tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23711829195807548562024-03-14T01:51:53.731-04:00Facts About Name-Worshipping(Name-glorifying, imyaslavie, imiaslavie or onomatodoxy)Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-48836156491374894392013-11-21T22:38:00.000-05:002014-09-23T15:46:11.496-04:00Contents of This Site<span style="background-color: white; color: black;"></span><br />
<h2>
Basics</h2>
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-imyaslavie.html">What is Imyaslavie?</a> An introduction to name-worshipping.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
Analysis</h2>
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/metropolitan-anthony-khrapovitsky-on.html">An examination of the name-worshipping controversy</a> and the work of Fr. Anthony Bulatovich, by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-of-name-worshipping-in-hocna.html">Chronology of name-worshipping in HOCNA</a> as of September 14/27, 2012<br />
<br />
A review of the history of the name-worshipping controversy, and an analysis of how name-worshipping deviates from the teachings of the Holy Fathers, by <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/holy-transfiguration-monastery-on-name.html">Holy Transfiguration Monastery</a>, Boston<br />
<br />
The fine line established by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and how name-worshipping crosses that line: <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-fine-line.html">a letter by Fr. B</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/statement-of-bishop-demetrius.html">Statement</a> of Bishop Demetrius on name-worshipping and its consequences for the Holy Orthodox Church in North America<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-russian-synod-of-1913-was-not.html">Why the Russian Synod of 1913 is not heretical</a>. By Fr. Maximos of Holy Ascension Monastery.<br />
<br />
How the name-worshippers are using <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/smokescreens-for-heresy.html">smokescreens</a> to distract the faithful, just as heretics of past generations did. An essay by Fr. Maximos of Holy Ascension Monastery.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: black;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2013/11/created-names-and-uncreated-god.html">Created Names and Uncreated God</a>, a reply to the assertions of Thomas Deretich</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2013/11/st-john-of-kronstadt-and-name-of-god.html">St. John of Kronstadt and the Name of God</a>, a further reply to Thomas Deretich<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2013/05/hocna-name-worshipping-heresy-and-synod.html">HOCNA, Name-Worshipping, and the Synod of Archbishop Makarios of Athens</a>. By Fr. Panagiotes Carras<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-hocna-statements-of-october-8-and-10.html">Analysis</a> of the October 8 and 10 statements by the synod of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: red; color: white;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/analysis-of-statement-of-hocna-hierarchs.html">Analysis</a> of the September 5/18 statement on name-worshipping by the synod of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America</span></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/dear-anastasia-on-your-letter-from-fr.html">Dear Anastasia</a>, on the widely circulated letter from Fr. Mark Beesley defending the bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America on name-worshipping<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: #990000; color: white;"><span style="background-color: white; color: black;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2013/01/on-economist-articles.html">On the Economist articles</a>, an analytical look at two articles sympathetic to name-worshipping which appeared in The Economist in December 2012</span></span><br />
<br />
How Name-worshippers (aka Name-glorifiers) define their doctrine, and what the Holy Fathers have to say about it. A <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/name-worshippers-in-their-own-words-vs.html">study</a> by Nicholas Snogren.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/articles-on-name-worshipping.html">Links</a> to other articles about name-worshipping<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
Historical Documents</h2>
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/decision-of-russian-synod-1913.html">Decision of the Russian Synod</a> condemning name-worshipping, 1913<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/patriarch-germanos-on-imyaslavie.html">Epistles</a> of Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople condemning name-worshipping<br />
<br />
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-record-was-distorted.html">Example</a> of how the historical record on name-worshipping was distorted by the radical press<br />
<br />
What the Holy New Hieromartyr Patriarch Tikhon actually said in his <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-nativity-epistle-of-patriarch.html">Nativity Epistle</a> of 1921, versus how the HOCNA hierarchs portray him<br />
<br />
Gregory Lourie <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/gregory-lourie-deposed-for-name.html">deposed</a> for name-worshipping<br />
<br />
<h2>
Further Reading</h2>
For more information about the role of the name-worshipping heresy in the departure of many clergy,
monastics and laity from the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) for
the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians (GOC), please visit <a href="http://forthosewhohaveearstohear.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #e3a327;">our sister site. </span></a><br />
<br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-91422480501447513512013-11-21T22:34:00.003-05:002013-11-21T22:38:27.164-05:00Created Names and Uncreated God<br />
Reply to Mr. Tom Deretich, no.1 <br />
<br />
Mr. Deretich repeats his arguments that HOCNA is not preaching the heresy of Name Worshipping, which arguments circle about the accusations without giving a sound, dogmatic answer, while making a complete hash of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which only Name Worshippers would be so ignorant of Orthodoxy to believe. He also does not explain the physical proof of HOCNA's distorting their translations to reflect Name Worshipper's doctrine's. Anthony Bulatovich was also proven to have done the same to patristic and biblical texts.<br />
<br />
The Name Worshippers / Glorifiers claim: “All the Fathers say that the Name of God is an Energy of God". But they never give the quotation or reference, because no Father has ever said that "the Name of God is an Energy of God".<br />
<br />
Nowhere in any of the Old or New Testament Scriptures, nowhere in the Prophets and Apostles, nowhere in any of the Fathers and Great Theologians of the Church is there any expression or doctrine of the existence of an uncreated name. God has no name; indeed He is unnamable for He cannot be limited or comprehended and is ineffable. He alone is uncreated. A name is an intellectual process obviously created in the material mind of man by bioelectrical energy and expressed either in writing or sound in the air. It has no other existence: it is the creation of a creation.<br />
<br />
Names have been understood, described, and explained as being of a created nature by all the saints and great Fathers, especially by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, the Three Hierarchs, Ss. Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and Gregory Palamas. God does not need words to communicate with man.<br />
<br />
The doctrine of uncreated names is found in Platonic, Gnostic, Cabalistic, Talmudic and Magic teachings, but has not only never been accepted or taught by the Church of God, it has been anathematized many times.<br />
<br />
Another claim of theirs is that they alone really know and understand St. Gregory Palamas. In fact, they do not understand him, but also do not know his writings. If they quoted him, they would see that he overturns their doctrines, because he follows the Fathers of the Church.<br />
<br />
St. Gregory Palamas concludes, along with St. Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Maximus the Confessor, whom he quotes, that God's Energies are uncreated. St. Gregory proves this in his many works, with quotations from the Scriptures and the Fathers. He calls them "God's inherent and essential energies, which are uncreated". [St. Gregory, 150 Chapters in the Philokalia #92] How can a created name be an Energy of God?<br />
<br />
The divine omnipresence is also an Energy of God. He sustains the creation, He is everywhere in it, yet not bound or limited by it, or identified with it. Creation and the uncreated divinity can never be confused. Ibid, #104]<br />
<br />
[
St. Gregory, quoting St. Dionysius: "'The creative procession and energy whereby God creates individual essences' [Divine Names, 5:1] loosely and inexactly named from all things since it contains all things in itself." No name is an energy. [Ibid, #105]<br />
<br />
"Grace, here distinguished from the Divine Nature, is not created, for no one would suppose a created thing to be the Nature of God". Isn't a name created? Here St. Gregory Palamas is commenting on a quote from St. John Chrysostom. [Ibid, #108].<br />
<br />
St. Gregory the Theologian says, "He is 'Christ' the anointed on account of the Divinity; for it is the Divinity that anoints His human nature". [Theological Oration, 4, 21]<br />
<br />
St. Gregory Palamas says, "Creation is the single work of the Trinity, no hypostasis has His own particular effect. The Divine Energy is one and the same for all Three: One God: They do not possess an individual power or will or individual energy. There is one impersonal power". [St. Gregory, 150 Chapters in the Philokalia #112] If the energy is personal or has a name, we introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Since this newly named person must exist from eternity, as they do, and since it has a name, it has its own existence. What of the many Divine Names, as the Holy Fathers call them? Do we then have many gods as do the idolators? If this name has its own existence, it is equal to the Trinity, contrary to what Mr. Deretich declares.<br />
<br />
"Divinity is also an appellation of the Divine Energy, according to the theologians", says St. Gregory Palamas. Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky and the 1913 Russian Synod based their position on this quotation. Yet, Anthony Bulatovich's followers declared this statement to be heretical.<br />
<br />
If the name Jesus is uncreated, as the Name Worshippers say, then this name existed before creation. It is then a creation which God did not will to create, nor did create. God did not say, "I will create My Name, and it will make the world".<br />
<br />
If the existence of the Name is before all eternity in God’s foreknowledge, as the new Name Worshippers claim, then since He foreknew all things, all creation existed before eternity and before being created. The foreknowledge of God differs from His Will and His creative Energies. If He did not will this creation, then God is a creator in spite of Himself, unwillingly. In such a case creation is Divine since it is before all
eternity, although unwilled, then there is no difference between created and
uncreated, "for only God is uncreated". This is clearly pantheism.<br />
<br />
St. Dionysius the Areopagite declares, "…in Scripture, all the names appropriate to God are praised regarding the whole, entire, full, and complete Divinity, rather than any part of it. They all refer indivisibly, absolutely, unreservedly, and totally to God in His entirety…Indeed, as I pointed out in my Theological Representations, anyone denying that such terminology refers to God in all that He is may be said to have blasphemed. He is profanely daring to sunder absolute unity". [Divine Names, 2:1] The words, "all the names appropriate to God are praised regarding the whole, entire, full, and complete Divinity" and "they all refer…to God", and "such terminology refers to God", proves that the Fathers do not consider the Divine Names to be the Divine
Energies, but human labels and names and terms for the Ineffable.<br />
<br />
Name Worshippers / Glorifiers do not follow the doctrines of the Holy Fathers, and reject their doctrines and explications. Their “sainted” founder, Anthony Bulatovich declared that any one who did not accept his doctrines was a heretic, and outside the Orthodox Church. I am glad that I would be considered a heretic by them.<br />
<br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-28934750441636265032013-11-21T22:00:00.000-05:002013-11-21T22:52:40.482-05:00St. John of Kronstadt and the Name of GodReply to Mr. Tom Deretich, no.2<br />
<br />
