
http://yanko.lib.ru/books/philosoph/mgu-ist_filosofii-2005-8l.pdf
2.Zeller E. Essays on the history of Greek philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1996.
3. Rozhansky I.D. Early Greek philosophy//Fragments of early Greek
philosophers. Part 1, ed. Rozhansky.
4.Cassidy, F.H. Heraclitus, M. 1982
5. Gasparov M. L. Entertaining Greece (see attachment)

Seminar 4.

Philosophy of the Eleatics.

Questions for the seminar.
1. Xenophanes of Colophon:
a) Criticism of anthropomorphism in traditional religion;
b) The doctrine of a single and incorporeal God.
2. Parmenides. Poem "About Nature". Ontology and epistemology of Parmenides:
a) two paths: the path “is” and the path “is not”;
b) characteristics of being;
c) the connection between being/non-being and thinking. Interpretation of the thesis “It’s the same thing -
think and be";
d) contrast between truth and opinion, rational and sensual.
“The opinions of mortals” in the second part of the poem.
5. Zeno:
a) Zeno’s aporia as an objection to criticism of the teachings of Parmenides;
b) the meaning of the term “aporia”;
c) aporia of the set. Aporia of movement (“Achilles”, “Flying Arrow”,
"Dichotomy", "Stages").
6. Melissa. New characteristics of truly existing things.

Literature

Sources
1. Fragments of early Greek philosophers / Prep. A.V. Lebedev. (sections,
dedicated to Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno)
http://naturalhistory.narod.ru/Person/Lib/Filosoph/Index.htm
2. Xenophanes. Sills (see attachment)
3. Parmenides. About nature (see attachment)
4. Aristotle. Physics. Book VI, chapter 99 // Aristotle. Works: B
4 vols. T. 3. M., 1981. pp. 199–201. (In Book VI of Physics, Aristotle
discusses motion and in the 9th chapter refutes Zeno.) (see attachment)
5. Diogenes Laertius. About Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, Melissa (Book IX):
http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_07.htm#99

additional literature
1.History of philosophy / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova, D.V. Bugaya.
pp.60-64
http://yanko.lib.ru/books/philosoph/mgu-ist_filosofii-2005-8l.pdf

2.P. P. Gaidenko History of Greek philosophy in its connection with science. (Chapter
second
^ THE ELEA SCHOOL AND THE FIRST STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM OF INFINITY) –
http://www.krotov.info/history/16/gaydenko/gayd_14.html#3

3. Dobrokhotov A.L. The Pre-Socratic doctrine of being. M., 1980
http://psylib.org.ua/books/dobro01/txt01.htm

Seminar 5

1. Empedocles. Poems “On Nature” and “Purification”. Empedocles' cosmological formula: 4+2.
2. Anaxagoras. Anaxagoras' cosmological formula: “Everything in everything.” The doctrine of nous.
7. Leucippus and Democritus. "Ideal" atomic structure. Democritus' theory of knowledge. The concept of eidola. The principle “like is known by like.”

Literature

Sources:
Empedocles. Excerpts from the poem “On Nature”. / Per. G.I. Yakubanis //
Lucretius "On the nature of things." T.2. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1947, p. 663–676.
http://abuss.narod.ru/Biblio/empedokl2.htm
Empedocles. Excerpts from their poem “Purification” // Semushkin A.V. Empedocles. 2nd
ed. M., 1994.
http://abuss.narod.ru/Biblio/empedokl.htm
Ancient Greek atomists. / Per. A.O. Makovelsky. Baku, 1949.
(Lebedev's edition covers only Empedocles and Anaxagoras.)
Lurie S.Ya. Democritus: texts, translation, research. L., 1970.
(http://www.nsu.ru/filf/rpha/lib/Demokrit/uchenie.txt- very bad
scanning)
Diogenes Laertius. About Anaxagoras - book. II, about Empedocles – book. VIII, about
Democritus - book. IX.
http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_00.htm

additional literature.

Gaidenko P.P. History of Greek philosophy in its connection with science (about
Eleatah):
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/gaid/4.html
Vizgin V.P. The relationship between ontology and physics in the atomism of Democritus.
http://ru.philosophy.kiev.ua/iphras/library/phusis/01.html
Yakubanis G. Empedocles: philosopher, doctor, sorcerer. Kyiv, 1994.

Workshop 6

Sophists and Socrates.
1) Paideia: sophists as educators. Basics
"encyclopedic" education. Criticism of traditional religious
representations. Sophistry. The method of dyssoi logoi, "double speeches".
The contrast between physis and nomos. "Anthropological turn". Protagoras
and his thesis “man is the measure of all things.” Gorgias and his refutation
Eleatic metaphysics (“On nature, or On non-existence”).
2) Socrates. The story of the life and death of Socrates. Main sources: Xenophon
and Plato. Socrates and the Sophists: similarities and differences. "Methods" of Socrates:
dialectics, maieutics and irony. Statement of "ignorance": interpretation
Delphic oracle. Identification of knowledge and virtue. Daimonion
Socrates. Philosophy as “service to God.” The principle “Know thyself.”
The trial of Socrates and the decision of Socrates.

Texts for discussion.
1. Plato. Apology of Socrates
http://psylib.org.ua/books/plato01/01apols.htm
or
Plato. Hippias the Lesser
http://psylib.org.ua/books/plato01/07gippm.htm

2. Makovelsky A. O. Sophists (see attachment) - I don’t insist that you all
read this text in its entirety, but I recommend that everyone read it
for those who will write an essay on the sophists.
3. History of philosophy (V. Vasiliev, A. Krotov, D. Bugai), pp. 69-75.

Seminar 7

Assignment for the seminar
Read Plato's dialogue “Phaedo”
See dialogue here
http://psylib.org.ua/books/plato01/19fedon.htm

Answer the questions
1. The philosopher’s attitude to life and death
2.Plato’s idea of the world of true being and the world of becoming.
3. The relationship between soul and body as the central point of Plato’s anthropology.
4.Teachings about anamnesis (knowledge as recollection) and metempsychosis
(transmigration of souls).
5. Plato's four arguments in favor of the immortality of the soul.
6. Ethical conclusions from the doctrine of the soul.

Additional literature (optional reading)
1. Diogenes Laertius ABOUT THE LIFE, TEACHINGS AND SAYINGS OF FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS,
Book III “Plato”
http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_04.htm

2. Vasilyeva T.V. Soul and knowledge/The Path to Plato, M.1999 (see attachment)

Seminar 8.

1. Virtue as arete of man.
2. Basic virtues of the state. The principle of "fairness".
3. Connection with psychology: tripartite structure of the soul and tripartite
structure of the state. 4. Right and wrong states
devices.
5. Plato's ideal state. Its structure. Why in charge
should a philosopher stand in the state?
6. Plato’s educational project (the sciences that make up the educational
Plato's cycle; terms of study).
7. The connection between education and the prosperity of the state.
8. Plato's attitude to the arts.

Literature

Plato. State (see attachment).
Textbook of Krotov-Bugai (corresponding chapters)
T. Vasilyeva. The Path to Plato. (III. IDEAL STATE, IDEAL
^ CITIZEN, IDEAL PERSON)

Seminar 9.

Aristotle.
1. Life and works.
a) Biography of Aristotle. Academy and Lyceum.
b) History of Corpus Aristotelicum and its structure.
c) The problem of translating Aristotle's works into new languages. Russians
translations of “Metaphysics” (A.V. Kubitsky, M.I. Itkin, translation by Rozanov and
Pervova, books I-V).
d) Aristotle's contribution to science. Aristotle's contribution to the development of philosophical
terminology (matter, form, essence, energy, entelechy).
2. Logic. "Organon" as a weapon scientific knowledge.
3. Philosophical system Aristotle. The principle of dividing sciences into theoretical ones
and practical. "Theoretical science of first principles and causes."
Doctrine of essence, four meanings of cause, hyle and morphe (VI–VIII
book). The doctrine of dynamis and energeia (IX book). The doctrine of the mind as
prime mover, Aristotle's theology (XII book). Criticism of Platonovskaya
theory of ideas (XIII–XIV books).

^ Main literature
1. Fragments from Aristotle’s treatises - see Attachment (pp. 1-11)
2. Vasiliev, Krotov, Bugai. History of philosophy (corresponding to the book about Aristotle)

Additional literature.
Vasilyeva T.V. Athens School of Philosophy. M., 1985.
Zubov V.P. Aristotle. 2nd ed. M., 2000
Losev A.F. Aristotle and the late classics. M., 1975.
Losev A.F., Takho-Godi A.A. Plato. Aristotle. M., 1993.
Heidegger M. On the being and concept of physis: Aristotle. Physics B-1 / Trans.
T.V. Vasilyeva. M., 1995.
Chanyshev A.N. Aristotle. M., 1987.

Seminar 10.

1. Understand the basic terms of Aristotelian philosophy: hyle and

morphe, dynamis and energeia, enteleheia (see file with fragments from

works of Aristotle)

2. There will be a report on Aristotle’s doctrine of the soul. Read “On the Soul”

Book 2, chapters 1-3,

Book 3 chapters 4-6

and politics)

1. The subject and tasks of ethics in its connection with politics.

2. The concepts of eudaimonia (happiness), agathon (good) and arête (virtue).

The doctrine of the mean (mesos). Ethical and dianoetic virtues.

3. Definition of state and citizen. Reasons for origin

state and its purpose.

4. Forms of watering. devices. What forms of government structure

What does Aristotle call right and wrong? Why?

5. Social composition of the state. Mesoi, "average people". Problems

private property, attitude towards slavery.

Seminar 11.

Hellenistic philosophy.

1. Stoicism. The Stoic theory of knowledge. "Physics". The doctrine of the divine world body (Cosmos). "Ethics". The doctrine of goodness and virtue. "Apathy". The problem of fate and

freedom.

2. Epicureanism. “Canon” of Epicurus. "Physics": Epicurian atomism. "Ethics". Hedonism: pleasure as a criterion of good. Typology of pleasures. Ataraxia. 3. 3. 3. Skepticism. The concept of "skepticism". Skepticism as a scientific criticism of philosophy. "Epoche". Ethics of skeptics, "ataraxia".

Diogenes Laertius ON THE LIFE, TEACHINGS AND SAYINGS OF FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS

About the Stoics

http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_06.htm

about Epicurus

http://www.krotov.info/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_08.htm

Seneca" Moral letters to Lucillius"

Epicurus “Letter to Menoeceus”

Sextus Empiricus THREE BOOKS OF PYRRHONUS PROVISIONS

letters of Epicurus.

Seminar 12.

Neoplatonism. Plotinus.

1. How is the emanation of the One carried out and what

represents an ascent to the One? Concept of ecstasis.

2. The doctrine of the world soul and nature. Is it possible to consider

Dam nature as an activity of the Soul?

3. In what relation are the World Soul and

Individual souls?

4. Understanding of matter in Neoplatonism.

5. What to eat the highest Good, according to Plotinus?

6. Does evil exist as such?

Reading

1) Porfiry. Life of Plotinus.

Http://psylib.ukrweb.net/books/ploti01/txt55.htm

2) Plotinus V. 1

^ ABOUT THE THREE ORIGINAL SUBSTANCES

Http://psylib.ukrweb.net/books/ploti01/txt37.htm

additional literature

1. John Rist. Plotinus: the path to reality

Http://www.nsu.ru/classics/plato/rist.htm

2. History of philosophy (edited by Vasiliev, Bugai, etc.)

3. Borodai T. Yu. On two interpretations of matter in ancient times

Platonism//in the collection “Antiquity as a type of culture”, M., 1988

Seminar 13.

Western patristics. Tertullian and Augustine.

1. Tertullian. Analysis of statements: “What is Athens to Jerusalem? What is the Academy of the Church? The doctrine of the Trinity. Christology: the question of the relationship between the divine and human natures in Christ. On the origin of evil.

The problem of faith and reason: “I believe in order to understand” (Augustine. Confessions, book 1, 6.). Analysis of the thesis "si fallor, sum". God and the world in the philosophy of Augustine (The relationship of the Creator to creation). Augustine's Doctrine of Time and History (book 11). Augustine about man: homo interior (“inner man”). The human soul as an image of the Trinity: the unity of memory, mind and will. The doctrine of free will, grace and predestination.

Literature:

Tertullian "Against Hermogenes"

Archimandrite Cyprian (Kera) “Patrologies” (Chapter on Tertullian)

Http://www.krotov.info/history/02/karsav/kars_00.html

F. Copleston. History of medieval philosophy. M.: Enigma, 1997.

E. Gilson. Philosophy in the Middle Ages. M.: Republic, 2004.

http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000187/

Augustine "Confessions", book. XI:

Http://antology.rchgi.spb.ru/Sanctus_Aurelius_Augustinus/Confessiones.rus.html

Augustine “On the City of God” (book XI, chapters 1, 2)

Gilson E. Philosophy in the Middle Ages. M.: Republic, 2004.

Marru A.I. St. Augustine and Augustinism. M., 1998.

Seminar 14.

Eastern patristics. Cappadocian Fathers.

2. Knowledge of God as a task of human existence. Borders and

Conditions for knowledge of God.

3. The doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus.

A) Basil the Great: essence (generic concept), hypostasis (species concept), consubstantial (controversy with Eunomius); patronymic, sonship, shrine. [Basily the Great 38 letter].

B) Gregory of Nazianzus: essence (generic concept), hypostasis (species concept), person, consubstantial (complete similarity in essence); unbornness, birth, procession. Proof of the unity of the Persons of the Trinity [Gregory of Nazianzus 5 words on theology]

7. The doctrine of the creation of the world, angels and man. The doctrine of man.

The source of evil (sin).

Test questions for sections A and B.

"Pre-Socratics"

The problem of the origin of philosophy from myth (“from myth to logos”). Ancient China, Ancient India, Ancient Greece.
Why did philosophy become possible in Greece? What are the characteristics of Greek philosophy?
What does the word "philosophy" mean?
Describe the basic concepts of pre-Socratic philosophy: “nature”, “logos”, “cosmos”, etc.
What are the differences between the “Ionian” and “Italic” branches of Pre-Socratic philosophy?
What does the concept of “pre-Socratic philosophy” mean? What are its main representatives?
Give a description of the “Miletus school”. Main representatives, main ideas.
The philosophy of Heraclitus: the doctrine of logos in general, cosmology and psychology.
Pythagorean school: founder, nature of the union, “acousmatics” and “mathematics”. Pythagoras and modern mathematics.
Pythagorean doctrine of number.
Give a description of the “Eleatic school”. Main representatives, main ideas.
Parmenides' doctrine of being. "Two paths", six signs of being.
Aporia of Zeno (with analysis of one of the 4 “aporia of movement”).
Philosophy of atomists.
Philosophy of Empedocles.
Philosophy of Anaxagoras.

From the Sophists to Plato

The Sophists and the Greek Paideia.
The importance of the Sophists for Greek philosophy.
Sophists and Socrates. Similarities and differences between their tasks.
Socratic turn in philosophy.
Socrates' methods: dialectics, irony, maieutics.
Plato: biography, works.
"Small" or "Socratic" dialogues. Problem arete and knowledge arete.
“Apology of Socrates” or the work of philosophy.
"Meno": the problem of knowledge.
"Phaedo" or about the immortality of the soul.
"Feast" or about philosophical love.
The doctrine of the soul in the dialogue "Phaedrus".
“State”: the structure of an ideal state, the correspondence of types of state and parts of the soul, perverted types of government.
The doctrine of ideas. Eidos of good.
How does Plato’s concept of “idea” differ from modern concepts?
Do you agree with Plato's concept of knowledge as understanding the good purpose of a thing and its development for good?
Show the influences of previous philosophical teachings to Plato.
Socrates and Plato.

Christianity arose in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean world during an era of religious ferment. There were many cults, including the cult of the gods of Rome and the cults of the gods of those cities and countries that became part of the Roman Empire. Particular importance was attached to the cult of the emperor. Mystery cults dedicated to one or another Greek deity were widespread. All of them were associated with the worship of a certain god who was killed by his enemies and then rose from the dead. These rituals were kept secret from outsiders, but the initiates believed that by performing these rituals, they participated in the death of God and through his resurrection gained immortality. Another religious tradition, Hermeticism, promised its adherents liberation from the shackles of the flesh and immortality.

Christianity rejected the veneration of pagan gods and the emperor. It had certain similarities with mystery cults, but differed significantly from them - in particular, in that it was not a mythical character that was revered, but a real historical figure, whose life and teachings became the subject of veneration and faith. The Christian faith was also significantly different from what the mystery cults offered. Christianity partly borrowed its terminology from Greek philosophy - primarily Stoic, Platonic and Neoplatonic - but its semantic core - the belief that in Christ the eternal God became man, suffered death on the cross, and then rose from the dead - had nothing common with any of the philosophical systems existing at that time.

Christianity was significantly different from other religions and from official cults, so its followers faced constant persecution from the bulk of the population and the authorities, who outlawed Christianity. However, the number of Christians multiplied, and the emperors took decisive measures to force them to renounce their faith. Throughout the 3rd century. two emperors - Decius and his successor Valerian - did everything to put an end to Christianity forever. At the beginning of the 4th century. Diocletian instigated the widest and most cruel of all persecutions against Christians.

However, in the five centuries following the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the vast majority of the population of the Roman Empire, including the emperors, became Christian. In 312, Emperor Constantine the Great accepted this belief, and his example was followed by his three sons, who also became emperors. An attempt by Constantine's nephew, Emperor Julian (nicknamed the "Apostate"), to revive paganism (in 361–363) failed. In the 4th century. Christianity has become state religion Armenia and Georgia, by the end of the 5th century. Christian communities appeared in the Persian Empire, in India and among the Germanic peoples on the northern borders of the Roman Empire.

In the first generation of Christians there were several outstanding missionaries, the most remarkable of whom can be considered the apostles Paul and Peter. They and their less illustrious contemporaries preached Christianity primarily among the Greek-speaking population of the empire. From large cities, faith spread to small towns, and from there to the countryside.

Among the reasons that prompted the majority of the population of the Roman Empire to accept Christianity are the following: 1) the gradual decomposition and decline of Greco-Roman culture; 2) the adoption of the Christian faith by Constantine and his successors; 3) the fact that in Christianity people of all classes and nationalities were accepted into a single, common brotherhood and that this religion could be adapted to local folk customs; 4) the church’s uncompromising commitment to its beliefs and the high moral qualities of its members; 5) the heroism of Christian martyrs.

Church organization.

Christians believed that they were one universal church. It was organized according to the principle of "dioceses" (a term denoting a territorial unit within the empire), or "dioceses" headed by a bishop. The bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Constantinople and Rome enjoyed special honor. The Bishop of Rome, as the head of the church of the imperial capital, was given primacy over other bishops. In addition, according to tradition, the first bishop of Rome was the Apostle Peter, whom Christ himself appointed head of the church.

To counter these and other similar trends, the Christian Church developed three principles to ensure the preservation of the faith in its original purity. First, there was the doctrine of apostolic succession, according to which the apostles received the gospel directly from Christ, and then, before their death, transmitted it - along with their doctrinal authority - to bishops elected by Christians of the local church, and these bishops, in turn, transmitted him to his successors. In this regard, the church had to determine exactly which lines of episcopacy go back directly to the holy apostles. In particular, the bishops of Rome were considered the direct successors of the Apostle Peter.

Secondly, it was necessary to clearly define the range of writings that contained the true teaching of the apostles. Even before the end of the 4th century. a canon of 27 books was developed that make up the New Testament. The main criterion for including a book in the canon was the authorship of an apostle or a person directly associated with one of the apostles.

Thirdly, the task arose to give a short and clear formula that would express the essence of the Christian faith, as a result of which symbols of faith arose, of which the most common was the so-called. Apostles' Creed. The name of this symbol did not indicate that it was formulated by the apostles themselves, but that it briefly expressed the main content of the apostolic teaching. With the exception of two or three verses included in it later, this symbol already existed in the second half of the 2nd century.

The concept of apostolic succession of bishops, the New Testament canon and Apostles' Creed still remain the foundation that determines the lives of the majority Christian churches.

Trinitarian disputes.

The Church also had to determine its position on a number of theological issues, disputes over which undermined its unity. The Church very early accepted the doctrine of the Trinity, i.e. that God is one in three Persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The first Christians were Jews raised to believe that there was one God. Jesus taught that God is the Father. Having witnessed the life and death of Jesus Christ and believed in his resurrection, the disciples also believed that Jesus was God. But how can one believe that God is one? How can the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be God, and how are they related to each other?

The Council of Nicaea left unresolved the question of the relationship between the human and divine principles in Christ. The next three ecumenical councils were devoted to this issue, the last of which, the Council of Chalcedon (451), adopted a formula of confession that is still adhered to today by the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican churches and most Protestants. According to this formula, Jesus Christ is not only “consubstantial” (that is, identical in essence) with the Father, but also has the same essence as people, being fully God and fully man. In addition, it says that in Christ the two natures - divine and human - are united in such a way that they cannot be divided into two Persons. Some Eastern churches that have accepted Nicene Creed, refused to accept the resolutions of the Council of Chalcedon. The separation of these churches was largely due to political and ethnic reasons related to the reluctance to submit to the Greeks and Latins who controlled the Roman Empire and the universal church. These Eastern churches (often, although incorrectly, called Monophysites) emphasized primarily the divine nature of Christ and attached much less importance to his human nature; Similar views are held by Armenian, Egyptian (Coptic), Ethiopian and Syrian (Middle Eastern and Indian) Christians. see also CATHEDRAL OF CHALKEDON; MONARCHIANITY; MONOPHYSITISM; TRINITY; SABELLIANS.

