What do you think?
Rate this book
Holy Grail and the Eucharist
These two moving studies by the eminent Orthodox theologian and sophiologist Father Sergei Bulgakov are remarkable in many ways. The first is a unique consideration―from the point of view of Eastern Christianity―of the Holy Grail, the chalice used by Joseph of Arimathea to catch the blood and water as it flowed from Jesus' side when it was pierced on the Cross by the spear of Longinus. This moment is described in John 19:34. Bulgakov's essay is a "dogmatic exegesis" of this passage in which, with astounding passion and precision, he reveals that the Earth itself and hence the human universe is the Grail wherein Christ lives forever. The second essay is also unique―the most important contribution to eucharistic theology by an Orthodox theologian. In the West, the meaning of the Communion bread and wine as the Christ's Body and Blood has been interpreted largely in philosophical terms deriving from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Bulgakov insists on a christological and Gospel-based interpretation, one with tremendous significance for our understanding of the supernatural and sophianic nature of a world interpenetrated by the divine. This little book is a priceless gift, enriching our understanding of the Christian mystery and two of its deepest aspects, the Grail and the Eucharist.
160 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1997
2 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
Sergius Bulgakov
54 books64 followersSergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (/bʊlˈɡɑːkəf/;[1] Russian: Серге́й Никола́евич Булга́ков; 28 July [O.S. 16 July] 1871 – 13 July 1944) was a Russian Orthodox Christian theologian, philosopher, and economist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 7, 2024
The section on the Holy Grail and mystical sanctification of the world through the psychical substance of Christ (i.e. the shedding of his blood and water at the piercing of St. Longinus) was easily deserving of a perfect 5/5. One of the most beautiful lines ever written concerning the deification of creation comes from this book, when Bulgakov writes:
“The whole world is the Holy Grail, for it has received into itself and contains Christ’s precious blood and water; the whole world partook of them in communion at the hour of Christ’s death. And the whole world hides the blood and water within itself. A drop of Christ’s blood dripped upon Adam’s head and redeemed Adam, but also all the blood and water of Christ that flowed forth into the world sanctified the world. This blood and water made the world a place of the presence of Christ’s power, prepared the world for its future transfiguration, for the meeting with Christ come in glory… The world has become Christ, for it is the holy chalice, the Holy Grail. The world has become indestructible and incorruptible, for in Christ’s blood and water it has received the power of incorruption, which will be manifested in its transfiguration.”
Such thinking is the basis of the beautiful meditations of Paracelsus, Böhme, Eckhart, Angelus Silesius, and so many of the Western Hermeticists / mystics—that the world bears the hidden, sanctified seed of Christ, and whether by alchemy or asceticism we behold that beauty as the quintessential Holy Grail.
The basis of my rating is that these meditations take up 20-30 pages of the total book, and his Eucharistic philosophy the rest of the book. There are a few glaring hypocritical statements and or contradictory issues that mire his Eucharistic commentary. For starters, Bulgakov makes a purely philosophical argument against the Thomistic position on Transsubstantiation (which I have no problem with since an admission of its philosophical “primitivity” by modern standards is maintained by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange et. al of the Neo-Thomistic school, their work was centered upon modernization thereof.)
The problem with Bulgakov’s argument is firstly that he states, “To become understandable and convincing Aristotle’s theory must, first of all, be translated into the language of contemporary critical philosophy and, secondly, philosophically substantiated.” This is the basis which I took to be the “equitable” hermeneutic for judging his argument—and unfortunately, it is found lacking in many ways. For instance, Bulgakov states, “The doctrine of transsubstantiatio is based on the Aristotelian distinction between ousia (substantia) and sumbabekos (accidentia), and stands or falls in connection with this distinction. Together with the dogma of transsubstantiatio the Catholic Church has dogmatized this doctrine too, because, outside of this doctrine, this whole conception loses its significance.