Name-worshippers love to quote St. John Kronstadt: “the name of God is God Himself” and “you have in that name all the essence of the Lord” (My Life In Christ, pg. 359, St. Petersburg, 2001). Later, however, St. John explains that his understanding of these expressions is founded upon the patristic theology of the Church and not on the ravings of Anthony Bulatovich. The Saint’s words from ‘My Life In Christ’, pp. 467-468: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Since the Lord is everywhere present, His Cross works miracles, His name works miracles, His Icons are wonderworking”. “Since we are of flesh, the Lord attaches His presence, so to speak, and His very self with creation… He attaches Himself to the Temple, to the Icons, to the sign of the Cross, to His name composed of articulated sounds, with holy water, with the sanctified bread, wheat and wine… but there shall come a time when all the visible signs shall not be necessary, and we shall partake of Him more intensely then, ‘in the unwaning day of His Kingdom’, where as now only through the medium of the flesh and through Icons and signs.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
First, the Saint well comprehends the basic understanding of God, held for more than three thousand years by the Church: God is omnipresent. The invocation that begins Orthodox services of prayers is the proclamation of this doctrine: “Heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things, O Treasury of every good and Bestower of life: come and dwell in us, and cleanse us from every stain, and save, O Good One, our souls”. <br />
<br />
God is present everywhere, filling and interpenetrating all things, with no limit or bound, entirely free and unapproachable. He, God Himself, both the essence and the indivisible energy, operations, activity, and attributes, which are the uncreated glory in which He the uncreated God dwells; He is throughout us and in us: in the air we breathe and the food we eat and the raiment we wear and the blood that courses in our veins. He dwells in light unapproachable, i.e., we cannot touch or force Him: He is free and absolute and transcendent. Nothing can touch Him unless He will it. His will – one of His uncreated energies – can grant a grace to or effect a creature, but only at His volition. He is ‘ο ἐνεργών, (ho energon) while creation is τὸ ενεργούμενον, (to energoumenon), i.e. He is the energizer while creation is that which is energized. The energizer effects but is not affected by that which is energized; He remains inviolate, for He is uncreated and eternal, unchanging and ever the same. Only the creation is changeable, and never can the two ever be intermingled or confused. <br />
<br />
St. John of Kronstadt makes this understanding clear by saying that God is everywhere, and He sanctifies them, who through various mediums, approach Him. This was the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which stated that we do not deify the medium – Icons, names, the Cross, etc – but our worship passes over and reaches the Divinity to attract His grace. It is obvious that the Saint considers the mediums as means created by mankind, which direct our attention and prayers to the prototype, Who, if He desires, can respond with His grace. St. John lists “name” along with the Church building, Icons, holy water, the Cross, etc (all of which are creations of man), where God Himself is approached and His grace can be received; he follows the decisions of the Seventh Council. There is no mention or hint of an uncreated name or of pantheism. St. John did not preach name-worshipping. <br />
<br />
Another quote from St. John of Kronstadt, that the name-worshippers like to ignore is: “Let not the heart weak in faith think that the Cross or the name of Christ act of themselves, or that this Cross and this name of Christ produces miracles when I do not look with the eyes of my heart or with the faith of Christ”. (Sergieff, John I. (1897) My Life in Christ. (E.E. Goulaeff, Trans.). Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery (1971). p. 23.<br />
<br />
This quote from St. John of Kronstadt shakes the very foundation of the name-worshippers doctrine. It is clear that St. John was not a name-worshipper, but only said that “the name of God, is God Himself” in the context of prayer and not as an identity or in a literal sense. <br />
<br />
Anthony Bulatovich’s writings clearly and explicitly preach that the letters of God’s name are God Himself, as is also the spoken word. His modern followers preach the same as their ‘sainted’ founder. But when they are challenged because they are preaching the ludicrous doctrines of an uncreated creation, or of pantheism, they speedily demur, saying, “No one could ever be so illogical” (and Bulatovich rolls over in his grave). Such a tactic is common among heretics; they deny anything which is pointed out as being senseless or foreign to the Faith. They then send up a smokescreen of obfuscations, and then invent an even worse heresy; in this instance, the uncreated name. Some facets of this error have been mentioned above, but this same error has been condemned in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy and by all the Fathers, who have condemned the Platonic, Gnostic, Talmudic, Cabalistic pagan teachings in their entirety. <br />
<br />
The name-worshippers exhibited a very poor taste in saints when they canonized Anthony Bulatovich. He was an arrogant, ambitious man who used violence to take over monasteries, evict monks and plunder their goods (see the many contemporary reports in the newspapers of the time especially ‘Ekklesiastike Aletheia’ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In order to forestall local authorities from dealing forcibly with the problems, the Patriarchate begged the Russian government to intervene so that there could be no doubt of injustice, since the Patriarchates were dependent on Russia for protection from the Turks and Mamelukes. Bulatovich, who used the sword of violence, died by the sword, according to our Saviour’s words. He was killed by robbers in 1919, (shortly after rejecting communion with the Church for the second time). <br />
<br />
In any case, when controversy arises, the name-worshippers publicly reject the extremes of their founder; but when on fresh ground or privately, they repeat the old Bulatovichian doctrines. He believed that the Mysteries of the Church are accomplished by the invocation of God’s name. Baptism was in the name of Christ; and the change of the elements in Holy Communion was already accomplished in the proskomide, when the Lamb is excised from the offered bread. Of course, the modern followers might try to deny it, but they are trapped in the chains of their tradition and their attempts to explain and cover up. <br />
<br />
One question arises from reading their writings is that the modern name-worshippers never say what name is the divine name. Hilarion and Bulatovich were definite: Hilarion said the name was “Jesus”, while Bulatovich declared that every word in the Gospel was God Himself, even when spoken aloud; wherefore, he was accused of Pantheism. Their present day followers usually say “the name of God is God Himself”, but do not elaborate. Perhaps they fear that they will be accused of declaring created letters and sounds to be divine. In any case, they now are at odds with their purportedly “sainted” founders. What do they mean? The name of God is a name? The name of God is the name? The name God is name? This obscurantism allows them to deny any Orthodox objection and to confuse the issue with pages of ambiguous verbiage, like squids escaping in a cloud of ink.
<br />
<br />
After giving many quotations, declaring that the power, might, and glory of God protect and save mankind; then tacking on others wherein Mr. Deretich defines, that “in the name” means the same thing, he concludes that St. Cyril of Alexandria says that “the glory, authority, power, might, grace, name, and the truth are the ‘energy/activity/action’ of ‘Godhead that the Father and the Son share”. He then quotes a long passage from St. Cyril, as proof.<br />
<br />
In the first part of this quotation, the Saint quotes the Scriptures, Philippians 2:9, “and gave Him a name which is above every name”. This signifies that He is given authority as the Son and Word of God: that Father and Son are of one essence. The Saint later on discusses Christ God’s protection of His disciples, in the “exercise [of] His power”, “by the power and glory of His Godhead”, etc. There is no identification of “name” and “power and glory”, except in Mr. Deretich’s mind. The Saint’s commentary on this scripture and the others, concerns the unity of the Father’s and Son’s essence and will. Mr. Deretich also mentions St. Clement of Rome, who when he wishes to refer to the uncreated power of God, he calls it the name of God. However, there is no statement that the name of God is an energy of God. In any case, these quotations are not from the only received genuine work of St. Clement: the Epistle to the Corinthians. <br />
<br />
Mr. Deretich presents a passage in III Kings (no more exact reference is given), when Solomon consecrated the Temple, saying that it is God’s “name and glory (=energy) that fills the newly-built Solomonic Temple”. Here is the verse in question (8:10), “And it came to pass when the priests departed out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house. (8:11) And the priests could not stand to minister before the cloud, because the glory of the Lord filled the house”. There is no equivalence of glory and name mentioned or implied. <br />
<br />
In III Kings 9:3 “to put my name there (the Temple) for ever”, is meant figuratively, which is proved as the sentence continues: “mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually”. If “name” is meant literally, then we must conclude that God has physical eyes and heart. <br />
<br />
The tactic in these paragraphs is to present a number of Scriptural or patristic quotations mentioning “name” of God, with others, concerning “the glory, the power, activity, energy, operation, attributes of God”, and mixing them together so as to imply an equivalence which is simply not there; in fact most of their interpretations of the meaning of “name”, do not agree with that of most interpreters and translators. Proximity does not indicate equivalence, and even that is lacking here. We can only conclude that Mr. Deretich is, well, lying. Here, at least, he is showing himself to be a faithful follower of Bulatovich. <br />
<br />
Again, this statement is introduced by Mr. Deretich, “name in ancient Greek can mean both a ‘symbol’ for something and it can also mean the thing itself” and it continues in a similar vein. True, a name can mean or signify or be a ‘symbol’ for something, that is, “the thing itself”. Since this is the definition for “name”, this is hardly a statement of great sagacity and even necessary. (Please explain how “something” or “the thing itself” differ?). It has never been believed, certainly not in the Church, that the name is the thing itself. We cannot drink out of the word “glass”. Nor eat the name “apple”. Nor will the word “lion” rip and tear us to pieces. Words which name something are not the thing named, as experience teaches us and as the Patriarchal decision of 1912 proclaimed. We can be starving but a grocery list will not feed us. A leopard will not change spots if we call him a panther. Names are human labels applied to physical objects or concepts so that we may communicate and understand our experience of creation. <br />
<br />
God did not name the animals, but Adam did. (Genesis 2:19, “The Lord God... brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof). It is an illogical and false thesis and conclusion to say “the name of x is n, therefore n is x”. It is not a direct predication or equivalence. Rather we must understand that when we say “we are calling x by the name n”, (we are calling this beast (x) with the name lion (n) is what we mean. It is not a reversible predication nor equivalence. We are applying a conceptual generalization of a species, an abstraction, composed of thought and words of a rarefied matter as a label to a very concrete, material animal. Man has been called the creature, which abstracts, generalizes and names. Names are man made, and the lion couldn’t care less what we call it, just as long as we don’t shoot it. <br />
<br />
Gregory Lourie has called such thinking “crassly nominalistic”. Unfortunately for him, it is the pragmatic doctrine of the Church and the way most of mankind thinks. However, he is the scion of Cabalistic ancestors, and appears to share in their magic mentality.<br />
<br />
With all of their mixing of supposed quotations from the Fathers and Scriptures, which bear the word “name” and juxtaposing them with others which have the words “power or energy or activity”, etc., they declare an equivalence or identity upon no basis and with no hard references. We have seen, how they have misrepresented many of them, so that what they declare as fact cannot be trusted. They consistently violate logical and religious sense in their interpretations, so that their propositions and premises result in unfounded conclusions.<br />
<br />
