thoroughly poisoned by masonry.'39 But their attitudes to the YMCA were to mellow with the years.40 In any case, it was not just a question of having a publishing house at one's beck and call. More important was the orthodoxy of its authors. The liberalism of the church historian George Fedotov might pass the critics' muster. It was quite another matter when theologians put about fresh formulations of dogmatic truths. When Bulgakov's work of the emigre period came to be assessed, each of the diaspora's jurisdictions used the controversial nature of his teachings as a peg on which to hang their disparate views.
The Church Abroad, in the person of its leader Metropolitan Antonii Khrapovitskii, had been expressing discontent with some of Bulgakov's teachings since the 1920s. Such feelings came to a head in 1936 with the submission of a detailed work on Bulgakov's 'heresies' to the council of the Church Abroad. Nobody could have expected the beleaguered Moscow patriarchate to busy itself with such things. But Metropolitan Sergii Stragorodskii promptly heeded a denunciation of Bulgakov by a member of the patriarchate's isolated base in Paris. The metropolitan also made use of depositions from another source, his representative in Lithuania, Metropolitan Elevferii Bogoiavlenskii. Although it is obvious that Sergii himselfhad no access to the works in question, he issued a condemnation of Bulgakov's teachings in so far as they 'often distort the dogmas of the Orthodox faith and in some respects directly echo false teachings which have already been condemned by the councils [of the church]. . . They are alien to the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ.'41
Metropolitan Evlogii had more than Bulgakov to defend. The whole question of freedom was at stake. 'To ignore church freedom is to be deprived of church life as well as good pastoral concern', he wrote. 'We have to safeguard inner spiritual freedom, according to the teaching of apostle Paul (Galatians 5:3), while sheltering it from political assaults and from constraints resulting from a formal apprehension of God's Truth.'42 In the process Bulgakov gained Evlogii's formal approbation. At his side were other innovative thinkers, who helped to shape the Orthodoxy of the time and place. Some, like Fr Nikolai
39 Quoted in Archbishop Nikon (N. P. Rklitskii), Zhizneopisanie blazhennieshago Antoniia, mitropolitaKievskago i Galitskago, 10 vols. (New York: Izd. Sievero-Amerikanskoi i Kanad-skoi eparkhii, 1956-63), vii, 290-1.
40 Mikhail Nazarov Missiia russkoi emigratsii, second edition (Moscow: Rodnik, 1994), i, 210-11.
41 Metropolitan Sergii Stragorodskii (1935), quoted in Monakhinia Elena [Kazimirchak-Polonskaia], Professor protoierei Sergii Bulgakov 1871-1944 (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Pravoslavnogo universiteta imeni o Aleksandra Menia, 2003), 327.
42 Metropolitan Evlogii, quoted in ibid., 295.
Was this article helpful?