The Theology of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) in the Assessments of St. Philaret of Moscow and Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky)

Abstract

The theology of Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) reveals some features of a certain “discontinuity” with respect to the views characteristic of the preceding tradition of Russian patristic theology, one of whose representatives was Saint Philaret of Moscow. These features are evident in the spheres of ecclesiology and soteriology, where, in the early 20th century and with the participation of Hieromartyr Hilarion, new approa­ches to theological reflection have been formed. Within this large-scale process, a more rigorous understanding of the boundaries of the Church emerges in ecclesiology, while in soteriology a gradual distancing from the views of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) takes place, accompanied by the proposal of various alternatives. The nature and scope of this “discontinuity” are assessed differently in the scholarly literature, which gives rise to a problematic field for discussion. The article identifies two existing approaches focused on interpreting the extent of the alleged “discontinuity” and offers new considerations within this debate. An attempt is made to demonstrate that, alongside features of “rupture”, one may also discern features of continuity from St. Philaret to Hieromartyr Hila­rion and further to the concept of the “neo-patristic synthesis” advanced by Archpriest Georges Florovsky. This thesis is substantiated through a comparison of St. Philaret’s and Hieromartyr Hilarion’s critiques of the dogmatic writings of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov). The attitude of St. Philaret toward Metropolitan Macarius’ dogmatic works is reconstructed on the basis of two of his reviews, as well as certain biographical evidence. In the theology of Hieromartyr Hilarion, specific elements are highlighted — namely, the idea of deification and the use of the image of Christ as the new Adam in soteriology — the particular emphasis on which arose as a result of the limited attention given to these ideas in the theology of Metropolitan Macarius. The article also notes some exces­ses in the thought of Hieromartyr Hilarion, associated both directly with his views and, in some cases, with his “rhetorical method”. As the principal unifying element between St. Philaret and Hieromartyr Hilarion, the article considers their shared assertion that Metropolitan Macarius’ theology was subject to “Western influence” and to “rationalism,” understood as an excessive reliance on the autonomous powers of reason.