We later have some more juggling with history from Mr. Deretich. The name of the unfortunate Bishop Sergius (later Patriarchal locum tenens), is associated with the 1913 Synodal decision by insinuation, since the modern name-worshippers consistently refer to “the 1913 decision”. Sergius was not on the Synod and he certainly wrote against name-worshipping at other times besides 1913. This attempt to blacken the Synodal decision by association with Sergius, who broke much later under pressure by the communists is simply dishonest. Also, attempts to blacken Halki, thereby blackening the Ecumenical Patriarchate as being anti-Palamite, is pitiful. Certainly, the Encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs answering the Pope of Rome in 1895 was a model of Orthodoxy. In just a few years had everything changed? The Patriarchal decision of 1912, which is available on line in English and in the Synodal decision of 1913, praises the prayer of Jesus and hesychasm. Most had not attended western schools, but were instructed in the traditional Church schools where they read and learned Church Greek from reading the Fathers. They certainly knew of St. Gregory Palamas, for the Synodicon of Orthodoxy was read annually, and its history was part of the curriculum. In any case, calling “Infamous Germanos P. Strenopoulos? It was after his repose in 1920 that ecumenistic statements were made. “Archimandrite Vasileios Stephanides”? He was a deacon then, from Athens, to which he returned and had probably not yet studied abroad. The last two names are not archimandrites, but laymen; Mr. Deretich is mixing his time periods and facts. <br />
<br />
After the 1920’s, with the destruction of Asia Minor and its schools, and finally the closure of Halki in 1956, Patriarchal students were forced to study abroad. In any case, the decisions of Halki’s faculty, the Ecumenical Patriarchal Synod’s decree of 1912 by the saintly Patriarch Joachim, and the confirmation in 1913, by Patriarch Germanos are faultlessly Orthodox and in conformity with Patristic Theology, which is why the Russian Synod quoted them in accepting it as the official Theological statement for their decision, and then dealt with the practical portion. All the Orthodox have accepted them. <br />
<br />
In the last paragraph, Mr. Deretich returns to the first position, “the name of God is God Himself”, as if all the intervening verbiage had proved it. We see that St. John of Kronstadt, understood it in the Orthodox way: “God is everywhere present” and in the manner in which the Seventh Ecumenical Council determined. The names are worshipped but not to be deified. The name cannot be God Himself. The Church has dogmatized for 3000 years, that no name is God Himself.<br />
<br />
Another statement in a previous “summary” paragraph: “The Orthodox Church does teach that God fills and dwells in his created names”. We challenge this statement as entirely false; present us with a reference. It will not be found, neither in an official council nor in any of the Saints of the Church. The next statement is inarguably acceptable “God is present everywhere and fills all created things”. But then the statement which violates the former, as we explained earlier on, “God ‘dwells’ especially in sacred, created things”; then Mr. Deretich proceeds to return to all the errors of the name-worshippers: “the name can sometimes have a meaning different from ‘mere created names”, “the uncreated power of God (which is sometimes called the [uncreated] name of God” (where? No where!) and so on and so forth. An incoherent spate of unsupported claims, and unconnected thoughts foreign to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas and all the great Fathers whom we faithfully follow. <br />
<br />
Perhaps it is unfair to cast all the opprobrium of false teaching upon Mr. Deretich. He is apparently a spokesman – since he is an employee of HOCNA – for Gregory Babunashvili of HOCNA. He (Gregory Babunashvili) is a faithful disciple of Gregory Lourie, repeating his exact words. I have been told by many who have heard him preach his doctrines, that when someone presents facts or doctrines of the Church’s saints which refute his teachings, so that he cannot answer, he then resorts to shouted denials. For this reason most of the Clergy and people deserted HOCNA, people of the theological knowledge and stature as: Frs. Michael Azkoul, John Fleser, Christos Constantinou, Christos Patitsas and Andrew Snogren. It is evident that Gregory Babunashvili is ignorant of the doctrines of the Church’s saints, even of St. Gregory Palamas, whom he claimed he understood. Furthermore, he makes definite affirmations of facts and references, which upon investigation, are revealed to be false or non-existent. As someone said, “I wouldn’t accept anything he said, even if pearls and diamonds fell from his lips”. His writings also corroborate his ignorance of the fundamentals of the Church’s theology. <br />
<br />
Returning to Mr. Deretich’s “In summary” paragraph, third before the end, he states, “The Orthodox Church does teach that God fills and dwells in his created names”. [a ‘teaching’ found nowhere, except in Anthony Bulatovich]… God is everywhere present and fills all created things. And God “dwells” especially in sacred, created things: in the saints, angels, relics, the Cross, icons…” etc. He repeats further on the word “dwells”, with quotation marks and without quotation marks. He states: “God’s power sometimes works miracles through created holy icons”. He is obviously attempting to return to the phrase “the name of God is God Himself”, the keystone of name-worshipping. The Orthodox Church recognizes God’s presence everywhere and in everything, as we have stated. Here, Mr. Deretich is attempting to make a special kind of presence with the word “dwells” or “fills”, although he repeats the Church’s teaching of God’s omnipresence, Who fills all things. What is he implying by these words and their repetition? By his return to the formula “the name of God is God Himself”, this intimates more than the usual divine omnipresence. If he is implying an “incarnation” of God, he would be condemned and anathematized by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. Various words are used by the Church for the presence of God in the Church: ‘overshadowing’, ‘presence’, ‘attached’, ‘abiding’, ‘to come upon’, ‘be present’, ‘sense’, ‘nearness’, ‘means’, but usually in a temporary or passing sense. This insistence on “dwells” and “fills” are words also used by many in the Church, but taken in conjunction with Deretich’s other statements, he is implying something more, but dares not say “incarnation”. It reminds one of the Hindu doctrine of Avatars. Rama and Krishna were avatars of Vishnu, in ancient Brahmanism. Throughout India, in the temples of Hanu-man, the mobs of monkeys scrambling about there, are his avatars, ‘God Himself’ as you would be told. <br />
<br />
St. John Kronstadt avoids that trap because he obeyed the Church’s doctrine expressed in the Seventh Ecumenical Council. We can approach an Icon of Christ and pray before it, and Christ God can work miracles; for He is present since He is everywhere. But it is our volition, our will, which reaches Him through the created Icon, but the Icon is not deified, it is not God Himself, as the Seventh Ecumenical Council has dogmatized. Any other doctrine or Hindic avatar teaching is anathematized. <br />
<br />
I repeat: No Father has ever said that the name of God is an energy of God. Nowhere does the Church teach of an uncreated name of God. <br />
<br />
Names are created by man, and do not pertain to God. “…by the gift of God, it pertains to men alone both to make the invisible thought of the intellect audible by uniting it with the air and to write it down so that it may be seen with and through the body. God thus leads us to a steadfast faith in the abiding presence and manifestation of the supreme Logos in the flesh”. (#63 from the 150 Chapters of St. Gregory Palamas, in the Philokalia, vol. 4). Here the unique Incarnation of the Son of God is affirmed, where the hypostasis of the Word took upon Himself the human nature from the Ever-virgin Mary. There is one hypostasis with two natures, divine and human, inseparably united, undivided yet not confused, two separate and different natures in the one Person of the Word of God, perfect God and perfect man. This is proclaimed by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. <br />
<br />
“There is no intermediate nature between the created and uncreated, neither is there any such operation (energy). Therefore, if it is created, it will show only a created nature, if it is uncreated, it will indicate an uncreated substance only. The natural properties must correspond with the nature absolutely, since the existence of a defective nature is impossible. The natural operations, moreover, does not come from anything outside the nature, and it is obvious that the nature can neither exist nor be known without its natural operation. For by remaining invariable, each thing gives of its own nature”. St. John Damascus Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 15.<br />
<br />
St. John of Damascus explains: “The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things. But God, Who is good and brought us out of nothing into being that we might share in His goodness, and Who gave us the faculty of knowledge, not only did not impart to us His essence, but did not even grant us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible for nature to understand fully the super-natural. Moreover, if knowledge is of things that are, how can there be knowledge of the super-essential? Through His unspeakable goodness, then, it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowledge of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague. Inasmuch, then, as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnameable. But inasmuch as He is the cause of all and contains in Himself the reasons and causes of all that is, He receives names drawn from all that is, even from opposites: for example, He is called light and darkness, water and fire: in order that we may know that these are not of His essence but that He is super-essential and unnameable: but inasmuch as He is the cause of all, He receives names from all His effects”. St. John Damascus Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I, 12.<br />
<br />
There is no mixture or fusing of created and uncreated. Names are created, as the precious quotation from St. Gregory Palamas stated, who collated and summarized the Patristic teachings. An uncreated name is impossible according to St. John, as quoted, and to all the Fathers. There is no such thing as an uncreated name, as St. John Damascus says above. <br />
<br />
“We apply all the names of these attributes to the supra-essential Being that is absolutely nameless”. St. Cyril, Treasuries, PG 14, 240A.<br />
<br />
The fathers talk about three levels of prayer (St. Theophan the Recluse. What is Prayer). Oral, mental and spiritual. When one reaches spiritual prayer, the invocation of the name of God ceases. This is what St. Isaac the Syrian means by, “silence is the mystery of the age to come.” (St. Isaac the Syrian. Ascetical Homilies. Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Brookline, MA. (1984) Homily 65, p. 321).<br />
<br />
The attributes are the energies of God, the things that pertain to God. We give the names, as is obvious from the above, and the name is not the energy, as is also obvious, for it is God and therefore nameless. <br />
<br />
I prefer to follow the Third, Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, and all the Holy Fathers before and after. I will follow the Councils of 1912 and 1913, which are vilified by your Bulatovich, Gregory Lourie and Gregory Babunashvili, yet believed in by scores of saints and wise and holy men and of martyrs from then till now, whom you slander. I will follow the Apostle Peter who declares: “No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”. (2 Peter, 1:20-21).<br />
<br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-36007976971435345812013-05-25T21:21:00.001-04:002013-05-28T10:17:38.397-04:00HOCNA, the Name-Worshipping Heresy and the Synod of Archbishop Makarios of Athens<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Sister Churches in More Ways Than One</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
by Fr. Panagiotes Carras</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 1995, a rebellious faction of six bishops formed within the synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece, under Archbishop Chrysostomos and separated itself over what they claimed to be canonical infractions. These false charges were brought forth in order to avoid the impending trial of Metropolitan Euthymios (Orphanos) of Thessaloniki, who had been charged with moral infractions. The other charge had to do with the election of the notorious Bishop Vikentios (Malamatenios) of Avlona (fornerly of Astoria, N. Y.) as Metropolitan of Piraeus.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The six Hierarchs who left were Ephthimios, of Thessaloniki, Kallinikos of Lamia, Stefanos of Chios, Ioustinos of Evripos, Vikentios of Avlona and Paisios of America. The group was headed by Metropolitan Kallinikos of Lamia and was commonly known as the Lamian Synod.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The six hierarchs were defrocked on July 12/25, 1995 because of their schism from the Holy Synod. Euthimios of Thessaloniki was found guilty of immoral acts on 13/26 July, 1995 and was ordered to be confined to the Monastery of St. Iakovos, the Brother of the Lord and not to receive Holy Communion for 15 years.