There appears to be an inherent strangeness in such a degree of dependence of the core of this dogma on the purely philosophical doctrine of some philosopher, and especially a pagan one. To be sure, it is impossible to deny the connection of Christian theology with Greek philosophy, which in its concepts developed ready terms and logical limits for the expression of dogmas” (p. 75). Yet appeals to the Church Fathers two sentences later, who “supposedly used it in their own and substantially changed the teaching.” Is St. Thomas and the whole of the Scholastics incapable of interpreting the Aristotelian substance according to both metaphysical and ontological categories; or do the Patristics have the exclusive “get out of jail card” for blatantly appropriating Plotinus, Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus in often philosophically incorrect ways? This line of thinking is philosophically nonsensical, for it decries the “paganism” of Aristotle yet begs the question of the Patristic reliance on these same pagans as “being reinterpreted.”
Similarly, in appealing to these same Church Fathers as the basis of philosophical discourse—Bulgakov falls into the trap of the “heretical humanist Renaissance” thinkers of returning to the untainted Early Church to support “speculative philosophy.” His philosophy is non-Patristic insofar as he introduces modern phenomenology, Dilthey’s hermeneutical reading of narratives, his own Sophiology (which landed him in hot water,) and Fideistic reasoning for the Eucharist: “the Eucharist is the Eucharist because Jesus says so, and it’s a mystery which we can’t use reason upon unless it’s a Church Father’s commentary.” So already, the postured grounding as a “Neo-Patristic” makes the foundation in the Church Fathers as the only legitimate modus operandi of sacramentology suspect; for Bulgakov is not a 6th century Greek Christian commenting on St. John’s Gospel—he is a modern Russian thinker who is ontologically, linguistically, geographically, historically, and spiritually divorced from that world, and so he imports all the baggage of said time period.
Let us continue onwards, “we find in certain of the holy fathers (namely St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John of Damascus) thoughts can serve as points of reference for developing a Eucharistic theology”—such theology will be suspect because according to your reasoning, such must be translated into the language of contemporary critical philosophy (is divine revelation philosophically admissible according to critical philosophy? Not according to Schelling or Dilthey,) and secondly philosophically substantiated. Unless one receives private revelation from the Church Fathers, the same “suspect nature” of transsubstantiation as “so crude, so incompatible with the contemporary philosophical con-sciousness, that to impose it as something self-evident, as the Catholic dogma of transsubstantiatio does, is an outright coercion of reason, a completely unnecessary and unjustified archaism” applies ten-fold to the Church Farhers he cites, especially the Syriac ones. My main gripe with this book, to put it bluntly, is thus: Bulgakov appeals to modern philosophy to knock down the Thomistic sandcastle of Aristotelianism, then quickly hides behind the guise of mystical obscurantism (the Church Fathers are guided by the Holy Spirit, thus philosophical criticism doesn’t apply) and equivocates the positive elements of transsubstantiation with his pet terminology of transmutation. His articulation of transmutation: “The power of the mysterious transmutation permeates the nature of the bread and wine and changes it. They become other than themselves, other than what they are as things of the physical world. But the bread and wine do not lose their thinness within the limits of this world; their broadness and wineness—their smell, taste, weight, color, physical, and chemical properties—remain unchanged. The change in their nature that has occurred is not manifested in their physical being. The miracle of the transmutation of the eucharistic elements is therefore not a physical but a metaphysical event” (p. 63). Which is virtually indistinguishable from the Thomistic position, other than that Bulgakov’s doesn’t go beyond second-order consequences (the Orthodox haven’t had anything remotely close to the church mouse problem) and so the “rationalistic” or “speculative” issues of Orthodoxy theology don’t come to the surface. Whether this is because they veil much of their thinking in mystical obfuscation, or because they haven’t had the philosophical rigor of the West remains to be seen.
