Outline of Fr. Sophrony’s Theological Formation by Nikolai V. Sakharov
I am interested in the treatment of the work of Sergei Sakharov by his Great Nephew, Nikolai Sakharov, in his book, I love, therefore I am: The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony', because if You read the book closely - You begin to realise that what Archimandrite Sophrony is really saying is very different to the Cappadocians and Gregory of Palamas in the Triads and You also realise the full implications of his Eschatology and the way "the geometry of his language blurs at the edges" in dealing with human deification [sanctification] and theosis [glorification] in relation to the Trinity. It also raises some interesting questions about the Post Platonic 'Cosmos Noetos' of Father Thomas Hopko - if Archimandrite Zacharias Zacharou and Archimandrite Nicholas Sakharov were to use direct language in dealing with "the eschatology of human transformation" - in their work on Sergei Sakharov and in their approach to 'Theosis and Sacrament' - it would become immediately clear that far from being a Cosmos Noetos, we are really dealing with "Cosmic Noetics" and a form of pneumatological "rocket fuelled" theosis that would not only make Andrew Louth run out of superlatives, he would completely run out of language to describe the real changes they have in mind......that is if he paused to ask a few perspicacious questions on the real implications of the work of Sergei Symeonovich Sakharov.
It is fascinating how Monks can quietly be engaging in extremely radical and very experimental pneumatological and perceptual alteration - Deep Prophetics - some of this is uncharted - it is way beyond the speculative conjecture of Psychoanalytics and Post Jungian Depth Psychology - and still manage to use a form of "Academic Language" in discussing the project, which suggests it is completely normative and relatively unadventurous.
Do you not realise that like Graham Cooke, Dutch Sheets and James Goll in Western Prophetics, these men are risking everything in Eastern Prophetics in pushing the envelope on Deep Prophetics like this - they really are "Pioneers over C" - these men are heroes in terms of the present stuff they are doing - this sort of stuff can put your sanity on the line and radically and permanently alter your perceptual faculties - it can alter you beyond present recognition in terms of human cognition and pneumatology...I know, I was taken through the eye of the lens - it rearranges you, it reformats you right down to the level of sub-atomics.
An excerpt from St. Gregory Palamas’, “Third Letter to Akindynos”:
“According to the divine Maximus, the Logos of well-being, by grace is present unto the worthy, bearing God, Who is by nature above all beginning and end, Who makes those who by nature have a beginning and an end become by grace without beginning and without end, because the Great Paul also, no longer living the life in time, but the divine and eternal life of the indwelling Logos, became by grace without beginning and without end; and Melchisedek had neither beginning of days, nor end of life, not because of his created nature [i.e., his essence], according to which he began and ceased to exist, but because of the divine and uncreated and eternal grace which is above all nature and time, being from the eternal God. Paul, therefore, was created only as long as he lived the life created from non-being by the command of God. But when he no longer lived this life, but that which is present by the indwelling of God, he became uncreated by grace, as did also Melchisedek and everyone who comes to possess the Logos of God, alone living and acting within himself.”
I am not suggesting that reading the book will be a 'mind bending' experience BUT I am saying 'read the subtext'......you need understand the real implications of this material:
Outline of Fr. Sophrony’s Theological Formation
Nicholas V. Sakharov
Chapter one from the thesis in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of D. Phil. in Theology
"The Theology of Archimandrite Sophrony"
(Pembroke College, University of Oxford, Trinity Term 1999).
This thesis was published with a title "I love, therefore I am: The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony"
by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press
and it is available
at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary
Introduction
The main purpose of the thesis is to offer a critical exposition of the theology of Archimandrite Sophrony Sakharov (1896-1993)—an outstanding Christian ascetic, monk and mystic of the 20th century. His theological heritage has not yet been approached in such a way as to bring his ideas into a dialogue with a wider range of academic issues [1]. Our thesis is a first attempt to present to the Western academic world a critical study of Fr.Sophrony as a theologian and to situate his ‘whereabouts’ within the vast scope of contemporary and traditional theology by way of critical and comparative analysis. This will determine and thereby assess the extent of his contribution. In order to do so, we shall indicate the most significant areas of Fr.Sophrony’s background—these are Russian religious thought, the Eastern patristic tradition, the contemporary Athonite tradition and his own ascetic experience. The study consistently reveals the synthetic character of his theology, which integrates these different thought-worlds into a single theoria through the prism of his own mystical experience. Academic requirements do not permit us to extend our research beyond these fields so as to touch on other vast areas of fruitful comparison—those of German philosophy, Indian mysticism, as well as the Western Christian tradition. Rather our aim is to recapitulate the constituting framework of his theology through an analysis of various themes, which would allow us to demonstrate that his unique synthesis revolves around his christocentric approach to the concept of hypostasis in its anthropological and trinitarian dimensions. To deal with these themes we begin our study with a discussion of Fr.Sophrony’s theological formation which would provide a necessary insight into the multifarious background of his theological make-up. The nature of our thesis, as well as Fr.Sophrony’s own reluctance to speak about his outward history [2], mean that we shall not attempt to present a historically exhaustive biography—this has yet to be written [3]. For the purpose of our research we confine our interest only to the key points of his theological formation, outlining the factors which influenced his mystical-spiritual and intellectual pilgrimage.
Russia (1896-1922)
Childhood
Sergei Symeonovich Sakharov (as Fr.Sophrony was called in the world) was born in Moscow on 22 September 1896 into a bourgeois family, who were practising Orthodox Christians [4]. The fact of being reared in the Orthodox Christian tradition, with its stress on daily prayer, left a life-long impression on him. Sergei became accustomed to this practice so much so that even as a child he ‘could pray easily for three quarters of an hour’ [5]. It undoubtedly deepened his ‘mystical sensitivity’: it is no coincidence that Fr.Sophrony ascribes his first experience of uncreated light to his childhood days [6].
Student years: his painting career in Moscow (1910-1921)
This intensity continued to be prominent throughout his student years. His spiritual make-up was at this time affected by two factors: his painting and oriental mysticism.
As a child Fr.Sophrony revealed an outstanding artistic talent, and for that reason he went to study during 1915-1917 at the Academy of Arts, and in 1920-1 at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (Russian: ‘ВХУТЕМАС’) [7]. The whole atmosphere of Russian art then was marked by a profound search for new forms of artistic expression. M.Egger aptly quotes J.-L. Daval [8] who envisages the Russian artistic world at the beginning of the 20th century in the following terms:
Tous les systemes apparaissent caducs; l’artiste ne trouve d’autre verite que l’authenticite de son experience phenomenologique ou spirituelle, la fidelite a son intuition... Percevant au fond d’eux-mÍmes de nouvelles realites, les artistes doivent detruire les habitudes de la figuration pour les rendre perceptibles; en meme temps qu’ils aspirent a une nouvelle representation, ils doivent fonder un nouveau langage... L’artiste apparaitra desormais comme un prophete; il n’illustre plus, il revele [9].
In his painting Fr.Sophrony attempted to discover the eternal beauty, the mystery (тайна) of each visible object [10]. For him, art was a powerful means of breaking through present reality, through time, into new horizons of being. These artistic experiences bore a quasi-mystical character. He recalls several experiences of ‘falling out’ of time [11], and of contemplation of the ‘light of artistic inspiration’. This would later allow him to draw a clear distinction between the natural light of the human intellect and the uncreated light [12].
Fr.Sophrony and contemporary Russia
Fr.Sophrony’s philosophical and spiritual pilgrimage, as he recalls, was marked by an intensive inner search for the basis of reality [13]. Because of his total dedication to creative work, Fr.Sophrony’s artistic isolation limited the scope of his outward involvement in the development of the prevailing intellectual tendencies in contemporary Russia. Yet the whole intellectual climate of pre- and post-revolutionary Russia with its upheaval and instability [14] undoubtedly created a fertile matrix for new directions of thinking. The emergence of the religious-philosophical societies in 1901-1903 is a notable reflection of this intensive intellectual search [15]. The Russian intelligentsia, in its move towards idealism away from the radicalism, positivism and ‘nihilism’ of the preceding epoch, sought rapprochement with Christianity and with the ecclesiastical heritage in general [16]. However, in their return to Christianity, Russian thinkers evaluated the Orthodox tradition in different ways. Thus, as a repercussion of L.Tolstoy’s evangelical radicalism with its nihilistic tendencies [17], people of the so-called ‘new religious consciousness’—like D.S.Merezhkovsky (1865-1941), N.Berdyaev (1874-1948), and V.Rozanov (1856-1919)—attempted to rejuvenate Christianity by stretching its bounds beyond the Church and Tradition [18]. On the other hand, S.Bulgakov (1871-1944) and S.Frank (1877-1950) found Church tradition an adequate expression of the essence of Christianity [19].
Though a Muscovite, Fr.Sophrony remained alien to the intellectual tendencies of the ‘Muscovite ethos’, marked by the romantic emphasis of the Slavophiles on ‘Russianness’ in their philosophical principles [20]. If we would ‘situate’ Fr.Sophrony on the map of the contemporary intellectual scene, he would have belonged at this time to the first group of thinkers, those who looked beyond ‘ecclesiastical tradition’, and advocated a wide-ranging intellectual freedom. This broad and free scope for religious thought provided a necessary background for Fr.Sophrony's bold investigation of non-Christian religious cultures.
