Relics and Miracles: Two Theological Essays
128
Relics and Miracles: Two Theological Essays
128Paperback(Translatio)
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780802865311 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Eerdmans, William B. Publishing Company |
| Publication date: | 09/02/2011 |
| Edition description: | Translatio |
| Pages: | 128 |
| Sales rank: | 666,085 |
| Product dimensions: | 5.90(w) x 8.90(h) x 0.50(d) |
About the Author
Boris Jakim is the foremost translator of Russian religiousthought into English. His published translations includeworks by S.L. Frank, Pavel Florensky, Vladimir Solovyov, and Sergius Bulgakov.
Read an Excerpt
RELICS and MIRACLES
Two Theological EssaysBy Sergius Bulgakov
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Copyright © 2011 Boris JakimAll right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8028-6531-1
Chapter One
On Holy Relics(In Response to Their Desecration)
In its God-hating cynicism and blasphemy, the desecration of holy relics that recently took place in Russia does not have any precedents in the history of Christianity. The fury of the God-haters and the spirit of the Antichrist are fully evident in this savage profanation. Nevertheless, this is destined to be, and the heart of the believer must not tremble before this approaching abomination of desolation in the place of holiness. One is rather amazed by the inertia and restraint of the satanical gangsters in the Kremlin, which enjoys unlimited power and does not shy away from any means to achieve its goals. Evidently, the time has not yet come for the powers in the Kremlin to reveal the full magnitude of their hatred of Christianity, a hatred that constitutes the chief—and even unique—religious engine of the whole movement which is advancing under the banner of democracy and socialism and which, for now, has received its most decisive expression in Russian Bolshevism. But such a satanical assault against the believing heart as the analysis of holy relics requires, of course, an internal opposition from us. And for those who do not doubt that the Lord is leading and protecting His Church, it is clear that such assaults are also lessons being taught to us and questions that demand our answer. By its desecration of holy relics, a desecration that unquestionably has troubled many hearts, the satanical gangsters intended to destroy the faith in these relics; and since, in the life of the Church, all things are connected and it is impossible to remove a single little stone without shaking the whole edifice, it follows that the intentions of the Kremlin gangsters go even further: They are directed against the faith in the Church in general.
There, where, in their pious humility, believers did not dare raise their eyes, and where a holy darkness reigned, electric lights were insolently brought in and filthy paws began to take apart the contents of the holy raka. By itself, this spectacle alone would have been sufficient to stagger and horrify us. However, many also felt surprise and disappointment: There, where one thought to find an incorruptible body, one found only parts of a body or even bones with clear signs of damage from the passage of time. The belief that one would find an incorruptible body was sustained in many by the naïvely pious custom of imparting to the remains of saints the form of an integral body, wrapped and rewrapped; it was difficult to discern that this supposed human figure was actually filled with wadding and, in general, was made by human hands. That which, of course, was not a deception, but only a pious custom(although perhaps an erroneous one), was interpreted as a deception and became an object of mockery. Meanwhile, without any answer stood people of faith, who had to choose between denial of a fact (of course, the sons of falsehood lied here as much as they lie always and everywhere, but not everything can be considered a lie) or denial of the holy relics—and it is the latter that the servants of the Antichrist tried to achieve. These servants created beforehand an atmosphere of mockery and profanation, for only in such an atmosphere is it possible to undertake something like the analysis of relics.
Can anyone conceive, without trembling, of digging up the grave of one's father, mother, or other relatives, of disturbing the repose of the grave in order to analyze what is contained there? And can a believing soul conceive such an idea in relation to a raka containing holy relics? A believing soul could not even think of such a thing, let alone carry out such an analysis. Therefore, holy relics have always remained inviolate; they can only be approached at definite times by pious servants of the Church, for the purpose of wrapping them or, in general, for some sacred action. But here a triumphant lout has approached the raka and, standing before it with hands on his hips in a pose of insolent challenge, he has turned everything inside out and declared that there is nothing there except dust and bones. We did not want to look, and did not look, but now we are compelled to look. There, where a holy ignorance once enveloped everything, the light of day is now installed; and we must ask questions of ourselves and provide answers. Such an analysis of relics has been permitted by Providence: we cannot doubt this. Here, as in other questions, one cannot allow one's intelligence to remain infantile; one must gain knowledge and understanding.
Thus, leaving disbelievers to celebrate their imaginary victory of insolence and spite, we, believers, must pose anew the following questions: What exactly are holy relics and what are the content and meaning of the dogma of the veneration of holy relics?