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By early 1996, the movement had fragmented into three groups. The first group, Stefanos of Chios and Ioustinos of Evripos, repented their schismatic actions and were reconciled with the Holy Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos. The second group, Paisios of America and Vikentios of Avlona, renounced the Faith and submitted to the Ecumenical Patiarchate. Later they became fugitives from American justice. The third group was made up of Euthimios, of Thessaloniki, and Kallinikos of Lamia.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Iin 1996, Kallinikos of Lamia and Euthymios of Thessaloniki proceeded to ordain five titular bishops in an attempt to create a new synod. In 2004, this synod finally decided to elect a primate, and elected Makarios (Kavakides) of Athens. A good deal of their membership was then lost, as many realized what really motivated the schism and returned to the Holy Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2007 the Lamian Synod ordained Archimandrite Nectarios (Yashunsky) from St. Petersburg as Bishop of Olympus. He served as the administrator of two parishes in Russia. When these two parishes collapsed Bishop Nektarios returned to Greece.
Bishop Nektarios, as an Archimandrite, introduced the Lamians to the Name-Worshipping Heresy. His article in defence of Name-Worshipping in Greek, <em><a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzJKrDVZPwcvNElRUDZMU1RoVkU/edit">A Brief Explanation of Onomatodoxy</a></em>, can be found on HOCNA's web site that is dedicated to the heresy of Name-Worship. The other Greek article in defense of this heresy, <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzJKrDVZPwcvSGtaOFg1M3BDRzQ/edit">The Name of God as A Sign Spoken Against</a> appears to be written by Archbishop Makarios. Neither of these two articles appear on any of the Lamian sites and at least two Lamian hierarchs and many of their clergy and laity are opposed to the teachings of these heretics. Nectarios Yashunsky's article can also be found on <a href="http://www.pravoslav.de/imiaslavie/index.htm">Gregory Lourie's site</a> which also includes an icon of the heretic, Anthony Bulatovich, founder of the Name-Worshippers. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Archbishop Makarios has also deviated from the Faith by allying himself with the renovationist, New-Calendar Archimandrite, Fr. Nektarios Moulatsiotis. Moulatsiotis became world famous in 2002 when he founded the <a href="http://homelands.org/worlds/freemonks.html">Freemonks</a>. <a href="http://www.freemonks.gr/index.php?page=com&lang=1&id=81">This was a rock band named Paparokades</a>.
By 2005 the monks abandoned Moulatsiotis and monasticism.<br />
<br />
Moulatsiotis' dedication to the struggle against Digital Identity Cards then became focused on organizing demonstrations against Digital Identity Cards. He was joined by Archbishop Makarios in this endeavour. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHZP5XKYYY">At one of Moulatsiotis' demonstrations, Archbishop Makarios proclaimed</a>, "Let us be united in one fist, New-Calendarists and Old-Calendarists...today we will not ask if you are with the new or old calendar but rather if you are with Christ." <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttkfmX1pYKo">Archbishop Makarios also joined Moulatsiotis in rallies sponsored by the political group ELKIS</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many of Archbishop Makarios' unilateral activities [in relation to HOCNA] are not approved of by the other hierarchs, clergy and lay people of the Lamian Synod. The so-called <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzJKrDVZPwcvMWgxQ0MweHN2dTg/edit">STATEMENT OF EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION</a> has been hidden from those in Greece. Clergy and people in Greece realize that the term Eucharistic Communion is another way of saying Eucharistic Hospitality. This heresy was expounded by HOCNA when they justified giving Holy Communion to the Name-Worshipper, Gregory Lourie. This heresy was expressed with the words: desire to foster the oneness that must exist among all Orthodox Christians in the Holy Body and Blood of our Saviour.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
HOCNA and the Lamians are truly sister churches in more ways than one.</div>
<br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-24208812054447293592013-03-15T14:08:00.002-04:002013-05-28T11:39:42.350-04:00Why the Russian Synod of 1913 Was Not Heretical<div class="title-single">
<em>By Fr. Maximos Marretta of Holy Ascension Monastery</em></div>
<div class="title-single">
</div>
<div class="title-single">
The contemporary revivers of the heresy of Nameworshipping have won great notoriety for themselves by rejecting the holy council of Constantinople held in 1913 and the holy Russian council of the same year. The main reason the heretics reject these councils is that the councils condemn the idea that the name of God is an energy of God, which is the central tenet of the heresy of Nameworshipping. </div>
<div class="title-single">
</div>
<div class="title-single">
However, the Nameworshippers (who euphemistically call themselves “Nameglorifiers”) also consider the Russian council of 1913 to be heretical since it stated a distinction between the words “God” and “divinity.” Specifically, in their letter of August 29, 2012 to the Orthodox clergy of the Cathedral of St. Mark in Boston, MA, the Nameworshipping bishops denounce four phrases in the 1913 decision of the Russian Synod, alleging that they are novel and unorthodox because they distinguish between God and divinity. The Nameworshippers consider these terms to be absolutely synonymous and that any distinction between the two constitutes a heresy.</div>
<div class="title-single">
</div>
This insistence on the part of the Nameworshippers that the words “God” and “divinity” are completely identical is ridiculous in the extreme, as anyone who has access to a dictionary should easily understand. In fact, almost no two words are exact synonyms. Words have a variety of different meanings and may be close synonyms in one sense but not in another. Using them, we sift out all the possible meanings to find the one that seems to fit best the context we have in mind. In accordance with this general principle, we find that the Holy Fathers themselves employ words in various senses. Only in restricted circumstances (usually polemics or formal doctrinal definitions) do they confine a word to a single, technical meaning.<br />
<br />
If we review how the Fathers use the word “God,” we find that it is most commonly employed to denote the divine essence or one or all of the divine hypostases, and less frequently the divine energies. As for the word “divinity,” this is most commonly used to denote the divine essence, less frequently a single hypostasis, and still less frequently the divine energies. Collectively, the energies of God are called in most cases simply “energies” or “divine energies.” Individually, they are called by their various distinctive titles: foreknowledge, creative power, and so forth. The usage we characterize here as “typical” prevails particularly with respect to the first two points, especially among the earlier Fathers of the Church, the Fathers with whom the Russian members of the 1913 council were most familiar.<a href="https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/1/?ui=2&ik=c11f0358a7&view=att&th=13b8fd7c17bfe66b&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw&saduie=AG9B_P9lf5CeeIUjN4KaL7Fkq_DY&sadet=1355486316894&sads=W8Q7HKmKlu3ckzgPk7imTN5Vrvc#0.1_footnote1"><sup>1</sup></a><br />
<br />
When we turn to the works of St. Gregory Palamas, a somewhat different terminological balance is evident, a result of theological developments of his day. Saint Gregory employs the term “divinity” for the divine energies with some frequency. Very rarely, he even uses the term “God” for the same. Because of the relative frequency of St. Gregory’s use of the word “divinity” for the divine energies, the Russian Council Fathers were well aware of it. Seeking to follow St. Gregory in all things, they themselves made use of this terminology, even while noting that he “employs the word ‘divinity’ in a somewhat broader sense than is common” – that is, than those Fathers with whom the Russians were familiar. The Russian Fathers do not, however, use the word “God” for the divine energies, and even assert that St. Gregory “nowhere call the energies God, but teaches to call them divinity.” <br />
<br />
This statement is the basis for the Nameworshippers’ first charge against the holy Council, which they condemn for theological deviation in this matter. The charge is blatantly intended to discredit the council’s entire work. But in reality, there is no theological deviation here – we have already seen the Russians’ eagerness to use St. Gregory’s term “divinity” for the divine energies. There is only an historical error. And the explanation for it is a very simple, mundane one. <br />
<br />
Prior to the Russian Revolution, not all of St. Gregory Palamas’ writings had been translated into Russian. Hence the Council Fathers were unaware that St. Gregory occasionally did use the word “God” for the divine energies. Nevertheless, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that if the Russian Fathers had been familiar with this rare usage, they would have rejected it. By their willingness to employ the term “divinity” for the divine energies, the Council fathers clearly demonstrated both their fidelity to St. Gregory’s thought and their belief that the energies were in fact divine in the full sense of the word. “Divinity,” in the Fathers the Russians knew best, means this, precisely.<br />
<br />
The Russians’ mistake is obviously one which any honest and good-willed person should be able to understand. That the Nameworshippers should attempt to exploit it is disingenuous: misleading, fraudulent, and shameless; a cover for their own perverse teaching.<br />
<br />
In their first charge against the Russian Council, the Nameworshippers pretend that any distinction between the words “divinity” and “God” turns the Divinity into a creature. Yet from what has been said, it is obvious that this assertion is irrelevant with respect to the Russian Council of 1913, since the Council Fathers’ preference for the term “divinity” in respect to God’s energies is to be explained solely by historical circumstance (i.e., the unavailability of certain of St. Gregory’s writings) and fidelity to what the Russian Fathers did know of St. Gregory’s vocabulary, rather than by any theological deviation. <br />
<br />
Nevertheless, it is important to note that St. Gregory Palamas not only uses the term “divinity” for the divine energies far more frequently than the term “God”: he at times explicitly and specifically contrasts “essence” and “energies” by equating the first with “God” and the second with “divinity.” For example, in Pro Hesychastis 3.2.10, he writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With common voice all the Holy Fathers teach that it is impossible to discover a name that manifests the divine nature; rather, the names manifest the energies. For even the term “divinity” manifests the energies, denoting ‘to view,’ ‘to be seen,’ ‘to flash,’ or ‘to self-deify.’ But the essence of God which is beyond all names transcends this energy, inasmuch as to act thus belongs to that which is activated and being beyond name belongs to that which is named in this manner. This does not hinder us from adoring one God and one divinity, in the same way that the fact that we call a ray of light ‘sun’ does not prevent us from thinking of one sun and one light.</blockquote>