On another note, insisting that transubstantiation is “materialistic” because of your private reading of the conversion of material into the body’s blood and body is very rich, given that transmutation even in the time of Zosimos and Cleopatra the Alchemist had the properties of a material transformation from one substance to another, according to the implicit characteristics of one thing in the inert material. One begets gold from lead by “rarefied” destruction and distillation of all the non-gold and thus non-noble substances. So wherever he got this idea that transmutation is a “purely metaphysical” property is likely rooted in the Jungian & Böhmean idea of spiritual alchemy—which is definitely NOT Patristic in the least. This book was muddled with haphazard Bible quotations and Patristic citations in a supposedly “philosophical” alternative to the Thomistic view. The value of this book, if it were revised to remove the “philosophical takedown” replaced by myopic sermonizing, is in emphasizing the personal & spiritual nature of receiving the Eucharist. But as it stands, Bulgakov falls into the heresy of Receptionism simply to refute Thomism, for which my mind naturally ponders: for what doth it profit a man, if he shall refute the whole of Catholicism, and lose his Church’s soul? The classic trope of “refuting one thing in order to fall into another heresy” is reiterated again. And I’m fully aware my condemnation of the Patristics will rankle the Orthodox, who often come close to making a Talmud of their writings. I value the Patristics highly, but they do not answer complex philosophical questions (often grounded in their own writings, go and read the Summa for yourself,) nor do they act as “arbiters” in matters they didn’t write about. If you want to erect a Sola Patristica, it is prudent to ignore Thomism. Otherwise, you’re expected to offer an equivalent if not superior alternative to Thomism, which none of the Neo-Patristic writings are able to do by their “unchanging change” trope of adhering to the Fathers. This book does not offer a satisfactory account, even if the arguments it makes about Thomism being “primitive” may be correct by modern philosophical standards.
“The whole world is the Holy Grail, for it has received into itself and contains Christ’s precious blood and water; the whole world partook of them in communion at the hour of Christ’s death. And the whole world hides the blood and water within itself. A drop of Christ’s blood dripped upon Adam’s head and redeemed Adam, but also all the blood and water of Christ that flowed forth into the world sanctified the world. This blood and water made the world a place of the presence of Christ’s power, prepared the world for its future transfiguration, for the meeting with Christ come in glory… The world has become Christ, for it is the holy chalice, the Holy Grail. The world has become indestructible and incorruptible, for in Christ’s blood and water it has received the power of incorruption, which will be manifested in its transfiguration.”
Such thinking is the basis of the beautiful meditations of Paracelsus, Böhme, Eckhart, Angelus Silesius, and so many of the Western Hermeticists / mystics—that the world bears the hidden, sanctified seed of Christ, and whether by alchemy or asceticism we behold that beauty as the quintessential Holy Grail.
The basis of my rating is that these meditations take up 20-30 pages of the total book, and his Eucharistic philosophy the rest of the book. There are a few glaring hypocritical statements and or contradictory issues that mire his Eucharistic commentary. For starters, Bulgakov makes a purely philosophical argument against the Thomistic position on Transsubstantiation (which I have no problem with since an admission of its philosophical “primitivity” by modern standards is maintained by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange et. al of the Neo-Thomistic school, their work was centered upon modernization thereof.)
The problem with Bulgakov’s argument is firstly that he states, “To become understandable and convincing Aristotle’s theory must, first of all, be translated into the language of contemporary critical philosophy and, secondly, philosophically substantiated.” This is the basis which I took to be the “equitable” hermeneutic for judging his argument—and unfortunately, it is found lacking in many ways. For instance, Bulgakov states, “The doctrine of transsubstantiatio is based on the Aristotelian distinction between ousia (substantia) and sumbabekos (accidentia), and stands or falls in connection with this distinction. Together with the dogma of transsubstantiatio the Catholic Church has dogmatized this doctrine too, because, outside of this doctrine, this whole conception loses its significance.