Augustine.

Augustine (354–430) played an exceptional role in the development of Christian theology, having a huge influence on the Western Church, and in modern times on Protestantism. Augustine, a highly educated and intellectually gifted man, came to Christianity as a result of a dramatic spiritual quest. His personal experience allowed him to pose with particular acuteness problems already familiar to the church. In particular, he taught that as a result of the Fall of Adam, all people were tainted by sin and were unable to find salvation by independently turning to God. Only as a result of the action of God himself, through the grace he bestows, which no man can receive or deserve, does a person acquire the repentance and faith that are necessary for his new birth and eternal life. Augustine insisted that this work of grace is ordained by God and that man can only be saved if he is chosen for it.

The era of late patristics.

In Christianity, certain forms of liturgical practice developed early. The center of the service was the Eucharist, dedicated to the memory of the last meal that Jesus shared with his disciples and which he commanded them to continue to eat in remembrance of him. Already in ancient times, liturgies appeared, which served as a prototype for the services that are still performed today in various churches. see also SECRET.

Another characteristic feature of Christianity is the monastic movement, which began in Egypt in the 3rd century. and which soon covered the entire Christian world. During the period when, as a result of mass conversions of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire to Christianity, moral character The main part of Christians was no longer so high; some ascetics made efforts to truly and fully implement the commandments of Christ in their lives. This movement took many forms. In the western part of the empire, the communal way of monastic life, established by Benedict of Nursia (c. 480–547), prevailed. see also MONASKY.

At the beginning of the 5th century. a series of events threatened the very existence of Christianity. The Roman Empire fell into decline, which by this time had become almost completely Christian and with which Christianity itself began to be associated. Constant invasions of barbarians from the north and northeast continued, with minor interruptions, until the 11th century. The first major military success of these conquerors is usually considered the Battle of Adrianople in 378, when the Goths killed Emperor Valens. In 410 the Goths captured Rome. In subsequent centuries, the empire experienced invasions by the Huns, Slavs, Bulgarians, Hungarians and finally the Scandinavians. In the 7th century. a new threat arose from the Arabs, who were advancing from the southeast, bringing with them new religion– Islam. By the end of the 8th century. The Arabs conquered Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, most of Egypt, North Africa and most of the Iberian Peninsula, taking possession of half of what was called Christendom.

MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY

During the first six centuries of Christian history, significant advances were made that allowed Christian religion resist in the face of numerous threats. Many conquerors from the north adopted the Christian faith. At the beginning of the 5th century. Ireland, before the 9th century. remaining outside the Roman Empire and not subject to foreign invasions, it became one of the main centers of Christianity, and Irish missionaries went to Britain and continental Europe. Even before the beginning of the 6th century. some Germanic tribes that settled within the former borders of the empire adopted Christianity. In the 6th–7th centuries. The Angles and Saxons who invaded Britain were converted. At the end of the 7th and 8th centuries. Most of the territory of the modern Netherlands and the Rhine Valley becomes Christian. Even before the end of the 10th century. The Christianization of the Scandinavian peoples, the Slavs of Central Europe, the Bulgarians, Kievan Rus, and later the Hungarians began. Before the Arab conquest brought Islam with it, Christianity had spread among some peoples of Central Asia, and was also practiced small communities in China. Christianity also spread up the Nile, into what is now Sudan.

At the same time, by the first half of the 10th century. Christianity has lost much of its strength and vitality. IN Western Europe it began to lose ground among the newly converted peoples. After a short revival during the Carolingian dynasty (8th - early 9th centuries), monasticism again fell into decline. The Roman papacy had weakened to such an extent and lost its prestige that it seemed inevitable death awaited it. Byzantium, the heir to the Eastern Roman Empire, whose population was predominantly Greek or Greek-speaking, survived the Arab threat. However, in the 8th–9th centuries. The Eastern Church was shaken by iconoclastic disputes related to the question of the admissibility of venerating icons. see also ICON.

From the second half of the 10th century. a new flowering of Christianity begins, which lasted about four centuries. Christianity was officially accepted Scandinavian peoples. The Christian faith spread among non-Germanic peoples along the Baltic coast and on the Russian plains. On the Iberian Peninsula, Islam was pushed to the south, and in the end it held only in the extreme southeast - in Granada. In Sicily, Islam was completely ousted. Christian missionaries carried their faith to Central Asia and China, whose inhabitants were also familiar with one of the eastern forms of Christianity - Nestorianism. However, east of the Caspian Sea and Mesopotamia, only small groups of the population professed the Christian faith.

Majestic Gothic cathedrals and ordinary parish churches were erected, expressing the faith of Christians in stone. Scholastic theologians worked to understand Christian doctrine in terms of Greek philosophy, primarily Aristotelianism. An outstanding theologian was Thomas Aquinas (1226–1274).

East-West schism.

The Christian churches of the Orthodox East also experienced a revival - primarily the Byzantine Church, whose sphere of influence included Greece, Asia Minor, the Balkans and Russia. This revival was partly monastic and partly theological in nature.

However, over time, a crack arose and began to widen, dividing the western branch of the church, headed by the Pope, from its eastern branch, the head of which was the Patriarch of Constantinople. The reasons for the schism were partly of a social nature, since gradually developing and intensifying cultural and linguistic differences manifested themselves in a long rivalry for the primacy of the authority and power of the two imperial capitals, eastern and western, and, accordingly, the two churches personified by these capitals. Differences in Eastern and Western liturgical practices also played an important role. Controversy also arose over the Western formulation Nicene Creed, which originally spoke of the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Father and in which the Western Church included words indicating that the Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also “from the Son.” see also FILIOQUE.

Crusades.

The Crusades became a characteristic feature of medieval Christianity in Western Europe. The first campaign was undertaken at the call of Pope Urban II in 1096 to gain control of the holy places in Palestine, which were constantly visited by Christian pilgrims. Jerusalem and several other Palestinian cities were captured and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was established. Subsequent crusades were undertaken in order to protect this kingdom or regain lost territories. However, as a result of these campaigns, the Muslims not only were not driven out of Palestine, but, on the contrary, united among themselves and strengthened themselves, which allowed them to eventually gain the upper hand and become the undivided masters of these lands. The last stronghold of the Crusaders fell in 1291. The Crusaders sowed distrust and hatred among the local population, which led to a sharp deterioration in relations between the West and the Middle East in the 12th century.

Ottoman expansion.

Since the middle of the 14th century. The territories where Christianity was widespread were significantly reduced, and its very existence was threatened. In 1453 the Ottomans captured Constantinople, the center of Orthodoxy. In the same century, they appeared under the walls of Vienna, managing to capture all of Greece and the Balkans and almost turning the Mediterranean Sea into the inland sea of their empire. The Ottomans did not eradicate Christianity in the areas they captured, but they did deprive Christians of almost all rights. As a result, the ecumenical patriarchs were actually forced to buy their rank from the sultans, and many of the bishops appointed to the Balkan churches did not even speak the language of their flock. The adoption of Islam by the Mongols, who ruled all of Central Asia, and especially the campaigns of Tamerlane (1336–1405) led to a significant reduction in the number of Christians in this region and to the complete disappearance of Christianity in many lands.

Late Middle Ages.

In Western Europe, a crisis has emerged in the life of the Roman Catholic Church. The first symptoms of this crisis were the transfer of the papal throne to Avignon (“Avignon” or “Babylonian captivity”, 1309–1376) and the great Western schism between the two lines of popes, Avignon and Rome, which began shortly after 1378 and ended only at the Council of Constance ( 1414–1418). The great schism was followed by the reign of the Renaissance popes. The most famous of them were Rodrigo Borgia (Alexander VI, 1492–1503) and Giovanni de' Medici (Leo X, 1513–1521). Monasticism in this era fell into a noticeable decline. “Pluralism” (the practice according to which one person was allowed to hold several church positions at once, and the receipt of income from benefices did not require the presence of the beneficiary holder and his participation in the management and affairs of the diocese) became widespread.

However, even in these decades, the Christian faith did not experience such a decline as in the first half of the 10th century. Religious movements such as the mystical Brethren of Communal Life movement (which remained within the church) and the work of reformers such as John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, who were condemned as heretics, testified to the great vitality of the Christian religion.

REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION

The 16th century was marked by a new revival of religious life, which marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation, as well as a new territorial expansion of the Christian religion, striking in its scale.

The Protestant Reformation, which began in Germany in 1517 with the speech of Luther, developed in four main forms, united by the recognition of the exclusive authority of the Bible and the denial of the authority and power of the Pope. The first, Lutheranism, went directly back to Luther (1483–1546) and over time came to dominate much of Germany and the Scandinavian countries. In Lutheranism special meaning attached to the principle of “justification by faith alone” and rejected those dogmas and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that were considered by Lutherans as contrary to the Bible. The second form, Calvinism, was embodied in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches and owed its emergence to John Calvin (1509–1564). Calvin particularly insisted on the absolute sovereignty of God and accepted only those teachings of the medieval Catholic Church that he believed were clearly expressed in the Bible. Calvinism became the main form of Protestantism in Switzerland, much of the Rhineland, the Netherlands and Scotland; he also gained strong positions in Hungary, England and in the 13 American colonies, which later united to form the USA. The third form of Protestantism is Anglicanism. Thanks to the efforts of Henry VIII, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and Elizabeth I, it retained many more pre-Reform features than other branches of Protestantism. Finally, the fourth form of Protestantism was various Anabaptist movements. The Anabaptists, distinguished by the greatest radicalism among all movements in Protestantism, were persecuted not only by the Catholic Church, but also by more conservative Protestants, which over time led to a reduction in their numbers. However, they became the spiritual ancestors of the Mennonites, Baptists and a number of other Protestant denominations, which later received especially great development in the United States. The first three branches of Protestantism developed against the background of the emergence and development of nationalist sentiments and ideas. By worshiping in national languages, all four forms of Protestantism contributed significantly to the emergence of the cultural pluralism that has become an integral feature of modern Western civilization. see also ANABAPTISTS; ANGLICAN CHURCHES; PROTESTANTISM; REFORMATION.

Colonization.

The process of territorial expansion of Christianity was carried out primarily by the Catholic Church and states such as Spain and Portugal. The spread of Christianity was carried out partly through missions to non-Christian peoples, and partly through the migration of European populations. It has become widespread in the Caribbean and Central and South America. Smaller Christian communities arose in Canada and in certain areas on the African coast, in India, Ceylon, China, Japan and the East Indies, especially in the Philippines, where the majority of the native population was converted.

Religious wars.

One of the consequences of the Protestant and Catholic Reformations was the so-called. religious wars, the main ones being the Thirty Years' War in Germany (1618–1648), the Dutch War of Independence, which ended in victory, and the civil wars in France between Huguenots and Catholics. The religious wars fixed the territorial boundaries between Protestant and Catholic areas and countries in approximately the same state as we see these boundaries today. see also HUGENOTS.

CHRISTIANITY IN THE MODERN PERIOD

Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. contained a new threat to Christianity. The skeptical deism of thinkers such as Locke in England, the Encyclopedists in France, and Lessing in Germany had little in common with traditional faith. In addition, most of the churches of the time, including the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox and Protestant churches, were closely associated with the state. The Act of Toleration, passed in 1689 in England, weakened this system. Then came the French Revolution (1789–1799), followed by the Napoleonic Wars (1804–1814), which destroyed or weakened many political structures controlled by the church. see also DEISM.

Attitude to Christianity in the 19th century. was marked by sharp contrasts. On the one hand, anti-Christian tendencies continued to develop in society. In Catholic countries, a wave of revolutionary movements arose, mainly of an anti-clerical orientation. The Industrial Revolution weakened the traditional foundations of society, which were associated primarily with the church. The new socio-political teachings, especially Marxism, were openly anti-Christian and won many adherents among the intelligentsia and workers. On the other hand, all major branches of Christianity experienced a noticeable revival.

In Catholicism, this revival was expressed, in particular, in the strengthening of the papacy. In 1870, the First Vatican Council proclaimed the dogma of the infallibility of popes in those cases when they speak ex cathedra (i.e. officially) on questions of doctrine and morals, and confirmed that the pope exercises absolute administrative power in the church. Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum(1891) outlined the basic principles that should guide the church in the face of the social and economic problems of the new era. The Pope called for the study of the works of Thomas Aquinas, seeing in Thomism one of the means to satisfy the intellectual demands of our time. The old monastic orders were renewed and strengthened, and new monastic congregations also emerged. Developing the doctrine, Pope Pius IX officially proclaimed in 1854 the dogma that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin (the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary).

In the East, as a result of the weakening of the power of the Ottoman Empire and the liberation of Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia from the Turkish yoke, the churches of these countries got rid of centuries of dependence on Muslim rulers. New trends also arose in the Russian Orthodox Church - primarily in prayer practice and piety, but also in theology.

Protestantism developed energetically. New life was breathed into Christianity, in continental Europe, by Pietism (which arose in the 17th century) and the revival of the Lutheran faith, and in the Anglo-Saxon world by evangelicalism, among whose outstanding pioneers was John Wesley (1703–1791). Movements such as the Home Mission in Germany, as well as the Salvation Army, YMCA, and YWCA in Great Britain, sought to address the problems created by urbanization and industrialization of society. The Red Cross organization and the Christian pacifism movement opposed the evil that the war brought with it. Protestants played a large role in establishing a ban on the use of slave labor in the British Isles and in the United States. The best minds have worked to bring theology into line with the latest intellectual trends ( outstanding role F. Schleiermacher played here, 1768–1834).

The spread of Christianity during this period was carried out partly due to the active and massive immigration of the population of traditionally Christian countries to America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and partly due to the conversion of non-Christian peoples.

The twentieth century.

After World War I, Christianity faced new threats and difficulties. In traditionally Christian countries, forces emerged that achieved revolution - political, economic and cultural - on a global scale. Two world wars affected all peoples on earth. The emergence of nuclear weapons in 1945 threatened the lives of all people on Earth. In Europe and Asia, old forms of government were abolished. In large regions - most notably Russia and China - the old regime was replaced by communist rule, usually combined with militant atheism. Countries one after another experienced an industrial revolution, which also threatened the existence of traditional religion. In both Western and Eastern Europe the number of churchgoers has dropped sharply. The colonial system collapsed, and Christianity, which the inhabitants of the former colonies associated with Western imperialism, began to be seen as a phenomenon of imperialist culture. As a result, non-Christian religions flourished in these countries - primarily Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. However, the main trend of the 20th century. All over the world there is a movement towards secularism, rejecting all religion.

Contemporary Christian Revival.

Despite all these difficulties, Christianity today is experiencing a period of growth. This is indicated by a number of undeniable signs.

1. The spread of Christianity throughout the world continues. Despite the population explosion in the Third World following the First World War, the number of Christians, still a religious minority, has increased significantly relative to the total population in India, Indonesia and the African countries to the south. from the Sahara.

2. Christianity was an important factor in the independent social and cultural development of the independent peoples of the Third World countries. In particular, the training program for indigenous Christian clergy expanded, and many of them entered the episcopate of the Roman Catholic Church (or its equivalent in Protestant churches). When European missionaries were recalled from a number of countries during World War II, the work of converting the population of these countries to Christianity was completely taken over by local priests and bishops.

3. Christianity continued to exist in countries with communist regimes. In Russia, after a period when the militant anti-Christian policies of the communists led to a significant reduction in the number of church members, Christianity was revived again and the number of believers increased significantly. In East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, churches continued to exist despite many difficulties and oppression. In China, where the number of Christians never exceeded one percent of the total population, the number of churches declined more sharply and Christians suffered more severe persecution than in Europe, but Christianity survived here.

4. New movements in Christianity began to emerge - along with the old ones, which also strengthened significantly. In Catholicism, the increasing participation of the laity in the life of the Church was evidenced by the emergence of the Liturgical Movement, Catholic Action, Eucharistic Congresses, Christian Democratic parties, the Legion of the Virgin Mary and a large number of youth organizations, as well as the implementation of new translations of the Bible into national languages. In Europe, the position of the Catholic Church was especially strong in Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Northern France, Southern Germany, Switzerland, Northern Italy and Poland. In encyclicals Quadragesimo anno(1931) and Mater et magistra(1961), following the example of the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII Rerum novarum, Popes Pius XI and John XXIII outlined a whole series of principles that should guide Catholics in the changing social and economic situation. New institutions arose in Protestantism, such as evangelical academies and church conventions in Germany, the Church in the World in the Netherlands, Iona in Scotland and Sigtuna in Sweden, designed to introduce Christian ideals into society. In Great Britain and the United States, efforts were increasingly made to introduce Christianity to working people who were far from the church. The Hilfswerk charity of the Evangelical Church in Germany, the Interfaith Committee for Refugee Aid (CIMADE) in France, and the Church World Service in the United States provided a means through which Protestants sought to alleviate the physical suffering of the victims of World War II and subsequent wars. Protestant churches were vocal about labor issues, race relations, and international issues.

5. Significant efforts have been made to take into account the main intellectual currents of our time. The Roman Catholic Church, on the eve of the First World War, made great efforts to eradicate “modernism”, which could have a harmful influence on many members of the clergy. However, this action did not imply a renunciation of all scientific work. Such outstanding thinkers of our time as Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson, in their works, expounded the theological teaching of Thomas Aquinas, making it understandable and convincing for modern man. Gabriel Marcel developed the philosophy of existentialism, popular among both believers and non-believers. In Protestantism, Karl Barth became the most influential theologian after Schleiermacher, winning recognition not only among Protestants, but also among Catholic theologians. Barth developed a Christocentric doctrine, according to which knowledge of God can only be achieved through Jesus Christ. In the USA, Reinhold Niebuhr led an entire school that studied the problem of the relationship of Christianity to the social, economic and interethnic issues of our time.

6. Christians achieved a degree of unity that they had never known before. They were still far from uniting in common church, but began to present a united front in the face of the whole world. This trend was most characteristic of Protestantism, which represents the least cohesive and unified branch of Christianity. The creation of regional and national councils of churches and especially the World Council of Churches (1948) made it possible to achieve particularly great success in this direction. By the early 1960s, the World Council of Churches already included the overwhelming majority of Protestant and Eastern churches. At the same time, friendly relations between Protestant and Catholic church leaders strengthened. In 1961, the Ecumenical (Constantinople) Patriarch took important steps aimed at strengthening unity and cooperation between the Orthodox Churches. In 1962, on the initiative of Pope John XXIII, the Second Vatican Council was convened, the main goal of which was the renewal of the church in the face of the problems that arose in the 20th century, and the movement towards achieving Christian unity. After the conclusion of the council in 1965, Pope John's successor, Paul VI, zealously set to work to implement the decisions of the council.

7. Christianity has acquired much greater moral authority in the non-Christian world than ever before, influencing in particular the formation of the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi, India's most authoritative spiritual leader in the 20th century, and through him many of his compatriots. Although Christianity could not play a dominant role in the countries of this world, it nevertheless significantly influenced the ideals and actions of people.

Number.

According to rough estimates, in 1996 there were approx. 2 billion Christians; of which 981 million are Catholics, approx. 600 million Protestants and 182 million Orthodox (in Russia 70–80 million). In general, the number of adherents of the Christian faith exceeds the number of adherents of any other religion.

The main branches of Protestantism that emerged in the 16th century continue to exist in Europe; they are considered as their religion by the majority of residents of northwestern Europe and Great Britain. In the 20th century these churches were separated from the state in Germany and Wales, and even earlier there was a separation of church and state in the Netherlands. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland avoided separation from the state, and the Lutheran Church in the Scandinavian countries and Finland received state status. However, even where church and state are separated, the almost universal custom of baptism and confirmation remains. The United States is characterized by a special diversity of Christian churches and denominations. All existing forms of Christianity are represented in this country, but the largest and most numerous denominations here are not Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans, as in Europe, but Baptists and Methodists (also with European roots). Protestant denominations of purely American origin were added to the latter. From eastern churches The most numerous is the Orthodox Church. See also. M., 1994
Christianity: Dictionary. M., 1994
Zadvorny V.L. History of the Popes. Volume I. From St. Peter to St. Simplicia. M., 1995
Pospelovsky D.V. Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century. M., 1995
Zadvorny V.L. History of the Popes. Volume II. From St. Felix II to Pelagius II. M., 1997
Peoples and religions of the world. Encyclopedia. M., 1998
Rozhkov V. Essays on the History of the Roman Catholic Church. M., 1998

Christianity. Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 3 volumes. M., 1993–1995.

Internet resources

In the Internet library of Yakov Krotov: www. krotov. info

Seminar lesson plans.

Seminar 1.

1. What does philosophy study?

2. Why is it so important to understand the “beginnings” of every thing?

3. How do you understand Aristotle’s words “Philosophy begins with wonder”?

4. Why does Aristotle consider philosophy a useless science and therefore

5. Is there a difference between wisdom (sophia) and philosophy?

6. Why does Aristotle call the first philosophers physicists (physiologists)?

What is physics?