It is necessary to point out that this dogma had not received a doctrinal definition at any of the ecumenical councils. It has not been the object of any special deliberation, but, like many important dogmas of the Church, it has been accepted through the Church's practice. It is simply that the veneration of holy relics became universal from the very beginning of the Church's existence, so natural was this veneration, responding to the direct emotion of the believer's heart. And the struggle to preserve holy relics from desecration and destruction began very early, since even then pagans and the synagogue sought to destroy relics, while Christians preserved and venerated them. The rule according to which the liturgy is celebrated upon holy relics, sewn for this purpose into the antimension, and according to which the holy altar has holy relics at its foundation, this rule became a part of the Church's practice early on and was confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
At that time it was the remains of saints, and primarily of martyrs, that were considered to be holy relics; and of course no one considered them to be incorruptible in the sense of the complete preservation of the whole body, since parts of these remains had to be rescued from fire, from water, from amphitheaters. Furthermore, it was customary to divide these remains and to distribute their parts, with each part evidently being considered as an entire relic, i.e., as representing the entire body, in the same way that every particle of the Holy Eucharistic Gifts contains the Body and Blood of Christ. Clearly, this custom does not originate in the notion of the incorruptibility of holy relics in the sense of their physical indestructibility. In general, the attribute of incorruptibility, which has been advanced to the foreground in modern times, was not emphasized then: At most, one spoke then only of the incorruptibility of certain relics, since this attribute was clearly inapplicable to their most important and broadest category, that of the holy martyrs. The holiness, not the incorruptibility, of holy relics was at the center of how people understood them.
We are not able to say exactly when and how the attribute of physical incorruptibility advanced to the forefront and occupied such an inappropriate place. In Russia, this was due to the combined result of inferior seminary theologizing and official hypocrisy, which intentionally obscured the actual state of things and reinforced a too easy belief that could just as easily become disbelief. In the people's view, all holy relics were venerated as incorruptible bodies; and, perhaps in an effort to conform to this veneration, holy relics were intentionally given the form of an integral body even when such a body did not exist. Of course, there have existed (and exist) such cases where holy relics remain incorruptible by God's will. However, if the essence of holy relics consisted in physical incorruptibility, we would then have to consider as relics not only Egyptian mummies but also bodies preserved in the ground as a result of particular soil conditions (so-called natural mummification); and one would also have to recognize that certain remains of great saints, universally venerated by the whole Church, are not holy relics. The glorification of the relics of St. Seraphim represented such a case that led some minds astray: At first there was official silence about the contents of his tomb; and then, when the enemies of the Church gained information about this and publicized it (of course, with their own interpretation), the ecclesiastical authorities had to provide an explanation. Referring to the authority of Professor Golubinsky (instead of to the incontrovertible authority—ecclesial tradition and the ecclesial consciousness), the ecclesiastical authorities began to assert that incorruptibility does not constitute an essential attribute of holy relics. Strictly speaking, the question that life imperatively poses before us now was already posed then, but then it fell victim to an inappropriate ecclesiastical morality and to a censorship which, of course, did not serve the Church, because doubt, unconscious and driven inward, continued to do its destructive work, something that has come to the surface today. Likewise, when the relics of St. Germogen were uncovered, this question was left in shadow.
There is no debate that, among wide circles of the people, as well as among enemies of the Church (at least those who are sincere and do not lie), there is agreement that incorruptibility, i.e., preservation of the entire body from decomposition, is an essential attribute of relics. However, it has never seemed possible to apply this attribute to all relics, since there have always been saints whose relics either have not been preserved at all, or whose relics have been preserved only in parts, and sometimes only in very small parts indeed; but this has in no wise diminished the veneration of these saints. Furthermore, even the bodies of saints that have been preserved incorruptibly have sometimes been subject to partial decomposition; and here, evidently, quantitative distinction does not have any significance. It is sufficient for corruptibility to appear in a single finger for the entire attribute of incorruptibility to be voided. Finally, there have been cases where remains that showed no traces of incorruptibility were venerated as holy relics. Thus, "incorruptibility," understood as the absence of obvious signs of decomposition, could be either present or absent. We admit that this attribute is most natural and proper to the bodies of saints, so that the opposite case represents an anomaly that requires special explanation; nevertheless, it is clear that the essence of holy relics does not consist in their incorruptibility; the latter constitutes only a derivative attribute.