There appears to be an inherent strangeness in such a degree of dependence of the core of this dogma on the purely philosophical doctrine of some philosopher, and especially a pagan one. To be sure, it is impossible to deny the connection of Christian theology with Greek philosophy, which in its concepts developed ready terms and logical limits for the expression of dogmas” (p. 75). Yet appeals to the Church Fathers two sentences later, who “supposedly used it in their own and substantially changed the teaching.” Is St. Thomas and the whole of the Scholastics incapable of interpreting the Aristotelian substance according to both metaphysical and ontological categories; or do the Patristics have the exclusive “get out of jail card” for blatantly appropriating Plotinus, Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus in often philosophically incorrect ways? This line of thinking is philosophically nonsensical, for it decries the “paganism” of Aristotle yet begs the question of the Patristic reliance on these same pagans as “being reinterpreted.”
Similarly, in appealing to these same Church Fathers as the basis of philosophical discourse—Bulgakov falls into the trap of the “heretical humanist Renaissance” thinkers of returning to the untainted Early Church to support “speculative philosophy.” His philosophy is non-Patristic insofar as he introduces modern phenomenology, Dilthey’s hermeneutical reading of narratives, his own Sophiology (which landed him in hot water,) and Fideistic reasoning for the Eucharist: “the Eucharist is the Eucharist because Jesus says so, and it’s a mystery which we can’t use reason upon unless it’s a Church Father’s commentary.” So already, the postured grounding as a “Neo-Patristic” makes the foundation in the Church Fathers as the only legitimate modus operandi of sacramentology suspect; for Bulgakov is not a 6th century Greek Christian commenting on St. John’s Gospel—he is a modern Russian thinker who is ontologically, linguistically, geographically, historically, and spiritually divorced from that world, and so he imports all the baggage of said time period.
Let us continue onwards, “we find in certain of the holy fathers (namely St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John of Damascus) thoughts can serve as points of reference for developing a Eucharistic theology”—such theology will be suspect because according to your reasoning, such must be translated into the language of contemporary critical philosophy (is divine revelation philosophically admissible according to critical philosophy? Not according to Schelling or Dilthey,) and secondly philosophically substantiated. Unless one receives private revelation from the Church Fathers, the same “suspect nature” of transsubstantiation as “so crude, so incompatible with the contemporary philosophical con-sciousness, that to impose it as something self-evident, as the Catholic dogma of transsubstantiatio does, is an outright coercion of reason, a completely unnecessary and unjustified archaism” applies ten-fold to the Church Farhers he cites, especially the Syriac ones. My main gripe with this book, to put it bluntly, is thus: Bulgakov appeals to modern philosophy to knock down the Thomistic sandcastle of Aristotelianism, then quickly hides behind the guise of mystical obscurantism (the Church Fathers are guided by the Holy Spirit, thus philosophical criticism doesn’t apply) and equivocates the positive elements of transsubstantiation with his pet terminology of transmutation. His articulation of transmutation: “The power of the mysterious transmutation permeates the nature of the bread and wine and changes it. They become other than themselves, other than what they are as things of the physical world. But the bread and wine do not lose their thinness within the limits of this world; their broadness and wineness—their smell, taste, weight, color, physical, and chemical properties—remain unchanged. The change in their nature that has occurred is not manifested in their physical being. The miracle of the transmutation of the eucharistic elements is therefore not a physical but a metaphysical event” (p. 63). Which is virtually indistinguishable from the Thomistic position, other than that Bulgakov’s doesn’t go beyond second-order consequences (the Orthodox haven’t had anything remotely close to the church mouse problem) and so the “rationalistic” or “speculative” issues of Orthodoxy theology don’t come to the surface. Whether this is because they veil much of their thinking in mystical obfuscation, or because they haven’t had the philosophical rigor of the West remains to be seen.