7. What did the first philosophers consider to be the origin of the universe?

Literature

Sources

Aristotle "Metaphysics" (book 1, see attachment) - a must read

additional literature

1. History of philosophy (edited by Vasiliev, Krotov, Bugai, pp. 47-55)

2. Gasparov M.L. "Entertaining Greece" (see attachment)

Workshop 2

Literature.
Sources
1. Fragments of early Greek philosophers, ed. A. V. Lebedeva

2. Diogenes Laerstsky “On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers”
(Chapter VII)
.ua/books/diogenl/txt08.htm

additional literature
1. Gaidenko P.P. “The evolution of the concept of science.” Chapter “Pythagoreanism”.
/library/gaid/2.html
2. History of Philosophy / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova, D.V.
Bugaya. Pages 49-51.
/books/philosoph/mgu-ist_filosofii-2005-8l.pdf

Literature
Sources
1.Dynnik M. Fragments of Heraclitus (fragments from the text of Heraclitus +
research on Heraclitus)
/library/antiq/geraklit/index.html
2.Fragments of early Greek philosophers, ed. Makovelsky
/books/item/f00/s00/z0000120/index.shtml
3. Fragments of early Greek philosophers, ed. A. V. Lebedeva
/Person/Lib/Filosoph/N_9.htm
4.Diogenes Laertius. About the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers /
Per. M.L. Gasparova. M., 1979 Chapter “Heraclitus of Ephesus”
/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_00.htm

additional literature
1.History of philosophy / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova, D.V.
Bugaya.. M., 2005. pp. 51-52.
/books/philosoph/mgu-ist_filosofii-2005-8l.pdf
2.Zeller E. Essays on the history of Greek philosophy. St. Petersburg, 1996.
3. Rozhansky I.D. Early Greek philosophy//Fragments of early Greek
philosophers. Part 1, ed. Rozhansky.
4.Cassidy, F.H. Heraclitus, M. 1982
5. Gasparov M. L. Entertaining Greece (see attachment)

Seminar 4.

Philosophy of the Eleatics.

Literature

Sources
1. Fragments of early Greek philosophers / Prep. A.V. Lebedev. (sections,
dedicated to Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno)
/Person/Lib/Filosoph/Index.htm
2. Xenophanes. Sills (see attachment)
3. Parmenides. About nature (see attachment)
4. Aristotle. Physics. Book VI, chapter 99 // Aristotle. Works: B
4 vols. T. 3. M., 1981. pp. 199–201. (In Book VI of Physics, Aristotle
discusses motion and in the 9th chapter refutes Zeno.) (see attachment)
5. Diogenes Laertius. About Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, Melissa (Book IX):
/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_07.htm#99

additional literature
1.History of philosophy / Ed. V.V. Vasilyeva, A.A. Krotova, D.V. Bugaya.
pp.60-64
/books/philosoph/mgu-ist_filosofii-2005-8l.pdf

2.P. P. Gaidenko History of Greek philosophy in its connection with science. (Chapter
second
THE ELEA SCHOOL AND THE FIRST STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM OF INFINITY) –
/history/16/gaydenko/gayd_14.html#3

3. Dobrokhotov A.L. The Pre-Socratic doctrine of being. M., 1980
.ua/books/dobro01/txt01.htm

Seminar 5

Sources:
Empedocles. Excerpts from the poem “On Nature”. / Per. G.I. Yakubanis //
Lucretius "On the nature of things." T.2. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1947, p. 663–676.
/Biblio/empedokl2.htm
Empedocles. Excerpts from their poem “Purification” // Semushkin A.V. Empedocles. 2nd
ed. M., 1994.
/Biblio/empedokl.htm
Ancient Greek atomists. / Per. A.O. Makovelsky. Baku, 1949.
(Lebedev's edition covers only Empedocles and Anaxagoras.)
Lurie S.Ya. Democritus: texts, translation, research. L., 1970.
(/filf/rpha/lib/Demokrit/uchenie.txt- very bad
scanning)
Diogenes Laertius. About Anaxagoras - book. II, about Empedocles – book. VIII, about
Democritus - book. IX.
/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_00.htm

additional literature.

Gaidenko P.P. History of Greek philosophy in its connection with science (about
Eleatah):
/library/gaid/4.html
Vizgin V.P. The relationship between ontology and physics in the atomism of Democritus.
http://ru.philosophy.kiev.ua/iphras/library/phusis/01.html
Yakubanis G. Empedocles: philosopher, doctor, sorcerer. Kyiv, 1994.

Workshop 6

Texts for discussion.
1. Plato. Apology of Socrates
.ua/books/plato01/01apols.htm
or
Plato. Hippias the Lesser
.ua/books/plato01/07gippm.htm

Seminar 7

Assignment for the seminar
Read Plato's dialogue “Phaedo”
See dialogue here
.ua/books/plato01/19fedon.htm

Additional literature (optional reading)
1. Diogenes Laertius ABOUT THE LIFE, TEACHINGS AND SAYINGS OF FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS,
Book III “Plato”
/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_04.htm

2. Vasilyeva T.V. Soul and knowledge/The Path to Plato, M.1999 (see attachment)

Seminar 8.

Literature

Plato. State (see attachment).
Textbook of Krotov-Bugai (corresponding chapters)
T. Vasilyeva. The Path to Plato. (III. IDEAL STATE, IDEAL
CITIZEN, IDEAL PERSON)

Seminar 9.

Aristotle.
1. Life and works.
a) Biography of Aristotle. Academy and Lyceum.
b) History of Corpus Aristotelicum and its structure.
c) The problem of translating Aristotle's works into new languages. Russians
translations of “Metaphysics” (A.V. Kubitsky, M.I. Itkin, translation by Rozanov and
Pervova, books I-V).
d) Aristotle's contribution to science. Aristotle's contribution to the development of philosophical
terminology (matter, form, essence, energy, entelechy).
2. Logic. "Organon" as a tool of scientific knowledge.
3. Aristotle's philosophical system. The principle of dividing sciences into theoretical ones
and practical. "Theoretical science of first principles and causes."
Doctrine of essence, four meanings of cause, hyle and morphe (VI–VIII
book). The doctrine of dynamis and energeia (IX book). The doctrine of the mind as
prime mover, Aristotle's theology (XII book). Criticism of Platonovskaya
theory of ideas (XIII–XIV books).

Main literature
1. Fragments from Aristotle’s treatises - see Attachment (pp. 1-11)
2. Vasiliev, Krotov, Bugai. History of philosophy (corresponding to the book about Aristotle)

Seminar 10.

1. Understand the basic terms of Aristotelian philosophy: hyle and

morphe, dynamis and energeia, enteleheia (see file with fragments from

works of Aristotle)

2. There will be a report on Aristotle’s doctrine of the soul. Read “On the Soul”

Book 2, chapters 1-3,

Book 3 chapters 4-6

and politics)

1. The subject and tasks of ethics in its connection with politics.

2. The concepts of eudaimonia (happiness), agathon (good) and arête (virtue).

The doctrine of the mean (mesos). Ethical and dianoetic virtues.

3. Definition of state and citizen. Reasons for origin

state and its purpose.

4. Forms of watering. devices. What forms of government structure

What does Aristotle call right and wrong? Why?

5. Social composition of the state. Mesoi, "average people". Problems

private property, attitude towards slavery.

Seminar 11.

Hellenistic philosophy.

1. Stoicism. The Stoic theory of knowledge. "Physics". The doctrine of the divine world body (Cosmos). "Ethics". The doctrine of goodness and virtue. "Apathy". The problem of fate and

Diogenes Laertius ON THE LIFE, TEACHINGS AND SAYINGS OF FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS

About the Stoics

/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_06.htm

about Epicurus

/lib_sec/05_d/dio/gen_08.htm

Seneca "Moral Letters to Lucillius"

Epicurus “Letter to Menoeceus”

Sextus Empiricus THREE BOOKS OF PYRRHONUS PROVISIONS

letters of Epicurus.

Seminar 12.

Neoplatonism. Plotinus.

1. How is the emanation of the One carried out and what

represents an ascent to the One? Concept of ecstasis.

2. The doctrine of the world soul and nature. Is it possible to consider

Dam nature as an activity of the Soul?

3. In what relation are the World Soul and

individual souls?

4. Understanding of matter in Neoplatonism.

5. What is the highest Good, according to Plotinus?

6. Does evil exist as such?

1) Porfiry. Life of Plotinus.

/books/ploti01/txt55.htm

2) Plotinus V. 1

ABOUT THE THREE ORIGINAL SUBSTANCES

/books/ploti01/txt37.htm

additional literature

1. John Rist. Plotinus: the path to reality

/classics/plato/rist.htm

2. History of philosophy (edited by Vasiliev, Bugai, etc.)

3. Borodai T. Yu. On two interpretations of matter in ancient times

Platonism//in the collection “Antiquity as a type of culture”, M., 1988

Seminar 13.

Western patristics. Tertullian and Augustine.

Literature:

Tertullian "Against Hermogenes"

Archimandrite Cyprian (Kera) “Patrologies” (Chapter on Tertullian)

/history/02/karsav/kars_00.html

F. Copleston. History of medieval philosophy. M.: Enigma, 1997.

E. Gilson. Philosophy in the Middle Ages. M.: Republic, 2004.

/books/item/f00/s00/z0000187/

Augustine "Confessions", book. XI:

/Sanctus_Aurelius_Augs.html

Augustine “On the City of God” (book XI, chapters 1, 2)

Gilson E. Philosophy in the Middle Ages. M.: Republic, 2004.

Marru A.I. St. Augustine and Augustinism. M., 1998.

Seminar 14.

Eastern patristics. Cappadocian Fathers.

2. Knowledge of God as a task of human existence. Borders and

conditions of knowledge of God.

3. The doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus.

a) Basil the Great: essence (generic concept), hypostasis (specific concept), consubstantial (controversy with Eunomius); patronymic, sonship, shrine. [Basily the Great 38 letter].

b) Gregory of Nazianzus: essence (generic concept), hypostasis (species concept), person, consubstantial (complete similarity in essence); unbornness, birth, procession. Proof of the unity of the Persons of the Trinity [Gregory of Nazianzus 5 words on theology]

7. The doctrine of the creation of the world, angels and man. The doctrine of man.

The source of evil (sin).

Test questions for sections A andB.

"Pre-Socratics"

The problem of the origin of philosophy from myth (“from myth to logos”). Ancient China, Ancient India, Ancient Greece.

Why did philosophy become possible in Greece? What are the characteristics of Greek philosophy?

What does the word "philosophy" mean?

Describe the basic concepts of pre-Socratic philosophy: “nature”, “logos”, “cosmos”, etc.

What are the differences between the “Ionian” and “Italic” branches of Pre-Socratic philosophy?

What does the concept of “pre-Socratic philosophy” mean? What are its main representatives?

Pythagorean school: founder, nature of the union, “acousmatics” and “mathematics”. Pythagoras and modern mathematics.

Pythagorean doctrine of number.

Aporia of Zeno (with analysis of one of the 4 “aporia of movement”).

Philosophy of atomists.

Philosophy of Empedocles.

Philosophy of Anaxagoras.

From the Sophists to Plato

The Sophists and the Greek Paideia.

The importance of the Sophists for Greek philosophy.

Socrates' methods: dialectics, irony, maieutics.

Plato: biography, works.

arete and knowledge arete.

“Apology of Socrates” or the work of philosophy.

"Meno": the problem of knowledge.

The doctrine of the soul in the dialogue "Phaedrus".

“State”: the structure of an ideal state, the correspondence of types of state and parts of the soul, perverted types of government.

The doctrine of ideas. Eidos of good.

How does Plato’s concept of “idea” differ from modern concepts?

Do you agree with Plato's concept of knowledge as understanding the good purpose of a thing and its development for good?

Show the influence of previous philosophical teachings on Plato.

Socrates and Plato.

From Aristotle to the Neoplatonists

Basic formulations of Aristotle's Politics. What does Aristotle's statement about the natural necessity of slavery mean?

Describe four Aristotelian causes (give their Latin names if possible).

Middle Platonists and Neoplatonism.

Highlight the elements of Aristotelianism and Platonism in Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonic principle of trinity (hierarchy of existence: Plotinus, Proclus).

Neoplatonic doctrine of the world soul.

What is the Neoplatonic attitude towards soul and body?

Test questions for section C.

Exam questions for the course "History" ancient philosophy»

Why did philosophy become possible in Greece? What are the characteristics of Greek philosophy? The problem of the origin of philosophy from mythology (“from myth to logos”).

What does the concept of “pre-Socratic philosophy” mean? What are its main representatives? Describe the basic concepts of pre-Socratic philosophy: “nature”, “logos”, “cosmos”, etc.

"Ionian" and "Italic" branches of pre-Socratic philosophy.

Give a description of the “Miletus school”. Main representatives, main ideas.

The philosophy of Heraclitus: the doctrine of logos in general, cosmology and psychology.

Pythagorean school: founder, nature of the union, “acousmatics” and “mathematics”.

Pythagorean doctrine of number.

Give a description of the “Eleatic school”. Main representatives, main ideas.

Parmenides' doctrine of being. "Two paths", six signs of being.

Aporia of Zeno (analysis of one of the 4 “aporia of movement”).

Philosophy of atomists.

Philosophy of Empedocles.

Philosophy of Anaxagoras.

The Sophists and the Greek Paideia. The importance of the Sophists for Greek philosophy.

Sophists and Socrates. Similarities and differences between their tasks.

Socratic turn in philosophy. Socrates' methods: dialectics, irony, maieutics. "Apology for Socrates."

Plato: biography, works.

"Small" or "Socratic" dialogues. Problem arete and knowledge arete.

"Meno": the problem of knowledge.

"Phaedrus": tripartite structure of the soul, intelligible cosmos.

"Phaedo" or about the immortality of the soul.

"The Feast" or about philosophical love.

“State”: structure of an ideal state, correspondence between types of state and parts of the soul, positive and negative types of state.

Plato's teaching on ideas. Eidos of good.

The influence of previous philosophical teachings on Plato.

Explain the meaning of the Aristotelian terms “matter”, “form”, “entelechy”, “energy”. How do you understand Aristotle's expression “actuality before possibility”?

Ethical and political teachings of Aristotle.

Describe Aristotle's criticism of Plato. Name the Platonic features in Aristotle's philosophy.

Aristotle's doctrine of four causes.

What are the main philosophical schools of the Hellenistic era? What do they have in common?

Describe Stoic physics, logic, and ethics.

Describe Epicurean physics, logic, ethics.

Skeptical principle era. Skeptics and dogmatists.

Elements of Aristotelianism, Platonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism in Neoplatonism.

Neoplatonic principle of trinity (hierarchy of existence: Plotinus, Proclus). The problem of emanation.

Plotinus on the nature of evil. The problem of the substance of evil.

Neoplatonic doctrine of soul and body.

Chronological framework and main features of medieval philosophy (Greek and Latin patristics, scholasticism).

The beginnings of Christian philosophy in antiquity I. The contribution of apologists, the fight against Gnosticism, the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools.

The beginnings of Christian philosophy in antiquity II. The role of philosophy in the development of Trinitarian and Christological dogmas.

The beginnings of Christian philosophy in antiquity III. Augustine.

The problem of knowledge of God. The relationship between cataphatic and apophatic theology in the East and West.

Boethius and the problem of universals.

Sample Essay Topics

"From myth" to "logos". The emergence of philosophy in Greece, India and China. Similarities and differences.

Plato and Aristotle in a dispute about ideas.

Image the best state in the political teachings of Plato and Aristotle.

The concept of nature among ancient philosophers. Its comparison with the science of modern times.

The phenomenon of sophistry in ancient philosophy. The meaning of sophistry for modern times.

Cosmos of Heraclitus.

Atomism of Democritus and the idea of atoms in modern science.

“I know that I know nothing” - paradox or dogma?

Concepts of matter among ancient philosophers.

Problem true knowledge in ancient philosophy.

Socratic turn in philosophy.

Ethics and politics in ancient philosophy.

Philosophy and mythology in antiquity.

Philosophy in antiquity as modus vivendi.

Modern concepts of “idea”, “stoic”, “skeptic”, “energy” and their philosophical “pedigree”.

Philosophical eros.

Formation of the idea of personality (from antiquity to Christianity). Pagan philosophical schools and early Christianity. Using the concepts of ancient philosophy to express the spiritual experience of Christians.

Gnosticism and Christianity.

The relationship between faith and reason in medieval philosophy.

Political doctrines of antiquity in their relation to modernity.

Philosophy in the Christian East and philosophy in the Christian West. The significance of Platonism and Aristotelianism for both philosophical cultures.

Document

State University Higherschooleconomy Faculty economy Department of Public Administration and economy public sector... Dobrynin, S.A. Dyatlov, S.A. Kurgansky. // Economy education. International periodical scientific journal...

"High School of Economics"
Report
Space of the University" Moscow, State University - Higherschooleconomy Malysheva Marina Aleksandrovna 2009 Lecture space of the university" Moscow, State University - Higherschooleconomy Maslennikov Nikita Igorevich 2009 Lecture...
"Higher School of Economics" (12)
Document
Editor E.G. Yasin - M.: Publishing House Higherschoolseconomy, 2011. Kazakov S.P. Marketing research trade... technology of macromolecular compounds) Master economy. Master's degree: Higherschooleconomy(year of graduation: 1995, ...
Higher School of Economics (34)
Program
University – Higherschooleconomy Faculty economy Approved at a meeting of the Faculty Academic Council economy protocol No. ... programming in examples and tasks. – M., " Higherschool", 1986 Bukaev G.I., Bublik N.D., Gorbatkov S.A., Sattarov...

Source: Christianity. Encyclopedic Dictionary. Volume 3. M.: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1995.

The diligent reader of this publication has repeatedly had the opportunity to feel contrasting differences of a twofold nature.

Firstly, these are differences between the presentation of material by dissimilar authors working in different time and in publications of different genres. Such original minds as the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov or our wonderful historian of the Christian East Boris Aleksandrovich Turaev remain themselves even in the narrow space of an encyclopedic article; you always recognize Vladimir Ivanovich Gerye or Olga Aleksandrovna Dobiash-Rozhdestvenskaya. But the same should be said about persons less known today. The fervent liberal criticism of Ivan Dmitrievich Andreev, sometimes reaching the point of aggressiveness, can never be confused with the traditionalism of Alexander Pavlovich Lopukhin. There are a lot of differences between the first and second editions of Brockhaus-Efron; Over the course of two decades (1890-1911), the tendencies of Russian culture changed greatly, contacts with the West expanded, and the prohibitions of spiritual censorship almost disappeared - after the October Manifesto of 1905. But the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia” also noticeably “matured” in the transition from the 6th volume to the subsequent ones, when the simple-hearted A.P. died in 1904. Lopukhin was replaced by an outstanding specialist in patristics and especially in the New Testament, Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky; In the meantime, the above-mentioned manifesto arrived, ending the Victorious era and opening the era of freedom, which was destined to last, alas, twelve years - from October to October... As for the difference in genres, it can, of course, be easily noticed between Brockhaus , secular in both editions, and the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia,” the fruit of church science in its institutional (“spiritual-academic”) forms. But we note that even within the secular publication, genre shades are noticeable, depending on the thematic circle: most topics allow a free approach, if regulated by some kind of tendency, then an intellectual-liberal one; on the contrary, topics related to current religious conflicts on the territory of Russia at that time sometimes require not only confessional rigor, but even some conventionality of presentation. Therefore, nothing prevents liberal praise for courage

Zwingli in his polemic with Luther on the issue of the Eucharist, easily forgetting that Luther’s position on this issue, while not being identical to Orthodox teaching, is much closer to it than Zwingli’s position. Even the Novgorod heretics of the 15th century. (the so-called “Judaizers”) receive, as freedom-loving critics of the hierarchy and bearers of “light from the West,” praise from I.D. Andreeva. On the contrary, it is more difficult for various representatives of the Old Believers or Catholic figures who acted at an insufficient distance from the Russian land to claim a tolerant approach, the closer they are in life. In general, Protestantism receives more favorable coverage than Catholicism. Within the panorama of Catholic spirituality, Francis of Assisi stands out, the chosen darling of the non-Catholic intelligentsia; in this sense, the naive reproach made to Anthony of Padua by the author of the note about him for the fact that he is not as “touching” as Francis is characteristic. Ideas about the Orthodox doctrinal norm are sometimes far from what we have become accustomed to. The meager note of “Hesychasts” may seem almost blasphemous; but her careless tone - “a kind of philosophy” and so on - is not from freethinking, not from liberalism, but, on the contrary, from the routine of seminary scholarship of the 18th-19th centuries, accustomed to looking with a little distrust at the heritage of ancient Orthodox mysticism. At the very least, it becomes clear with what force of inertia the galaxy of theologians had to fight, who already in our century put forward the problem of hesychasm among the primary issues of religious-philosophical and cultural-historical reflection.

We did not and could not set ourselves the task of unifying points of view, rounding off sharp corners; and even less possible for us was any semantic “modernization” of material that was a hundred or almost a hundred years old. Our goal was to make the information contained in old domestic encyclopedias as accessible as possible. In general, we did not consider ourselves to have the right to add anything to the existing text; the few inserts in square brackets contain either translations of foreign language texts, or, in extremely rare, truly exceptional cases, short and simple factual information, without which it would be too painful to leave the reader

(such, for example, is the certificate of the martyrdom of Metropolitan of Moscow, then of Kyiv Vladimir Epiphany or Archpriest John Vostorgov). We ask the reader to treat such cases as exceptions that confirm the rule.

Meanwhile, an incredible amount has happened over the past decades. The reality in which Christian confessions and denominations live, and the sum of our ideas about the historical past of the Christian faith and Christian culture, have changed profoundly. Major archaeological discoveries have been made, hitherto unknown texts have been published; World biblical studies has come a long way. Many phenomena Christian tradition, the existence of which was, generally speaking, known before, turned out to be completely new scientifically and theologically comprehended (like the same hesychasm). In order to seriously inform the reader about the fullness of this new and absolutely necessary knowledge, we need a new reference publication, in no way inferior in volume to ours. But this is a task for the future; We dare to hope - not far away.