Here the saint is comparing God’s essence to the sun and energy to its light. Even while implying that “God” may refer in some cases to energy, he uses “God” to refer to the essence and “divinity” to refer to the energies. Again, in 2.3.8 of the same work he writes, “The monks know that the essence of God transcends the fact of being inaccessible to the senses, since God is not only above all created things, but even beyond divinity…” Here, St. Gregory again refers to the essence as “God,” while referring to the energies as “divinity.” Since St. Gregory himself makes the distinction and applies the words to the realities in this way, the Nameworshippers should be more than willing to allow the Russian Fathers this distinction and terminology. They should desist from pretending that to make a distinction between “God” and “divinity” reduces the divine energies to a creature, and admit that their criticism is altogether baseless.<br />
<br />
To summarize the above: the several realities in God (essence, hypostasis, and energy) are described both in common speech and Patristic vocabulary by various terms, sometimes interchangeable, sometimes overlapping, sometimes employed in one manner, sometimes in another, depending upon need and context. The honest and devout person considers the sense of a word’s use, and allows the word to express the distinctions indicated by the user, rather than to posit artificial and false contradictions. Especially, he does not, on the basis of such sophistry, condemn the holy councils of the Church of Christ – councils accepted by the entire Orthodox Church for over a hundred years. To persist in this condemnation is expressive only of theological ignorance and arrogance and a mania to propagate heresy.<br />
<br />
Next the Nameworshippers move on to another phrase in the Synodal Decision, in which the Russian Fathers of 1913 state that we cannot say that Christ revealed “His God” on Tabor but must say that He revealed “His divinity.” The truth of this statement ought to be obvious to any Orthodox Christian. Moreover, any schoolboy would be able to correct the Nameworshippers’ lack of knowledge of basic grammar, in that the genitive personal pronoun “his” is normatively understood as a genitive of possession. When modifying “divinity,” we correctly understand “his” to refer to Christ revealing an Attribute-Energy which He possesses. When modifying “God,” “his” denotes a relationship of inferior to superior, of Christ revealing His own God, some God superior to Him. This is subordinationism or adoptionism, both of which are heresies. Since the phrase “His God” entails heresy while “His divinity” does not, there is a very significant difference between the two. Hence the distinction the Russian Fathers make is valid and most Orthodox.<br />
<br />
Finally, the Russian Fathers state that the word “God” indicates personhood, while “divinity” indicates attribute, quality, or nature. The Nameworshippers object to this Orthodox statement and claim that it introduces an inadmissible concept of personality in God, which allegedly would contradict the Orthodox understanding of one God in Three Persons. In fact, however, the Russian Fathers are correct and the Nameworshippers are wrong. This is due to the nature of the word “divinity,” which is an abstract noun formed from the word “God.” Rather than emphasize the personal nature of God, it emphasizes His qualities, which may be considered in the abstract.<br />
<br />
We use masculine personal pronouns to refer to God, but we do not use them to refer to divinity or to any of the energies of God; i.e., we refer to God as “He,” but we call God’s will (considered in and of itself) not “He” but “it.” Again, it is important to remember that the term “God” can be used to refer to each of the Divine Hypostases individually as well as to the Trinity as a whole. The Russian Fathers were not at all constructing a new concept of a “personality of God,” but were simply pointing out that God is in fact personal in nature; i.e., that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are the One God.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, it is clear that the Russian Fathers of 1913 were not guilty of espousing Barlaamism or any other Latin heresy, but rather were zealous to expose and correct the pernicious heresy, Nameworshipping, which confronted them. While they did make an historical mistake in reference to the writings of St. Gregory Palamas, they did so out of ignorance and not out of a desire to contradict the saint, whose work they were zealous to uphold and establish. The Russian Fathers were true successors to St. Gregory and the hesychasts (whom they highly laud), and they point out that it is the Nameworshippers who are actually the Barlaamites, because they confuse the created with the uncreated, that is, a created name with the divine energies. <br />
<br />
Ultimately, it is on the basis of one questionable explanatory passage that the modern Nameworshippers reject the whole decision of the Russian Church. So intent are they on demonizing the holy council that they completely deny the distinction made by St. Gregory Palamas himself between “God” and “divinity.” Thus, it becomes evident that the modern Nameworshippers have read St. Gregory less, and with far less understanding, than did the Russians one hundred years ago. <br />
<br />
Moreover, it is clear that the Nameworshippers reject <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="0.1__GoBack"></a>not simply a single mistaken passage, but rather the entire force and intent of the council. For if they rejected only the one mistake but accepted the decisions and declarations, they would be able to clear themselves of the charge of heresy by saying, “We accept the Russian Council of 1913 against the blasphemous Nameworshippers, but point out that St. Gregory Palamas did in fact call the divine energies God Himself.” Then there would be no problem. <br />
<br />
But the Nameworshipping bishops obstinately refuse to make such a statement. Why? Because they themselves are indeed Nameworshippers and support Bulatovich and the deluded monks of Mount Athos, against whom the council was directed! Manifestly, their objections to the Russian Council of 1913 are based on their own adherence to heresy. The mistake made by the Russian Council of 1913 is nothing more than a convenient excuse to avoid accepting its condemnation of the very real heresy which they themselves espouse.<br />
<br />
May we the Orthodox avoid espousing any heresy, especially the pantheistic nightmare of the Nameworshippers, but rather follow piously in the footsteps of St. Gregory Palamas and the Russian Fathers who condemned and banned from the Church every blasphemy against the sweet name of our Savior Christ!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="0.1_footnote1"></a><sup>1</sup> See, for example, 1.12 in St. John of Damascus’s Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, a work that was very popular in pre-revolutionary Russia.Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-42420806070794844362013-01-02T23:07:00.002-05:002013-05-28T10:25:33.130-04:00On the Economist articles<br />
Several weeks ago, a British news magazine, <strong>The Economist</strong>, published two articles sympathetic to name-worshipping, and soon afterward, the links were being triumphantly circulated by members of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America.<br />
<br />
Since the articles were not signed, it is hard to know what background the author has in Orthodox theology and history, and what makes him or her qualified to render an opinion on the thorny issue of name-worshipping.<br />
<br />
Still, one can imagine that if Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston published an article about world economics in the True Vine, not many people would take him seriously. So why should Orthodox Christians pay serious attention to an article about a theological dispute written by a secular writer and published in a secular publication?<br />
<br />
They shouldn't.<br />
<br />
Instead, they should be asking their friends in HOCNA some questions.<br />
<br />
How did the anonymous author come to be writing about name-worshipping? Could he or she be connected to HOCNA's Bishop Gregory of Brookline, who went to university in England?<br />
<br />
Why is it that the only living people named in the article are supporters of name-worshipping? Why did the author not seek out critics of name-worshipping and present a balanced picture of the Orthodox view of the situation? After all, only two so-called Orthodox groups in the world recognize name-worshipping as a legitimate teaching: HOCNA and the Russian and Ukrainian group affiliated with the so-called Bishops Gregory Lourie and Job Konovaliuk. The rest of the Orthodox world regards these tiny groups as heretical sects.<br />
<br />
The main article, "<a href="http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568601-monks-who-were-suppressed-tsars-navy-century-ago-are-still-regarded-subversive/print">In the name of the Name</a>," published Dec. 22, 2012, is written from a secular perspective. Take this line from the fourth paragraph: "But it is Athos's history, as well as its spiritual importance, that attracts visitors: these calm waters have seen some strange disturbances." In other words, tourists are cruising the waters off of Mt. Athos not because the mountain has been a spiritual center for many hundreds of years, but because they are intrigued by name-worshipping and other controversies that have plagued the Holy Mountain. Really?!!<br />
<br />
The author goes on to describe the Russian presence on Mt. Athos in the early twentieth century: "What the Russians lacked in political power, they made up for in numbers and spiritual passion, exemplified by Ilarion's book. ...In a tender, cautious tone, the book argues that just as 'in God's name, God himself is present,' the name of Jesus Christ, when recited prayerfully, radiates sanctity; it is more, infinitely more, than a set of letters." This is a series of arguments, not facts. Argument one, that the Russians monastics on Athos were full of spiritual passion. This assertion is just thrown out authoritatively, with no supporting evidence. Two, that Fr. Ilarion's book, "In the Mountains of the Caucausus," exemplified this passion. Again, no supporting evidence. Three, that the book (which the author gives the impression of having read cover to cover) is tender and cautious, a sympathetic description to be sure. One might be forgiven for suspecting it came straight from a champion of name-worshipping, such as Bishop Gregory of Brookline.<br />
<br />
The author characterizes Fr. Ilarion as having hit on a fundamental dilemma of monotheism: are words, images or phenomena pertaining to God an aspect of the Creator or a part of creation. Here again the author seems to draw his argument from a champion of name-worshipping. The author describes how the Russian community on Mt. Athos was polarized by Fr. Ilarion's book, and how its supporters felt victimized by its critics. The author is not interested, however, in how the monks who opposed name-worshipping felt about the heretical movement that was taking hold of their monastery.<br />
<br />
The chief proponent of name-worshipping, Fr. Anthony Bulatovich, is presented in a similarly one-sided manner. The author relates that Bulatovich sat down to write a critique of name-worshipping and felt possessed by an emptiness, coldness and darkness. Bulatovich interpreted this as God's grace withdrawing from him because he opposed the truth of the name-worshipping, so he wrote a treatise defending it instead. Anyone with any knowledge of Orthodox teaching would question Bulatovich's conclusion. Emptiness, coldness and darkness suggest the presence of demons. Why not raise the more spiritually plausible argument that Bulatovich was led astray by these demons and his reliance on his own intellect, and fell into heresy?<br />