Oriental mysticism
It is at this time that Fr.Sophrony became acutely aware of the contrast between the finitude of our present reality and the infinity of divine eternal reality. As a result, his mystical life was marked by profound experiences of mindfulness of death [21]. This contrast (finitude-infinity) aroused in him an urgent longing to penetrate to the heart of divine eternity—to achieve what he terms ‘breakthrough into eternity’ [22]. He wondered how he, as a human being, related to eternity, to the divine Absolute. In all this, he was convinced that the human spirit cannot accept the idea of death [23]. His search for eternity led him to Indian non-Christian mysticism [24]. Christianity, with its stress on personal love towards a personal Absolute, seemed to him less profound than some strands of Eastern mysticism, which spoke of a supra-personal Absolute. Thus Christianity appeared to him then as a merely psychological moral doctrine that did not account for reality ontologically [25]. Within the Christian framework of beliefs built on faith in the personal-hypostatic Godhead, the concept of the divine Absolute seemed inconceivable, since the concept of person, as he then understood it, implied particularity and, hence, ontological limitation. The Absolute, he thought, must be beyond everything, beyond every concept or measure: it therefore transcends Christian categories.
N.Berdyaev seems to have faced the same dilemma [26], which demonstrates that such a problematic was familiar in the contemporary Russian thought-world. Berdyaev sees contradictions between the concept of the Christian God in the Bible and that of the divine Absolute; he concludes that the Christian God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient [27]. The divine nothingness of the Absolute of negative theology cannot be the creator of the world [28].’
Under the exigency of the Christian ‘scandal of particularity’, which he envisaged as incompatible with the idea of the Absolute, Berdyaev resorted to the concept of real symbolism in his philosophical system [29]. He thus adjusted the Christian framework in the face of philosophical constraints. Fr.Sophrony’s solution was to abandon a Christian framework altogether as incompatible with the idea of the Absolute. The catastrophic events of the First World War and the subsequent Revolution in Russia only strengthened his striving towards the other-worldly [30]. His God, the all-transcendent Absolute, could be attained only through divesting the self of all visual and mental images [31].
Thus his art, his thinking and his inner state combined to drive him insatiably towards the Abstract, that is, the Pan-Transcendent.
Paris (1922-1925)
In the turmoil of post-revolutionary Russia, Lenin’s government in 1922-3 gave an opportunity for non-Marxist intellectuals to leave Russia, amongst whom were N.Berdyaev, S.Bulgakov and N. and V.Lossky. Fr.Sophrony left shortly before, in 1921, so as to continue his artistic career abroad [32]. He spent a few months in Italy and then in Berlin [33]. In 1922 he arrived in Paris. There his artistic career advanced so rapidly as to attract the attention of the French media. He exhibited at the Salon d’Automne and the even more elite Salon des Tuileries [34]. At the same time his spiritual and ideological pilgrimage continued. His predominant questions then were those of ontology and gnoseology. On the one hand, he was frustrated at the ineptitude of art to express the pure Other. On the other, he tried to comprehend how man can arrive at the ultimate knowledge of reality [35]. Purely intellectual reasoning could not provide a sufficient answer to his question. As he saw it, purely rational knowledge is inherent to science. It was unable to serve the ultimate aim of Fr.Sophrony's acquisition of knowledge: ‘surmounting the finitude of death’. Science, as an intellectual discipline, is relevant only in the sphere of reality where one event is determined by another. But his artistic experience suggested that there are phenomena which belong to ‘undetermined reality’ where science is not applicable [36].
Return to Christianity
This query coincided with his discovery that Christ’s precept to love God with all one’s heart, mind and strength is not a moralistic psychology but a profound ontology. Love emerged as an authentic source of cognition. If God is to be known by love, then the divine Absolute is a personal being [37]. For Fr.Sophrony, this personeity is implied in the formula of Ex.3:22: ‘ I AM THAT I AM’. It is to this moment that M.Egger dates Fr.Sophrony’s first experience of uncreated light [38]. We, however, tend to think that this experience was not the first but a ‘return’ of this vision in a more powerful form than during his childhood [39]. It began on Great Saturday in 1924 and remained until the 3rd day of Easter week [40]; the strength of this experience was never matched in his later visions of light [41]. These experiences and discoveries resulted in his return to Christianity, a volte-face so dramatic that he began to distance himself even from his art [42].
Orthodoxy in Paris
The life of the Russian community in Paris in those years was marked by dynamism within various spheres of activity [43]. As P.Anderson recalls, it was ‘a time of the most intensive creativity’ [44]. The massive return of the intelligentsia to the Orthodox Church within the New Russia in the years 1917-25 had its parallel among the Russian emigrants [45]. P.Anderson observes: ‘The basic common feature of Russian refugee society was the Church [46].’ The year 1922 was marked by the establishment of the Russian Christian Youth Movement, which brought to the forefront the question of theological education [47]. As a result, in 1924 the Orthodox Theological Institute was founded in Paris [48]. That same year Fr.Sophrony was among its first students [49]. There he was surrounded by the elite of Russian theologians and philosophers [50]. As N.Zernov notes: ‘The Institute became the main intellectual centre of the Russian Church and an equally important point of contact between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christians’ [51]. In 1924 the teaching personnel comprised Bp.Veniamin (Fedchenkov), A.Kartashev, K.Bezobrazov and E.Kovalevsky, who in 1925 were joined by S.Bulgakov, V.Zenkovsky, S.Frank. S.Troitsky, V.Ilyin and G.Florovsky [52].
Fr.Sergei Bulgakov
The most profound influence on Fr.Sophrony in the field of dogmatic theology came from Fr.Sergei Bulgakov [53]. At the Institute Bulgakov taught dogmatics [54]. Apart from being Fr.Sophrony’s teacher, Bulgakov was his spiritual father at the same time. It is no coincidence, that his range of theological issues, his vocabulary and style of theologising were determinative for Fr.Sophrony’s theological growth. Bulgakov had a rich background in patristic literature as well as in philosophy (notably Kant, Fichte, Feuerbach, Hegel and Schelling [55] as well as V.Soloviev and P.Florensky) [56]. Bulgakov’s theology evolved as a result of his philosophical transition from Marxism to idealism [57]. This synthesis of the Fathers and modern philosophy constitutes the originality of his approach, which sometimes goes beyond the scope of patristic Orthodoxy, as, for example, in his Sophiology [58]. Thus Soloviev’s theme of богочеловечество (‘Godmanhood’) made him more attentive to the anthropological implications of Chalcedonian Christology and the trinitarian theology of the Cappadocians [59]. Among Bulgakov’s theological ideas which had a direct impact on Fr.Sophrony are trinitarian theology, kenoticism and anthropology. Thus, Bulgakov precedes Fr.Sophrony in elaborating on the relational character of divine hypostases in the Trinity [60] and the antinomy of the absolute identity and absolute distinction of the divine personae [61]. This absolute unity is ensured by the mode of the divine being, which is love: this unity therefore is not static but dynamic [62]. This love is sacrificial, self-denying love [63]. Bulgakov works out the relational dynamic nature of hypostatic being and arrives at the self-denying character of love within the Trinity. Due to Schellingian influence (A.Nichols’ view) and that of Russian Christology (N.Gorodetsky’s view) [64], Bulgakov works out the kenotic dimension in the very constitution of the Holy Trinity, as well as in the act of creation [65]. Also important for Fr.Sophrony was Bulgakov’s view of Christ’s kenosis on the level of the intra-trinitarian being [66]. Kenosis, furthermore, does not exhaust itself with the Resurrection but also concerns the post-Easter glorified Christ [67], and this is largely related to the sacrament of the Eucharist [68]. This kenotic element in the Eucharist marks Fr.Sophrony’s liturgical theology as well. It is noteworthy that Bulgakov works out the idea of the kenosis of the Spirit in his operation (действенности) [69]. This allowed Fr.Sophrony later to apply the idea of the variable measure of operation and perceptibility of the Holy Spirit to his ascetic theory of богооставленность (Godforsakenness) [70]. Bulgakov’s anthropology and that of Fr.Sophrony are marked by similar maximalist categories. Bulgakov anticipates Fr.Sophrony in his understanding of the biblical expression dextera Patris, related to Christ’s ascension [71] as the elevation-deification of humanity to the point of equality— тожества —with the divinity [72]. Bulgakov points to the relation between the divine and human modes of being and brings them to close relation in a quasi-platonic manner [73]. Man as image is in fact repetition (повторение) of God [74]; man is a micro-absolute, an express image of the divine absoluteness [75]. Humankind is a divine ‘cryptogram’, a mystery in its hypostasity [76]. As such man and his hypostasis are indefinable [77]. This allows Bulgakov to assert identity (тожество) between man and God: humana natura capax divini [78].
Later Fr.Sophrony was cautious in making much overt use of Bulgakov. It seems the extent of Bulgakov’s influence on Fr.Sophrony was obscured and limited by the controversy over Bulgakov’s theology [79].
N. Berdyaev
Fr.Sophrony’s personal contact with Berdyaev undoubtedly left traces on his theological make-up. Berdyaev’s ‘personalism’ crowns the development of the maximalist trend within the Russian philosophy of persona (личность) [80]. Thus, Berdyaev uses a theologically innovative term—man is microtheos, which was taken up by Fr.Sophrony as a basis for his own framework of thought on anthropology [81]. However, Berdyaev’s influence should not be overestimated. His concepts of persona, and of the freedom and creativity of man, went against the Orthodox ascetic tradition: ‘Man, who embarks on the path of Christian asceticism, is lost for creative work [82].’ This difference of wavelength became explicit even in Paris; when Fr.Sophrony announced to Berdyaev his monastic vocation, he met with Berdyaev’s disapproval [83].