This afterword cannot in any way set itself the goal of revealing those issues that did not exist for the authors of the republished articles. We are forced to limit ourselves, inevitably, to a condensed list of at least the most important problems, to a purely schematic outline of their panorama.

The nineteenth century bequeathed to the twentieth a certain set of truisms that school years were equally indisputable for the adherent of Christianity and for his opponent. There were Christian nations in the world; they were the bearers of civilization" white man"and occupied a dominant position on earth. Of course, the missionaries did their job; However, within the framework of the global colonial system, missionary itself did not challenge, but confirmed the exclusivity of the vocation of Christian nations and the inextricability of the connection between their civilization and Christianity. True, the civilization of the “white man” more and more openly revealed its features that were poorly compatible with Christianity. For opponents of Christianity, this was proof that faith as such was becoming obsolete. For the defenders of Christianity this was a subject of denunciation; insofar as Christians and Christian nations themselves were divided along confessional lines - Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, denunciations of the vices of a secularized civilization were easily intertwined with religious polemics, when, say, an Anglican pricked the eyes of Italian Catholics with their hedonism, and a Russian Orthodox did the same to the Anglican - by his commercialism. Confessional feeling was universally associated with national, and sometimes class. For an Englishman from a “good family” it was scandalous to become a Catholic, and even more so a Catholic clergyman; and even in the United States, even in the first half of this century, Catholics were perceived socially as second-class citizens.

In general, the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries was the time when representatives of the old Protestant confessions (especially Lutheranism and Anglicanism, as well as Calvinism) clearly felt themselves to be bearers of a higher culture, civilization, and, at the everyday level, bourgeois respectability. It was not for nothing that Ernest Renai wrote after the Franco-Prussian War that the victory of the Lutherans over the Catholics was inevitable, because progress was on the side of the Lutherans, and it was not without reason that Bismarck called his attempts to limit the rights of German Catholics a “struggle for culture” (Kulturkampf). The prestige of German “culture” - from universities and philosophy to police order - seemed to be one with the prestige of Lutheranism. The sons of German pastors, becoming writers or scientists, were not at all ashamed of their origin, like Russian radicals from the priesthood, but, on the contrary, were proud of it, regardless of their personal attitude to faith. The relationship between religion and culture developed differently in Orthodox and Catholic countries. The prestige of modern education in itself seemed to belong to a different world than the Orthodox shrine or Catholic teaching authority. Berdyaev noted long ago that Pushkin, the greatest poet of Russia, and Rev. Seraphim of Sarov, its greatest saint, lived at the same time and knew nothing about each other. But for French Catholicism, the 19th century is also the time of Bernadette Soubirou (Soubirou, 1844-1879), the so-called. "Cure of Ars" (Sigb d "Ars, Jean-Baptiste Marie Vianney / Vianney /, 1786-1859), Therese of Lisieux (Thdrese de lisieux, 1873-1897, all three are canonized by the Catholic Church), Charles de Foucault ( see below) and other figures who have had and are still exerting a decisive influence on Catholic spiritual life throughout the world; in terms of the number of people glorified by the Catholic Church among the very first, France of the last century can be compared with Spain during the time of Teresa of Avila; however, one can read Balzac and; Hugo, Flaubert and Maupassant, never realizing the very possibility of this “other,” mystical France. But Balzac, for example, considered himself a Catholic. For the entire 19th century, the concept of a “Catholic writer” has almost no meaning different from the concept of a clerical one. journalist (usually of the right wing); and if the attitude of Russian literature to Russian Orthodoxy is still different, it is due to the lonely efforts of Leskov and the completely unique initiative of Dostoevsky, both of whom, each in their own way, were almost rejected by contemporary literary life. But all the hope in both Catholic and Orthodox countries was in secrets unknown to modern times.

nicknames of undisturbed folk faith, faith ordinary people who have adopted it as part of their simple way of life. “In the capitals there is noise, they are shouting,” but in the villages all the people go on Sundays, dressed up, to mass or mass.

Since the time of the “de-Christianization” campaign once unleashed by the Jacobins, there has been the experience of mass persecution of faith; but there has not yet been an experience of truly mass unbelief. The faith of the masses could noticeably cool down, as in post-reform Russia; but she held on, held on at least by inertia. “A God-bearing people,” Dostoevsky said reverently. “The faith of coal miners” (Kohlerglaube), Heine said sarcastically. One way or another, against this background stood the reality of an “Orthodox” or “Catholic” or “Lutheran” nation. Everywhere there was a certain number of open or, more often, more or less secret unbelievers and indifferents; but among the general composition of the nation they remained in the minority. Inovertsev, i.e. There were no persons practicing a non-Christian religion at all, minus the Jews. And the man knew for sure that in Geneva he would be among the Calvinists, in Berlin - among the Lutherans, in Moscow - among the Orthodox. The confessional self-determination of a nation could often be consolidated in the status of the “dominant” church; This status is formulated most logically and most frankly by the statutes of the Anglican Church, which officially recognizes the monarch as its head, but in more hidden forms, a similar tendency is found very widely (in particular, in the Russian practice of the “synodal period” between the abolition of the patriarchate by Peter I and the end of the monarchy). But even where the spread of secularist ideas caused a formal separation of Church and state, sometimes accompanied, as in Italy by the Garibaldians or in France by the Combists, by anti-church measures by the authorities, all this did not yet change the underlying real balance of forces.

The described picture, due to its school-like clarity, continues to determine the everyday, unreflective consciousness of our contemporaries at every step. And today, national conflicts tend to reproduce the confessional paradigm. We hear, for example, that in Ulster “Catholics” are at enmity with “Protestants”; in the former Yugoslavia, “Orthodox” are at enmity with “Muslims” and “Catholics”; at the same time, apparently, it is completely useless to ask what percentage of these “Orthodox” and “Catholics” regularly go to confession and communion, what percentage of “Muslims” perform namaz, etc. No one will argue that Catholicism helped both the Polish and Lithuanian national consciousness survive in difficult conditions; however, it is too obvious that the confessional paradigm only works as long as the enemy is the Orthodox empire of the tsars or the godless empire of the communists. As soon as this enemy is pushed back, conflicts begin between the Poles and Lithuanians right at the very walls of the churches, clearly proving that modern nationalism is essentially self-sufficient and uses confessional phraseology as a tool alien to it. In the era of true confessionalism, as is known, a unified Polish-Lithuanian state was viable. The very idea of a “nation,” the brainchild of the French Revolution, is deeply secular and to that extent alien to the confessional spirit at its core. Nationalist demagoguery exploits clichés inherited from other eras and held in place by force of habit.

As soon as we break away from the habit and look at reality with fresh eyes, we immediately see something other than what reference books still describe. Oh, of course, Geneva is the city of Calvin, in the historical center of which not a single Roman Catholic church can yet rise (and even the Lutheran church was built in the 18th century in such a way as to look from the street like a private house). But at the station he meets travelers of different tribes Catholic cathedral; throughout the city there are no fewer Catholic churches than Calvinist ones, and they seem to be attended by many more. And, of course, Islam - where in the West is its presence not felt? And many sects, for the most part still very young, sometimes not at all fitting into the traditional image of Protestantism: “Moonists”, “scientologists” and others. Both churches and sects ceased to be associated with their traditional areas; well, who, at the time when the articles we republished were written, would have imagined a prosperous and populous Orthodox monastery - in the southeast of England (the monastery of the late elder Sophronius / 1896-1993 /, just one example of many), but also the preaching of American sectarians - on stadium in Luzhniki and even in the Kremlin? Under the influence of the preaching and example of our great contemporary Anthony Bloom (born 1914), the ruling metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain, almost entire English villages accept Orthodoxy; and in the native Russian “outback” there are now Mormons. There is less and less hope for the inertia of pious customs. For example, we hear from German Catholics that during the years of Hitlerism, the faith of Catholic communities in non-Catholic cities like Berlin, accustomed to staying against the grain, showed itself much better than the piety of traditionally Catholic villages, which taught the young man to go to Mass with his fellow villagers, but did not prepare him to resist being fooled in the Nazi army, where the principle of “like everyone else, so am I” meant the opposite. In the light of the sub-Soviet experience, this is quite easy to understand.

During the 20th century both the losses and gains of Christianity were great and for the most part stunningly unexpected, and its whole appearance changed significantly.

An unprecedented test for Christianity was the challenge of totalitarianism, which understood itself absolutely seriously as a new faith that replaced all the religions of the world, clearing its path with propaganda and violence. The very formula of the Nazi salute “Heil Hitler” deliberately played with German theological phraseology, contrasting the “salvation” (“Heil”) brought by the Leader with the “salvation” (“Her”) bestowed by Christ the Savior (“Heiland”). Members of the Nazi youth organization chanted:

"Wir sind die frohliche Hitlerjugend,

Wir brauchen keine christliche Tugend,

Denn unser Fuhrer Adolf Hitler

1st stets unser Mittler.

Kein Pfaffe, kein boser, kann uns verhindern

Uns zu fiihlen wie Hitlerkinder.

Nicht Christum folgen wir, sondern Horst Wessel.

Fort mit dem Weihrauch und Weihwasserkessel!”

(“We are the cheerful Hitler youth, and we do not need Christian virtues, because our leader Adolf Hitler always intercedes for us. No evil priest can prevent us from feeling like Hitler’s children. We are not following Christ, but Horst Wessel; Down with the censer and holy water!”).

The swastika, as a different, pagan cross, a sign of victory and good luck, associated with the cult of the sun and fire, was opposed to the Christian cross as a symbol of humiliation worthy of “subhumans.” Towards the end of the Hitler regime, attempts were made, organized from above, to replace and supplant the Christian sacraments of baptism and confirmation (confirmation) with the neo-pagan ritual “Jugendweihe”, the Christmas holiday with the winter solstice, etc. Particularly odious among the Christian faiths for the Nazis was Catholicism, which energetically emphasized the universal, transnational nature of the Church (Hitler and Goebbels, who formally belonged to the Catholic Church by birth, defiantly left it). The concordat concluded by the Nazis with the Vatican, but systematically violated by them, was in their eyes a delay in the decisive blow. According to evidence cited in Graham Greene's essay "The Paradox of a Pope", at the enthronement of Pius XII (1939), the ambassador of Hitler's Germany said out loud: "An impressive and beautiful ceremony - but this is the last time." (Elevated by the Nazis to the rank of a central “faithful” principle, anti-Semitism and, in particular, mass actions to exterminate Jews, the so-called “Holocaust”, were for Christian thought a strong stimulus for reflection on such topics as the mystical purpose of the people Old Testament, historical guilt of Christians before Jews, etc.; in the works of the Russian diaspora, the works of mother Maria Skobtsova (1891-1945) and the article by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov “Racism and Christianity.” Of course, it is possible, although useless, to argue about whether this reflection went far enough among the named authors, as well as about whether Pius XII and the opposition Christians in Germany should not have raised their voices louder, without any hesitation, against the unbridled actions of Hitlerism in his last years; but numerous Christians who saved Jews at that time, like Mother Mary, saved the honor of their faith, and their feat was perhaps more important than the intellectual radicalism with which the problem began to be discussed in the West much later.)

If German totalitarianism wanted to replace Christianity with a completely “Aryan” religion, and therefore did not abandon the rhetorical manipulation of quasi-religious phraseology, the Bolsheviks set as their task the rapid elimination of religion as such in any form, a war of annihilation against the idea of God. When, say, on January 30, 1923, in the presence of People's Commissars Trotsky and Lunacharsky, a meeting of a political tribunal was staged to impose a death sentence on... God, it was not only a farce for the masses, but also an expression of a completely serious program for action. In a secret letter to members of the Politburo, Lenin demanded that reprisals be carried out against the clergy and believers “with the most furious and merciless energy, not stopping at suppressing any resistance.” An incredible number of white clergy, monks, nuns and laypeople faithful to their faith were shot or tortured in the camps. By 1939, there were only four capable Orthodox bishops left in the entire Soviet Union, and there were no guarantees that at least them would be left. The desecration of relics, the destruction of icons, and the systematic destruction of churches took place publicly, as an “educational” spectacle for the crowd. Specific deadlines were assigned for the final eradication of religion, and it was included in the party and state plans (“godless five-year plan”). The entire system of state upbringing and education, from nurseries and kindergartens to universities, was subjected to anti-religious propaganda with absolute rigidity; but in addition to this, the state maintained a well-paid army of specialists for whom anti-religious propaganda was the only occupation. Songs were heard throughout the country:

"We'll climb to heaven,

Let's drive away all the gods!

The pathos of the struggle with God went far beyond the boundaries of atheism itself, i.e. disbelief, and revealed traits of hatred towards a living enemy; It is not without reason that in the 20s and 30s, when the intensity of anti-religious rage was especially steep, its bearers and distributors preferred to call themselves not the dry foreign term “atheists,” but the much more expressive and meaningful Russian word “atheists.” Only at the time of the Great Patriotic War, when the anti-religious state needed patriotic

financial assistance to the Church, the anti-religious policy was softened, and the “atheists” were urgently renamed “militant atheists”; but this did not in the least prevent Khrushchev from updating his plans for the speedy elimination of faith in God. The assessment of any religious activity that goes beyond the purely ritual “worship” as a state crime was maintained to one degree or another until the end of Soviet power; The last trials of the “religious” took place already at the beginning of Gorbachev’s era. But if the post-war Soviet Union was interested in world public opinion, so that reduced opportunities for “worship” remained, especially in capitals accessible to foreigners, then, for example, in Enver Hoxha’s Albania, the baptism of a child could be punished by death. Incomparably less systematic, but violent ideologically motivated persecution of the Church took place during the civil war of 1936-1939 in Spain, as well as after the events of 1926 in Mexico (it is with these events that the image of an underground priest in Graham Greene’s novel “The Power and the Glory” is associated / "The Power and the Glory", which was one of the most convincing artistic testimonies to Christianity of our century).

As is invariably repeated in the history of Christianity, persecution again and again gave rise to the heroic enthusiasm of martyrs and confessors. What seemed to be a venerable but not entirely viable tradition in prosperous times turned out to be the strongest in extreme conditions. In the midst of totalitarian madness, when other values and foundations could not withstand the onslaught, only the quiet courage of faith held out. The most precious contribution of Christians of the 20th century. into the treasury of the history of Christianity - the blood of martyrs, a simple and clear testimony of faith expressed in the face of the executioners: let us cite, for example, the last word of Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd, sentenced by the Bolsheviks to death on July 5, 1922. In the light of martyrdom, Christianity for the first time became convincing for many deniers. Not only fellow believers, but the whole world should preserve the grateful memory of those Christians who, finding themselves among other victims, took the blow intended for someone, as the Polish Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe did in the death camps (Kolbe, 1894-1941, counted among 1982 by the Catholic Church canonized) and Russian Orthodox nun in Parisian exile Mother Maria (Skobtsova). Even the work of Christian thought often took place in an atmosphere of severe disgrace, and even in cruel camp conditions: it is enough to recall the most prominent German Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (see below) - in Buchenwald, our Orthodox philosophers and theologians - Fr. Pavel Florensky in Solovki, Lev Platonovich Karsavin (1882-1952) in Abezi. Here it is appropriate to recall the old saying of Blaise Pascal that only those witnesses who allow themselves to be stabbed are trustworthy.

However, the sad side of the truth is that while there were thousands and tens of thousands of martyrs, there were millions of apostates. Although the 100% involvement of the peoples of the Soviet Union in the fiery godlessness planned by the ideologists remained a fantastic utopia, it cannot be denied that traditional religiosity and popular religious culture the country that was once called “Holy Russia” was destroyed on such a scale that it was very difficult to believe in the possibility of it in advance. Rural Komsomol members, loud ringleaders of godless actions, were recruited from the children and grandchildren of that same Russian peasantry, whose Orthodox foundations inspired so much hope in more than one Dostoevsky; Of course, they acted on orders, but they acted, demonstrating a terrible generation gap. Yes, there was a lot of direct and brutal violence against the people’s soul, against the people’s conscience, which did not fully accept the war against God; as N.K. admitted Krupskaya, even during the national census of 1937, which included a question about attitudes towards religion, a huge part of the population refused to declare themselves atheists. It is significant that when the government was forced to seek the support of the people during the war, the anti-religious noise fell silent. Yet there is no way to explain the massive loss of faith by violence alone; even under a totalitarian regime, violence is omnipotent only insofar as it can rely on the reality of social psychology, which is not created by it, but only skillfully stimulated and used.

Totalitarianism 20th century. in itself had and has chances only in the context of a deep cultural and, more broadly, anthropological crisis, which manifests itself even where totalitarian forces were unable to achieve political victory. This crisis affects, first of all, the connection between fathers and children, the continuity of generations, the psychological opportunity for parents to practice their authority, and for the heirs to accept the values offered by this authority. The relationship between seniors and juniors has, of course, never been problem-free; but the rapidly changing reality of our century has called into question not the harmony of these relations, but their very foundations. And if mass religiosity for centuries rested on the fact that faith was “imbibed with mother’s milk,” if a person believed because, as Kierkegaard once noted, that his father told him about the existence of God in early childhood, it could not help but be in danger everywhere, also and where no hepushnik forced her to renounce. Moreover, if atheism still takes the idea of God so seriously that at least it cannot get rid of it without formally declared and scientifically

its justified denial, then consistent relativism and hedonism, encouraged by “progress,” can create a type of person capable of accepting even the idea of God without it obliging him to anything, because nothing obliges him to anything and every commandment, moral or ritual, seems to his consciousness unbearably outdated, naive and intrusive. For today's Christianity, this is much more dangerous than an atheistic doctrine that has exhausted its resources. T.N. The “permissive” society of modern highly developed countries does not resemble the repressive society of totalitarianism, but the permissiveness of the first, as well as the prohibitions of the second, cease for the “common man”, “the man on the street”, the effect of the old social obligation: to belong to the local parish, to baptize children, Sunday, together with the whole village or block, go to church. The “Constantinian era,” a time dating back to the initiative of the first Christian emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, when Christianity, in alliance with state power, gave the existence of entire nations a universally binding norm, has ended forever, to use an expression common in the language of modern religious thought. Of course, in some corners of the modern world the old laws of life still retain some force; but it is not these oases, also under threat, that determine the situation as a whole.

At the dawn of Christianity, Tertullian said: “Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani,” “Christians are not born, but made.” For one and a half millennia, when there were “Christian nations” (“Orthodox”, “Catholic”, “Protestant” nations), this was not so. Now it's like that again.

Believers, and sometimes non-believers, cannot help but regret the loss of the skills of Christian behavior that were once part of flesh and blood and therefore manifested with beautiful naturalness. What was once taken for granted has not gone away, contrary to anti-Christian forecasts, fatally and forever, but requires a conscious choice of will, effort, learning, which too often turns into awkward straining of neophytes. We live in a world where nothing goes without saying anymore. The results are most disappointing for the folk, everyday (and partly liturgical) culture of traditionally Christian countries. In addition, one cannot help but see that a very significant part of modern youth is either content with purely pragmatic values (sometimes finding ersatz secrets for leisure in occult pursuits), or is looking for faith outside of Christianity, be it in the exotic religions of the East or in the dubious secrets of the so-called. “New age” (a fashionable movement reviving Gnosticism within the so-called youth subculture), or, even showing interest in Christianity, refuses to accept its obligatory aspect, incompatible with the temptations of permissiveness. And yet the answer to the question of what is ultimately greater, losses or gains, is not so simple. The essence of Christianity is perhaps more consistent with the status of the apostolic faith, the homeless faith of missionaries and catechumens, living outside the protection of the institutions of this world. Even in the New Testament it was said: “We do not have a permanent city here, but we seek the one to come” (Bev. 13:14). Perhaps it is easier for a Christian who finds faith today to understand why the word “Gospel” means “glad tidings,” “good news.” It was much more difficult for a son or daughter of one of the “Christian nations” of the past to understand this. Today it is easier to hear the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2). From the 20th century. It is more noticeable than a hundred or two hundred years ago that the period when the concept of the Christian world stabilized geographically and ethno-culturally for some time is only part of the history of Christianity, the fate of which was constantly that it lost peoples and lands, but acquired new ones. The people among whom the preaching of Jesus Christ sounded did not accept it; lands such as Syria, where the word “Christian” was first uttered (Acts 11:26), Asia Minor, whose churches symbolize in the Apocalypse all Christianity in the world (Rev. 1:11ff), Egypt, where the desert first ripened Christian monasticism, and in Alexandria - Christian philosophy, and finally, North Africa, where Christianity first spoke Latin, were all taken away by Islam; but the “good news” came again and again to those who had not yet heard it. This happens in our time. The preaching of Christianity in the countries of Asia and Africa, having lost traditional ties with the colonial system, with the prestige of the “white man”, passing into the hands of local residents and taking root in the forms of local culture, becomes much more convincing. Of course, the “acculturation” of Christian doctrine, i.e. its transition to other “cultural codes” naturally carries the risk of syncretism and dual faith; but this risk is essentially the same as in the times when Christianity was adopted by the Celts, Germans, Slavs and other “barbarians” of ancient Europe.