On another note, insisting that transubstantiation is “materialistic” because of your private reading of the conversion of material into the body’s blood and body is very rich, given that transmutation even in the time of Zosimos and Cleopatra the Alchemist had the properties of a material transformation from one substance to another, according to the implicit characteristics of one thing in the inert material. One begets gold from lead by “rarefied” destruction and distillation of all the non-gold and thus non-noble substances. So wherever he got this idea that transmutation is a “purely metaphysical” property is likely rooted in the Jungian & Böhmean idea of spiritual alchemy—which is definitely NOT Patristic in the least. This book was muddled with haphazard Bible quotations and Patristic citations in a supposedly “philosophical” alternative to the Thomistic view. The value of this book, if it were revised to remove the “philosophical takedown” replaced by myopic sermonizing, is in emphasizing the personal & spiritual nature of receiving the Eucharist. But as it stands, Bulgakov falls into the heresy of Receptionism simply to refute Thomism, for which my mind naturally ponders: for what doth it profit a man, if he shall refute the whole of Catholicism, and lose his Church’s soul? The classic trope of “refuting one thing in order to fall into another heresy” is reiterated again. And I’m fully aware my condemnation of the Patristics will rankle the Orthodox, who often come close to making a Talmud of their writings. I value the Patristics highly, but they do not answer complex philosophical questions (often grounded in their own writings, go and read the Summa for yourself,) nor do they act as “arbiters” in matters they didn’t write about. If you want to erect a Sola Patristica, it is prudent to ignore Thomism. Otherwise, you’re expected to offer an equivalent if not superior alternative to Thomism, which none of the Neo-Patristic writings are able to do by their “unchanging change” trope of adhering to the Fathers. This book does not offer a satisfactory account, even if the arguments it makes about Thomism being “primitive” may be correct by modern philosophical standards.
July 25, 2015
I had this book on my wish list for over a year, wondering if I should get it. It didn't disappoint. It lived up to my every expectation.
Bulgakov argues that when Longinus' spear pierced Christ's side, the blood and water imparted a mode of Christ's humanity to the earth and in a real sense, the earth becomes the Holy Grail, for it caught the blood of Christ. This is noteworthy because it helps solve the antinomy of Christ being with his disciples "always" while remaining in bodily form at the right hand of the Father.
This is not Nestorianism, for Nestorianism posited a duality of the hypostases in Christ, not a duality of the human nature of Christ.
The Holy Grail is not the Eucharist. The Eucharist, while a mystery, is not hidden from the Church. The Holy Grail (whether in reality or in legend) is hidden from the general eye. As I understand Bulgakov, I think he is saying that the "Holy Grail" dissolves the barrier between heaven and earth. It transports nature into paradise and makes it a "holy flesh" (44). Eventually all the world will see the Holy Grail as nations come seeking the City with healing in its leaves (Revelation 22).
The book is divided into several parts. The first part is lyrical mystical theology concerning the Holy Grail. It is frankly awesome. The second part is a dense and confusing outline of Roman Catholic transubstantiation. More on that later. Bulgakov then explicates the Orthodox doctrine of transmutation.
Lastly Bulgakov neatly ties this in with his Sophiology. Following this are afterwards by Constantin Andronikov and Caitlin Matthews. Matthews actually gave a very fine meditation on the Holy Grail. I really expected her to talk about Celtic Shamanistic tree-hugging, but I was very impressed.
Cons with the Book:
I've read 2 other books by Bulgakov, and while I understand what he means by Sophiaology, and largely agree with him, I still don't know how he is connecting "the man from heaven" and "created Sophia."
While only a short 156 pages, this book could have been even shorter. There were excellent meditations on the nature of transmutation per everyday life (cf his book *Philosophy of Economy*). Other parts could have been excised. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it.
Bulgakov argues that when Longinus' spear pierced Christ's side, the blood and water imparted a mode of Christ's humanity to the earth and in a real sense, the earth becomes the Holy Grail, for it caught the blood of Christ. This is noteworthy because it helps solve the antinomy of Christ being with his disciples "always" while remaining in bodily form at the right hand of the Father.
This is not Nestorianism, for Nestorianism posited a duality of the hypostases in Christ, not a duality of the human nature of Christ.