<br />
Likewise, when the author asserts, "Bulatovich could still use his fists as well as his pen," and describes how Bulatovich led the forceful eviction of the anti-name-worshipping abbot from St. Andrew's Skete, he seems blind to the absolute contradiction between Bulatovich's behavior and his monastic vows.<br />
<br />
And when he asserts, "Whatever the merits of theology by water-cannon, the literature of the glorifiers often reads better than the propaganda of their foes, who caricature the glorifiers' views to make them sound like crude pagans," he not only gives the impression that he has read all the literature on both sides, but writes off the entire opposition of the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches as propaganda without so much as a supporting quote. What kind of journalism is this?<br />
<br />
In winding up his sympathy piece, the author refers to the nun Kassia as a learned nun in St. Petersburg attached to a dissident wing of the Orthodox Church. Mother Kassia is one of Lourie's closest disciples, and the "dissident wing" is his sect, isolated in the Orthodox world except for its friendship with HOCNA. The author also refers to Metropolitan Hilarion of the Moscow Patriarchate, who argues that the name-worshipping question was never resolved by the Russian Orthodox Church. Funny, he also mentions that Hilarion was trained at Oxford. A strange place for an Orthodox theologian to learn about his faith, but certainly a place whose name carries weight among secular readers.<br />
<br />
The author concludes that in all faiths, there is a tension between visionaries and prophets on the one hand (read: like Fr. Ilarion and Bulatovich) and hierarchs and administrators on the other hand (read: Metropolitan Anthony and the Russian synod), and that mysticism is a power-to-the-people movement that authorities naturally resist in order to retain their own power. It's a cynical view. From an Orthodox perspective, the opposite is likely to be true: having recognized name-worshipping as alien to Orthodox teaching, the leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church did their best to stamp out the heresy because they were answerable to God for the wellbeing of their flock.<br />
<br />
The second article, "<a href="http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568600-how-name-glorifiers-influence-rippled-through-intellectual-history-maths-and-monks">How the name-glorifier's influence rippled through intellectual history</a>," is a short sidebar to the first. It recounts how two scholars consider that the Russian mathematician Nikolai Luzin and his friend Fr. Pavel Florensky were able to make intellectual breakthroughs in the study of infinity precisely because of their name-worshipping views. The author - again, unnamed -- notes that Luzin, who was tried for treason under the Soviets but escaped execution, was rehabilitated posthumously by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2012. He concludes, "Perhaps the monks who inspired him will have a similar vindication." Is this journalism? Or wishful thinking?Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-4481526992943533912012-10-31T17:15:00.003-04:002013-05-28T10:28:08.320-04:00Chronology: Document 8<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Metropolitan Ephraim’s emailed file, “Excursus”</strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<strong>From:</strong> Holy Nativity Convent <br />
<strong>Date:</strong> September 3, 2012 11:41:00 AM EDT
<br />
<strong>To:</strong> us HNC <br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> From Metropolitan Ephraim
<br />
<br />
Excursus.pdf
LetterMetNNENG.pdf
<br />
Respected Fathers,
<br />
<br />
Evlogeite! Metropolitan Ephraim has asked that we send these letters to you all...
<br />
<br />
<strong>THE PAPER TITLED “EXCURSUS”:</strong>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>A Historical Note</strong>
</div>
<br />
It has been stated many times that the Name-glorifiers have been condemned twice, in
1913 and in 1919. What is not being mentioned, however, is that these decisions have
been contested and overruled <em>five</em> times.
<br />
<br />
1. In April 1914, eight months after the condemnation of the Name-glorifiers by the Holy
Synod [1], this decision was overturned by Holy Tsar Nicholas II:
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>From the letter of Holy Tsar-Martyr Nicholas to the Overseer of the Holy
Synod,</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Pascha, 15 of April 1914</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote>
“On this Feast of Feasts, when the hearts of the faithful strive with love to God and
to neighbour, my soul is grieved about the Athonite monastics, who have been deprived
of the joy of communing the Holy Mysteries and of the consolation of attending
the Church [services]. Let us forget the quarrel: it is not for us to judge
about the Greatest of Holies – the Name of God, and by doing so to incur the wrath
of the Lord on the Motherland; the trial must be cancelled, all monastics must be settled in different monasteries, they must receive back [following the example of metropolitan Flavian] their monastic habit and they should be allowed to celebrate.”<br />
</blockquote>
</div>
<hnconvent verizon.net="verizon.net"><hnconvent verizon.net="verizon.net">
</hnconvent></hnconvent>
2. Soon after, the Synod itself changed the required “renunciation of the error” by the Name-glorifiers, by a simple veneration of the Cross and the Gospel in order to be reestablished into the Communion of the Church.
<br />
<br />
3. The Synod also commissioned the Moscow Synodal Office to make a detailed investigation of the whole matter. The latter, after a thorough investigation of the beliefs of the accused, made the following finding:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“They (the Athonite monastics) explain, that “by calling the Name of God and the Name of Jesus - God and God Himself, they do not venerate the Name of God as His Essence, nor do they venerate the Name of God separately from God Himself, as some kind of different deity, nor do they deify the very letters and sounds or accidental thoughts about God’. This state-ment concerning the veneration of the Name of God was included in his “Confession of Faith in God and in the Name of God” on behalf of himself and of hieromonk Barachias and monk Mannasses, by hieromonk Anthony (Bulatovich)”
</blockquote>
<br />
And that:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“In this (statement) there is enough information to conclude that, there is no reason for them (monastics) to be severed from the Orthodox Church because of the teaching concerning the Names of God.”<br />
</blockquote>
And concluded:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The Moscow Synodal Office resolved … to stop the ecclesiastical trial against them.”
<br />
</blockquote>
<br />
This document was signed by Metropolitan Macarius Nevsky, a person revered for his sanctity even in his lifetime, as well as by Bishop Anastasy of Serpukhov, the future Metropolitan of ROCOR.
<br />
<br />
4. Acting upon these findings, the Holy Synod stopped the ecclesiastical trial against these fathers. They were allowed to participate in the Mysteries and those of priestly rank were allowed to serve. Many of them served as chaplains in WWI. <em>The Synod, however, handed to these fathers a tampered version of the document, which did not include the last paragraph, wherein they were still called heretics and where the chief signatory of the document, Archbishop Sergius of Finland (the future false-patriarch Sergius), had added a comment “with no permission to receive Holy Mysteries” (!). This fact was kept from the fathers for over four years.</em> The Synod had simply lied.
<br />
<br />
After the convocation of the All-Russian Church Council in 1917, there were high hopes, that the controversy would be would be conclusively resolved there. A special Commission was appointed to make a thorough theological inquiry into the Orthodox veneration of the Name of God. However, the Council had to stop its proceedings due to the turmoil of the Russian Civil War, and the issue was, yet again, left unresolved.
<br />
<br />
5. In 1919, the Synod, disregarding the findings of the Moscow Synodal Office of May 1914 and its own endorsement of the latter’s conclusions, went back to its original position of August 1913, and again condemned the Name-glorifiers. This condemnation, however, was reversed in February 1921 by the Encyclical of Patriarch Tikhon. The very same year, as a sign of reconciliation, St. Tikhon liturgized on several occasions with Archimandrite David (Mukhranov), the leading Name-glorifier and the former abbot of St. Andrew’s Skete on Mount Athos.
<br />
<br />
After the infamous Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, the Name-glorifiers became one of the founders and active members of the Catacomb Church of Russia, especially in Petrograd, where, under New Hiero-Martyr Mark of Sergeev-Posad (Novoselov), they made up the backbone of the Josephite Catacomb Church.
<br />
<br />
<br />
1 One must understand that the “Holy Synod” in the Russian Empire was instituted by Peter the Great, and was a body of 11 bishops hand-picked by the Tsar and overseen by a procurator, who was a lay person, and in some cases, not even an Orthodox Christian, but a Lutheran. Thus, the Synod in the Russian Empire was not a Council of Bishops, but rather something akin to the Department of Religious Affairs of the State. A proper Council of Bishops had not been convened in the Russian Empire for over 200 years.
Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-3571959571680893582012-10-31T16:56:00.006-04:002013-05-28T10:54:59.576-04:00Chronology: Document 7<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>The Relevant Portion of Fr. Nicholas’s Email</strong></div>
<br />
<strong>From:</strong> Father Nicholas <mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">
</mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><strong>Subject:</strong> Previous on Bp. Gregory Lourie?
</mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><strong>Date:</strong> August 27, 2012 3:27:35 PM EDT
</mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><strong>To:</strong> Bishop Demetrius </mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org">
<strong>Cc:</strong> "Fr. John Fleser" <frjohn homb.org="homb.org">, Father John Fleser <john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net">
</john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><strong>Reply-To:</strong> Father Nicholas <mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">Evlogeite!
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">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.</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">
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.
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">(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!")
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">1) In 1998, the then still <u>layman</u>, 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 <em>Dogma of Redemption</em> 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?!
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">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!)
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">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.
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">I submitted a <u>nine-page</u> 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!
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">3) The third document attached here is the response which <u>Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon instructed me </u>to make to Matushka Anastasia at that time.