The fact that in its traditional areas the Christian faith is increasingly turning from an automatically inherited attribute of the nation into a subject of personal choice has turned out to be quite favorable for cultural creativity under the sign of Christianity. We noted above that in the last century only Protestantism shared a prestigious position with the culture of Protestant countries, while in Orthodox and Catholic countries faith remained primarily an “everyday confession” of the silent masses, the spirit of which was alien to culture. On the contrary, the first half of the 20th century. gave an unexpected abundance of Orthodox and Catholic thinkers and writers, who occupied very prominent places in the panorama of European culture.

tours. At the same time, the French Catholic writers Léon Bloy (1846-1917), as well as Paul Claudel (Claudel, 1868-1955), Charles Peguy (P6guy, 1873-1914), Francis Jammes (1868-1938) and Georges lived and worked Bernanos (Bernanos, 1888-1948), jokingly nicknamed “the Fathers of the Church”; French Catholic thinkers Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), Etienne Gilson (1884-1978) and Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973); the ruler of the thoughts of the German Catholic elite, for whom a special cathedra was created in Berlin against all customs, a Catholic priest of Italian origin Romano Guardini (Guardini, 1885-1968); Russian Orthodox philosophers and theologians who grew up under the influence of the impulses of Dostoevsky’s creativity and especially the mystical thought of Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) Evgeniy Nikolaevich Trubetskoy (1863-1920), Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (1874-1948), whom Romain Rolland called the “Russian Peguy”, about . Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944), Semyon Ludwigovich Frank (1877-1950), Fr. Pavel Florensky (1882-1937), Vladimir Frantsevich Ern (1882-1917), Georgy Petrovich Fedotov (1886-1951); an interesting opponent of Solovyov, but also of conventional pious clichés, who tried to combine an almost Protestant-understood mental honesty with a very Russian bias of thought, the now unfairly forgotten theologian Mikhail Mikhailovich Tareev (1866-1934); representatives of Russian symbolism, whose attitude to Christianity was complex but significant, like Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov (1856-1919), Dmitry Sergeevich Merezhkovsky (1866-1941), the herald of the “new religious consciousness“, who in 1901, together with his wife Zinaida Nikolaevna Gippius (1869-1945), founded “Religious and Philosophical Meetings”, at which cultural figures sat next to representatives of the clergy, and at one time close to Ern, who later joined Catholicism, Vyacheslav Ivanovich Ivanov (1866 -1949); finally, the English Catholic fiction writer, essayist and poet Gilbert Keith Chesterton (Chesterton, 1874-1936), his associate Hilary Belloc (Belloc, 1870-1953) and many, many others. The flowering of Russian religious thought after the revolution continued either in the diaspora, where it fruitfully met with the thought of the West, so that in particular Berdyaev became a phenomenon on a pan-European scale, somewhat one-sidedly defining the Western intellectual’s idea of the “Russian soul”, and where the meaning of the already mentioned G. P. Fedotova, L.P. Karsavin and a sharp opponent " silver age"Hegelian Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin (1882-1954), who embodied the most right-wing tendencies of this mental movement, or under the yoke of atheistic terror - along with Fr. Pavel Florensky and Alexei Fedorovich Losev (1893-1988), who was close to him in his way of thinking, must be named Alexander Aleksandrovich Meyer (1875-1939), who died in Stalin’s camps, to whose circle Fedotov belonged before going abroad; both the first and especially the second were difficult, however inner freedom It helped rather than hindered. And later, by the second half of the century, Catholics became extremely visible in traditionally non-Catholic literatures, for example in English (from Graham Greene to J.R. Tolkien) or German (from Gertrude von Le Fort, 1876 -1971/ to Heinrich Böll /B811/). However, let us make a reservation that the presence of representatives of one or another confession manifests itself in the middle and second half of the 20th century. differently than in the 1st half - noticeably more restrained, with a decrease in pathos and an increase in skepticism, if not in relation to faith, then in relation to oneself as its defender; the same Graham Greene or Heinrich Böll are Catholics among writers, but not “Catholic writers” in the specific sense in which Paul Claudel undoubtedly was. Among Christian believers of all denominations during the 20th century. The percentage of people with university education is sharply increasing - partly due to the weakening of faith among the common people, but partly due to the increase in its attractiveness for the intelligentsia. When C. Peguy made the traditional pilgrimage on foot from Paris to the shrines of Chartres (sung in his poems), it was an act that was at least unexpected for the Parisian publicist and writer; After his death, however, such a pilgrimage became a custom among the Parisian students, and huge crowds of young people walked along the ancient pilgrimage road. In the period between the two wars, such a mental change among young intellectuals sometimes gave rise to euphoric hopes among Catholics for the progressive and final churching of university, artistic and cultural life in general. These hopes were not justified, because they did not take into account the main factor of modern life - the impossibility of simply inheriting a way of thinking from fathers to children. Fluctuation of statistically revealed successes and failures of faith with the change of generations in our time is inevitable.

It is impossible not to notice how characteristic of Christian life and culture of the 20th century. a type of “convert”, “convert”, who came from somewhere outside - from atheism or religious indifference, from another confession, from another religion. The famous Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain is a descendant of the Calvinists (“Huguenots”), as is the German Catholic poetess Gertrude von Le Fort, as is the most prominent Orthodox thinker of our time, Olivier Clement (Clement, born 1921); such an energetic champion of Catholicism in English literature as G.K. Chesterton is a descendant of the Puritans. Maritain's wife Raisa is Jewish, like Edith Stein (Stein, 1891-1942), a talented student of the philosopher Edmund Husserl, who became a Carmelite nun, destroyed by the Nazis and

beatified by the Catholic Church, as was the Polish Catholic poet R. Brandstaetter (born 1906), as well as the outstanding Catholic figure of our time, Cardinal Lustiger (born 1926). The son of a Jewish woman who converted to Orthodoxy was Fr. Alexander Men (1935-1990), who launched unique missionary work in the godless Soviet society. Paul Claudel, Fr. Pavel Florensky, a wonderful preacher of Orthodoxy in Great Britain, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, were born into religiously indifferent families. Sh. Pegi, Berdyaev, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov went through the experience of socialism.

For previous centuries, it most often seemed obvious that Christianity was in a natural and necessary union with all the most conservative social forces (the so-called “union of throne and altar”); There were exceptions (see the article “Catholic Socialism”), but they remained exceptions. Today Christianity has ceased to need political protection precisely because it is maintained - if at all - not by the force of external inertia, but by the force of internal dynamics. It is characteristic that S.N. Bulgakov, who before the revolution did not find it possible (despite growing monarchist sympathies) to become a priest of the “official” hierarchy, was relieved to be ordained in the persecuted Church on June 24, 1918; this example is typical. The social position of Western Christianity is changing: “Now in the West,” noted G.P. Fedotov back in 1932, it is almost impossible to find a fundamental justification and defense of the capitalist system as religiously justified, on the basis of Christian ethics. In this sense, something is irretrievably a thing of the past... It would be possible to write the history of Europe in the 19th century without mentioning the social Catholic and Protestant movements. For the history of modern social crises, this would be impossible.”

A new factor in the life of Christianity in the 20th century is the so-called “ecumenical” movement for the reunification of Christians of different faiths. It is conditioned by the situation of Christianity as a faith offering itself anew to the non-Christian world; a person who, in an act of personal choice, becomes a Christian, less and less inherits the confessional culture of his ancestors, but the mutual accounts of confessions, going back centuries, become less and less relevant for him. Popular English Christian writer K.S. Lewis (Lewis, 1898-1963) wrote a book with the characteristic title “Mere Christianity” (“Just Christianity”); This title well expresses the need of the era to raise the question of the essential core of Christian teaching, visible through the particular characteristics of a particular historical type. The danger of reductionism, which simplifies and impoverishes minimization, is obvious in such a mentality. But a certain degree of simplification ceases to be a doctrinaire ideologeme (which was, say, the slogan of “simplification” by Leo Tolstoy) and becomes an adequate response to the harsh reality of the radical challenge posed to Christianity by totalitarianism and secularist relativism. The diversity of theological positions is largely replaced by a division in two: for Christ and against Christ. Christians of different confessions, who found each other as comrades in misfortune in Stalin’s and Hitler’s camps, who received communion from each other’s hands before their martyrdom (as was the case with Lev Karsavin, who polemicized a lot against Catholicism, but received communion from the hands of a Catholic priest before his death) - this is the most profound “ecumenical” experience of the century. To this we must add that the need for thinking Christians, saving their faith in themselves, to resist the monstrous ideological onslaught, has developed an increased “allergy” to the usual confessional ideologism, which for centuries has been practicing in idealizing its past and present and denigrating the past and present of its opponents. Intellectual honesty, far from forcing one to renounce one’s religious beliefs, obliges one to see in the real history and life of different faiths, on the one hand, the sad “unworthiness of Christians,” contrasting with the “dignity of Christianity” (if we recall Berdyaev’s well-known formula), on the other hand, deeds of sincere love for Christ, One and the same for all who believe in Him. The “ecumenical” movement as such only gives more or less adequate expression to these internal shifts.

The initiative in this movement belonged to the Protestant denominations (Edinburgh Conference of 1910, the result of which was the creation of the World Missionary Council); on the Orthodox side, it was supported in 1920 by the message of the Patriarch of Constantinople, addressed to all the Churches of Christ and calling them to “closer communication and mutual cooperation.” A number of Orthodox theologians of the Russian diaspora took an active part in the movement; but the “Karlovak” direction (“Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”) from the very beginning and to this day has taken an extremely harsh anti-ecumenical position. In 1948, the World Council of Churches (WCC) was created, uniting the most important Protestant denominations and a number of Orthodox local churches; Since 1961, the Moscow Patriarchate has taken part in its work, as well as observers from the Vatican. Certain aspects of his activities were criticized (in particular, for smoothing over acute problems associated with the persecution of believers in communist countries). Controversy was also caused by attempts at ecumenical ritual creativity at WCC conferences, not only going beyond the liturgical and prayer customs of any historical context;

professions, but even causing criticism in non-Christian eclecticism. In general, one cannot help but see, on the one hand, that the complex of institutions (in particular, charitable and law enforcement) integrated by the WCC takes its place in the life of modern Christianity, on the other hand, that it would be madness to place too much hope on a purely institutional, formal , the diplomatic, and therefore inevitably bureaucratizing side of modern ecumenical activity. The most important thing happens not at ceremonial meetings of representative offices, but in real life believers, at a depth not always accessible to observation. Of course, the importance of official decisions made by persons who are vested with special canonical authority cannot be denied. In this regard, it is necessary to mention the abolition of mutual anathemas between Catholic Rome and Orthodox Constantinople, announced by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965 (of course, the assessment of this act in its entirety depends on the degree of recognition of the canonical rank of “Ecumenical” for the See of Constantinople among all Orthodox Churches). Of particular importance is the growth of mutual positive interest: the riches of Orthodox asceticism, liturgics and iconography, generally attracting the attention of an increasing number of Catholics and partly Protestants, are the subject of particularly close study in the Catholic monastic environment, just like in the Chevetogne Abbey in Belgium (founded in 1925 and initially suffered many conflicts with the Catholic authorities because of its philo-Orthodox position), or indirectly, as in the Bose community in North. Italy, associated with the tradition of St. Benedict of Nursia; Among Lutherans and Anglicans, monastic life, rejected by the Reformation, is being revived. The ecumenical monastic community in Taize (Taiz6) in the south-east of France (founded in 1940), which earned itself a good name even during German occupation when she undauntedly provided shelter to the persecuted; it was created to give Protestants of various denominations the opportunity to follow the models of primitive monasticism, but at present its influence extends far beyond Protestantism. It is especially strong among young Christians of different faiths, who pilgrimage in droves to Teze and spread his memory throughout the world. It seems to many that this community has created a paradigm of “youth culture” that is acceptable from a Christian point of view. It must be said that it is for modern youth that the ascetic and mystical components of the Christian tradition are important; only they can be an effective alternative to the widespread fascination with non-Christian mysticism and the occult. A young Christian of the 20th century, as a rule, is interested not in mechanical observance of the respectable rules of attending the Sunday service of his denomination, etc., but in an ecstatic experience that takes him beyond the boundaries of encircling secularism. In a certain sense, he is more like the neophytes of late antiquity than a child of one of the “Christian nations” of modern times.

The most contested manifestation of ecumenism is the practice of the so-called. intercommunication, i.e. full Eucharistic communion across confessional barriers. Many Christians who sympathize with ecumenism find this practice unacceptable to their conscience and bear the pain of the impossibility of full communion as complicity in Christ's sorrow for the division of Christians. Others, contrary to old prohibitions, dare to carry out this practice as “foolishness” in spiritual sense this word as prophetic madness, anticipating what, strictly speaking, is not yet possible. This was also done by Vladimir Solovyov, who received communion, without converting to Catholicism, from the hands of a Catholic priest. His follower was Vyach. Ivanov, who, not without difficulty, in 1926 obtained from the church authorities of Catholic Rome the then completely unusual permission to join the Catholic Church, without renouncing Orthodoxy according to the old rite, but instead reading Solovyov’s passage, beginning with the words: “I, as a faithful son of the Russian Orthodox Church. .." It was Ivanov who came up with the ecumenical formula, very popular in today’s West, about the Orthodox East and the Catholic West as the two “lungs” of universal Christianity. For opponents of ecumenism, intercommunication represents an extreme form of unacceptable rapprochement with non-Orthodox people.

The experience of Russian Orthodoxy in our century is determined by the experience of a particularly sharp collapse of all previous life habits associated with the reality of the Orthodox Empire; it is permissible to say that this experience was ahead of the path of Western Christians. When the Orthodox liturgy was served not in a church, among the gold of vestments and salaries, but in a Soviet camp or in a Parisian garage, it was unheard of poverty, but also unheard of spiritual freedom, concentration on the very essence of Christianity, truly the “liturgy of the faithful.” Unfortunately, the height achieved in extreme conditions cannot be maintained, and even the memory of it is extremely easy to lose. Among our contemporaries, it is most adequately recalled by the already mentioned Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh (Bloom), a remarkable preacher and spiritual writer who grew up in Parisian exile, who expressed the timeless values of Christianity in a language absolutely free from the shadow of touching stylization.

At the same time, difficult trials caused institutional crises, schisms and divisions in Russian Orthodoxy that have not been overcome to this day. They were preceded by an event experienced

felt by the children of the Russian Orthodox Church as a bright joy, moreover, paradoxically connected precisely with the collapse of the Orthodox Empire: the restoration by the All-Russian local council, which opened on the feast of the Dormition in 1917, of the patriarchate, abolished by Peter I, and the election on November 5 (18) (i.e. already after the October Revolution) Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', Rev. Tikhon (Bellavina, 1866-1925), a strong confessor of the faith in the face of Bolshevik terror, canonized by the Church. Since 1922, the conformist “Higher Church Administration” treacherously opposed the patriarchal government, combining the demand for far-reaching reforms in church life (the so-called “renovationism” and “living churchism”) with servile gestures towards the Bolshevik persecutors and thereby compromising for a long time in the eyes of the Russian church people, the very idea of transformation (although we should not forget that among the ordinary participants in the reformist movements there were honest priests who themselves accepted suffering as faith, and that the manipulation of the call for renewal in a bad church-political context does not logically imply the poor quality of the question of renewal). A schism took place - again for political reasons - in the church life of the Russian diaspora. At the end of 1921 so-called. The Russian All-Foreign Council in Karlovtsy adopted an appeal to Russian Orthodox refugees, which affirmed the dogmatic, doctrinal status of the monarchical idea. About a third of the participants, some of whom were themselves monarchists by personal conviction, adopted a resolution on the impossibility of adopting a document of a political nature on behalf of the entire Church (because this contradicted the resolution of the All-Russian Local Council of August 2/15/1917); At the head of this group was Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky, 1868-1946). Thus, a divergence of two directions emerged: “Karlovak” (now “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad”) and “Eulogian”. Almost all the famous theologians and philosophers of the Russian diaspora belonged to the second direction. Meanwhile, in the USSR, despite the desperate pressure of the machine of terror, the moral victory of Patriarch Tikhon and the collapse of the renovationist leaders (who went so far as to deprive the patriarch of even... his monastic title) were undeniable; the trial of the patriarch, started with the expectation of a death sentence, had to be stopped. However, the reality of the Soviet regime, which was in its prime and was just receiving international diplomatic recognition, forced us to reckon with it. On the eve of the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the GPU, through unprecedented moral torture, forced him to sign the so-called. “Will”, the authenticity of which immediately caused controversy, but the falsity of which in any case cannot be proven. After his death, the question of the leadership of the Church, unresolved in the conditions of continuous arrests in the normal way, gave rise to serious disagreements: Metropolitan Peter, who was soon arrested, was appointed locum tenens, so he himself had to appoint a number of deputies for himself - a practice forced by misfortune, but extremely confusing the issue of spiritual authorities. Doubts concerning the powers of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky, 1867-1944, later Patriarch), acquired a fundamental character when the latter published his “Declaration” in 1927, which, in the trend of compromise with the Soviet regime, went incomparably further than the “Testament” of Patriarch Tikhon (sounded strange in the conditions terror phrase about gratitude to the Soviet government “for such attention to the spiritual needs of the Orthodox population”). The contrast of the “Declaration” with the impeccable moral position and dignified tone of the group of hierarchs that appeared at the same time, devoted to the same topics and created at the conclusion of the “Solovetsky Message”; it also recognizes the Soviet regime as a political reality, but clearly emphasizes the incompatibility of Christianity and Soviet ideology. In response to the “Declaration”, a movement of “non-rememberers” arose, i.e. those who refuse to elevate the name of Metropolitan. Sergius at the liturgy; from it, over time, the so-called The true (or “catacomb”) Orthodox Church, which in various periods of the Soviet era produced many sufferers for the faith, but did not have the physical ability to care for any broad masses of believers, is increasingly looking like a sect and is subject to further divisions. Particularly regrettable, confusing and disorienting for the church people in an extremely difficult time for them were the statements about the “gracelessness” of the sacraments among opponents, which were too easily made by both the “Sergians” and the “non-rememberers.”

A new situation was created by the atmosphere of the 2nd World War, which gave rise in many minds to an illusory, but sincere and understandable hope for the reconciliation of the persecutors and the persecuted in a patriotic impulse and for the transformation of the Stalinist empire into Holy Rus'. Stalin was very good at maintaining such hopes at minimal cost. On September 4, 1943 he received Metropolitan. Sergius with two hierarchs and authorized the installation of a patriarch; Of course, Sergius was installed. The foreign background of these events was the fact that if the “Eulogian” trend took the position of patriotism (Russian, in France also French, etc.), then the top of the “Karlovak” trend took Hitler’s side, glorifying him as a “God-given leader” at that time it was the time when the hierarchs of Patriarch Sergius also called Stalin; The Hitler regime, by special order, transferred all Russian Orthodox churches on the territory of the Reich exclusively to the “Karlovak” hierarchy. The need to choose between one and another “leader” was a hopeless dead end for the Orthodox conscience.

dey,” and patriotism was a strong motive. It is not for nothing that such an indisputably honest person as Vladimir Nikolaevich Lossky (1903-1958), one of the best theologians of Orthodox Paris, responded to the death of Patriarch Sergius on May 15, 1944 with hyperbolic praise; Behind this lies, among other things, sympathy for the warring Russia, gravely offended by the behavior of Orthodox supporters of Hitlerism. After the meeting in the Kremlin, the external circumstances of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USSR changed significantly: 8 seminaries and two theological academies were opened, which already indicated a refusal to organize the immediate physical extinction of the clergy, churches were opened, and the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” (which, however, an unspoken “clarification” prohibited anyone from engaging in any, even the mildest, polemics with the anti-church versions of the Soviet press and propaganda). The break in the installation of the hierarchical head of the Russian Church, which took place between the death of Patr. Tikhon and setting up patrols. Sergius, never happened again; after the death of the latter, a patron was appointed. Alexy I (Simansky, 1877-1970), after his death - Patr. Pimen (Izvekov, 1910-1990); However, only Patr. Alexy II (Ridiger, born 1929) at the end of “perestroika” was elected under conditions free enough to allow talking about elections without reservations. But for the masses of believers, the succession itself was an encouraging sign: “we were allowed the Patriarch.” Stalin’s very ambiguous gift to Orthodoxy was the forced, with the direct participation of punitive authorities, accession to the Russian Orthodox Church of Ukrainian Greek Catholics (the so-called Uniates) in 1946; the inevitable consequence of this could not but be the aggressive rise of Uniatism and its transformation into the banner of Western Ukrainian nationalism in recent years. If in past centuries there was the use of state violence both in favor of the Uniates (Poland) and against them (by the Russian Empire), then this was a bad, but natural fruit of the ideology of “Catholic” and “Orthodox” nations and states; but when the GPU cared about the triumph of Orthodoxy, it somehow too obviously demonstrated the union of the incompatible. Meanwhile, the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate ceased to be outcasts, outlaws, hunted game: they were given the status of a decorative appendage to the Soviet nomenklatura, inhabitants of a special reservation, outside of which they have no rights, but which is supported by the power of the regime especially for them (and for demonstrations to foreign visitors! ) as an integral part from now on in the panorama of the regime. When under Khrushchev by the end of the 50s. The anti-religious campaign unfolded with renewed vigor, churches were again blown up, parishes were closed - the corporate status of the top of the Moscow Patriarchate had not changed and could not change. The payment for all this was not only compliments to the Soviet government in general, but also assurances to the whole world that the situation of believers in the USSR did not leave much to be desired and those persecuted were “sitting for the cause,” as well as systematic conformist speeches on purely specific political occasions (say, with approval of the introduction of troops into Hungary); even the position in the actual religious issues depended on the political requests of the authorities, so that the time of the Cold War gave rise to sharply anti-ecumenical and especially anti-Vatican gestures in 1948, and Khrushchev’s “détente”, on the contrary, gave rise to demonstrative activation in the early 60s. ecumenical ties, including the sending of observers from the Moscow Patriarchate to the Second Vatican Council (and the fundamental permission for the Orthodox to receive communion in Catholic churches and to allow Catholics to receive communion in Orthodox churches, subsequently declared “inappropriate”).