The Holy Grail is not the Eucharist. The Eucharist, while a mystery, is not hidden from the Church. The Holy Grail (whether in reality or in legend) is hidden from the general eye. As I understand Bulgakov, I think he is saying that the "Holy Grail" dissolves the barrier between heaven and earth. It transports nature into paradise and makes it a "holy flesh" (44). Eventually all the world will see the Holy Grail as nations come seeking the City with healing in its leaves (Revelation 22).
The book is divided into several parts. The first part is lyrical mystical theology concerning the Holy Grail. It is frankly awesome. The second part is a dense and confusing outline of Roman Catholic transubstantiation. More on that later. Bulgakov then explicates the Orthodox doctrine of transmutation.
Lastly Bulgakov neatly ties this in with his Sophiology. Following this are afterwards by Constantin Andronikov and Caitlin Matthews. Matthews actually gave a very fine meditation on the Holy Grail. I really expected her to talk about Celtic Shamanistic tree-hugging, but I was very impressed.
Cons with the Book:
I've read 2 other books by Bulgakov, and while I understand what he means by Sophiaology, and largely agree with him, I still don't know how he is connecting "the man from heaven" and "created Sophia."
While only a short 156 pages, this book could have been even shorter. There were excellent meditations on the nature of transmutation per everyday life (cf his book *Philosophy of Economy*). Other parts could have been excised. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it.
October 8, 2019
A very quick and easy book to read by Bulgokov. The central chapters were really interesting, diving into an alleged orthodox dogma of transmutation, and how that’s philosophically related to scripture verses and orthodox liturgical practices.
Chapter one was more like an introduction to Eucharistic philosophy and the legend of the holy grail, and I’m still not sure why that’s important.
The final chapter (by bulgokov) is, of course, his attempt at sophiologizing his philosophical speculations (?) about transmutation. That chapter was utterly boring. I find his sophiology to drag on far beyond any practical importance. I’m sure I’m overlooking something grand hidden in plain sight among his verbiage, but I still give up interest quickly. There must be more precedent than what this book offers in order to maintain interest. His sophiological journeys into the galaxy of intratrinitarian and hypostatic speculation end up, rather ironically, to appear not-so wise. That is why I can only give this book three stars.
There are also two postscripts, written by others, about the importance of the book.
Chapter one was more like an introduction to Eucharistic philosophy and the legend of the holy grail, and I’m still not sure why that’s important.
The final chapter (by bulgokov) is, of course, his attempt at sophiologizing his philosophical speculations (?) about transmutation. That chapter was utterly boring. I find his sophiology to drag on far beyond any practical importance. I’m sure I’m overlooking something grand hidden in plain sight among his verbiage, but I still give up interest quickly. There must be more precedent than what this book offers in order to maintain interest. His sophiological journeys into the galaxy of intratrinitarian and hypostatic speculation end up, rather ironically, to appear not-so wise. That is why I can only give this book three stars.
There are also two postscripts, written by others, about the importance of the book.
June 14, 2025
With a title like that, how could you NOT want to pick this book up. That said, I wish that I could say that I understood enough of this book to give it a full and meaningful review. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I believe that I understood the basic ideas, and I definitely follow him with my dissatisfaction with transubstantiation as an adequate understanding of the Eucharist (though Protestant explanations are, in my opinion, only less adequate). Bulgakov distinguishes "transform" and "transmute", favoring the latter, which could be a language problem, or it could be simply that I don't understand what he means. Bulgakov also distinguishes between corporality and *spiritual* corporality, and there I'm definitely lost - though intrigued.
In the end, I got a lot out of reading the book, but I feel more tantalized at the prospect of a different way of thinking about the beloved Eucharist than I am sure even what I believe, much less what Bulgakov is discussing. This might not be the best first stop for Bulgakov (as it was for me). A discussion of him and his ideas from a third party might make things a lot more understandable.
