The Relevant Portion of Fr. Nicholas’s Email
From: Father Nicholas
Subject: Previous on Bp. Gregory Lourie?
Date: August 27, 2012 3:27:35 PM EDT
To: Bishop Demetrius
Cc: "Fr. John Fleser" , Father John Fleser
Reply-To: Father Nicholas
Evlogeite!
As the person responsible for many years for keeping our hierarchs, clergy, and monastics informed on the latest developments on the Russian Orthodox Church scene, I am very dismayed to hear that Metropolitan Ephraim is now attempting to convince people that, prior to the furor over Bishop Gregory Lourie's taking of Communion at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in October 2011, he, Metropolitan Ephraim, supposedly had little knowledge of Bishop Gregory and his teachings, and had only limited and positive information about the name-worshipers.
The contents of my filing cabinet and of my e-mail box tell an entirely different story. Allow me to share three documents with you to illustrate my point. I, as the translator, had given them to Metro-politan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon, among others.
(Of late, those of us who have any sort of archival materials, or even a good memory, are sometimes not appreciated in certain quarters. One needs to keep invoking the well known saying: "Don't shoot the messenger!")
1) In 1998, the then still layman, Basil Lourie (not even being a member of our church!) contacted our Georgian clergy, urging them to rebel against their hierarchs over the issue of The Dogma of Redemption by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. Basil states that "The Dogma of Redemption" is 'pure and unadulterated heresy', yet he goes on to claim that that fact does not make Metropolitan Anthony a heretic! Rather interesting logic, no?!
As if that was not enough, he declares that Vladyka Gregory Grabbe could not comprehend Ortho-dox dogmatics at all! (Of course, it goes without saying, that Basil Lourie can and does!)
2) In early 2001, the by now Father Gregory Lourie raised the issue of name-worshiping within the synod of Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal, to whose synod he then belonged. A certain priest's wife in Russia of that jurisdiction appealed to Matushka Anastasia Schatiloff (née Grabbe) for assistance and material to refute that teaching. Matushka Anastasia, in turn, sought our advice and aid.
I submitted a nine-page summary in English of all the materials in Russian which they had sent to us, and I gave it to Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon. Attached here is the cover letter to that collection, in which I ask for their instructions on how to reply to Matushka Anastasia. When I wrote the words "since it appears that this issue of 'name-worshiping' is going to assume serious proportions...", I never dreamed then that it would become such a problem here with us!
3) The third document attached here is the response which Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon instructed me to make to Matushka Anastasia at that time.
Note what they told me to say to her:
a) Name-worshiping is an internal affair of the Russian Church, and we cannot get involved.
b) We are unable to read most of the literature on the topic, which is in Russian, so it's beyond our competency.
c) On no account will we allow Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky to be disparaged.
It's very sad and disconcerting to see how much things have changed in eleven years!
The documents given above are only a sample of what we have on file. Subsequently, I have kept Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon abreast of all of Bp. Gregory Lourie's later pronouncements, undertakings, and various shenanigans....
[rest of email and its attachments omitted]