It is extremely difficult to make a judgment about the choice of hierarchs who have adopted this way of existence. On the one hand, it cannot be denied that in the atomized society created by the Stalinist regime, the hierarchs, despite the dwindling but still considerable number of faithful hearts, could not rely on any social forces, that an alliance with the regime provided the only chance, that for the Orthodox for a person, temple worship in itself represents an invaluable blessing, that church life cannot do without a succession of young priests trained in seminaries, and finally, that in the conditions of mature totalitarianism, a heroic sect can go underground, into the “catacombs,” but not the Church, appointed to serve to the entire people (for comparison, we can recall how many painful problems the “catacomb” branch of Catholicism created by it in communist Czechoslovakia brought to the Vatican, which, in the consciousness of its exclusivity, emerged from obedience to the authorities and canons, so that after the end of communism it was necessary not so much to welcome heroes as to give up partisanship ). Even from Sergius, who, after all, went to prison four times in his time, it is difficult, despite numerous efforts, to make a caricature of an unscrupulous power-lover and a cold traitor; rather, this is a tragic figure. A certain courage in the fight for the Church was shown at the height of Khrushchev’s anti-religious measures by Alexy I and his closest associate Nikolai (1891-1961), Metropolitan of Krutitsky and Kolomensky. On the other hand, however, it is all too obvious that the new social situation of the top of the Moscow Patriarchate, which unnaturally alienated it from the world of ordinary believers and brought it closer on not quite equal rights with other Soviet privileged corporations, was extremely ambiguous and effectively contributed to a decrease in the ability of even naturally gifted hierarchs To

adequate response to changing life. Time worked to worsen the effect of this situation. Firstly, the hierarchs died out, who - no matter how they behaved subsequently - chose the clergy in years when such a choice itself was heroically difficult; the very memory of these years faded, the horrors were replaced by the boredom of a gilded cage. Secondly, consent to be isolated in an unreal world (with visits from foreigners, then increasingly with trips abroad, invariably accompanied by a special spy), where the “softened” post-war communism drove the functionaries of the Moscow Patriarchate, was less nonsense at first, while there were very many believers little and when they were mostly “grandmothers in headscarves”, for whom it was luck if they were able to get to the nearest parish (often tens, sometimes hundreds of kilometers away), and happiness was the arrival of a bishop, no matter what kind of bishop he was . But times have changed. At the turn of the 50s and 60s. begins his - then completely unique - missionary activity among the Soviet intelligentsia Fr. Alexander Men; to mid. 70s The growing wave of conversions to Christianity is becoming more and more noticeable, primarily in the circles of the capital’s intelligentsia and beyond. The attitude of public opinion towards religion is changing, which means that the real balance of forces in society is silently, unspokenly changing. A new Christian community is emerging, which, of course, systematically incurs repression and is socially correlated with the broad phenomenon of “dissidence.” The intelligentsia, coming to the Church, displays its usual tendency to criticize; the object of her criticism becomes forced atheism, but also the alliance of the hierarchy with the persecutors. This criticism was energetically formulated in open letters to Patr. Pimen priests Fr. N. Ashliman and Fr. G. Yakunin (1965) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1972). No sane person expected that criticism would be accepted immediately and in its entirety. The mood of this wing of the Christian intelligentsia is very often easy to blame for an insufficient understanding of the church’s own tasks, intellectual radicalism and utopianism. It is sad, however, that his voice was not heard at all and his very existence was not taken into account by the hierarchy as a corporation (it is characteristic that the objections to Solzhenitsyn’s letter with a restrained defense of the behavior of the patriarchy were taken upon not by any of the minds of the patriarchy, but by a “church dissident” , banned at this time from the ministry of Fr. Sergius Zheludkov / mind. in 1984/). It was in the 70s. it was already possible to boldly try a different type of behavior than the one that had developed in the closed world of the church elite. Of course, in hindsight it is impossible to calculate the proper measure of common sense and caution for each specific conflict during the period of “stagnation,” but it can be argued that of the two opposing realities of the state and the public, the first was habitually taken more seriously than necessary, and the second was ignored. This is how modern conflicts were prepared. After the brief euphoria of “perestroika,” when for a time the external popularity of everything church, including the hierarchy, sharply increased, a storm of newspaper revelations broke out about the hierarchy’s contacts with the most odious institutions of Soviet power; These revelations involved the participation of irreconcilable Orthodox Christians who were subjected to repression during communist times (Fr. Gleb Yakunin, now defrocked by the Moscow Patriarchate, Z. Krakhmalnikova, etc.), and journalists who became interested in church affairs not so long ago. However, neither the reckless anti-Sergian rhetoric, which qualifies the notorious “Sergianism” almost as a non-Christian religion, nor the attempt to hide from the unresolved problems of the past through silence or counter-rhetoric is consistent with the truth and does not bring good to the Church. Naturally, the accusations against the Moscow Patriarchate raised the prestige of the Russian Church Abroad for some time (at the same time making it difficult for both sides to even think about reunification). The expansion of its activities by the Russian Church Abroad to Russia, which became possible after the end of Soviet power, did not, however, bring it great success; rather, she managed to stimulate within some parishes and even dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate the revival of her own extreme right-wing, nationalist and anti-ecumenical tendencies - especially since the removal of the “Iron Curtain”, which made the presence of Western Christianity too physically tangible, gives rise to serious tests for ecumenical feelings. (We note, however, that this is by no means only a Russian problem; among the Greek Orthodox there is such a sharpness of anti-ecumenical emotions that surpasses almost everything that can be encountered in this regard in Russian church circles.)

A special problem is created by the still insufficiently assimilated heritage of the Orthodox theological creativity of the Russian diaspora, where historical circumstances gave rise to an unusually high percentage of educated and consciously religious people among the parishioners, a rare freedom of thought, and the need for a full response to the challenge of modern secular civilization. A new type has emerged Orthodox priest, extremely far from the “seminarism” and from the everyday traditions of the “spiritual class” of old Russia, but gradually moving away also from the romanticism of Russian mystics of the pre-revolutionary era (the so-called Silver Age); Let us mention for example Fr. Alexandra Elchaninova (1881-1934), and in times close to us - Fr. Alexander Schmemann (1921-1983). (The spirituality of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has a completely different, purely restorationist character.

Church, the center of which is the Jordanville Monastery in the USA; our description refers to what has been done and is being done in line with the “Eulogian” direction, now in the jurisdiction of Constantinople, or the American Autocephalous Orthodox Church, or, finally, in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, to which, as the experience of Archbishop Vasily Krivoshein shows, he belongs /1900 -1985/ and Metropolitan Anthony Bloom, in no way implies dependence on Moscow in political matters.) Church science has put forward such figures who are deeply imbued with Orthodox needs, but alien to any conventional pseudo-traditionalism, such as the liturgist and patrolologist Archimandrite Cyprian Kern (1899-1960). Mother Maria (Skobtsova), whose heroic end was already mentioned above, having given herself to selfless service to the outcasts of the Parisian slums, showed such an appearance as an Orthodox nun that it was not easy to accept even in the enlightened circles of “Eulogian” Russian Paris; only the high spiritual dignity of her personality conquered all doubts. Of particular importance is the teaching about the Church developed on the basis of ancient church traditions, but also taking into account this new experience. Nikolai Afanasyev (1893-1966); energetically emphasizing purely Orthodox themes, traditionally opposed to Roman hierarchism and centralism - the Church as the unity of the entire people of God around the Eucharist, the impossibility of “other power than the power of love”, the high dignity of the laity as guardians of the unity of Sacred Tradition - the ecclesiology of Fr. Afanasyeva had, by the way, a real impact on the development of Catholicism after the Second Vatican Council (see below), at which the Orthodox theologian was present as an observer. The work of the modern Greek theologian Bishop John of Pergamon (Zizioulas) is also connected with the direction given to it. But in Russia it is still not well known. In our time, when Russian Orthodoxy, having survived in extreme conditions of persecution, is subjected to completely different tests and for the first time encounters consistent secularism, in the context of which the existence of any Christian community is essentially “diaspora” regardless of geography, - without the experience of Orthodox thought of the Russian diaspora ( the most important center of which was the Theological Institute, founded in 1925 at the St. Sergius Metochion in Paris) is obviously impossible to do without; and its assimilation cannot remain bookish, but should help church practice. The decisions of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917 still have to be implemented, the results of which are by no means limited to the restoration of the patriarchate.

Since the legacy of the Church Fathers and Byzantine mystical-ascetic theology is of particular importance for Orthodox theological thought, the deepening of the understanding of certain authors characterizes not only the history of science, but also the appearance of modern Orthodoxy and its gift to the people of our century. A very important fact of theological and scientific development was the brilliant work of Fr. George Florovsky (1893-1979), especially “Eastern Fathers of the 4th century”, 1931, “Byzantine fathers of the 5th-8th centuries”, 1933, “Ways of Russian theology”, 1937 (later works, published only in English, have yet to be absorbed in Russia). One may not agree with his concept of “neopatristic synthesis” and the attempt to strictly reorient Russian and Orthodox thought in general, developed on its basis, but one cannot ignore it in all further discussions on this topic. In this regard, it is necessary to mention, firstly, the growing attention to the bold and deep theological and philosophical ideas of St. Maximus the Confessor, which began in pre-revolutionary Russia (the works of Epifanovich) and was adopted by Catholic and Protestant science (H.U. von Balthasar, “Kosmische Iiturgie”, 1941, 2. Aufl. 1961; L. Thundberg, “Microcosm and Mediator”, 1965); secondly, a special interest in the Orthodox mysticism of St. Simeon the New Theologian, whose bold hymns were known before the revolution in the Russian Orthodox community only with timid censorship notes and whose legacy became truly known in the 20th century. thanks to the editorial and research works of the Russian Orthodox Bishop Vasily (Krivoshein; see publications in the series “Sources chretiennes” 96, 104, IZ, 1963-1965; Archbishop Vasily /Krivoshein/, “Prev. Simeon the New Theologian”, 1980), and Byzantine hesychasts, to the study of which a special contribution was made by the research of the Russian Orthodox priest and world-famous Byzantinist Fr. John Meyendorff (1926-1992) (J. Meyendorff, “Introduction a l'etude de Gregoire Palamas”, 1959, etc.). We add that in the course of our century the whole world has realized the spiritual, but also the aesthetic and cultural value of ancient Russian and in general Orthodox icons, so that copies and imitations of famous icons decorate Catholic and Anglican churches and chapels everywhere, and in the Russian Orthodox diaspora there were such fruits of the assimilation of the icon tradition, such as works on the theology of the icon by L.A. Uspensky (1902-1987) and original creativity in the field of icon painting by Father Gregory Krug (1909-1969), who successfully combined modern sharpness of vision with genuine tradition (among icon painters modern Russia let's call o. Zinona); It was through the icon that the understanding of pre-Petrine traditions was revealed Orthodox Rus', why such defenders of these traditions as Archpriest Avvakum command respect regardless of how we feel about their ecclesiological position.

In Orthodox spiritual literature, we note the extremely important works of Elder Silouan (Antonov, 1866-1938), an Athonite monk from among Russian peasants. Precisely because his thoughts

neither the trends of worldly culture nor the concrete experience of political cataclysms affected him in any way - he left for Mount Athos back in 1892 - in them the deep features of the spirituality of our century are felt with particular conviction: simplicity, boldness, avoidance of false conventions, concentration on the absolutely essential. One can note similar figures in Russian life under the yoke of a godless regime: let’s name, for example, Fr. Tavrion (1898-1978), a true elder in the strict sense of this Orthodox term, to whom believers from all over the USSR gathered in the “hermitage” near Jelgava in Latvia.

Changed very radically in the 20th century. the face of Catholicism. At the beginning of the century, its character as an essentially conservative force seemed undeniable. Although at the end of the previous century the pontificate of Leo XIII (1878-1903) was marked by the first encyclical on the labor question (“Rerum novarum”, 1891) and a sympathetic attitude towards the bold ideas of enlightened Catholics like Newman for that time, under Pius X (1903-1914, credited Catholic Church canonization) there was a noticeable reaction (condemnation of the “modernist” theologians in 1907 and the French left-Catholic social movement “Sillon” in 1910). Catholic ecclesiology has long been perceived as an obstacle to participation in the ecumenical movement, and therefore, again, as a conservative factor. Although reality did not fully fit into any of the schemes, Catholicism has long been accustomed to encountering the sharpest hostility “from the left” - from the French anti-clericals, Russian Bolsheviks, communist and anarchist detachments that attacked monasteries during the civil war in Spain. Catholic writers, who it would be unfair to classify as fascists and who sharply condemned German Nazism, like Chesterton, sympathized with General Franco (Tolkien had the same position, in contrast, characteristically, with his friend the Anglican Lewis; and Bernanos even went to Spain, to take the side of the Francoists, in whom, however, he was sharply disappointed). Pius XI, an extraordinary man, was able to see very clearly the fascist danger (condemnation of the far-right organization of French nationalists “Action Franchise” in 1926, the anti-Nazi encyclical “Mit brennender Sorge”, compiled against all traditions in German in order to more effectively reach Catholics in Germany, in 1937), but this degree of insight was not often found at the top Catholic hierarchy . A significant part of the French bishops hastened, out of old habit, to enthusiastically welcome the return to conservative, family and “patriotic” values proclaimed by General Pétain, and not all managed to escape this trap with honor even when the betrayal of the government in Vichy became obvious when Catholic intellectuals - not only democrats like Maritain, but also Claudel and Bernanos, who were very right-wing in their political views, unequivocally condemned him, and when Catholics, including clergy, participated in large numbers in the Resistance movement. The shock I experienced then helped me overcome my usual patterns. After 1945, Catholic structures, which retained their viability amid the general collapse, energetically participated in building a “Christian-democratic” order on the ruins of the totalitarian regimes of Italy and Germany. The bourgeois, businesslike atmosphere of this post-war Catholic establishment, marked by the names of Alcide De Gasperi (in power 1945-1953) in Italy and Konrad Adenauer (in power 1949-1963) in Germany, alienated many Catholic intellectuals who had seen with their own eyes the heroic opposition to totalitarianism ( not only the “leftist” G. Böll, but also the monarchist Reinhold Schneider /Schneider, 1903-1959/); "Christian Democracy" soon showed itself to be a mere continental counterpart to the British Conservatives and, like any political force, attracted harsh criticism. However, one can hardly dispute the important role played by this version of political Catholicism in the post-war stabilization of Europe, when it was necessary to overcome with utmost speed the consequences of the collapse of the regimes of Mussolini and Hitler, while simultaneously holding back the onslaught of strengthened communism. It should also be noted that the respectable political establishment in Germany under the sign of Catholicism is a new phenomenon for Germany, sharply contrasting with the Lutheran tradition of the old “Prussianism” and greatly influencing the change in the public status of the confession. Meanwhile, the consciousness of the need for far-reaching changes, prepared by the work of several generations of Catholic thinkers, was maturing. The pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958), the last part of which coincided in time with the classic era of the Cold War and “Christian Democratic” stabilization, is understandably perceived as the last triumph of conservatism; however, it was under this pope that the composition of the College of Cardinals changed dramatically, reflecting a fundamental rejection of the traditional Eurocentric perspective.

The new era began with the brief pontificate of John XXIII (1958-1963), who convened the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which completed its work under Paul VI (1963-1978). The slogan of the day was “Agiornamento” (Italian: “bringing it into line with the present day”). Due to the scale of the reorientation carried out, it is even customary to talk about “pre-conciliar” and “post-conciliar” Catholicism. In the field of worldview, the rejection of the ideology of “triumphalism” proclaimed at the council was very important.

inherent in the past to Catholicism along with other confessions and demanding to see all historical conflicts as collisions of anti-Catholic “lies” with the Catholic “truth” that inevitably “shames” it. From this logically follows the rejection of the usual emphasis in the image of the Roman high priest on the features of an imperious and majestic monarch (post-conciliar Catholicism is characterized by frequent travels of popes visiting distant countries as a special kind of missionaries - and Pope John Paul II, having arrived in one country or another, kisses her ground - as well as such gestures as the demonstrative sale of the old papal tiara with the subsequent conversion of its price to charity, etc.). The council adopted a document declaring the principle of religious freedom. In the interval between sessions of the council, Paul VI met in the Holy Land with Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras, which was the first meeting of this kind since the break between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West in 1054; in 1965, as already mentioned, the mutual anathema of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople was lifted. The Council adopted a very important resolution on ecumenism; Paul VI established permanent secretariats in charge of contacts with other faiths, with other religions and even with non-believers. The word “dialogue” defines the order of the day and is in danger of becoming a cliché. Against the unlimited centralism of the curia, amiable to the “ultramontane” Catholicism of the last century, the council put forward the principle of episcopal collegiality, against the skills of clericalism - a call for the activity of the laity (the decree on the apostle of the laity); in this regard, the growth in “post-conciliar” Catholicism is characterized by the number and importance of congregations striving, while observing monastic vows, to live the same life with the laity, wearing, in particular, secular clothing (in Orthodoxy, this can be compared with the spirit of service of Mother Maria Skobtsova). The appearance of the Catholic Mass changed significantly (taking into account many ideas of the advocates of liturgical reform in the period between the two wars): the Latin language gave way to modern national languages, the traditional altar at the back wall of the sacred space - the Eucharistic table, localized between the celebrant of the Eucharist and the parishioners, a common handshake was introduced before communion, the communal nature of the liturgy is generally emphasized in every possible way (cf. in Orthodoxy the ideas of Fr. N. Afanasyev); veneration Mother of God and saints, far from being cancelled, has been noticeably reduced. In 1970 a new rite of mass was issued. Protest against liturgical and other reforms led to the separation of the so-called. the Integrists, led by Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre; The Vatican has repeatedly made attempts at reconciliation with this ultra-conservative group, which, however, did not lead to any result and ended in a formal split by 1988. In a pluralistic society, integrators are provided with a social niche along with various sects and communities, but they do not have much importance.

The background for some of the euphoria that initially accompanied the assimilation of the ideas of the cathedral was the specific atmosphere of the 60s, marked by the successes of the “new left,” the illusions of “détente,” youth movements and the pacifist reaction to the Vietnam War. John XXIII, who addressed the nations with the peacemaking encyclical “Pacem in terris” (September 11, 1962), and the heads of two hostile blocs, Kennedy and Khrushchev, with a personal appeal for a peaceful exit from the Cuban crisis (October 24, 1962), became one of the symbols of this pores; he was the first pope whose image in the Soviet media, but also in the imagination of the leftist wing of the Western intelligentsia, was not entirely negative. The visit of A. Adzhubey, editor-in-chief of Izvestia and Khrushchev’s son-in-law, to John XXIII (1963) could not but be a sensation (although/alas, it did not change the situation of believers in the USSR); he anticipated the visit of M.S. Gorbachev to John Paul II (12/1/1989). Metropolitan Nikodim (Rogov, 1929-1978), due to his position as chairman of the department of external church relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, forced to be the conductor of the officialdom of “détente” (although, apparently, not reducible to this role), wrote a biography of John XXIII. Paul VI did not evoke an emotional resonance of similar force, but in reality continued the same policies that supporters found wise and opponents found opportunistic in relation to communist regimes. However, times have changed. The Khrushchev era gave way to the Brezhnev era, the euphoria of the “thaw” was gone; There was no longer any imminent prospect of universal destruction (as during the Cuban crisis), which would justify any concessions, nor hopes for a bright re-creation of the world through the joint actions of purified communists and left-wing intellectuals of the West. The voice of the critics of communism, who, like Solzhenitsyn, warned against illusions, was finally heard. The Primate of Poland, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyftski, once appeared in the Vatican of Pius XII as suspiciously peaceful towards communist power, and later, in the days of the Second Vatican Council, on the contrary, inappropriately and tactlessly irreconcilable; but gradually the significance of the resistance led by him to the regime of the most diverse strata of Polish society becomes an increasingly important fact of the global balance of power, a harbinger, in church terms, of the election in 1978 as pope of Wyszynski’s closest associate, Archbishop of Krakow Karol Wojtyla (Vojtyla, John Paul II, born 1920, first a non-Italian on the papal throne after 1523), and in political terms - the collapse of the communist system. Murder had a symbolic meaning

state security agents of the Polish Catholic priest Jerzy Popietuszko (Popietuszko, 1947-1984), who was called the “chaplain of Solidarity.” It should also be noted that there is gradually increasing tension between the curia and adherents of the so-called. liberation theology, which gave rise in Latin American countries not only to the pro-communist (in the spirit of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara) orientation of part of the clergy, but also its direct participation in guerrilla-terrorist actions.

