All accurate Bible quotations, except where specifically noted, are given according to the Synodal translation in the edition of the Moscow Patriarchate. Collected in this book, Metropolitan Anthony delivered lectures, sermons and conversations in Russian, English, French and German. All translations, except especially specified cases, were made by E. L. Maydanovich. Bibliography of works the reader will find Metropolitan Anthony at the end of the book.

The editors would like to thank Archpriest Nikolai for his help in preparing the book Balashov, N. V. Braginskaya, K. M. Velikanov, Archpriest Alexander Geronimus, M. L. Grinberg, I. V. Ivanova, A. I. Kyrlezhev, O. A. Sedakov, G. G. Yastrebova, as well as N. N. Alipova, I. K. Velikanova, M. K. Velikanov, A. L. Gurevich, E. L. Ivanov, A. N. Koval, A. P. Kozyrev, E. I. Lakirev, N. M. Perlin, V. V. Pislyakov, K. Sairsingh, Archpriest Alexander Troitsky, B. Khazanov, I. V. Chabrov, Archpriest Ilya Shmain, A. S. Shchenkov, I. K. Yazykova.

The Theology of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh in the Light of the Patristic Tradition

Theology of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh in the Light of Patristic Tradition

The life fate of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh is so extraordinary that in modern history of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is hardly possible to find an analogue to it. Born in 1914 in the family of a Russian diplomat, he has come a long way from a student of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Paris to the head of the diocese of the Russian Church in Great Britain, the eldest bishop of Russia by consecration Orthodox Church. This path includes more than half a century of service to the Church in the Rector of London Cathedral, more than forty of them years — in the episcopal rank.

No less unusual is the creative fate of Vladyka Anthony. Without a theological education, he is one of the most authoritative Orthodox theologians Honorary Doctor of Theology of two universities and two Orthodox theological academies. During his long life, Vladyka Anthony wrote little; at he is the author of more than twenty books in many languages of the world. Basis literary heritage of Vladyka Anthony consists of his sermons and conversations, pronounced in different audiences and printed from tape. In In the 1970s and 1980s, these conversations were widely circulated in samizdat; since 1991, they have been regularly published in Russia.

This essay does not aim to give an exhaustive analysis of theological views of Vladyka Anthony or to compare them with the teaching of the Fathers of the Church in accordance with the other issues. I would like to define here in a more general sense the place which, in my opinion, occupies the theology of Vladyka Anthony in the context of Orthodox patristic tradition.

Who are the Church Fathers?

In the divine service of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, our faith is defined as faith Apostolic, patristic faith, Orthodox faith1. And St. Athanasius of Alexandria speaks of the "original Tradition" and of the "The faith of the Universal Church, which the Lord imparted, was preached by the Apostles, preserved by the Fathers"2. Such Thus, the patristic heritage is thought of as a direct continuation of the teaching of Christ and the writings of the Fathers are an integral part of the Orthodox Lore. But what is patristic theology and who are the Fathers of the Church?

In textbooks on patrology, compiled by Russian authors of the XIX century, one can find an indication of three main features by which one should distinguish Church Father from an ordinary theologian: holiness of life, correctness of teaching and antiquity. All these three criteria are borrowed from traditional Catholic patristics.

With regard to the first criterion, it should be said that in the Orthodox tradition The sanctity of life has always been considered an indispensable characteristic of any authentic theologian: the idea of theology as an armchair science, detached from the real spiritual life, is deeply alien to Orthodoxy. At the same time, it is obvious that Personal holiness does not always ensure theological impeccability judgments of this or that author. The history of the Church knows many cases when The authors of theological works, canonized as saints, expressed dubious or even erroneous opinions. In connection with the canonization of the host of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, the Council of Bishops of 2000 even made a special clarification on this matter, stressing that the very fact The canonization of this or that new martyr does not necessarily mean the indispensable elevation of a all that he wrote and said to the rank of patristic theology.

As for the correctness of the teaching, here, again, clarifications are necessary. The Fathers of the Church were the exponents of Church Tradition, and in this sense their writings are a kind of standard, "an accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith": on their We orient ourselves with the teaching, we compare our views and judgments with it. However, in the patristic writings should distinguish between what was said by their authors on behalf of the Church, and that expresses the general teaching of the Church, from particular theological opinions (the so-called theologoumenes). Private opinions should not be cut off in order to create a certain simplified "sum of theology" in order to derive a certain "common denominator" Orthodox dogmatic teaching. At the same time, private opinion, authority which is based on the name of a person recognized by the Church as the Father, and is not sanctified by the conciliar reception of the ecclesiastical mind, and therefore cannot be put on the same level as the opinions that have passed such a reception. Quotient opinion, inso far as it has been expressed by the Father of the Church and not condemned conciliarly, is included in the within the boundaries of the permissible and possible, but cannot be considered generally binding for Orthodox believers.

As for the criterion of antiquity, it must be disputed.3 For the Orthodox Christian, the Father Equally appears to the Church as the Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in II century, so did St. Theophan the Recluse, who lived in the XIX century (under the however, we cannot consider all the judgments of these authors without exception absolutely irreproachable in the theological sense). Now, unfortunately, and in In the Orthodox environment, there is a very widespread opinion that the Holy Fathers — These are the theologians of the past. The past itself is dated in different ways. Estimated The patristic era ended in the eighth century, when St. John Damascene wrote "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", summing up several centuries of theological disputes. According to others, it ended in XI century, when there was a final break between the first and second Rome, or in the middle of the fifteenth century, when the "second Rome" – Constantinople – fell, or in 1917, when the "Third Rome" fell – Moscow as the capital Orthodox Empire. Accordingly, a return to the patristic sources is understood precisely as an appeal to the past and the restoration of either the VIII or the XV, or the XIX century.

Such a view, however, is unacceptable. According to the archpriest According to St. George Florovsky, "The Church now has no less authority than in the past centuries, for the Holy Spirit lives it no less than in former times," therefore, it is impossible to limit the "age of the Fathers" to any time in the past.4 And the famous modern theologian, bishop Diocleia's Kallistos (Ware) says: "An Orthodox Christian should not just to know the Fathers and to quote them: he must enter into their spirit and acquire "patristic mind". He must consider the Fathers not only as an inheritance of the past, but as living witnesses and contemporaries." Bishop Kallistos believes that the epoch of the Holy Fathers did not end in the fifth or eighth century; Patristic epoch in the Orthodox Church continues to this day: "It is very dangerous to look at the The Fathers as a complete corpus of writings wholly related to the past. Perhaps our age cannot produce new Basil or Athanasius? To say that The Holy Fathers can no longer exist, it means to assert that the Holy Spirit left the Church."5