At this stage, though, however fruitful the contact with Bulgakov and Berdyaev may have been, formal theology did not fulfil Fr.Sophrony’s hope of being ‘taught how to pray, how to have the right attitude towards God, how to overcome one’s passions and attain eternity’. So in 1925 he made his way to Mt Athos [84].
Mount Athos (1925-1947)
On Mt. Athos Fr.Sophrony joined the Russian Orthodox Monastery of St Panteleimon. During this period the main source of his theological inspiration was his own mystical experience. He states that he underwent profound repentance over his apostasy and the inadequacy of his spiritual condition, of his ‘incapability of living according to the precepts of the Gospel’ [85].
Staretz Silouan
The second determinative factor of Fr.Sophrony’s theological formation was his contact with an Athonite elder-staretz Silouan, from 1930 until 1938 [86]. Silouan’s ascetic formula ‘Keep your mind in hell and despair not’ [87] was matched by Fr.Sophrony’s own spiritual motto: ‘Stay on the brink of despair but when you feel you are falling over, step back [88].’ Fr.Sophrony himself asserts that this parallel experience was the basis of their spiritual contact [89]. Silouan’s concern for an existential, living dimension in the knowledge of God is reflected in Fr.Sophrony’s principle of theology: ‘It is one thing to believe in God and another thing to know God’ in the Holy Spirit [90]. B.Gooskens pertinently analyses the implications of Silouan’s stress on the pneumatological dimension in his ascetic theology [91].
Though Silouan had no distinctive theological system, his simply-expressed theological and ascetic concepts formed an integral basis for Fr.Sophrony’s theological development [92]. Among them the most significant are: prayer for the whole world [93], Christ-like humility, and love towards one’s enemies.
Silouan pays particular attention to the type of prayer ‘for the whole creation’ [94]: ‘Let the whole world come to know Thee’ [95]. Silouan precedes Fr.Sophrony in using the expression the whole Adam, which indicates the ontological oneness of the human race. His chapter ‘Adam’s lament’ expresses the universal dimension of his range of application of the term ‘Adam’: Adam is ‘the father of the universe’ and, as such, he emerges as a collective personality [96]. Christ-like love is the bond which links the whole Adam.
The universality of this love is often expressed by Silouan as ‘love towards one’s enemies’, which was central to his thinking to an unprecedented extent. It became his criterion for the authenticity of any Christian message [97]. Christ’s commandment (Mt.5:44) is a projection of the divine mode of being onto the level of human relationship, since it reflects the absolute character of divine love [98].
Silouan also precedes Fr.Sophrony in the concept of Христово смирение (Christ-like humility) [99], which he distinguishes from ascetic humility. Silouan’s experience of Christ-like humility reflects Christ’s commandment—‘Learn of Me for I am lowly in heart’ (Mt.11:29) [100]. Though Silouan does not expound the concept, Fr.Sophrony would discern there the ontological dimension of Christ’s hypostatic being: lowliness of heart signifies the transfer of the focus of existential concern from self to other(s), when ‘I’ is disregarded for the sake of ‘Thou’. Thus it implicitly reflects the intra-trinitarian mode of being, where the hypostasis kenotically assimilates the life of the other(s). This christological dimension is implicitly present in Silouan: he expresses this Christ-like re-orientation from self to the other in the following passage: ‘When the soul gives itself over to the will of God, then in the mind there is nothing but God alone... [101]’ It is a supernatural state of participation in the kenotic existential commitment of one hypostasis of the Trinity to the other.
The same christological model is behind Silouan’s teaching on ascetic obedience: he compares the obedient ascetic to Christ in his commitment to the Father [102]. The importance of obedience for Silouan receives its theological justification in Fr.Sophrony when he further highlights the connexion between obedience and the trinitarian mode of being.
These concepts mark a way for Fr.Sophrony’s further development in that they lay the foundation for his theological principle of the commensurability and affinity of divine and human existence. In embryo Silouan’s concepts presuppose a (not always explicit) christological and consequently trinitarian perspective for understanding the ascetic life. Though Silouan himself does not pursue this connexion in his writings, he provides for Fr.Sophrony an indispensable starting point for an application of the christo-trinitarian model to the level of human existence.
Patristic heritage
On Athos Fr.Sophrony became well acquainted with the patristic ascetic heritage. There too he learned Greek, so that he was able to read the patristic sources in the original. Thus, Fr.Sophrony’s letters of this period reveal his acquaintance with the writings and ideas of Basil the Great [103], Macarius the Great [104], Hesychius of Jerusalem [105], Diadochus of Photice [106], Dionysius the Areopagite [107], Barsanuphius and John [108], John Climacus [109], Isaac the Syrian [110], Symeon the New Theologian [111], Philotheus of Sinai [112], Gregory of Sinai [113], Ignaty Bryanchaninov [114], Seraphim of Sarov [115], Paisy Velichkovsky [116], Theophan the Recluse [117], and John of Kronstadt [118], At a later stage he read Gregory Palamas [119]. Fr.Sophrony read many of these Fathers in the Philokalia [120]. Among other books Fr.Sophrony mentions Древний патерик [121], and Откровенные рассказы странника [122].
First Writings
The correspondence (1932-46) with Fr.David Balfour, a Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy, provides a valuable insight into Fr.Sophrony’s own spiritual development. It is full of references to and quotations from the patristic writers. The correspondence also touches on the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Western thought, in both Christian and philosophical writings [123]. Thus Fr.Sophrony mentions Schleiermacher, Spinoza and Kant, and St John of the Cross (The Dark Night of the Soul) [124]. He dedicates a few pages to the concepts of the heart and prayer. In Eastern Christianity, he argues, the spiritual heart is not an abstract notion but is linked with our material heart and has its physical location [125]. In opposition to the Western search for some visionary mystical experience, Fr.Sophrony advocates the prayer of repentance, which is the basis of all spiritual life [126].
In these letters we find, in embryonic form, ideas determinative for Fr.Sophrony’s later theological development, particularly: the concept of Godforsakenness, maximalist anthropology, and the interdependence of asceticism and dogmatic vision.
Godforsakenness
Fr.Sophrony works out a distinction between two types of Godforsakenness. The first one is when ‘man deserts God’: ‘To the extent that we live in this world, to that same extent we are dead in God.’ The second one is when God hides from man—a horrific state of Godforsakenness. When man has no more life in this world, i.e. cannot live by this world, the memory of the divine world draws him ‘there’, yet despite all this darkness encompasses his soul [127]. He explains: ‘these fluctuations of the presence and absence of grace are our destiny until the end of our earthly life [128].’ Fr.Sophrony saw suffering as a necessary stage in ascetic development: ‘Divine grace comes only in the soul which has undergone suffering [129].’ Fr.Sophrony thus parallels his own experience with that of the Dark Night in St John of the Cross, whose writings assisted his comprehension of ascetic suffering. He calls him a ‘genius’ and admits that ‘the description of states, while being different in methods and terminology from the Eastern Fathers, in its main dogmatic statements is in accord with and on a par with the greatest writers of Eastern asceticism [130].’
Fr.Sophrony highlights other important points in St John: (a) determination to follow the hard path, against the utmost resistance; (b) concern to preserve the mind pure of any image in his striving towards the Divine; (c) understanding of the spiritually perfect life as the unity of love. His inspiring book does indeed excite the soul towards determination to follow patiently through the dry and dark wilderness towards the ‘Promised Land’ [131].
Despite their common traits Fr.Sophrony also points out differences between Eastern Orthodox spirituality and that of St John [132]: (a) Fr.Sophrony sees St John’s spiritual path as a method. In general he himself is not eager to promote any method (not even the ‘mechanical’ methods of hesychasm) [133]; (b) The darkness of abandonment is not envisaged as a positive knowledge of and communion with God (as in St John) but a negative stage on the way towards communion with God who is light [134]. The idea, Fr.Sophrony writes, that immersion into darkness which is divested of any concept or image is of itself a final stage in the communion with God, is alien to the Orthodox ascetic tradition [135]; (c) St John’s prayer, according to Fr.Sophrony, does not start with repentance, but he strives towards visionary imaginative experience, which disagrees with the Eastern practice [136].
Maximalist Anthropology
Where Fr.Sophrony raises the question of deification, the maximalism of his anthropology is manifest. He refers to Gregory Palamas who applies the term ¥narcoj to the ultimate condition of human deification: ‘We long for participation in eternal life. What actually happens is that man becomes not only immortal, but without beginning (безначальным) also [137].’
The interdependence of asceticism and dogmatic vision
As a reply to Balfour’s doubt over the importance of specifically Eastern ascetic and dogmatic traditions, Fr.Sophrony asserts the organic integrity and integrality of ascetic life, dogma and the Church. Criticising Schleiermacher in connexion with this issue, he writes:
There are three things I cannot take in: non-dogmatic faith, non-ecclesiological Christianity and non-ascetic Christianity. These three—the Church, dogma and asceticism (подвиг)—constitute one single life for me [138].
As a reply to Balfour’s doubt over the need for ‘negative asceticism’, Fr.Sophrony argues that positive asceticism (love) necessarily entails negative forms (limitations of oneself) [139]. The positive form is integral to the final goal, but in the initial stages of ascetic growth the negative forms are necessary and fruitful.