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">Note what they told me to say to her:
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">a) Name-worshiping is an internal affair of the Russian Church, and we cannot get involved.</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">
b) We are unable to read most of the literature on the topic, which is in Russian, so it's beyond our competency.
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">c) On no account will we allow Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky to be disparaged.
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com">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....
</mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi><br />
<mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><bpdemetrius homb.org="homb.org"><frjohn homb.org="homb.org"><john .fleser=".fleser" verizon.net="verizon.net"><mamanikolozi yahoo.com="yahoo.com"><em>[rest of email and its attachments omitted]</em></mamanikolozi></john></frjohn></bpdemetrius></mamanikolozi>Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-32265831326470419402012-10-31T16:46:00.001-04:002013-05-28T10:34:50.878-04:00Chronology: Document 6<div style="text-align: right;">
<i>June 19/6, 2012 <br />Righteous Hilarion the New </i></div>
<br />
Dear ______ , <br />
<br />
I pray that this letter finds you in the grace and peace of our Saviour. Amen...
<br />
<br />
As for the question of the name-worshipping teaching, our Holy Synod has resolved to drop this issue, simply because we do not have enough information about it. Or rather, the information we were hearing was all contradictory. But the Holy Synod did not forbid anyone from trying to learn more about this matter. Indeed, such a prohibition would be inconceivable, and, in fact, I am still receiving and hearing much information from both those who support and oppose Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky’s side of the dispute.<br />
<br />
What I will write to you now is what I have learned so far <i>personally</i> about this issue, and you may draw your own conclusions. I want to emphasize that I do not believe I know all the facts, but I am trying to learn (please remember that I do not speak or read Russian, and so I must depend on translations).
<br />
<br />
First of all, we know that the Ecumenical Patriarchate based its decision concerning the name-worshippers on an "Opinion" written by the professors of the theological school of Halki. Then, the Russian Synod, in turn, based its decision on Constantinople’s, and added some elements of its own.
<br />
<br />
A little while ago, I wrote an article about the theological school of Halki. In a slightly abbreviated version, I am sending you a translation of that article.
<br />
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>HALKI</b>
<br />
by
<br />
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston </div>
<br />
<i>The inspiration for this article came from an essay in</i> Theodromia <i>(Jan.- March, 2012), a Greek theological periodical. In this extensive essay, the author, Rev. Theodore Zisis, a priest of the new calendar Church of Greece, deplores the anti-patristic mind-set (i.e. the Latin Captivity) of the theological schools of Greece. </i><br />
<em></em><br />
Theologically, one of the worst theological academies in the history of the Orthodox Church probably was the theological school of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Island of Halki (in Turkish: <em>Heybeli Ada</em>) in the Bosporus. Fortunately, the Turks closed the school some years ago.<br />
<br />
Its professors were trained in the Protestant and Roman Catholic schools of the West, and they absorbed many of those Western prejudices.<br />
<br />
First of all, around the turn of the twentieth century, one of Halki’s "bright lights" was the Dean of the school, Metropolitan Germanos Strenopoulos of Seleucia, later of Thyateira, who was one of the authors of the infamous Encyclical of January, 1920, addressed "To the Churches of Christ Wheresover They Might Be," which is the Encyclical that became the big impetus for World Orthodoxy’s involvement in the Ecumenical Movement. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Then there was Deacon Basil Stephanides, another "luminary", who was a contemporary of the above-mentioned Metropolitan. He had studied and taught in Germany, where he probably should have continued to study and teach. Instead, he came to teach at Halki, and there, the young Orthodox students were taught by Professor Stephanides that St. Symeon the New Theologian was a mystic who used "erotic" language in his religious poetry, and that the Saint’s writings, like those of many other such "mystics" in the Orthodox Church, (such as St. Dionysius the Areopagite), were Monophysitic (a heresy condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council!), what with all that talk about the "deification" of man.
<br />
<br />
Then there was my own professor of Old Testament, D. Zaharopoulos, also a graduate of Halki, who taught a Protestant theory that miracles or prophecies are not true, and who scoffed at and ridiculed the Church Fathers. <br />
<br />
Then there was my professor of Patrology, the priest G. Tsoumas, also a graduate of Halki, who taught us that the Hesychast Fathers (among whom was St. Gregory Palamas) were people who sat in their closets and stared at their navels (exactly the same slander that the heretics Barlaam and Acindynus uttered against those saintly fathers in the 14th century).<br />
<br />
In other words, where the Saints saw and experienced God’s deifying and uncreated grace, these professors from Halki jeered and saw only heresy and pantheism.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Thank you, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. <br />
<br />
I almost forgot the plastic spoons. This same Patrology professor also believed and taught that the Church should use disposable (where?) plastic spoons when giving people Holy Communion, "because of the germs." <br />
<br />
I’ll tell you also about Archbishop Iakovos of the new calendar Greek Archdiocese here in America (another graduate of Halki) who taught that we Christians should get rid of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I could go on, but enough is enough.<br />
<br />
In the middle of the 19th century, when the school of Halki first opened its doors, Cosmas Flamiatos, a popular and saintly lay preacher in the Peloponessus, prophesied that, "I foresee that out of this school [i.e., Halki] will proceed batches and batches [<i>fournión, fournión</i>] of bishops, like muffins out of a bakery, that will one day gather together in an assembly to dissolve Orthodox Christianity."
<br />
<br />
Well, my beloved Orthodox Christians, do we not see Flamiatos’ prophecy coming true right before our eyes?</blockquote>
<br />
You should be aware that the first two professors mentioned in that article were co-authors (together with some two or three other professors, also educated in Germany) of the "Opinion" on the name-worshippers. <br />
<br />
Let us turn now to the Russian Holy Synod and their decision. <br />
<br />
One of the key points the Russian Synod resolution rests on is the theology of St. Gregory Palamas. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Saint is quoted in the 1913 Epistle of the Russian Synod, by Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, and by Professor S. Troitsky, in order to refute the teaching of the name-worshippers. <br />
<br />
The only problem here is that St. Gregory is misquoted by all three! <br />
<br />
Here, for example, in parallel columns<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span> is what the Russian Holy Synod claims that St. Gregory says and what St. Gregory Palamas actually teaches: <span style="color: blue;">[Ed: columns not reproduced here for technical reasons; contrasting statements are presented one after another]</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God</strong></div>
<strong></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
The Hierarch [St. Gregory Palamas] <strong>nowhere calls [God’s] energies ‘God,’</strong> but teaches that one should call it ‘Divinity’ (not <em>theos</em>, but <em>theotes</em>)</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Epistle of the Russian Synod, 1913</em></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<br />
<strong>Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God</strong></div>
<strong></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
Every [divine] power or energy is<strong> God Himself</strong>.</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br />
<em>Letter to John Gabra</em></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God</strong></div>
<br />
<br />
Saint Gregory [Palamas]...requires that one call the energy of God <strong>not God</strong>, but rather divine, and to refer to it not as God, but as "divine" or "Divinity" (<em>theotis</em>, and not<em> theos</em>). <br />
<br />
The energy and will of the Divinity have divineness (although <strong>without being God</strong>). <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky,</em></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>On the New False Teaching, the Deifying Name, and the "Apology" of Antony Bulatovich</em> </div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God</strong> </div>
<br />
Since <strong>God Himself is the Grace</strong>, which we receive during the divine Baptism, and the Power in which, according to the Saviour’s promise, the divine Apostles were clothed, and, after them, all who lived according to the Gospel of grace, then how can you, Acyndinus, claim that it [grace] is created...? <br />
<br />
Since that which the Saints have received, the same by which they are deified, is nothing other than <strong>God Himself</strong>, how is it, then, that according to you this grace is created? <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Against Acyndinus, III, 8.</em> </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God </strong></div>
<br />
The Palamites taught that the Energies of God are Divinity, but <strong>not God</strong>. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Professor S. Troitsky,</em><br />
<em>Turmoil on Athos: Holy Orthodoxy and the Name-worshipping Heresy</em> </div>
<br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God</strong> </div>
<br />
When we speak of one Godhead, we speak of <strong>everything that is God</strong>, namely, <strong>both essence and energy</strong>. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Topics of Natural and Theological Science, 126.</em> </div>
<br />
<br />
Since God is <strong>wholly present</strong> in each Divine Energy, He is named through each one of them. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Triads in Defence of the Hesychasts, III, 2, 7.</em></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Had someone given misinformation to the Russian Holy Synod about St. Gregory’s writings? Was this an honest mistake, a serious oversight, or a blatant falsehood on somebody’s part? I honestly don’t know. But it was a very serious error. In fact, the Synod’s statement was claiming that St. Gregory Palamas is saying one thing, when in fact he says just the opposite on the main point of the entire controversy. </div>
<br />
This is the first important factor that must be taken into account. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
The second is an important Encyclical written by the holy Patriarch Tikhon in February 1921. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
I am including the text of the Encyclical of this holy hieromartyr of the Church because it represents, on the one hand, a reconciliation with the name-worshippers that took place (under certain stipulations), and, on the other, it points to a future final resolution regarding Father A. Bulatovich and the false teachings ascribed to him. Although the Encyclical mentions his false teachings, it does not tell us anything specific. Did Father Anthony Bulatovich actually believe and teach the false teachings that were ascribed to him, or was it a judgment based on another misunderstanding? [1] Presently, I don’t know. Meanwhile, here is St. Tikhon’s Encyclical: </div>
<blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Nativity Greeting of Patriarch Tikhon to the Diocesan Hierarchs</strong> </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
During these lofty days, when the Church celebrates the Nativity of the God-man, Who brought upon earth the peace and goodwill of our Heavenly Father, I deem it proper to remind you, in brief, concerning the Athonite name-glorifiers and to offer you some guidance on how to treat these monastics. From their case it can be seen that in its Resolution 3479, of April 22-25, 1914, the Holy Synod condescended to the spiritual mood and the disposition of mind of those Athonite monks who were not well versed in theology as expressed in books, nor very knowledgeable concerning formal proceedings, allowed the previously required signed repudiation by the name-worshippers of their false teaching to be replaced with a written testimony (by a sworn promise), while kissing the Holy Cross and the Gospel, of their Orthodox Faith, their exact following of the Orthodox Church, and of their obedience to the God-established hierarchy, believing according to the teaching of the Holy Church, adding nothing and subtracting nothing on their own, in particular as pertains to the veneration of the Name of God, not to believe that His Name is God’s essence, not to separate it [the Name] from God, or consider it another deity, and not to deify letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God, and such who believe in this manner and who manifest their submission to the ecclesiastical authorities, the Holy Synod decided to receive into the Church, while those of priestly rank it permitted to perform services. However, while manifesting its condescension, the Synod did not alter its previous judgment regarding the very error contained in the writings of An-thony Bulatovich and his followers, which it decided to refer to the consideration of the Holy Pan-Russian Local Council, from which depends the resolution of this case in its essence. </div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
February 19, 1921</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
Protocol #3244</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now, it seems to me that if anybody (including Father Anthony Bulatovich) is guilty of: </div>
<blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
1. Believing that God’s Name is God’s essence, </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
2. Separating God’s Name from God, </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
3. Considering God’s Name to be another deity, </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
4. Deifying letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God, </div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
as the holy Patriarch’s Encyclical above says regarding the alleged heresies of the name-worshippers, then he is certainly guilty of heresy. If he does not actually advocate such teachings, then it only seems fair to say that he is not guilty of heresy. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Why is this "Encyclical of Reconciliation" and its four stipulations not mentioned by those who cite earlier resolutions, especially since it also requires a future final resolution about Father Anthony Bulatovich? </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
If the Encyclical’s four stipulations are met, that resolves the problem, does it not? And further, it seems to me, we must not forget the Russian Synod’s own mistakes when it misquoted St. Gregory Palamas. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
But now, I trust you understand why our Holy Synod wished not to address this matter. We simply did not know enough about all this. Furthermore, in addition to our usual pastoral duties, it takes a great deal of time to find all these patristic texts, translate them and to check all those sources. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
I thank you for your patience. May God bless you and your family. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
In Christ,</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
✠Ephraim, metropolitan </div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
[1] Father Anthony Bulatovich himself asked that he be judged on the basis of his written “Confession of Faith”.</div>
<br />
<br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-78225316197016936642012-10-26T12:09:00.002-04:002013-05-28T10:37:42.800-04:00Dear Anastasia, On Your Letter from Fr. MarkDear Anastasia,
<br />
<br />
Since Fr. Mark’s letter to you has been used to defend the Holy Orthodox Church in North America against charges of heresy, I think it is fair to point out that he is mistaken.