However, the political factor is not the only and not even main reason cooling of relations between leftist circles and the Vatican. Although Catholicism, of course, remains “post-conciliar”, and the very choice of names by Popes John Paul I (26.8-28.9.1978) and John Paul II (since 1978), the choice is unusual, because previous popes did not have two names, should to express fidelity to the irreversible course of the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI on the "Agiornamento", - extreme advocates of change within Catholicism, as well as Protestant and liberal-agnostic or atheist observers from without, are disappointed that the reform program from the very beginning had certain internal limits. Where modern “permissive” civilization absolutizes, firstly, the freedom of sexual behavior of the individual, and secondly, the unconditional equality of the sexes, which does not allow any social (and therefore church) function to be assigned to a man, the popes have consistently insist on the fundamental indissolubility of marriage, on the prohibition of contraception and especially abortion, on the refusal to recognize the equal status of homosexuals with Christian marriage, on the traditional celibacy of priests and bishops for Catholicism, on the impossibility of ordaining women as priests and bishops. In the modern West, it is precisely this aspect modern Catholicism most often harshly criticized as "repressive" and even "totalitarian". In countries such as the United States and Holland, there is particularly strong opposition to the corresponding principles of Catholic "magisterium" among Catholic laity and priests. John Paul II has a reputation in the modern West as a representative of a rigid and archaic Catholicism who brought the skills of old-fashioned Polish religiosity to the West. It is obvious, however, that behind this conflict is not the specific personality of this or that pope; already Paul VI, the undisputed champion of "Agiornamento", in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" (25.7.1968) spoke on the issue of birth control, which now causes such violent passions, in exactly the same spirit as his today's successor. Having made very important steps towards modernity, without taking these steps back, Catholicism, however, stops, because it cannot completely subordinate itself to the “spirit of the times” without ceasing to be itself. He agrees to recognize the “rights of man,” including heterodox, heterodox and unbelieving people, to recognize, in particular, the historical guilt of the Catholic persecution of Jews (a theme of the Second Vatican Council, energetically continued in the newest declarations of John Paul II); but he does not agree with the ideology of the “sexual revolution”, and, more broadly, with liberal “permissiveness”, which, from his point of view, sacrifices responsibilities to rights and therefore turns the entire tradition of Christian ethics upside down. For today’s Catholicism, “democracy” is an unconditionally good word (since the times of the post-war “Christian democracy”, partly since the encyclicals of Leo XIII “Libertas Praestantissimum”, 1888, “Graves de Communi”, 1901), but “liberalism” is not very good.

A rather complex phenomenon is presented in currently position of Catholicism in matters of philosophy. Generally speaking, according to tradition dating back to the times of scholasticism and beyond, philosophy occupies a much more necessary place in the system of the Catholic “magisterium” than in the doctrinal practice of other faiths. The same Leo XIII, relying both on centuries-old tradition and on the research of Catholic scientists of the 19th century, associated in part with the impulse of romanticism, proclaimed in the encyclical “Aeterni Patris” (1879) the legacy of Thomas Aquinas as the norm for Catholic philosophizing. This had a great resonance, and we see that in the first half of the 20th century. thinkers such as J. Maritain and E. Gilson, whose conservatism had a highly enlightened and civilized character, could seriously seek an answer to philosophical problems of his era within the boundaries of Thomism or neo-Thomism. True, even then not all Catholic thinkers correlated themselves with the Thomistic norm, as the example of the Christian existentialist G. Marcel shows (and even Fr. R. Guardini, whose mild opposition to neo-Thomism was expressed in his refusal to recognize himself as a theologian or philosopher in the official sense); on the other hand, the understanding of the obligations of a Thomist by the same Gilson (who did a lot for the objective scientific study of the Thomistic tradition) was least rigid and was even formulated by a paraphrase of the famous Augustinian aphorism - “believe and think as you want.” It is important, however, that both the ideologies of totalitarian extremism, “on the right” and “on the left”, clamped Europe in their pincers, and the dangers of anti-ideological nihilism, in general, all kinds of “extremes”, exploding from all sides, as it was expressed immediately after the 2nd World War in one programmatic article, the influential theologian Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988), the “human measure,” was opposed by Catholic thought for decades to the ideal “ perennial philosophy"(philosophia perennis) as a synthesis of ancient and Christian principles and the guarantor of this threatened “human measure”. The Catholic establishment of post-war Europe could not help but

be both a materialization and a cruel test of this ideal. “Post-conciliar” Catholicism never disavowed Thomism as such, but created an atmosphere within which any normativist approach appears as something outdated and contested, and what Berdyaev ironically called “Thomistic well-being” goes far away; documents destined to become part of Catholic tradition, such as papal encyclicals, still use language that directly or indirectly appeals to the Thomist tradition, Thomism continues to enjoy a certain respect, especially in Dominican circles, but in our time it is not uncommon to find a Jesuit who works in philosophy, for example, as a Hegelian, or builds his reasoning in the language of the concepts of Heidegger and Nietzsche. One of the most successful and most influential experiments in the reception of Thomism, taking into account Kantian criticism, should be recognized as the theological-philosophical work of the Jesuit Fr. Karl Rahner (1904-1984), intellectual expert (so-called "peritus") at the Second Vatican Council; he was strongly influenced by the multi-volume work of the French Catholic philosopher J. Marechal (Marechal) “The point of departure in metaphysics” (“Le point de depart de la metaphysique”, 1923-1949). The philosophy of mystical evolutionism, which interprets Christ as “Omega,” i.e., found a response (including outside Catholicism), but did not receive a universal resonance. the limit and goal of the process of cosmic development, developed by the French Jesuit, prominent paleontologist Fr. P. Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955). A controversial phenomenon on the verge of Catholic thought is the work of the prolific Hans Kung (Kung, born 1928), who went extremely far in assimilating the Protestant and Enlightenment point of view and came into conflict with the authorities of Catholicism. But his works (despite some lack of rigor in the analysis and sometimes an admixture of sensationalism) are truly a contribution to the theological reflection of the 2nd half of the 20th century. The same cannot be said about another “rebellious” Catholic priest, Eugen Drewermann; his books, piled up on the book shelves of Europe, discussed in newspapers, are interesting only from a sociological point of view as an experience in translating paratheological “freethinking” into a fact of mass culture.

Intellectual, and partly institutional, Catholicism is in difficult relationship with the necessary belief in miracles, visions and signs inherent in the Catholic tradition. Reports of such events are met with fundamental disbelief by Catholic authorities and Catholic theologians; It is typical, for example, that they are in no hurry to glorify the famous Italian miracle worker, bearer of stigmata and visionary confessor Padre Pio (1887-1968), who has long been revered by the Catholic masses as a very strong heavenly intercessor. But there are visions that are actually recognized by the Catholic “magisterium”. These are, first of all, the apparitions of the Virgin Mary to three poor and illiterate children in the Portuguese town of Fatima from May 13 to October 13, 1917, accompanied, along with other advice regarding ascetic practice, also by the command to pray for Russia (during these months, it stood on the crossroads between February and October, which the children, of course, could not know about): “If people obey My words, then Russia will return to God and peace will come on earth; but otherwise she will spread her false teachings throughout the world, causing wars and persecution of the Church.” Paul VI visited Fatima in 1967, on the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the visions, thereby expressing some kind of authorization for them. Since 1898 (the first opening of access) and especially since 1931 (important photographs), there has been a lot of debate and debate in the Catholic community and beyond its borders about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, which has already become the subject of a special discipline - Sindonology; The appearance of this ancient fabric indeed poses many mysteries.

To all that has been said, it must be added that the characteristics of modern Catholicism are obviously incomplete without the so-called. Third World; This applies to Catholicism more than to any other Christian denomination. A prophetic harbinger of our days seems to be the impulse that, in the first years of our century, drove the Catholic hermit Charles de Foucauld (De Foucauld, 1858-1916) to the north of Africa, to the desert tribes, at whose hands he died; having remained unknown during his lifetime, he is now very popular as a spiritual author, and from his ideas comes the practice of a number of congregations (Little Brothers and Little Sisters of Jesus and some others). Another, earlier harbinger - Fr. Damien (Da-mien, 1840-1889), mourner of lepers in the Hawaiian Islands. It was against the backdrop of the glaring need of the Third World that the figure of Mother Teresa of Calcutta (Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu, born 1910, founded the Order of the Missionaries of Charity in 1948), one of the most convincing symbols of Christianity of the 20th century, could arise. Even in the traditionally non-Catholic capitals of Europe, for example, in London or Geneva, the crowding of Catholic churches depends to a huge extent on “colored” migrant workers, and priests also often come from countries that were “exotic” for old Europe. Already today, the world human resources of Catholicism are linked to Latin America, but also, for example, to South Korea and other young Catholic enclaves of East Asia; it is quite likely that as the communist regime in the PRC softens, Chinese Catholicism, whose history dates back to the 17th century, will grow into a significant force; The Vatican pays a lot of attention to Africa. Among the countries, political

whose fates in the second half of the 20th century. were decisively determined by the presence of Catholicism, along with Poland we have to mention the Philippines (where the dictatorship of Marcos bloodlessly gave way to the rule of President Corazon Aquino with the energetic intervention of Catholic priests and nuns who managed to persuade the punitive troops to stop). Of course, the new geography of Catholicism creates serious problems of combining cultural diversity with doctrinal unity, and these problems are reaching an urgency forgotten since the conversion of the barbarians at the dawn of European Christianity.

When considering the transformations of Protestantism in our century, we have to clearly distinguish between the old confessions generated by the era of the Reformation (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism), and what was previously called “sects” and is now commonly called neo-Protestantism (Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostals, etc. ). The significance of the old confessions is in their connection with the cultural tradition of Europe; but it was neo-Protestantism that acquired the key practical significance in the life of such an important part of the modern world as the USA, and it is increasingly present in the life of a variety of countries, including Russia (where, even by the last century, the massive spread of so-called Stundism, Doukhoborism, Molokanism, etc. often hushed up by official data of that time, refuted the pious theory of A.S. Khomyakov, according to which Orthodox country Protestantism has no chance, and where today Baptists, Adventists and other neo-Protestant denominations successfully demonstrate their inherent dynamism, taking advantage of the deep disappointment of Russians in their own traditions). Panorama of Protestantism in the 20th century. replete with sharp contrasts, revealing extremes unusual for other confessional types of Christianity, on the one hand, a liberal-critical attitude (usually in traditional confessions), on the other hand, fundamentalism, naive edification or stormy eschatological expectation (usually in neo-Protestantism). These contrasts are manifested, first of all, in the theological attitude towards the Bible, which is extremely important for Protestantism. Of course, for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the Bible is Holy Scripture, the Word of God to people, which in principle provides the norm for Christian thought and life; however, these faiths see the fullness of Revelation not in Scripture as such, but in the unity of Scripture and Tradition, and Tradition in the patristic and liturgical texts taught, in any case, a non-literal understanding, very characteristic of early Christian and medieval exegesis. Ultimately, the reality of Christianity is confirmed for the Orthodox and Catholic not by the Bible as a book and text, but by the sacramental reality of the Church, which also integrates Scripture. On the contrary, M. Luther already put forward the principle of “sola Scriptura” (“Scripture alone”), and this principle incredibly sharpened the ideological significance of the approach to the Bible specifically for a Protestant. It is characteristic that Protestant scientists of the liberal trend created the so-called. biblical criticism, which was officially accepted by Catholicism no earlier than Pius XII’s encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” (1943) and which to this day does not have a clearly defined status in Orthodox scholarship. On the other hand, the term "fundamentalism", denoting absolutization holy book, moreover, in a literalist understanding, and systematically applied in the common language of our time to various religions, especially Islam, arose as the self-name of Protestant groups in the USA, which loudly declared themselves after the 1st World War and believe in the infallibility of the literal meaning of every biblical text. “Biblical criticism” and “fundamentalism” are two extreme poles of Protestant consciousness, the paradoxical contrast of which signals something more than the presence in Protestantism, as in all confessional types of Christianity, of believers and theologians of more “liberal” and more “conservative” directions. “Fundamentalism” may seem conservative, but in essence it is as opposed to conservatism as ultra-criticism. It is characteristic that in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed the object of faith (along with the three hypostases Holy Trinity) it is not the Bible that is named, but the Church, living and at the same time identical to itself throughout time, the authorized holder of Scripture and Tradition; Augustine at one time said that for him it is not the Gospel that guarantees the legitimacy of the Church, but the Church - the competence of the Gospel. As for literalism, inseparable from fundamentalism, it, theoretically speaking, is condemned from a truly traditional point of view by the word of the Apostle Paul: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). When, however, the theological mind has before it Scripture, which in principle is not mediated by Tradition, it faces a dilemma: if it chooses a free interpretation of the text, this free interpretation alone with Scripture really has no limits and can simply lead it away from faith, even a very broadly understood one. ; if he seeks to preserve unshakable the “foundations”, “foundations” of his faith (hence “fundamentalism”), he has no choice but to identify these “foundations” with the letter of the biblical text. This does not mean, of course, that all Protestant theologians and preachers necessarily come to the extremes of hypercriticism or fundamentalism; however, these extremes are essential to the face of Protestantism, since each of them is in

in the context of Protestantism, not an accidental distortion, as it would be in another context, but a meaningful logical limit of one of the tendencies inherent in it. Opposite possibilities do not encounter the obstacles to their development that would be inevitable for other confessional types. It is much easier for a Protestant theologian of one of the old confessions than for an Orthodox or Catholic, while remaining de jure a theologian, to openly practice directions of thought, in best case scenario related to culture - science, secular philosophy, ethics - but not having any indisputable relationship to faith (cf. the German concept of “cultural Protestantism”); on the other hand, it is easier for a representative of one of the neo-Protestant denominations of the American type than for an Orthodox or Catholic to live in an atmosphere of heated prayer meetings, sensational public “spiritual revivals”, experienced naively realistically, when a new life certainly begins on such and such a day and hour (“revivalism”), and the preacher is assessed depending on how many simultaneous events of this kind he was able to cause with his preaching, among stormy apocalyptic expectations and other manifestations of mass psychology, which, of course, belong to the field of religion, but go almost beyond culture, including religious. Such are the paradoxical contrasts that present Protestantism today.

It is well known that in the bosom of Protestantism, much earlier than in the bosom of Catholicism or Orthodoxy, a scientific discussion of the problems of biblical studies could freely develop, without taking into account which modern theological work is generally unthinkable. For this, a Christian of any faith cannot but be grateful to Protestant scientists. On the other hand, however, the strictly theological and generally Christian character of such exegesis can become very problematic.

It is characteristic that immediately after the 1st World War, it was not supporters of narrow conservatism who protested against the ideology of liberal Protestantism of the end of the last century and specifically against positivist “historicism” in exegesis, but, on the contrary, the champions of the brightest mental movement in European Protestantism, led by the brilliant theologian Karl Barth (Barth, 1886-1968), the author of an epoch-making interpretation of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans (“Der RSmerbrief”, 1919); This movement, which was influenced by Kierkegaard, who had just been discovered at that time, and partly by Dostoevsky, was sometimes called “neo-orthodoxy” due to its aspirations to the ideological sources of the Reformation, but more often called “dialectical theology” (“Dialektische Theologie”), as opponents of liberal evolutionism, ready understand the Christian faith as a product of smooth and spontaneous self-development religious ideas, but also continuing the dispute between Luther and Calvin with Catholic doctrine, supporters of “dialectical theology” proclaimed the radical otherness of Revelation to every human consciousness, especially religious, and therefore rejected the concept of “natural theology”. The concept of “religion” is odious for them, not complementary to the concept of “faith,” but its opposite: “religion” is the initiative of man himself, doomed to failure, trying to build a certain relationship with God on his own, “faith” is the acceptance of the initiative of God Himself, calling to man from the abyss of His otherness in the act of Revelation. Therefore, Barth and his like-minded people, denouncing liberal theology (and especially exegesis) for a positivist attitude, self-centered academicism and refusal to serve the vital cause of Christian evangelism, challenging progressive secularism in the name of faith, at the same time are very skeptical about the concept of “sacred”; the act of faith is performed within a “secular” life situation (Barth’s sermons emphasize the worldly and everyday flavor of the gospel parables). Barth's thought can be characterized as extremely consistent thinking in the context of the 20th century. the central ideas of Protestantism as such; this did not prevent, but ultimately contributed to the fruitfulness of this thought for Catholic theology, where the initiator of its discussion was Hans Urs von Balthasar (H.U. von Balthasar, “Karl Barth: Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie”, 1951) and where it was continued by G. Küng. Within Protestantism, it is worth noting the fruitful debate that another Swiss theologian had with Barth, Emil Brunner (Brunner, 1889-1966), who shared the position of “dialectical theology”, but accepted the concept of the “analogy of being” (lat. analogia entis) between God and creation, extremely fundamental for the Catholic tradition and completely unacceptable for Barth.

Barth's theological position acquired particular significance during the years of Hitlerism, which caused a formal split in German Protestantism. Opportunists who interpreted National Socialism as the completion of Luther's anti-Catholic and national-German struggle for the purification of Christianity from its “Jewish” and “slave” elements, sometimes proposing the integration of pagan German symbols into Christianity and calling themselves “German Christians” (“Deutsche Christen”), seized official leadership positions (headed by the “Bishop of the Reich” Ludwig Müller), which caused the separation of the “Confessional Church” (“Bekennende Kirche”, “Bekenntnis-Kirche”), which united in its ranks theologians, pastors and laity who disagreed with this line; its ideologist was Barth (since 1935 expelled from German university life and returned to Switzerland), its program document was the Barmen Declaration (May

1934), its principle is the absolute neutrality of Christian values in relation to all racial, national and political “paganism”, previously emphasized by Barthian theology; its leader is Pastor Martin Niemöller (Niemoller, 1892-1984, imprisoned since 1937). A key figure in the German Protestant Resistance is pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Bonhoeffer, 1906-1945, hanged by the Nazis after imprisonment in Buchenwald); as a thinker, but especially as an embodiment of personal example, he is important for 20th century Christianity as a whole. His thinking seems radically Protestant in many respects (distrust of the self-sufficient “sacredness” - “religion”, the doctrine of the concrete experience of the otherness of one’s neighbor as the only legitimate way to experience the transcendence of God), but he felt in himself - in a break with the inertia of Protestantism, but in unity with many remarkable Protestants of our century - the ascetic vocation; his intention to create a monastic-type community for Protestants was only dashed by the intervention of the Gestapo. The heroic struggle and early death did not allow him to systematize his theological thoughts, which many years after his death gave rise to a number of misunderstandings. His texts should be viewed not as armchair theory, not as a mental construct, but as important evidence of Protestant spirituality (and in a sense asceticism), and it is in this capacity that it is important for ecumenical dialogue.

The figure of another Protestant “righteous man” generated by Europe in the 20th century is better known to us - Albert Schweitzer (Schweitzer, 1875-1965); this Alsatian pastor, who wrote in German, made a name for himself with his works on New Testament exegesis, continuing, in general, the tradition of liberal theology, as well as serious studies on the music of J.-S. Bach (also performed as an organist), however, interrupted his brilliant scientific career to devote his life to caring for the sick and missionary work in Lambarene (Equatorial Africa). His ideas of “reverence for life” had a wide impact in the field of non-confessional humanism, being adopted along with the ideas of L.N. Tolstoy or Mahatma Gandhi. Among Protestant public figures guided by Christian moral motivation, one should name the leader of black emancipation in the southern United States, Baptist clergyman Martin Luther King (King, 1929-1968), who led the peaceful struggle for racial equality, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 and died at the hands of an assassin.

From a rather unexpected synthesis of the ideas of “dialectical theology” with the impulse of rising existentialism and with the same liberal skepticism in the field of New Testament analysis, which was seemingly opposed to the original intention of “neo-orthodoxy,” was born the program of “demythologization” proposed by Rudolf Bultmann (Bultmann, 1884-1976) and became extremely influential after the 2nd World War. Bultmann's strength lay in his versatility, which was unusual for the modern intellectual West: he combined his professional qualifications as a specialist in New Testament exegesis and partly in the history of late ancient culture with a philosophical outlook and even literary brilliance of presentation, thanks to which he aroused wide interest far beyond the circle of colleagues. Interpreting not only certain aspects of the Gospel narrative, for example miracles, but also the paradigm of this narrative as a whole as a “myth”, unacceptable for modern consciousness and subject to critical destruction, Bultmann somewhat paradoxically satisfies the requirement put forward by the Barthians for the connection of exegesis with the gospel, making precisely this gospel devoid of objectivity in an existentialist way; from his point of view, faith requires not the “historical Jesus”, about whom, in fact, it is impossible to know anything, and especially not dogmatic theses equated with “myth”, but some absolute existential “choice” (“Entscheidung”), before by which the crucifixion of Jesus places the identity of the believer. This choice must appear in complete nakedness, for which it is necessary to remove the objectifying veils of “myth” and dogma. Of course, for the existentialist generation the program of faith “in general”, dispensing with “belief”, could not but be attractive. The combination of such an essentially ahistorical religious philosophy with the claim to make a fundamental contribution to historical analysis is questionable. Bultmann’s purely historical theories are controversial simply because they do not take deeply enough into account the extra-Hellenistic, Jewish roots of the New Testament texts (some exegetes working with Semitic material sometimes even accuse Bultmannism of a hidden anti-Semitic tendency, which can hardly be considered fundamental). Another mastermind in the world of intellectual Protestantism is Paul Tillich (1886-1965), who taught theology and philosophy at German universities, but left Germany after the National Socialists came to power, naturalized in the United States and wrote in English at the end of his life. He sought to interpret faith in terms of existentialism and psychoanalysis, consciously building his work on the border of theology and something else and revealing much greater pliability to the spirit of the time, which, from his point of view, introduced the necessary corrections into the content of the Christian gospel than was acceptable for the militant spirit of Barth's "neo-orthodoxy". Due to biographical circumstances, Tillich was an intermediate link between German and American Protestant thought. Next to him one can call him indebted to the German

predecessors, especially Brunner, the American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr (Niebuhr, 1892-1971), who sought to develop an approach to modern social and cultural problems based on “Christian realism”.