His main contention about dogma is that any religious culture has its own ascetic teaching, since asceticism is an ontological (living) expression of one’s religious vision [140]. He warns that any religious growth has its stages and that it is dangerous to overturn the right order of these stages. Within the framework of Christian belief, pantheistic mysticism (search for the divine Absolute which is above any conceptualisation and particularity) is only a stage in religious development, and should not be seen as superior to the Christian personalistic concept of God [141]. Fr.Sophrony singles out Kant as an example of the confusion of the hierarchical order of these stages. Kant believed that the mind undergoes three stages, which accord with his principle of the development of the mind's perception of the world: theological, metaphysical and positivist [142]. Fr.Sophrony, by contrast, implies that metaphysical and theological (which for Fr.Sophrony implies dogmatic) perception should be seen as superior to positivist intellectualism [143].
Fr.Sophrony diagnoses Balfour’s concern about ‘confessional limitations’ as only an initial stage of his spiritual growth. It was Schleiermacher’s error to ‘dogmatize’ this initial stage—the uncertainty of religious anguish (Angst)—as something ultimate [144]. This came as a result of his rejection of the dogmatic foundations of religious experience. In Fr.Sophrony’s view, Schleiermacher is not far from pantheism: ‘His adogmatic (бездогматическое) Christianity and faith led him to define Spinoza’s pantheistic perception of the world as the classic expression of the religious life [145].’ Also in Kant’s theological system the concepts of personal immortality and of the personal God do not play the fundamental role they have in traditional Christianity [146].
Responding to Balfour’s question ‘How important are dogmas for Orthodoxy?’, Fr.Sophrony emphasises the role of dogma in constituting the Orthodox Tradition: ‘If one rejects the Orthodox Creed and the Eastern ascetic experience of life in Christ, which has been acquired throughout the centuries, then Orthodox culture would be left with nothing but the Greek minor [key] and Russian tetraphony [147].’
Fr.Sophrony also warns against attributing to intellectual reasoning the status of being the sole basis for religious search:
Historical experience has demonstrated that natural intellectual reasoning, left to its own devices, fatally arrives at pantheistic mysticism with its particular perception of reality. If this takes place in the soul of the Christian who does not want to reject Christ (as in the case of Leo Tolstoy), he arrives at Protestant rationalism or at spiritualism, which stands mystically close to pantheism... I am convinced that the rejection of the Church will lead to the rejection of the Apostolic message about ‘that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes... and our hands have handled (1Jn.1:1) [148].
Thus the correspondence with Balfour, by compelling Fr.Sophrony to express himself theologically, became the first stage in Fr.Sophrony’s theological articulation. It is both significant and determinative, outlining as it does the range of theological interests and issues which came to be developed in his later writings.
The Desert 1939-47. Spiritual Fatherhood
After the death of StSilouan (†24/ix-1938), and following upon his advice, Fr.Sophrony departed from the Monastery of St Panteleimon into the Athonite ‘desert’. He resided first at Karoulia, and afterwards in a cave near St Paul’s Monastery [149].
Those years were marked by two significant happenings. Firstly, in 1941 Fr.Sophrony was ordained a priest. On becoming confessor and spiritual guide for many ascetics on Mt Athos, Fr.Sophrony had unique access to the personal experiences of all those who confessed to him. This allowed him to observe and analyse certain regularly-repeated patterns in monastic spiritual life. These observations became the basis for his ascetic teaching. The idea came to him of writing a book about the Athonite ascetic tradition, to record its principles and describe living examples which would help others to find their bearings.
Secondly, the 2nd World War was a time of prayer for the world so intense that Fr.Sophrony’s health was affected [150]. Through such prayer he came to discover directly the interdependence of his own being and that of the whole of mankind, whose ontological unity became a central feature of his anthropology [151]. In prayer for the whole world Fr.Sophrony understood the principles of what he later wrote about as hypostatic being. He came to realise that persona is the opposite of individuum: it does not exclude that which is ‘not-I’ but, on the contrary, takes everything ‘not-I’ into ‘I’ [152].
Return to Paris (1947-1959)
In the post-war years Fr.Sophrony resumed contact with Balfour. The latter helped Fr.Sophrony to obtain a visa to go to France [153]. It is difficult to establish any single cause for Fr.Sophrony’s departure from Mt. Athos in 1947 [154]. On the one hand, Fr.Sophrony had been entrusted by Silouan with the task of publishing his writings, if, as Silouan had put it, ‘you think they could be useful’. Paris, as the cultural heart of the Russian emigration, would be the best place for this, and could provide resources unavailable on Athos. On the other hand he wished to complete his theological studies at St Sergius; the Institute agreed to allow him to sit examinations for the whole 4-year course, and to provide him with accommodation and food [155]. Other possible reasons are Fr.Sophrony's deteriorating health and the difficulties he faced as a non-Greek in post-war Greece: ‘the [political] situation is deteriorating as time goes by’, he writes to Balfour [156].
Fr.Sophrony and the Institute of St Sergius
On his arrival in Paris, the Institute questioned Fr.Sophrony about his attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church. They had previously demanded ‘confirmation’ from Fr.Sophrony that he would not ‘undertake propaganda of the views of [the Moscow Patriarchate]’, giving as a motive for their demand the explanation that ‘the Church had entered a period of ecclesiastical instability’ after the death of Metropolitan Evlogy (†8.viii.1946) [157]. Their fear of any sympathy on Fr.Sophrony’s part towards the Russian Patriarchate was not unjustified. Metropolitan Sergius’ ecclesiology was in accord with that of Fr.Sophrony: Sergius disagreed with the tendency among Russian Slavophile emigrants to deny the legitimacy of the ‘Soviet' or 'Red Church’ as an Orthodox Church, and, thus to propagate a distorted conception of the institution of the Church. The Slavophiles saw the Russian Church as unbreakably bound to its cultural roots. Metropolitan Sergius saw the Church as a heavenly as well as an earthly institution, which was not ultimately conditioned by earthly historical reality. This view is in line with Fr.Sophrony’s universalistic vision [158].
After Metropolitan Evlogy's excommunication from the Russian Patriarchal Church in 1930 [159], he went under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1931. The following years were marked by intense controversy between the supporters of Metropolitan Evlogy (notably the Institute of St Sergius) and adherents to the Russian Patriarchate (the Brotherhood of St Photius, including V.Lossky). The controversy reached a pinnacle in 1935-6 over the condemnation of Bulgakov’s sophianic teaching [160]. Despite Evlogy’s attempt at re-union with Moscow in 1945 [161], the appointment by Moscow in 1946 of Bishop Seraphim, a renowned collaborator with the Nazis, as successor of Evlogy only aggravated the situation [162]. In this situation, Fr.Sophrony not only recognised the Moscow Patriarchate, but considered its Church as the Church of the living martyrs [163]. He was far from sharing slavophilic nostalgia and never ‘canonised’ the Old Russia as a theological or ideological concept [164]: such nationalism contradicts his concern with universal categories and personal asceticism. He gave preference to the patristic tradition, whereas many slavophilic Russians drew on Dostoyevsky as a theological source [165].
Naturally, Fr.Sophrony’s sympathies towards the Russian Church became an obstacle for his acceptance at St Sergius [166]. Yet he was not left without moral support: his new friends Vladimir Lossky and Fr.Boris Stark wholeheartedly shared his sympathies. Two years later Fr.Sophrony collaborated with Lossky on the magazine Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale. To assert his allegiance to the Russian Patriarchate, in 1951 Fr.Sophrony published an article in which he paid glowing tribute to the memory of Patriarch Sergius, calling him an ‘outstanding pastor’ and comparing him to the greatest hierarchs of the Eastern Church—Basil the Great, Athanasius of Alexandria, Photius of Constantinople [167]. In response to the attacks of the anti-Soviet ‘camp’ against the ‘Red Church’ and its ‘Red leader’, he vigorously argues in favour of Patriarch Sergius’ approach, which recognises the twofold structure of the Church, comprising two levels: heavenly and earthly [168].
Having been rejected by St Sergius Institute, Fr.Sophrony never completed any formal theological training. He settled in the Russian House in the small suburb of St Genevieve-des-Bois, which had a Russian church [169]. There he continued his ministry as a celebrating priest and father confessor [170]. His health deteriorating, he underwent major surgery on a stomach ulcer [171].
Theological development
His poor health did not however arrest his theological development. In Paris Fr.Sophrony was plunged once again into the Russian theological milieu. By now, however, he had acquired distinction as someone who possessed a living knowledge of monasticism, gained through his own ascetic practice, his acquaintance with St Silouan, and his experience as a spiritual guide. He continued widening his intellectual horizons by reading contemporary theological literature: it was then that he became more closely acquainted with the published works of S.Bulgakov, C.Kern [172], G.Florovsky [173], N.Berdyaev [174], V.Lossky [175], and N.Glubokovsky [176]. Reading these writers Fr.Sophrony came to a deeper appreciation of his own living experience as a basis to counter the distorted conceptions of the monastic ascetic tradition which had begun to spread amongst Russian thinkers in Paris [177]. His thought underwent a process of theological synthesis, as he evaluated the heritage of Russian theology and philosophy through the prism of his own ascetic experience.