In general, one must reject the notion that holy relics have inalienable physical attributes; such do not exist. Usually, in the act of the glorification of a saint (canonization), the reasons for the glorification are enumerated. First among these is incorruptibility, followed by verified miracles such as (medically unexplainable) healings and other suchlike miracles of the physical order. Even without mentioning the fact that such physical miracles cannot be indisputable and, moreover, always have an asylum ignorantiae, i.e., a possible explanation on the basis of natural laws that are as yet unknown; even without mentioning this, it is clear that both miracles and incorruptibility are only reasons for the glorification, not its cause; the cause wholly and uniquely consists in the holiness and Spirit-bearingness of the glorified saint. When I was at the Council I asked one of the notable Russian bishops who had participated in the glorification of a great Russian saint, whether our Church has any rules regarding the glorification of saints corresponding to the "process" in Catholicism, and he answered that it does not: The Holy Spirit guides the Church in such cases. This answer might appear to be unsatisfying, but it is the only possible and rational one. At least, there cannot be, and must not be, any other answer. All "reasons" are only occasions for the crystallization of the ecclesial consciousness, which, strictly speaking, does not even require them; and it is necessary to separate in advance the physical characteristics of relics from their essence. Thus, there arises before us in all its breadth the fundamental problem of the veneration of holy relics.
What constitutes the meaning of the dogma of relics, and what are holy relics? It is likely that, in a certain portion of our Church community (and possibly even among the clergy), there exists a skeptical and indifferent attitude toward this question. These members of the community would prefer to be as silent as possible regarding this question in order to avoid extraneous scandals: The veneration of holy relics is thought to be an unnecessary superstition, which can be, and in essence must be, avoided. The entire weight of historical slanders against the veneration of holy relics, together with our contemporary blasphemous attitude, presses on the frail consciousness of such members of the Church community and inclines this consciousness to take the broad path—to divest itself of superfluous and unnecessary doctrines and of the practice corresponding to them. Of course, it is difficult to pre-decide what sort of divestment is desired: Perhaps there is a readiness here to divest all sacraments from the Church and to leave nothing except a Protestant service of the word. But those who in fact do not desire to go so far, but only wish to eliminate the veneration of holy relics, must take clear account of the fact that all things are connected organically in the Church teaching, and that it is impossible to remove a single part of it. And, in particular, the veneration of holy relics is most intimately connected with the fundamental dogma of Christianity—with divine Incarnation for the sake of our salvation. The deification of man, Christian human-divinity (if it is permissible to use this phrase), is the basis of the veneration of the saints, as well as of their bodily remains, holy relics.
God became man in order that man become God: God's humanization has as a direct consequence the deification of man, gives to man an ontological foundation. Between heaven and earth, between God and man, an eternal ladder was erected after Christ went both downward and upward with His flesh as, with Him, did His Most Pure Mother. After the descent of the Holy Spirit, grace ceaselessly flows into the world, and the world becomes a receptacle of divine powers. This outpouring of powers is accomplished by means of holiness, which itself is produced by this outpouring; in the divine liturgy, in sacraments, it nourishes, warms, and preserves the world and man. All sacraments in the strict sense, and also all holy acts that are usually not called sacraments, represent a ceaseless bringing-down of this power into man. All and sundry immediately tell us that this is a spiritual power, and that one can and must speak only of birth in the Spirit, of service in the Spirit. This word and notion "spiritual" has been endlessly abused in all epochs (and perhaps it has been abused most eagerly by those who do not believe in the existence of any spiritual principle in man). One must state this simply, directly, and briefly: Although an eternal, immortal, and divine spirit lives in man, man himself is by no means a spiritual (i.e., only a spiritual) being; he also has a body and is therefore a spiritual-bodily being. Man is not an angel; rather, he is man, a cosmic being, a cosmos, an anthropocosmos; and nothing cosmic is alien to him or (one must emphasize) can or should be alienated from him.
How can one understand this inseparability of the spiritual and the cosmic, this mystery of the creation of man? There is perhaps no answer to this. That is how things are. And the human spirit does not know any life except human, i.e., cosmic, life. In man and through man circulate constantly and continuously all the powers of the universe, of which he is the center; in him, for him, and through him, the world is created, and all of his actions are not only spiritual movements, but also cosmic actions. He is capable of turning to God from the world, but God, who created him, does not take him out of the world, but only fills him with His power. This ontological essence of man contains the reason why, in the divine liturgy, in the mysterious side of the Church, there is manifested that which is called—at times with censure, and at times defiantly—religious materialism.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from RELICS and MIRACLES by Sergius Bulgakov Copyright © 2011 by Boris Jakim. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
Translator's Introduction....................viiOn Holy Relics (In Response to Their Desecration)....................1
On the Gospel Miracles Author's Preface....................43
I. On Miracle....................45
II. The Miracles of Christ....................56
III. On Human Works....................78
IV. On the Resurrection of Christ....................95
Index....................115