CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Durham e-Theses Durham E-Theses GEORGES V. FLOROVSKY AND VLADIMIR N. LOSSKY: AN EXPLORATION, COMPARISON AND DEMONSTRATION OF THEIR UNIQUE APPROACHES TO THE NEOPATRISTIC SYNTHESIS SAUVE, ROSS,JOSEPH How to cite: SAUVE, ROSS,JOSEPH (2010) GEORGES V. FLOROVSKY AND VLADIMIR N. LOSSKY: AN EXPLORATION, COMPARISON AND DEMONSTRATION OF THEIR UNIQUE APPROACHES TO THE NEOPATRISTIC SYNTHESIS , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/591/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 GEORGES V. FLOROVSKY AND VLADIMIR N. LOSSKY: AN EXPLORATION, COMPARISON AND DEMONSTRATION OF THEIR UNIQUE APPROACHES TO THE NEOPATRISTIC SYNTHESIS By Ross J. Sauvé Submitted for the Doctor of Philosophy Durham University Department of Theology and Religion 24 May 2010 Word count: 99, 069 2 Abstract -- The main purpose of this thesis is to explore and compare the unique approaches to the neopatristic synthesis of Georges V. Florovsky and Vladimir N. Lossky. I will also demonstrate how these differences are manifested in their doctrine of creation. But first, to place their works in context, I consider their respective histories, views of Tradition, and methodologies. As a minor theme, I will show that both men were influenced by the Sophiological controversy: Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and Fr. Pavel Florensky are unseen interlocutors, to very different effects, in both Florovsky and Lossky. One main concern that arises is what truly determines Orthodox theology. Florovsky’s method is very historical, and his view of Tradition follows the neopatristic synthesis quite closely, even programmatically. His premise that God created freely, coupled with the absolute ontological distinction between creature and Creator, leads him to the conclusion that man is absolutely free and undetermined. This is the foundation of his personalist theology. Yet most of his work on creation is in hidden contradistinction to Russian religious philosophy, specifically the Sophiology of Bulgakov. Lossky’s work is also based on the Fathers, but he adds much that is his own creative theological work. He does not follow the neopatristic synthesis as programmatically as Florovsky. The basis of Lossky’s entire anthropology is found, by way of analogy, in his Trinitarian theology. But the major difference between his work and Florovsky’s is that Lossky is indebted to Russian religious philosophy: he shares much with the work of Florensky, as well as some of the intuitions of Bulgakov. This is particularly apparent in his concepts of the image of God in man and of the person. But he also arrives at his personalism through his apophatic method, applied in a universal manner, and his true synthesis of the Fathers with contemporary thought. 3 Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………5 Chapter 1: Historical Background A. Florovsky’s History…………………………………………………………….12 1. Russia, 1893-1920 2. Europe, 1920-1948 3. United States of America, 1948-1979 4. Ecumenism a. Historical Context b. Ecumenical Encounters B. Lossky’s History………………………………………………………………..44 1. Russia, 1903-1922 2. Prague, 1922 – 1924 3. Paris, 1924 – 1958 CHAPTER 2: Tradition A. Florovsky’s Tradition………………………………………………………….61 1. True Tradition 2. Vincent’s Canon 3. Basil’s Unwritten Tradition 4. The Locus of Authority 5. Tradition’s Existential Character 6. Neopatristic Synthesis B. Lossky’s Tradition……………………………………………………………..86 1. Tradition and Traditions 2. Basil’s Unwritten Tradition 3. Tradition As Silence 4. Tradition in Reality: Christian Epistemology 5. Vincent’s Canon 6. The Development of Doctrine CHAPTER 3: Methodology A. Florovsky’s Methodology………………………………………..…………...111 1. A Turn Toward History 2. The Neopatristic Synthesis a. Revelation, Philosophy and Theology b. Patristics and Modern Theology c. The Legacy and the Task of Orthodox Theology d. The Predicament of the Christian Historian e. Patristic Theology and the Ethos of the Orthodox Church B. Lossky’s Methodology…………..……………………………………..……..137 1. Dual Methods: Cataphatic and Apophatic a. What they are not b. What they are 2. The Apophatic Method a. Ecstasy b. The Apophatic Goal: Incomprehensibility and Union e. Its Correspondence in God 3. Apophatic Method Applied: Foundation of the Personal 4 Chapter 4: The Doctrine of Creation……….……………………………...….158 Introduction A. Florovsky’s Doctrine of Creation………………………………………….