These years proved most productive in terms of theological writings. He thus wrote his first major book Staretz Silouan and produced a hand-roneo edition in 1948 [178]; it came out as a ‘professional’ edition in 1952 and brought about his fame. Later the book was translated into more than 22 languages. Its impact was world-wide: veneration of the Staretz grew, and he was numbered among the Saints by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1987 [179]. In this book Fr.Sophrony articulates the foundations of his later theological elaborations. He outlines the principles of his theology [180], and explains many of the concepts fundamental to his theological framework: prayer for the whole world, Godforsakenness, the principle of hypostatic being (‘Love assimilates the life of the beloved’—the mutual coinherence of being) [181].
Fr.Sophrony and V.Lossky
Fr.Sophrony established contact with V.Lossky, to whom he first showed the writings of St Silouan. Despite common grounds in their position (their attitude to Russia, their deep roots in the patristic and ‘ecclesiastical’ traditions), they had different points of view on various theological issues. Thus, although Lossky appreciated the piety demonstrated in Silouan’s writings, he claimed they lacked theological value [182]. The dismissive attitude of Lossky and others compelled Fr.Sophrony to write a theological introduction to the writings of Silouan, to explain the principles underlying his simple language. Once more we see Fr.Sophrony's theology as a bridge between thought-worlds.
There emerged two major points where Fr.Sophrony’s views diverged from those of V.Lossky:
i) Whereas Lossky made much of the Dionysius the Areopagite’s concept of ‘divine darkness’ [183], Fr.Sophrony is reserved in using the term ‘darkness’, and disagrees with a literal interpretation of the term on the basis of his own ascetic experience of divine light: ‘This manner of expression is wholly abstract, since God is light... and always makes himself manifest as light.’ [184] He situates ‘darkness’ on the verge between the entire divestment of the mind (the pure mind) and the apparition of divine light, and warns that there is no God in that darkness [185]. This darkness signifies divine absence, while divine presence implies light. As for the ‘darkness’ language in Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite, it is not an existential event, but a figure of speech, a theological image, used by the Cappadocians as a weapon against Eunomian claims to see God's essence [186]. From the mystical/existential point of view Fr.Sophrony would wholly agree with Dionysius and the Cappadocians, for whom divine darkness is an overwhelming light which ‘exceedingly illuminates’ [187]. It is to Parisian misconceptions of the term that he objects. Their literalism in interpretation of and theological focus on God as darkness open the doors to confusion between the dereliction of the Carmelite Dark Night and the ‘darkness of theophany’ [188].
ii) By drawing this sharp distinction between darkness/absence and light/presence, Fr.Sophrony, in contrast to Lossky, provides a clearer ground for a theological integration of the experience of Godforsakenness. Lossky sees Godforsakenness as a Western conception (derelictio). For him the loss of grace and Gethsemane-like experience results from dogmatic deviations (especially the filioque), as was the case, he believes, with St John of the Cross in his ‘Dark Night of the Soul’. Fr.Sophrony asserts that periods of the loss of grace are necessary stages in ascetic growth, and are in fact paradoxically a manifestation of divine love [189]. The experience of Godforsakenness contains life-generating divine power [190].
In the years 1950-7 as the main editor of Messager Fr.Sophrony worked side by side with V.Lossky and naturally the themes of Fr.Sophrony’s theology of that time show signs of exposure to Lossky’s interests. Among other articles [191] he published his famous texts on ‘Единство Церкви’ (1950) and ‘Об основах православного подвижничества’ (1952).
The article ‘The Unity of the Church’ in particular reflects the influence of current theological debates: many themes are paralleled in contemporary theologians, notably Lossky [192]. The first part is particularly important for tracing the new theological perspectives in Fr.Sophrony’s development. (The other three parts of the article are dedicated to the question of contemporary Church politics.) The first section is devoted to the question of trinitarian theology. It is from that time that the trinitarian model became ever-present as the background of Fr.Sophrony’s writings. For the first time this article presents in clearly developed form his perception of the Trinity as the model for the human being. The article uses the trinitarian model for human ontological principles to justify Fr.Sophrony’s view on the jurisdictional organisation of the Body of the Church [193]. Later, a new version of the article was published in French [194], where the trinitarian model was applied not to the Church alone but to the whole of mankind, and the context of intra-ecclesiastical polemics was completely removed.
Lossky remained important to Fr.Sophrony; in later years he recommended his explanations of the hypostasis and his forthright accounts of the filioque. Comparison between them is still illuminating for Fr.Sophrony's later writings. In his later books another difference emerges more explicitly: Fr.Sophrony's maximalist view of human nature. In His Life is Mine and We Shall See Him as He Is, he asserts the equality (тожество) of the divine and deified human nature [195]. Lossky was not inclined to bridge the gulf between God and man in such a bold manner.
Great Britain (1959-93)
While Fr.Sophrony was living at the Church in St.Genevieve-des-Bois, in the late 50s many people used to come to him for spiritual guidance. By 1958 Fr.Sophrony had a permanent group of people, living near him and seeking the monastic life [196]. By that time Fr.Sophrony had already been enjoying considerable popularity in the UK. His book Staretz Silouan had been partially translated into English and was published in 1958 under the title The Undistorted Image: Staretz Silouan, 1866-1938 [197]. It had a favourable reception by the British ecclesiastical press [198]. Fr.Sophrony had already visited the UK and delivered a number of talks, papers and homilies [199]. For example, he gave a talk at Oxford on the occasion of the commemoration of V.Lossky [200].
Monastic community
Thus Fr.Sophrony, with the help of people in the UK [201], succeeded in buying a property in Essex (at Tolleshunt Knights, Maldon) which he had first inspected in 1958. He moved there in 1959 to form a religious community with a group from France which then numbered 6 people [202]. That is how the present Community of St John the Baptist came into being. The Russian Patriarchate gave a positive answer to Fr.Sophrony’s request to move under the jurisdiction of Metr. Anthony of Sourozh [203]. In 1965 the monastery with Patriarch Alexy’s blessing became subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who later granted the Monastery the status of ‘stavropegic’.
To this community Fr.Sophrony dedicated himself until his death in 1993. In his monastery Fr.Sophrony attempted to restore the deepest principles of monastic life, so as to avoid distorted conceptions of the coenobitic life and its purpose. His main concern was primarily inner asceticism: inner perfection is more valuable than perfect outward conformity. The monastery does not have a written code of monastic rules, which would regulate the hours of sleep, fasting, etc. His teaching was largely focused on cultivation of the mind and the heart [204]. While he was far from indifferent to everyday details and mundane tasks, he tended to integrate them within the wider spectrum of his theological framework.
It is notable that circumstances were such that the community included both monks and nuns, since Fr.Sophrony could not run two separate communities. The Typikon (prayer rule) of the monastery is distinct from the traditional Eastern Orthodox monastery. Instead of the service books with their daily cycle, the monastery often uses the Jesus prayer in the form of common worship—invocation of the divine name, usually adding up to 4 hours each day. The liturgy is celebrated three or four times per week. On the one hand this way was more appropriate to a small multinational community: reading services in one particular language would have excluded some (members or visitors) from full participation in the service. On the other hand, this was Fr.Sophrony’s own practice during his life in the desert and the same rule that he once recommended to D.Balfour [205]. When applying such a practice, Fr.Sophrony found precedents for replacing daily offices by the Jesus Prayer (recited in the Church in common) in the Athonite scete practice, notably in the Vita of Nicodemus of Mt. Athos and in Paisy Velichkovsky’s monastery [206].
Theological writings
During this period Fr.Sophrony’s writing moves onto another theological level. They reflect his effort to build a theological bridge between one’s ascetic experience and dogmatic vision. Naturally, he subjected his own ascetic experience to further theological analysis. His theology was now ever more firmly controlled by christo-trinitarian implications of the notion of persona.
This shift can be detected, for example, in his correspondence with various people. One of the longest-running series (1958-1986) in his ‘theological’ correspondence is addressed to his sister in Moscow M.Kalashnikova [207]: his letter of 7/i-1968 is one of his first attempts to formulate the principle of persona [208].
The further exigency for a firmer theological grounding of his message came as a result of his interactive dialogue with the Western world. He delivered a number of papers on various occasions: meetings, assemblies, receptions, where he expounded his viewpoint on numerous ecclesiastical questions of our time to a non-orthodox audience: feminism [209], the relationship between the East and the West [210], the concept of sanctity, iconography and other subjects. In 1962 he took part in the 2nd Patristic conference in Oxford, where he delivered a paper ‘De la necessite des trois renoncements chez St.Cassien le Romain et St.Jean Climaque’.
The slightly fuller translation of Staretz Silouan came out as Monk of Mt. Athos (1973), which comprised a selection from Fr.Sophrony’s explanation of Silouan’s life and teaching, and Wisdom from Mt. Athos (1975) — the writings of Silouan himself. His new introduction to this book reflects his growing theological attention to the concept of hypostasis [211].
His second major work, His Life Is Mine (1977), proved a watershed in his theological thought. This first 'autobiographical' book is actually addressed to a wider circle in the spiritual situation of the 1970s. In it we see the quintessence of the theological ideas of his old age. He writes about such concepts as persona [212], the cognition of God [213] and anthropology [214], while developing further his earlier themes of prayer for the whole world (the prayer of Gethsemane), suffering, and the contemplation of the uncreated light. In this book Fr.Sophrony asserts commensurability between the Creator and his creation, which constitutes the core of his anthropology [215]. This allowed him to develop even further the application of the divine model (both the Trinity-model and Christ-model) to human beings.