In the end, I got a lot out of reading the book, but I feel more tantalized at the prospect of a different way of thinking about the beloved Eucharist than I am sure even what I believe, much less what Bulgakov is discussing. This might not be the best first stop for Bulgakov (as it was for me). A discussion of him and his ideas from a third party might make things a lot more understandable.
March 12, 2024
Bulgakov is dense, mystical and orthodox. For many western readers his whole approach will feel very different and uncomfortable. But he bears reading. His perspectives and insights are rare and worth pondering.
The book is two essays. A long piece on the Eucharistic that wrestles out his concerns with the focus and attention of the western approach - in short that it focuses too much on what the hosts “become” rather than that they are given *for* communion.
This first essay is a gorgeous work on how at Christ’s death the world became the container for his blood and as such the earth is the holy grail. It’s a stunning piece of writing that I think every Christian should read.
So please do read this book, but be prepared for its style and content to be different and difficult if you, like me, are a western Christian from western traditions.
The book is two essays. A long piece on the Eucharistic that wrestles out his concerns with the focus and attention of the western approach - in short that it focuses too much on what the hosts “become” rather than that they are given *for* communion.
This first essay is a gorgeous work on how at Christ’s death the world became the container for his blood and as such the earth is the holy grail. It’s a stunning piece of writing that I think every Christian should read.
So please do read this book, but be prepared for its style and content to be different and difficult if you, like me, are a western Christian from western traditions.
October 24, 2025
Bulgakov's meditations on both the blood and water from Christ's side, and the dogmatic expression of the Church's faith is Christ's eucharistic Body and Blood are characteristically cosmic in scope and creatively rigorous in theological reasoning and imagination.
His critique of transubstantiation raises fundamental questions that western debates have never raised (that I have encountered, at least). He is unafraid to take the words of the gospels seriously and to follow them to the logical conclusion of what they say.
A great read, and a somewhat more accessible starting point than his Little Trilogy.
His critique of transubstantiation raises fundamental questions that western debates have never raised (that I have encountered, at least). He is unafraid to take the words of the gospels seriously and to follow them to the logical conclusion of what they say.
A great read, and a somewhat more accessible starting point than his Little Trilogy.
December 13, 2019
A startling and deep investigation that implicitly covers a great deal of dogmatic theology. Though perhaps the most accessible of Bulgakov’s books, each section requires a great deal of prior knowledge and comfort with the fundamentals of metaphysics.
This is a beautiful text to read adjacent to Florensky’s Iconostasis as the liminal spaces are crucial to both texts.
This is a beautiful text to read adjacent to Florensky’s Iconostasis as the liminal spaces are crucial to both texts.
January 7, 2020
This book is beautiful but damn hard. It requires quite a bit of experience with complex metaphysical and theological language. It is a very convincing polemic against the traditional Western understanding of trans substantiation followed by a very difficult introduction of Bulgakov’s sophiology. Dense but worth the effort.
June 7, 2022
A deep dive into the 'body and blood' of Jesus the Christ at the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension that provides a clear understanding of the Eucharist in Orthodox theology and compared to Catholic and Protestant thought,
November 21, 2007
I just picked up the book from the library Wednesday night. I was listening to a PodCast of Frederica Here and Now called the World and the Holy Grail (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/fred...), and she quoted this book, it intrigued me: "The whole world is the holy grail for it has received unto itself and contains Christ's blood and water. The whole world is the chalice of Christ's blood and water. The whole world partook of them in communion at the hour of Christ's death. And the whole world hides the blood and water within itself. The blood and water made the world a place of the presence of Christ's power. And prepared the world for its future transfiguration." I started reading it. There are controversies about Father Sergius Bulgakov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_B...
I will be using discernment while reading his writings. But I wanted to read the context to see what ideas this quote was coming from and whether it was from a truly biblical point of view...
I will be using discernment while reading his writings. But I wanted to read the context to see what ideas this quote was coming from and whether it was from a truly biblical point of view...
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews