I am probably just missing something here about the role ‘pre-’ plays here. Otherwise, I am at a loss and need someone wiser to help me out.

With regards to the early Franciscan view (which has to do with why the Second Person of the Trinity became incarnate via Mary), you can read about this in _Great Medieval Thinkers: Robert Grossetesste_. I’ll send other sources soon enough.

I’ll address your questions in reverse order.

I’ve yet to encounter any instances of Bulgakov interacting with any of the Franciscans on this matter or others (A quick scan of the index to The Lamb of God revealed no references at all, nor with any Dominicans). Perhaps some of our readers who have read more widely in Bulgakov and/or who can read Russian can answer this for you.

As to the first question regarding the block quote from “The Lamb of God.” I take it that “heavenly man” (which linked to Proto-image and which is a play off of the a Cappadocian criticism of Apollinaris) refers to the Second Person. Bulgakov is using Apollinaris to make the point that the Incarnation was part of the eternal plan of the Triune God and thus is part of the being of God from the eternity (i.e. it is the ontologically grounded and pre-established union). Now, the 4 alpha-privatives of Chalcedon are affirmed by Bulgakov (without confusion, without change, without division, without separation), but he is striving to push forward a constructive christology and is going beyond the council. He wants to make sure that some sort of crass Antiochene interpretation is made impossible. The incarnate Word is a single subject referent – a single ontological identity. The degree to which the subject of the union himself can be said to be eternally part of the Godhead is that of which I am still somewhat unsure.

The article I cited by Fr. Daley explains well the Cappadocian criticisms and the traditional interpretations of Apollinaris.

All this would seem to indicate at least some degree of similarity with the Franciscans you mention. Could you perhaps point us to the text you have in mind in this regard, I for one would be interested.

Matt

Two questions (from a historian):

1. Could you explain this sentence: “Rather it is the ontologically grounded and pre-established union of the Proto-image and the image, of the heavenly man and the earthly man”? I think I get it, but not quite sure. What precisely does ‘the heavenly man’ refer to?

2. Does Bulgakov interact at all with the early Franciscan notions of ‘the fortunate Fall’? The view is that the Trinity of persons eternally willed that the Son should be hypostatically united to (a) human nature, and that his redeeming us from sin was but a side-note? Robert Grosseteste discusses this a bit. I know I’m speaking as a historian on this point, and that B. might not have been aware of this particular theological view. I would be interested (very much) to see how his views are similar and different from this perhaps lesser known Franciscan one.