This book prepared the ground for his final work "Видеть Бога как Он есть" (Essex, 1985). It had a mixed reception. In the West the book was welcomed: some found the book to be an event [216] and even a breakthrough in Christian ascetic theology [217]. On the Orthodox side, with a few exceptions [218], the reception was less than supportive, especially from Russian readers [219]. The main points of criticism were his ambitious frankness in putting on paper his personal experience of God [220], his blatantly high opinion of himself [221], his ‘familiarity with God’ [222], his mystical sensitivity (visionary aspect) [223], his allegedly over-exuberant language [224]. Some criticism was so bitter that, together with his declining strength, it discouraged Fr.Sophrony from producing any other theological writing. We Shall See Him is marked by a deeper analysis of the dogmatic inheritance of the Church. It marks the completion of Fr.Sophrony’s theological formulation, and contains his boldest theological ideas. On the one hand Fr.Sophrony develops, especially by further self-description than previously, themes already touched upon in the previous books: uncreated light, liturgical prayer, cognition of God, and others. On the other hand he undertakes a more articulate theological presentation of various themes: kenosis and Godforsakenness, the remembrance of death, persona, love to the point of self-hatred.
Last Years
In the years preceding his death Fr.Sophrony delivered a number of talks to his monastic community on a regular basis. These talks provide valuable evidence of the full merging of his dogmatic and ascetic ideas. His Testament issued in 1991 sets the trinitarian model as a principle of life for the monastic community [225]. This was his final written theological farewell before his death on 11th July 1993. Fr.Sophrony entrusted to the community his considerable archive, which is yet to be published. His community continues his theological message through its pastoral and publishing activity. M.Egger thus describes its present situation:
Today it numbers 25 monks and nuns of twelve different nationalities. It is a place where hundreds of pilgrims from all over the world are welcomed: it is not only one of the main centres from which Orthodoxy is radiated in the West, but also one of the strongest affirmations of the universality of Orthodoxy [226].
Conclusion
Fr.Sophrony’s theological formation determined the originality of his theological method, marked by active dialogue between various thought-worlds, such as current religious philosophy, the patristic tradition, and reflection on his personal mystical experience. The synthetic character of his theology is controlled by an exigency to create a bridge between differing worlds: the modern Western world, the Russian intellectual elite in Paris, with its intense intellectual search, and Athonite monasticism, with its ancient patristic tradition and concern for the existential (practical-ascetic) relevance of theology. Fr.Sophrony’s theology evolves as an integration of these various strands of approach to theological questions into an organic synthesis through the prism of his own mystical experience. This is reflected in the principles of his theology, to which we now turn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1) Z.Zakharou's thesis `H pragmatwsh tAj OpostatikAj ?rcAj st? theologia toa Arcimandritou Sofroniou (University of Thessaloniki, 1998) is the first exposition of Fr.Sophrony's teaching. However, it is addressed primarily to the Greek academic world with its particular theological concerns. It does not aim at comparative-critical analysis of his background, and of his dialogue with various spheres of contemporary and traditional theology.
2) In Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, ed. N. Sakharov (Moscow, 1997), p.17, Fr.Sophrony stresses his lack of interest in relating an exterior biographical account.
3) M.Egger's 'Moine' (I, II and III) (Egger M. ‘Archimandrite Sophrony, Moine pour le Monde’, Buisson Ardent: Cahiers Saint-Silouane l’Athonite (Pully). 1 (1996), pp. 23-41; 2 (1996), pp. 40-53; 3, pp. 17-30) contains the fullest biographical account. Yet being neither historically accurate nor exhaustive, it also does not account fully for Fr.Sophrony's theological formation. On other historical reviews of Fr.Sophrony's life, see Edmonds R. ‘Foreword’, in Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine (Oxford, 1977), pp.7-13; Steer P. ‘Obituary: Sophrony (Sakharov) (1896-93)’, Sobornost XVI, 1 (1994), pp.44-8; Egger M. ‘Archimandrite Sophrony, Moine pour le monde’, Contacts 163 (1993), pp.163-77.
4) M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), p.27; cf. Steer P. ‘Obituary’, p.44.
5) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.18.
6) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога как Он есть (Essex, 1985), p.34.
7) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма близким людям: Переписка с семьей протоиерея Бориса Старка, ed. N. Stark (Moscow, 1997), p.94; Письма в Россию, p.24; cf.M.Egger, 'Moine'(I), p.33.
8) M.Egger, 'Moine'(I), p.34.
9) Daval J.-L. Journal de l’art moderne 1884-1914: Les annees decisives (Geneve, 1979), p.12.
10) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.22.
11) Ibid. p.21.
12) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, p.147.
13) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, pp.19, 23.
14) See Bori P. & Bettiolo P. Movimenti religiosi in Russa prima della rivoluzione (1900-1917), p.52.
15) On the religious-philosophical societies, see Scherrer J. ‘Les “Sociétés philosophico-religieuses” et la quête idéologique de l’intelligentsia russe avant 1917’, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique XV (1974), pp. 297-314.
16) Zernov N. Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century (London, 1963), pp.210ff.
17) See P.Bori, 'Il radicalism evangelico tolstojano, e i movimenti settari', in op.cit., pp.83-113. For the summary of L.Tolstoy's approach to Christianity, see Weisbein N. L’evolution religieuse de Tolstoi (Paris, 1960).
18) P.Bori, 'La nuova "conscienza religiosa" e i circoli filosofico-religiosi', in op.cit., pp.114ff.
19) P.Bori, 'S.Bulgakov: A proposito del cristianesimo primitive', in op.cit., pp.179ff., esp.pp.185ff.
20) On the Slavophiles, see Riasanovsky N. Russia and the West in the Teaching of the Slavophiles: a Study of Romantic Ideology (Cambridge, Mass., 1952)..
21) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.11ff.
22) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.21.
23) Ibid. p.19.
24) M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), pp.32-3; Edmonds R. ‘Foreword’, p.7.
25) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, pp.20-1; cf.Видеть Бога, p.55.
26) See 'The Origin of Good and Evil', in Berdyaev N. Destiny of Man, trans. N. Duddington (London, 1937), pp.23-44.
27) See Lossky N. История русской философии (Moscow, 1991), p.302.
28) N.Berdyaev, op.cit., p.25.
29) N.Lossky, История, p.300.
30) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, p.8.
31) Ibid. p.24.
32) Edmonds R. ‘Foreword’, p.8; M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), p.36.
33) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, p.13; cf.M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), p.36.
34) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.25.
35) Ibid. p.22.
36) Ibid.
37) Ibid. pp.22-3.
38) M.Egger, 'Moine' (II), p.48. Fr.Sophrony's experience in his childhood is recorded in Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, p.34.
39) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, p.179.
40) Archimandrite Sophrony. Correspondence with D. Balfour (Gennadios Library, Athens), C16 (18/iv-1935), p.4.
41) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.14.
42) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, pp.23-4.
43) See Anderson P. No East or West (Paris, 1985), pp.40ff.
44) Ibid. p.48.
45) See N.Zernov, Renaissance, p.210; P.Anderson, op.cit., p.47.
46) P.Anderson, op.cit., p.44.
47) Lowrie D. St Sergius in Paris (London, 1954), pp.14ff.; P.Anderson, op.cit., p.63; Kniazeff A. L’Institute Saint-Serge. De L’academie d’autrefois au rayonnement d’aujourd’hui, Le Point Theologique 14 (Paris, 1974), pp.42-3.
48) See N.Zernov, op.cit., p.231; A.Kniazeff, Saint-Serge, p.43. For the history of the Institute, see D.Lowrie, St Sergius; A.Kniazeff, op.cit.
49) M.Egger, 'Moine', (II), p.50. D.Lowrie, St.Sergius, p.20, and A.Kniazeff, Saint-Serge, p.43, mention 29 students in the first year.
50) Fr.Sophrony recalls it in Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.26; cf.P.Anderson, op.cit., pp.58.
51) N.Zernov, op.cit., p.231.
52) D.Lowrie, op.cit., pp.19-21.
53) For S.Bulgakov's biography, see Bulgakov S. Автобиографические заметки (Посмертное издание) (Paris, 1946); idem, ‘Из дневника’, Вестник Русского Христианского Движения 129 (1979), pp.237-268; Antonov N. Русские светские богословы и их религиозно-общественное миросозерцание (St Petersburg, 1912), pp.209-90; L.Zander, ‘Отец Сергий Булгаков. Краткий очерк его жизни и творчества’, in Bulgakov S., Православие. Очерки учения Православной Церкви (Paris 1965), pp.5-26; Schultze B. Russische Denker. Ihre Stellung zu Christus, Kirche und Papsttum (Wien 1950), pp.335-58; J.Scherrer, 'Vereinigungen', pp.86-90, 213-14; Zenkovsky V. История русской философии, 2 vols. (Paris, 1950), vol. II, pp.430-57; Świerkosz S. L’Eglise visible selon Serge Bulgakov. Structure hierarchique et sacramentelle, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 211 (Roma, 1980), pp.7-15; Crum W. ‘Sergius N. Bulgakov: from Marxism to Sophiology’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly (New York), 27 (1983), pp.3-26.
54) D.Lowrie, op.cit., p.21.
55) Graves C. The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Sergei Bulgakov (Geneva, 1972), p.3. We deliberately leave out the analysis of Bulgakov's philosophical roots as this theme is too vast to be covered within the present research.