The extreme possibilities of liberal Protestantism were realized by the “theology of the death of God,” especially fashionable in the USA in the 60s. and directly encroached on the thesis of the existence of God, which, it would seem, constitutes a necessary prerequisite for any theology. Adherents of this trend proceeded from Nietzsche’s formula: “The Old God is dead”; according to the context of this passage in Nietzsche’s book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” we, people, having chosen the path of secular civilization, in some mysterious, but apparently objective sense, “killed” God. There were proposals to recognize God as “reality”, but to deny Him “existence” (L. Dewart). A softened form of these same ideas is associated with the heritage of the American philosopher A.N. Whitehead’s “process theology”, based on the fact that God, being in a relationship of mutual influence with the changing world, is Himself involved in the process of development; It becomes, and to that extent it is as if it has not yet become and to that extent does not exist (cf. the concept of “god-building” by M. Gorky and other representatives of the Russian left-wing intelligentsia in the pre-revolutionary period). Similar views, radically denying the transcendence of God, were presented to the general public in England by the Anglican bishop J.A.T. Robinson (Robinson) in the acclaimed book “Honest to God” (“Honest to God”, 1963, the title plays on the formula of the judicial oath); Of course, the author's episcopal rank greatly contributed to the sensational status of the book. In such positions, Protestant theology is already losing its identity, turning into one of the types of mental “bead game” characteristic of the culture of postmodernism, along with post-avant-garde art, “analytical psychology” of K.-G. Jung (which is precisely a kind of neo-Gnostic paratheology, influencing the doctrines of the “New Age” and in some points, for example, in the actual identification of God and the devil, coinciding with the concepts of the most radical theologians of the “death of God” like T. Alitzer), structuralism and post-structuralist “destructivism”, etc. Relevance for believers, provided for a short time by the promise of liberation from taboos, is soon taken away by it, because in a situation of permissiveness, liberalism ceases to be attractive (and it was precisely the 60s that were fatal for it in the West); K.S. Lewis had some reason to observe of these theologians without God that people would respect them more if they declared themselves atheists.

Much higher value in the context of modern life have practical manifestations of modernist adaptation to a secular value system, not necessarily associated with doctrinal statements regarding the “death of God” and similar matters. Modern egalitarianism, enshrined in many civil documents like the US Constitution, unlimitedly extending to the church sphere, leads, firstly, to the demand for absolute equality of men and women in the Church, emphasized by the strong ideology of feminism in the West, i.e., first of all, to the decision about the right of women to be against everyone church tradition ordained (ordained) to the priesthood and episcopacy, which has already become a reality in many Protestant denominations, including the Anglican Church; secondly, to the requirement associated with the ideology of the “sexual revolution” to consider carriers of what in the Christian environment has always been called sexual perversion and assessed negatively - especially homosexuals - as “sexual minorities” subject to protection by society and especially Christian communities on an equal basis with national and other minorities. Since Christians in the 20th century. often had and still have to stand up for discriminated minorities (and feel like such a minority ourselves), this phraseology reveals great strength suggestion, making one forget that the Bible hardly leaves room for such an approach; for example, the American denomination so-called. Quakers (“Responsible Society of Friends”), which has repeatedly proven itself to intercede for the persecuted, also includes “sexual minorities” among the objects of its intercession. To imagine the urgency of the issue, it is necessary to realize that the subject of the demand is not the merciful or tolerant attitude of believers towards homosexuals in their midst and outside it, which could still be defended in accordance with the principles of traditional Christian ethics, but the unconditional spiritual and the ecclesiological equality of the “sexual minority,” implying, in particular, the right of a lesbian to be ordained as a priest and bishop, the right of a homosexual couple to sanctify their relationship in the face of the Church on an equal basis with Christian marriage, etc. This is not the place in a reference book to evaluate such views (which, as noted, also arise on the periphery of Catholicism, but only in Protestantism receive the opportunity to assert themselves without restrictions). There are only three points to note. Firstly, such criticism would miss the mark if it too directly connected them with crude everyday hedonism, or even more so with cynicism and immoralism; much more often they represent an excess of misdirected moralism, ready to enthusiastically fight for the rights of others (understood in accordance with the ideology of “human rights” elevated to an absolute). It is not without reason that the described mentality is strongest in

USA, spreading from there around the world; As you know, a somewhat naive faith in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and similar documents is much more characteristic of the American mentality than cynicism. Secondly, the moralism that grounds them is entirely secondary in its Christian application; in fact, this is a completely secular, civil moralism, which does not have any strictly Christian justification, but does not need it, because it comes from its own sources. Here the adaptation of Christianity to the principles of secular democratic civilization goes extremely far; It is one thing for a Christian to be loyal to these principles, another is to give them an absolute character in the internal space of spiritual issues and liturgical practice. Thirdly, it is easy to see that such a practice, unacceptable neither for the Orthodox nor for the Catholic “magisterium”, breaks off the already weak threads of ecumenical contacts (as happened with Anglican Church, whose decision on the ordination of women instantly reduced contacts with the Russian to nothing Orthodox Church, dating back to the middle of the last century, and negotiations with Catholic Rome, very active in Lately, and the controversial point, ironically, has always been the question of the eligibility of Anglican ordinations according to Orthodox and Catholic criteria, now, finally, having received a definitive negative decision). In this regard, it must be stated that the cause of Christian reconciliation has not one, but two opponents: not only the conservative fervor of zealots of confessionalism such as the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Catholic “integrators” or Protestant fundamentalists, for whom the reconciliation of Christians is harmful, but also the “liberal » the indifference of adherents of the spirit of the times, for whom such reconciliation is completely unnecessary, since everyone has already been reconciled on the recognition of the state and other secular values, leaving unreconciled confessions a purely secondary place for reservations of ethnic identity within a pluralistic society (a model classically implemented in the USA).

In conclusion, let's say a few words about phenomena on the border of Christianity as such. The unique figure of Simone Weil (Weil, 1909-1943) represents a phenomenon of Christian thought outside of Christian denominations. A Jew by birth, a philosopher by education, a lonely truth-seeker by vocation, who strove to really share the fate of all the deprived, she felt irresistibly drawn to monastic life and stayed as a guest in the Benedictine Abbey of Solesmes, famous for its musical traditions, but remained unbaptized to the end of her short life (partly due to intellectual doubts in some points of the Catholic faith, partly, apparently, not wanting to formally leave Judaism during the era of Hitler’s persecution, although her personal attitude towards Judaism was very negative, partly because it was false from an orthodox point of view, but understandable in the context of her consciousness is the fear of having, at least in spiritual terms, a “privilege”). The Christian assessment of S. Weil's legacy can be very different, but there is hardly any doubt that her place in the history of thought of our century is comparable to Kierkegaard's place in the panorama of the last century. Syncretic and occultist (“esoteric”) systems have much less to do with Christianity as such, contradicting the basic Christian dogma, denying the exclusive status of Christ as the Savior of all mankind (cf. Acts of the Apostles 4:12: “There is no other name under heaven, given to people by whom we should be saved"), however, using Christian images, symbols and formulas, eclectically mixing them with those alien to Christianity and giving them a non-Christian meaning: along with the old theosophy, we must call the so-called. anthroposophy, founded in 1913 by R. Steiner (“Dr. Steiner” / Steiner /, 1861-1925), which attracted many Russian intellectuals of the “Silver Age” and created an educational system (“Waldorf schools”) that functions to this day; the teaching created by the Russian painter Nicholas Roerich (1874-1947), who lived half his life in India; the already mentioned movements of “New Age” and “Moonism”. The Russian intelligentsia has had some success with the utopia of the merger of all religions, literary developed by Daniil Andreev, the son of a famous writer who spent many years in Stalin’s camps and personally professed to be Orthodox (“Rose of the World,” “Iron Mystery,” etc.).

It remains to briefly name some events in the history of science that significantly changed our ideas about Old and New Testament texts and events, as well as about some problems in the history of Christianity.

First of all, the 20th century is a great century in the history of biblical archaeology. A whole series of biblical stories acquired unexpected, tangible concreteness: in the document ser. 2nd millennium BC, found at Nuzi (Northern Mesopotamia), there are direct parallels to a specific situation family life Old Testament Jacob, in the archives of Mari - names such as “Abraham” (Abram, Abiram), in the inscription Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah, dating back to approximately 1230 BC, the ethnonym “Israel” was read, excavations in Jerusalem made the history of the conquest of the stronghold of the Jebusites through its water canal very clear under King David, numerous traces of the urban planning activities of King Solomon were found, including the temple

in Arad and the monumental gates of three more cities built according to a uniform plan, and artistic ivory plates from the time of King Ahab give a presumptive idea of the decor of the Solomon Temple in Jerusalem, while on the black obelisk of the Assyrian monarch Shalmaneser even a more or less “portrait” image of the Israeli King Jehu; even more important is the discovery in the 30s. in Ras Shamra, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, Ugaritic texts ser. 2nd millennium BC, which provided an exceptionally rich historical and cultural context that greatly facilitates the understanding of the figurative language of biblical poetry. Numerous finds dating back to the period from the kingdom of Herod to the Jewish War clarify the situation of the gospel events. At the turn of the 60s and 70s. By the way, the ruins of a house from the 1st half of the 1st century were excavated, which served, according to numerous grafitti, as a place of prayer and pilgrimage for Christians in the early days, on the territory of ancient Capernaum, near the very shore of Lake Gennesaret; Of course, archeology cannot vouch for the fact that this is the house of the Apostle Peter, where Jesus Christ stayed during breaks between His wanderings, but such an idea remains quite plausible.

It is difficult to appreciate the central event of scientific life of the 20th century - the discovery in 1947 and later of an extensive library of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the 2nd century. BC-1st century AD in Qumran, in the mountain caves above the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea (the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls”). This library belonged to a community of Jewish ascetics, whose worldview and way of life corresponds to what we know about the “sect” of the Essenes, and partly brings to mind the tradition relating to the personality of John the Baptist. It contains almost everything canonical texts the Old Testament, extremely important for scientific textual criticism, including the Hebrew text of the Book of Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach (Ben Sira), still known only in the Greek translation of the Septuagint; from new data it becomes clear, on the one hand, the great antiquity of the Masoretic tradition, but on the other hand, the circulation of other variants. But even more important are the original texts, which for the first time provide first-hand information about the life and mentality of the mystically and eschatologically inclined Jews (cf. the concept of “waiting for deliverance in Jerusalem” in Luke 2:38) directly from the birth of Christianity! Getting to know them brought some surprises. Thus, the Gospel of John, habitually and confidently attributed by liberal Protestant scholarship (including, in general, Bultmann) to the extreme Hellenization of Christianity, its distance from Jewish soil and the infiltration of Gnostic ideas, turned out to be no further in its content and conceptual apparatus , and closest to the “Dead Sea Scrolls”, i.e. just the most “Jewish”. T.N. “dualism” of the Johannine corpus (i.e., the Gospel of John and the Epistles of John) - an eschatological approach that sharply divides being into “light” and “darkness”, and humanity into “sons of light” and “those who loved darkness” - has always been considered account of the Hellenistic gaosis, revealed its closest affinity with the language of the Qumran texts, among which is, by the way, an apocalyptic work about the “war of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.” Along with this, verbal coincidences were discovered with such phrases of Christ’s preaching according to the Synoptic Gospels, such as the formula “poor in spirit” in Matthew 5:3 and many others. Of great interest are texts related to community life and allowing us to trace the Jewish substrate of some Greek terms of Christian church vocabulary (for example, the term “bishop” already correlates not so much with Greek civil vocabulary, as in the article published in our publication by I.D. Andreev, but with the Hebrew word “mevaker”, meaning the leader of a community like the Qumran one). The many exegetical works found at Qumran provide a vivid understanding of the rules by which the application of biblical prophecy to contemporary reality was developed, allowing for a better understanding of the relevant themes in the New Testament. In the domestic scientific literature, we should mention the works of I.D. dedicated to the Qumran texts. Amusina (“Dead Sea Manuscripts”, M., 1960) and K.B. Starkova (“Literary monuments of the Qumran community”, in the book. : “Palestinian collection”, vol. 24/87, L., 1973), as well as commented translations prepared by Amusin, the first issue of which was published in 1971.

The second library, found in 1945 in the Egyptian area of Nag Hammadi, in a vessel buried on the site of the pagan cemetery of the ancient Henoboskion, is a collection of 49 Gnostic works (“Gospel of Truth”, “Gospel of Philip”, “Gospel of Thomas”, etc.), preserved (11 in full) in lists of the 3rd-5th centuries. translated into Coptic, but apparently dating back to the Greek-language originals, partly from the 2nd century. There are translations by M.K. Trofimova.

After the first publications of the last century, more and more Mandaean texts continued to come into scientific use; There is no doubt that this evidence of a tradition, in certain points connected with Jewish ideas, although very sharply deviating from them, is very interesting from a religious point of view. However, attempts to look for in them, as it were, the primary matter of early Christianity, very characteristic of the beginning of the 20th century. (for example, for the Catholic “modernist” Alfred Loisy / Loisy /, 1857-1940) and present even in Bultmann, raise doubts due to the fact that their written recording did not occur

earlier, and several centuries later, than the written recording of the Gospels.

Regarding the study of written sources on the history of Palestine since the birth of Christianity, two points should be noted regarding the work of Josephus. Firstly, the passage of “Jewish Antiquities” (book 18, 63-64), containing evidence of Jesus Christ, but obviously interpolated by a Christian hand and therefore not inspiring confidence, was discovered without interpolation in Arabic translation(carried out through Syriac) as a quotation in the historical work of a Melkite bishop of the 10th century. “Kitab al-Unwan”, published in 1912 by the Russian orientalist A. Vasiliev in the famous series “Patrologia Orientalis”, V, 4 (cf. S. Pines, “Al Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum”, Jerusalem, 1971). It is quite possible that it is indeed based on the earliest non-Christian message about Jesus Christ. Secondly, the attention of some researchers was attracted by the version of the “Jewish War”, which came down only in the late Slavic translation (see N.A. Meshchersky, “The History of the Jewish War” by Josephus in the Old Russian translation. Research and text, M.-L ., 1958), but possibly retaining information from a lost Aramaic version, which tells, among other things, about partisan fermentation in occupied Judea as the background of Christ’s entry into Jerusalem (cp. R. Eisler, “li\aovQ BaoiXzvQ ov BaoiAewac, I , 1929).

A specific method of analyzing biblical and especially evangelical texts, very characteristic of the 20th century (in particular, for the works of Bultmann and his followers), is called “formal criticism” (English Form Criticism, German Formgeschichte or Formanalyse): we are talking about attempts to identify genre structures that determine the appearance of a particular passage. As applied to the Old Testament narratives, “formal criticism” has been developed since the beginning of the century (G. Gunkel and others); later it was added to the material of the Synoptic Gospels in order to solve the problem of the oral tradition behind them. There is no doubt that the method has already become a necessary property of the science of the New Testament, although a number of conclusions that have become widespread in the scientific literature still remain methodologically insufficiently verified (it is unclear, for example, how permissible it is to apply to oral tradition, despite its oral nature in many respects). characteristics other than folklore, categories developed by folkloristics); too often there are attempts to explain what is known from the hypothetical (for example, from the “community debates” postulated by scientists, i.e. debates in early Christian communities, which undoubtedly existed, but about which we know almost nothing) and to rely on hypotheses as facts . A believing Christian, if he is not a fundamentalist, has no reason to reject the very idea of such an analysis, but has the right to present his own, ultimately, if you like, “utilitarian” requests: Scientific research The Scriptures either provide him with reliable information that helps him to understand more deeply and soberly the Word of God, which remains for him the Word of God, or has no reason to localize himself within a complex of theological disciplines.

A whole trend in work on the New Testament, strongly stimulated by the Qumran finds, but which originated half a century before them, is associated with the search for Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) semantics behind the Greek text, in particular, with attempts to reverse translate the sayings of Jesus Christ. It is hardly necessary to believe, along with some representatives of Anglo-Saxon science in the period between the two wars (C.F. Burney /, 1868-1925, etc.), that some or even all canonical gospels represent a translation in the narrow sense of the word, made from a written Aramaic text (we remind you that church tradition speaks of the Semitic original of some version of the Gospel of Matthew); it is quite enough to proceed from the fact that the Greek-speaking written fixation of the Semitic oral tradition was already, in some extended, but very real sense of the word, a translation. After many extreme hobbies, a very balanced view was summarized in M. Black, An Aramaic approach to Gospels and Acts, ed. 3, 1967. Under the slow rhythm of the familiar Greek text, compressed, elastic speech appears, more similar to energetic poetry than prose, playing with roots, assonances, alliterations and rhymes, automatically falling into memory, like a folk saying. For example, the aphorism “whoever commits sin is a slave of sin” (Gospel of John 8:34) gives the couplet in Aramaic:

kul de "abed net" ah

"abhda hu dehet" a.

Everything is based on the fact that “to do” and “slave” are words of the same root (as in Russian “to work” and “slave”). Or the case is considered “if one of you has a son or an ox fall into a well” (Gospel of Luke 14:5). The conjugation of “son” and “ox” can be puzzling; Greek-speaking scribes even replaced “son” with “donkey” (which was carried over into Latin and other old translations, even Russian). But in Aramaic, all three nouns are tightly linked by consonance: “son” - Be ga, “ox” - beira, “well” - bera. The number of examples could be multiplied as desired. It is obvious that when a play on words, lost in the Greek text, is found in Aramaic, and when there are a lot of similar cases, we have the right to consider it originally present.

The desire to remove the veil of Hellenistic intellectualization from Semitic images and concepts was also reflected in the practice of some translations; following the example of the Judaist

Russian philosopher and writer M. Buber (Buber, 1878-1965), who in 1961 completed an innovative, poetically bright, focused on conveying archaic primordial German translation of the Old Testament, André Chouraqui (b. 1917), who considers Buber his teacher, prepared by 1977 a complete French translation of the Bible, including the New Testament, which strives to preserve in each case not only Semitic connotations, but even, more controversially, Semitic etymologies words, so that the New Testament texts are translated as if from some hypothetical reverse translation. This work is less convincing than Buber's translation, but it attracts keen interest, resulting in reprints, and is therefore symptomatic of a widespread and influential mentality. Note that although both Buber and Shuraki are not Christians, they received a much more noticeable and lasting resonance in Christian circles than in Jewish circles.

Generated by the experience of the 20th century. disappointment in Eurocentrism and, to that extent, in the absolute significance of the thought forms dating back to the Greeks (cf. criticism of “Western metaphysics” in Heidegger) could not but stimulate scientific and religious interest in the treasury of spirituality of the peoples of the Christian East, especially the Syrians (this is partly due to called the search for a return to the Aramaic foundations of the tradition of the sayings of Christ, since such searches cannot but rely also on the most ancient Syriac translations of the Gospels - after all, the Syriac language represents a somewhat later stage in the development of the same Aramaic language, and quite often a play on words lost in -Greek, returns in Syriac). At some point, Russian science about the Christian East was ahead of world development; about the great Russian Christian scientist V.V. Bolotov, the reader will find an article in the 1st volume, and later his work was continued by the wonderful Orientalist B.A. Turaev and many other excellent specialists. Unfortunately, the idea that articles on the Syriac Fathers of the Church should be commissioned from scholars qualified as Orientalists had not yet taken hold in pre-revolutionary Russia. Alas, the article we reproduced about Rev. Ephraim the Syrian, the greatest of the Syrian saints and Syrian writers, is very weak, but what to do - in those days they knew this author, despite being published back in the 17th century. (textually unsatisfactory) three-volume collection of Syriac texts, almost exclusively from Greek-language versions, the authenticity of which is sometimes questioned. Throughout our century, more and more new creations of the “prophet of the Syrians,” as tradition called him, have come to us in the Syriac original or in Armenian translations, almost continuously coming into scientific use; serious research is devoted to his work; Literary translations into new languages are also appearing, addressed to a wide readership. Somewhat more thoroughly owned by SV. Troitsky (1878-1972) article about Rev. Isaac the Syrian (traditionally also called “Syrian”, in the West - “Nineveh”); the Syriac original of a number of his “ascetic words,” including those that were not translated into Greek (and therefore into Slavic and Russian), was published in 1909, followed in our time by the discovery of new texts. In Russian science, it is necessary to name the works of N.V. dedicated to Syrian literature. Pigulevskoy, A.V. Paykova, E.N. Meshcherskaya, as well as works dedicated to Coptic literature by A.I. Elanskaya and A.L. Khosroeva et al. The author of these lines published a collection of translations: “From the shores of the Bosphorus to the shores of the Euphrates. Literary creativity of the Syrians, Copts and Romans in the 1st millennium AD,” M., 1987 (there were reprints).

As for those events in scientific life that significantly changed the intellectual self-awareness of Christian faiths, their image in the minds, they are indicated above - each time in the course of characterizing the destinies of one or another confessional type.

S.S. Averintsev

Items

additional literature

Bolotov V.V.. Collection of church historical works. M., 1999.

Literature about Gnosticism

Christianity. Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 3 volumes. M., 1993–1995.

Internet resources

From the Sophists to Plato

Church organization.

Trinitarian disputes.

Augustine.

The era of late patristics.

MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY

East-West schism.

Crusades.

Ottoman expansion.

Late Middle Ages.

REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION

Colonization.

Religious wars.

CHRISTIANITY IN THE MODERN PERIOD

The twentieth century.

Contemporary Christian Revival.

Number.

Christianity. Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 3 volumes. M., 1993–1995.

Internet resources

From the Sophists to Plato

From Aristotle to the Neoplatonists

Sample Essay Topics

"High School of Economics"

"Higher School of Economics" (12)

Higher School of Economics (34)

You may also like