…162 Introduction 1. Creation is absolutely contingent. 2. God is absolutely distinct from creation. 3. The Creation is absolutely free. 4. Summary B. Lossky’s Doctrine of Creation………………………………………………191 Introduction 1. Preliminary Remarks 2. The Creative Trinity and Divine Ideas 3. Creation: Cosmic Order 4. The Image a. Preliminary Remarks b. The Whole Man: Body and Soul c. Freedom d. The Image e. The Basis for Lossky’s Image Theology 5. The Person a. Preliminary Remarks b. The Basis for Lossky’s Theology of the Person 1. Irreducibility 2. Image 3. Unity and Diversity 4. Kenosis: Individual Versus Person. c. The Will of the Human Being d. Risk and the Two Wills for Deification 6. Summary Conclusions…...………………………………………………………...……...277 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………281 5 Introduction Fr. Georges V. Florovsky and Vladimir N. Lossky are consistently categorized together as theologians who follow what Florovsky called the neopatristic synthesis. In theory, they are both viewed as sharing ‘an underlying commonality of vision’,1 but in practice, their theologies were quite different. Their most significant difference is Florovsky’s complete rejection of Russian religious philosophy versus Lossky’s use of it. The main purpose of this thesis is to explore and compare the unique approaches to the neopatristic synthesis of Florovsky and Lossky. Then I will demonstrate how these differences are manifested in their theology, specifically in their doctrine of creation. But first, to place their works in context and to explore the concepts that influence their theology, I will consider their respective histories, views of Tradition, and methodologies. One of the most important systems of thought that led both Florovsky and Lossky to define what is determinate of Orthodox theology was the Sophiology of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and Fr. Pavel Florensky. Both Bulgakov and Florensky are unseen interlocutors, to very different effects, throughout both Florovsky and Lossky. We will see how the Sophiological controversy affected their life experiences, views of Tradition, and methodologies. This impact produced two unique approaches to the neopatristic synthesis: Florovsky’s, which adopted empirical tendencies to combat Idealism, was a complete rejection of all Russian religious philosophy, specifically all Sophiology; and Lossky’s, which shared Florensky’s anti-rationalism, was more of a corrective to Russian religious philosophy and its intuitions, but still stood specifically against the metaphysics of Sophiology. In fact, it is Florovsky’s and Lossky’s stance against the metaphysics of Sophiology that is their greatest distinct commonality. Florovsky was a philosopher, theologian, historian, and Slavicist. His store of knowledge on the Fathers, as well as his understanding of them, is incomparable. He had 1 Anastassy Brandon Gallager, ‘George Florovsky on reading the life of St Seraphim’, Sobornost 27:1 (2005), 61. 6 three major concerns: a complete rejection of Russian religious philosophy and culture (his theology develops specifically as a reaction against Sergius Bulgakov’s Sophiology); a return to the Fathers (his neopatristic synthesis); and ecumenism (presenting the Fathers to an ecumenical audience). During the time that Florovsky was emerging as a philosopher, the Western Enlightenment battle between the Rationalist Idealists and the Rationalist Empiricists was raging in the Russian intelligentsia. The secularist consciousness abounded, both inside and outside of the Orthodox Church. This was a result of the adoption of Western philosophical concepts, especially German Idealism. For Florovsky, it was the Western concepts in Russian religious philosophy, specifically demonstrated in Bulgakov’s Sophiology, that he believed to be the secular consciousness within the Church, and it was this Westernization, which he called the ‘Babylonian captivity’, that needed to be eradicated. It was this ‘captivity’ and the Sophiological controversy that compelled Florovsky to use history, the historical method, and a ‘return to the Fathers’ as a tool against them. (Ironically, Bulgakov encouraged him in this.) Florovsky also saw this as a return to what he called the mind of the Church, or what Zenkovsky called the ‘ecclesiastical consciousness’ or ‘ecclesiastical world-view’.2 With this return to the Fathers, Florovsky programmatically and rigidly set out to purge all