56) Nichols A. Light from the East (1995, London), p.59.
57) See P.Bori, 'Dal marxismo all'idealismo', in Movimenti, pp.226-32; cf. Zander L. Бог и мир. Миросозерцание отца Сергия Булгакова, 2 vols. (Paris, 1948), vol. I, pp.29-41.
58) On Bulgakov's concept of Sophia, see Litva A. La “Sophia” dans la creation selon la doctrine de S. Bulgakoff (Rome, 1951); L.Zander, Бог и мир (1), pp.181-230; idem, ‘Vater Sergius Bulgakoff’, Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 36 (1946), pp.17-30; Newman B. ‘Sergius Bulgakov and the Theology of Divine Wisdom’, SVTQ 22 (1978), pp.39-73. On criticism of Bulgakov's concept of Sophia, see Lossky V. Спор о Софии (Paris, 1936), pp.23ff.
59) Bulgakov S. Агнец Божий (Paris, 1937), p.207.
60) Bulgakov S. Утешитель (Paris, 1936), p.66.
61) Ibid. p.67.
62) Ibid. pp.67-8; Агнец Божий, p.118.
63) Bulgakov S. Утешитель, p.79.
64) A.Nichols, Light, p.59; cf. Gorodetsky N. The Humiliated Christ in Modern Russian Thought (London, 1938), pp.156ff.
65) Bulgakov S. Агнец Божий, pp.121-22; Утешитель, p.253.
66) Bulgakov S. Агнец Божий, p.252.
67) Ibid. pp.348ff.
68) Ibid. pp.434ff.
69) Bulgakov S. Утешитель, p.289; cf.Агнец Божий, p.345.
70) See infra.
71) Bulgakov S. Агнец Божий, pp.421ff.
72) Ibid. pp.427.
73) Bulgakov S. Свет Невечерний: Созерцания и умозрения (Moscow, 1917), pp.278, 283; Агнец Божий, pp.158-61, 115-17, 209, 258.
74) Bulgakov S. Свет Невечерний, pp.277-78; Агнец Божий, p.160.
75) Bulgakov S. Свет Невечерний, pp.278, 281; Агнец Божий, p.114.
76) Bulgakov S. Агнец Божий, p.138; Свет Невечерний, p.282.
77) Ibid. pp.278, 281.
78) Bulgakov S. Агнец Божий, pp.160, 215, 258, 279.
79) On the controversy over Bulgakov's theology, see Lialine C. ‘Le debat sophiologique’, Irenikon 13 (1936), pp.168-205; V.Lossky, Спор.
80) For a summary of this development, see Clement O. Berdiaev. Un philosophe russe en France (Paris, 1991), pp.39-62.
81) Berdyaev N. ‘Проблема человека’, Путь 50 (1936), p.7; cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. His Life Is Mine, p.77.
82) N.Berdyaev, op.cit., pp.15-6; cf. Vysheslavtsev B. ‘Образ Божий в существе человека’, Путь 49 (1935), p.67.
83) Archimandrite Sophrony. Ascetic Discourses (1989-93), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex), A-7.
84) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.25; О молитве (Paris, 1991), p.35.
85) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.26.
86) See ibid.
87) For the analysis of the formula, see Larchet J.-C. ‘La formule “Tiens ton esprit en enfer et ne desespere pas” a la lumiere de la tradition patristique’, Buisson Ardent 1 (1996), pp.51-68.
88) This was the spiritual advice given by Fr.Sophrony to an Athonite monk (Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.27); cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. Ascetic Discourses (1989-93), A-30.
89) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.14.
90) Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан (Paris, 1952), p.38.
91) Gooskens B. L’experience de l’Esprit Saint chez le Staretz Silouane (Paris, 1971), passim.
92) For the studies of Silouan's spirituality, see Buisson Ardent vols.I-III. For the bibliography of the studies on Silouan, see P.Stange, 'Bibliographie' Buisson Ardent vol. I, pp.95-8; vol. II, pp.121-22. The most significant are B.Gooskens, op.cit.; Cervera C. ‘Silvano del Monte Athos, il monaco che amavo teneramente la Madre di Dio’, Mater Ecclesiæ 16 (1980), pp.45-54; Cremaschi L. ‘La vergogna di stare ogli inferi secondo Silvano del Monte Athos’, Parola Spirito e Vita 20 (1989), pp.285-303.
93) For the analysis of the patristic precedents, see Ware K. ‘“We Must Pray For All”: Salvation According to St Silouan’, Sobornost XIX, 1 (1997), pp.34-55. On Silouan's approach, see Fr.Sophrony's analysis in Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, 22ff.
94) Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, pp.45, 111, 147.
95) Ibid. p.22.
96) Ibid. p.175. On the concept of 'Adam our father' ('total Adam'), see K.Ware, op.cit., pp.44-50.
97) Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, pp.100, 192. See Larchet J.-C. ‘L’amour des ennemis selon saint Silouan l’Athonite et dans la tradition patristique’, Buisson Ardent 2 (1996), p.91. For the patristic precedents, see J.-C.Larchet, op.cit., pp.66-95. On the scriptural background, see Bobrinskoy B. ‘L’amour des ennemis dans les Evangiles’, Buisson Ardent 2 (1996), pp.54-58, pp.54-8. For Fr.Sophrony's analysis of Silouan's teaching, see Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, pp.49-50. See also Forest J. Making Enemies Friends: Reflections on the Teaching of Jesus about the Love of Enemies (Basingstoke, 1987), pp.61-5.
98) See infra.
99) Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, p.131.
100) Ibid. pp.120, 129.
101) Ibid. p.131.
102) Ibid. p.175.
103) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.18.
104) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 14 (21/i-1933), p.2.
105) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.8.
106) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.18.
107) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13.
108) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (12-18/xii-1932), p.9.
109) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), pp.8, 12.
110) Ibid. p.15; Balfour, 111 (12-18/xii-1932), p.7; Balfour, 112 (14/xii-1932), p.6.
111) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.11; Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.15; Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.4; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-32), p.6.
112) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.8.
113) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13; Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.9; Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.25.
114) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.14; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), p.7.
115) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13.
116) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.17.
117) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13; Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.14; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), p.8.
118) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.10.
119) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C16 (18/iv-1935), p.3.
120) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), p.5.
121) Ibid. p.27.
122) Ibid. p.8.
123) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), pp.23-4.
124) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (12-18/xii-1932), p.1.
125) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), pp.19ff.
126) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (12/xii-1932), pp.6ff.
127) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C11 (19/iv-1936), pp.12-3.
128) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C4 (16/i-1935), p.3.
129) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C1 (10/viii-1934), p.3.
130) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C12 (7/v-1936), p.18.
131) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C13 (26/ix-1936), p.11.
132) See infra.
133) In Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, p.115, Fr.Sophrony advises against being carried away by 'artificial tech-niques'.
134) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, pp.78-9.
135) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C13 (19/ix-1936), pp.22-3.
136) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (18/xii-1932), pp.6-7; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), pp.27-8.
137) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C6 (26/v-1935), p.3.
138) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D4 (21/viii-1945), p.12.
139) Ibid. p.17.
140) Ibid. p.14.
141) Ibid. pp.14-5.
142) Ibid.
143) See infra.
144) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D4 (21/viii-1945), p.21.
145) Ibid. p.5.
146) Ibid. p.23.
147) Ibid. p.24.
148) Ibid. p.26.
149) Fr.Sophrony refers to his life in the desert in Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.48, 105, 115, 139-40, 144, 171, 200; cf.Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, pp.44-5 (footnote 139).
150) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.104-5, 200; Balfour, D1 (6/v-1945), pp.1-2; Balfour, D5 (4/xii-1945), p.1; Balfour, 17 (1/i-1947), p.3.
151) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D5 (4/xii-1945), p.1.
152) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, p.200.
153) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D7 (1/i-1947), p.3.
154) In Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, p.171, Fr.Sophrony refers to 'circumstances' that made him leave Athos, but he does not specify them.
155) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D6 (30/x-1946), p.3.
156) Ibid. p.4.
157) Quoted ibid.
158) See infra.
159) On the history of this rift, see Georgievsky E. Путь моей жизни, ed. T. Manoukhina (Paris, 1947), pp.618-22.
160) See Nichols A. ‘Bulgakov and Sophiology’, Sobornost XIII, 2 (1992), p.25; cf. Starogorodsky S. ‘Указ Московской Патриархии Преосвященному Митрополиту Литовскому и Виленскому Елевôерию’, in О Софии Премудрости Божией (Paris, 1935), pp.5-19; V.Lossky, Спор.
161) See Gillet L. ‘Metropolitan Evlogi’, Sobornost 34 (1946), p.5.
162) See Mascall E., ed. ‘Concerning Jurisdictions’, Sobornost 34 (1946), pp.6-7; Alexy I, Patriarch ‘Постановление Священного Синода Православной Церкви от 9 августа 1946 г.’, Журнал Священного Синода Русской Православной Церкви (Moscow) 24 (1946), p.13; also in Скорбное дело (Paris, 1952), p.32.
163) For Fr.Sophrony's opinion about the Russian Church, see Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 15 (18/ii-1933), p.170; Balfour, C1 (10/viii-1934), p.185.
164) Cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.167.
165) For N.Berdyaev and P.Evdokimov for example, the ideas of Dostoyevsky acquired a quasi-theological authority. See N.Berdyaev, Dostoyevsky, trans. D. Attwater (London, 1934), passim; cf.idem, Destiny of Man, trans. N. Duddington (London, 1937), pp.42, 74. Also A.Nichols (Light, p.196) notes that 'Evdokimov portrayed Dostoyevsky... as the prophet of Christianity renewed by the experience of atheism'.
166) See V.Zenkovsky, Letter (1947), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
167) Archimandrite Sophrony ‘Десятилетие кончины свят. Патриарха Сергия’, Messager 19 (1954), pp.98ff. This article reaffirmed V.Lossky's attitude to Patriarch Sergius, expressed in V.Lossky's ‘Личность и мысль свят. Патриарха Сергия’, in Духовное наследие Патр. Сергия (Moscow, 1947), pp.263-70.
168) Ibid. pp.101ff.
169) For the history of the house, see Скорбное дело, pp.3ff.
170) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма близким людям, p.28.
171) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.71; cf.Письма близким людям, pp.28, 35.
172) In Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.125, Fr.Sophrony refers to Bulgakov's ideas from Bulgakov S. Купина Неопалимая (Paris, 1927), p.49, and Агнец Божий, p.164; cf. Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, p.28.
173) See Archimandrite Sophrony. La felicite de connaitre la voie (Geneve, 1988), p.55.
174) See supra.
175) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Felicite, pp.51, 53.
176) See Archimandrite Sophrony. On the Ecumenical Dialogue (Colchester, 1961), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex), p.11.
177) N.Berdyaev ('The aim of asceticism', in Spirit and Reality, trans. George Reavey (London, 1939), pp.72-99) argues that monasticism contradicts the spirit of Christ's commandments (p.78), 'perverts the very idea of obedience' (p.85). See Spidlik T. L’idee russe: une autre vision de l’homme (Rome, 1994), pp.252-53.
178) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма близким людям, p.39.
179) For the documents of Silouan's canonisation, see Archimandrite Sophrony. Преподобный Силуан Афонский (Essex, 1990), pp.i-iii.
180) See 'Благодать и догматическое сознание', in Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, pp.81-84.
181) Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, p.53.
182) In Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, p.52, Fr.Sophrony gives Lossky's opinion on the subject.
183) V.Lossky, 'Divine Darkness', in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. the Fellowship of St Albans and St Sergius (Cambridge, 1991), pp.23-43.
184) Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, p.79; cf.ibid. p.58; see 'О мраке совлечения', in Старец Силуан, pp.78-80.
185) Ibid. p.78. See infra.
186) Archimandrite Sophrony. Felicite, p.38.
187) Dionysius the Areopagite. De mystica theologia, in Corpus Dionysiacum II: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De coelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae, ed. G. Heil and A. M. Ritter, Patristische Texte und Studien (PTS), ed. K. Aland and E. Mühlenberg (Berlin-New York). 36 (1991), p.142; cf. Dionysius the Areopagite. Epistulae, in Corpus Dionysiacum II, p.162.
188) Some Western scholars (for example Graef H. The Light and the Rainbow; a Study in Christian Spirituality from Its Roots in the Old Testament and Its Development through the New Testament and the Fathers to Recent Times (London, 1959), pp.158ff.) see the Carmelites as heirs of Dionysius and Gregory of Nyssa. See infra.
189) Archimandrite Sophrony. Старец Силуан, pp.14, 20-1, 69, 79, 90, 97.
190) Ibid. p.90.
191) Archimandrite Sophrony. ‘Пятилетие Интронизации Святейшего Алексия, Патриарха Московского и всея Руси’, Messager 1 (1950), pp.7-10; ‘Святое молчание’, Messager 1 (1950), pp.10-6; ‘Заметка к новому переводу Божественных Гимнов преп. Симеона Нового Богослова’, Messager 17 (1954), pp.20-4; ‘Отзыв на книгу Архим. Спиридона “Мои миссии в Сибири”’, Messager 9 (1952), pp.28-9; 'Автокефалия Чехословацкой Церкви', Messager 9 (1952), pp.21-2; ‘Апостольское служение епископов’, Messager 12 (1952), pp.12-3; ‘Десятилетие кончины Свят. Патриарха Сергия’, Messager 19 (1954), pp.98-105; ‘Слово на Преображение Господне. О Свете Фаворском’, Messager 19 (1954), pp.127-35.
192) The article stirred theological debate: cf. Dejaifve G. ‘Sobornost or Papacy’, ECQ 10 (1953-4), Part I: ‘The Idea of Sobornost in Contemporary Orthodoxy’, esp.pp.81ff.; Ruppert H.-J., - ‘Das Prinzip der Sobornost’ in der russischen Orthodoxie’, Kirche im Osten 16 (Göttingen 1973), pp.47ff.
193) See infra.
194) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Felicite, pp.11-55.
195) Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.107, 164, 184 etc. See infra.
196) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.62.
197) Ibid. p.66.
198) Notably N.Mosley ('Introduction', p.38) sees Silouan's writings as having not only theological but also artistic literary value. J.-R.Lewis ('Reviews', p.61) writes that an anthology of Russian literature is 'no longer conceivable without "Adam's lament" by Silouan the Athonite'.
199) Archimandrite Sophrony. Homily at the Church of St Sergius of Radonezh (London, 1952), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
200) Archimandrite Sophrony. Подвиг богословской защиты догмата Цекрви (Oxford, 1958), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
201) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, p.67.
202) Ibid. pp.64-5.
203) See Patr.Alexii I, 'Letter', in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
204) For Fr.Sophony's emphasis on 'inner asceticism', see Archimandrite Sophrony. Ascetic Discourses (1989-93), B-12, C-3 etc.
205) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (11-18/xii-1932), pp.14ff.
206) Cf. Karambelas C. Contemporary Ascetics of Mount Athos (Platina, Cal., 1992), p.467. On Nicodemus' similar practice, see Kotsonis I. 'Athonikon gerontikon (Thessaloniki, 1992), p.332. On Paisy's rule, see Chetverikov S. Старец Паисий Величковский (Paris, 1976), pp.80ff.
207) He also maintained correspondence with Russian clergy and various lay people (Anthony Bloom; Basil Krivoshein; G.Florovsky; Cassian Bezobrazov; Письма близким людям; R.Edmonds; Koulomzin).
208) Archimandrite Sophrony. Письма в Россию, pp.114-16.
209) Archimandrite Sophrony. On Feminism. Talk at Young Wives' Fellowship (Halstead, 1965), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
210) Archimandrite Sophrony. On the Ecumenical Dialogue; Archimandrite Sophrony. The West and The East: Talk at Witham Deanery Clerical Association (Witham, 1962), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
211) See 'Foreword', pp.8ff.
212) Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, pp.43ff.
213) Ibid. pp.17ff.
214) Ibid. pp.37ff.
215) Ibid. p.77.
216) Cf. Gimenez M. ‘Voir Dieu tel qu’il est by Archimandrite Sophrony’, Sobornost VII, 1 (1985), pp.72-3; Moore H. ‘Radical Redemption’, Christian Missionary Society Newsletter 484 (1988), pp.1-2; Halleux A., de. ‘Archimandrite Sophrony ‘Voir Dieu tel qu’il est’, Revue théologique de Louvain 16, 3 (1985), pp.361-363; Miguel J., de. ‘Archimandrite Sophrony, ‘Voir Dieu tel qu’il est’, Comunidades 48 (1985), p.93.
217) Cf. Franquesa A. ‘Archimandrite Sophrony, Voir Dieu tel qu’il est’, Questions de Vida Christiana 124 (1984), pp.130-31; Luis P., de. ‘Archimandrite Sophrony, ‘Voir Dieu tel qu’il est’, Estudio Agustiniano 3 (1984), p.49.
218) In the Letter to Archimandrite Sophrony (13.vii.84), p.1 (in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex)), K.Ware wrote that 'it is a remarkable book'.
219) Thus strong criticism came from B.Krivoshein, Letter.1 (4/iv-1986); cf. Letter.2 (24/v-1986) (in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex)).
220) B.Krivoshein, Letter.2 (24/v-1986).
221) See Khodanov M. ‘“Видеть Бога как Он есть” схимархимандрита Софрония Сахарова в свете святоотеческой традиции’, Духовный мир: сборник работ учашихся Московских духовных школ 2 (Sergiev Posad, 1996), pp.59, 64-65 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.35, 45); Osipov A. ‘Предисловие’, in Правильное состояние духа (смирение, внимательность, молитва): Из творений святителя Игнатия (Брянчанинова) (Moscow, 1998), p.7; idem, ‘Духовная жизнь христианина: Интервью’, Православная Москва 8-9 (1997), p.10.
222) M.Khodanov, op.cit., pp.68-70 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.102, 200, 244); A.Osipov, 'Предисловие', p.7; idem, 'Духовная жизнь христианина', p.10.
223) M.Khodanov, op.cit., pp.62-5 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.139-40, 56, 66-7); A.Osipov, 'Предисловие', pp.6-7; idem, 'Духовная жизнь христианина', p.10.
224) M.Khodanov, op.cit., p.68 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. Видеть Бога, pp.118, 127, 102); A.Osipov, 'Предисловие', pp.6-7; idem, 'Духовная жизнь христианина', p.10.
225) See infra.
226) Egger M. ‘Preface’, in Archimandrite Sophrony, Words of Life, trans. by Sr. Magdalene (Essex, 1996), p.5.