<br />
<br />
Fr. Mark answered you sincerely, but his answer has a flaw which he himself does not recognize. All of his evidence and reasoning is an echo of what his bishops have said publicly. Clearly, he trusts his bishops and believes that they must have the correct answer. This is where he is mistaken. He received disinformation from his bishops, and he is naively passing that disinformation along to you.
<br />
<br />
The three bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America wrote in their recent statement, “Divergent Teachings” that Orthodox Christians believe “God’s Name is not His Essence, but rather is the revealed truth about Himself, that is, His Uncreated Energy, His Uncreated Grace, His Providence, His Glory.”
<br />
<br />
In fact, this is not what Orthodox Christians believe. Remember, as Orthodox Christians we believe what the Church has taught always and everywhere. Common sense alone should tell you that if this were a universally held belief about the Name of God, articulated by St. Gregory Palamas, it would not have languished misunderstood and forgotten until the early 1900s, when a couple of renegade Russian monks rediscovered it and brought it to the attention of the Orthodox Christian world through insurrections in the Russian monasteries on Mt. Athos. Right? Now let's look at the disinformation.<br />
<br />
Fr. Mark writes:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In my first letter to you, I hoped to illustrate that there is an abundance of passages from the Scriptures and the Fathers that talk about the glory and power of the Name of God. It is interesting to me that so many ignore this and, instead, zero-in on the decisions of a local "synod" in Russia. Why?
Why do they ignore the Holy Scriptures which speak of God's Name? Why do they ignore the many instances in the Liturgy and services of the Church which encourage us to glorify God's Name? Why is the Russian "synod" of 1913 so important?
</blockquote>
Part of the problem in debunking the name-worshipping doctrine is that its promoters do not clearly define what they mean by the “Name of God” and do not take into account that the Holy Scriptures use this phrase differently.
<br />
<br />
Very often in the Psalms, for instance, “the Name of God” refers to God Himself, and not to any particular name for Him. By analogy, think of a chase scene in a western movie, when the sheriff shouts, “Stop in the name of the law!” Who would imagine that the sheriff is referring to a particular name, or even to the word “law?” No, his words actually mean, “Stop because the law (in the person of me) orders you to do so.” Likewise, when we read, “Praise the name of the Lord, for exalted is the name of Him alone,” isn’t it clear that it is actually not a name that is praised, but the Lord Himself?<br />
<br />
Orthodox Christians believe that God’s name is holy, because He Who is named by the name is supremely holy. According to St Basil the Great, “The name of God is said to be holy, not because it contains in it any special virtue, but because in whatsoever way we contemplate God, we see Him pure and Holy.” (On Psalm 32) Icons of our Saviour are also considered to be holy, not because the wood and paint are intrinsically holy, but because He Who is depicted is holy. <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-fine-line.html">As Fr. Barsanuphius has pointed out</a>, the Name of God is an icon in a word.<br />
<br />
Orthodox Christians do not believe that God’s name is God Himself, either in His Essence or in His Energies. Name-worshippers do. The reason the decisions of the Russian Synod of 1913 are so important, along with the decisions of the Sacred Community of Mt. Athos, and of Patriarchs Joachim and Germanus of Constantinople, is because they were the official statements of the Orthodox Church condemning the heresy of name-worshipping. <br />
<br />
Fr. Mark writes further:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
St Anthony Khrapovitsky said of these Russian "synods" in 1912: Our Church [in Russia] is governed by a layman, or, to say it officially, by a collegial institution never seen by the Church of Christ before... The [Russian] Church is deprived of its lawful head and is given over for enslavement to lay officials, which hide behind an assembly of six or seven hierarchs who are changed every half a year, and two presbyters. Who is not aware that such an institution is uncanonical? That it was not approved at its very inception by two Patriarchs; and even if it had been approved by all four, this would only show the unlawful deed of the Patriarchs and not the canonicity of [Russian] synodal rule, because no Patriarch can establish and authorize an institution which is unknown to Holy Orthodoxy and which was invented only to bring weakness and decay..." <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
(Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, Voice of the Church, Jan 1912).</div>
</blockquote>
Metropolitan Anthony, of blessed memory (he has not been glorified as a saint), rightly complained that Tsar Peter “the Great” was wrong to replace the patriarchal system of church governance with a synodal one, in which the synod was appointed and supervised by government officials. However, while this quote is intended to suggest that Metropolitan Anthony did not support the work of the Russian synod, the opposite is true. Metropolitan Anthony not only accepted the work of the synod, but participated in the synod for five years. He was an active member at the time he wrote the above-quoted article and when he participated in the condemnation of the name-worshipping heresy. Like all the saints, tsars, bishops, monastics, clergy and laity of the Russian Church for the 200 years the synodal system was in force, Metropolitan Anthony abided by its decisions and considered them binding on the Church in Russia.<br />
<br />
Fr. Mark continues,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The decisions of the 1913 synod condemning Name-worship was reversed several times in the ensuing years. The synod itself back-peddled its own decision soon after by only requiring the "heretics" to venerate the Cross and Holy Gospel rather than renounce their "error."</blockquote>
This is factually incorrect. <br />
<br />
It is useful here to note that the recent revival of name-worshipping began with Gregory Lourie, who was at the time a priest in the synod of the late Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal. The controversy over name-worshipping in HOCNA was touched off after Lourie was communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery last fall, and then-Hieromonk Gregory vigorously defended both Lourie and name-worshipping. The arguments put forth by the HOCNA bishops now are arguments which Lourie used to defend name-worshipping to the bishops of the Suzdal synod. (They did not buy his arguments and defrocked him. He later was consecrated a bishop by other renegades.)<br />
<br />
Vladimir Moss, who was Lourie's chief opponent at the time, has written <a href="http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/ON%20THE%20NAME%20OF%20GOD%205X8.htm">an extensive review</a> of name-worshipping. In an appendix, he writes:
<br />
<blockquote>
On October 5/18, 2002 Hieromonk Gregory (Lourié) supposedly expressed “repentance” for his name-worshipping views before the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church. In fact, however, Lourié’s “repentance” read more like a self-justification than a statement of repentance. He expressed “regret”, not about his belief in the Bulatovich’s heresy, but only about the fact that his public statements on the subject had “become a reason for discord within our Church” – in other words, that he had been indiscreet in his public proclamation of the heresy. There was no mention of Bulatovich, no condemnation of any specific heresy, and no admittance that he had ever confessed any heresy at any time. Instead he actually denied that he confessed heresy: “I hold to the teaching of the Holy Fathers and confess no heresy about the names of God, which would have been condemned by previous Fathers and Councils”. He could say this with sincerity (and cunning) because he considers that the teaching of Bulatovich is “the teaching of the Holy Fathers” and is in fact not a heresy. Moreover, no large Council has yet condemned Bulatovich’s teaching, only several Synodal decisions of both the Russian and the Greek Churches. So in saying that no Council has condemned the teaching, he is not lying according to the letter of the law. But there is a direct lie in is his assertion that no previous Fathers ever condemned that teaching. For several Fathers did, including Patriarch Tikhon, Hieromartyr Vladimir of Kiev, Hieromartyr Agathangel of Yaroslavl, Hieromartyr Basil of Priluki, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, etc. And he lies again when he says: “I also hold to the resolutions of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918, which were confirmed by two resolutions of the Synod of our Church, in accordance with which the decision on the essence of the question of name-worshipping belongs exclusively within the competence of a Local Council of the Church of Russia”. For there were in fact no resolutions of the 1917-18 Council on name-worshipping, as Lourié (who has gone on record as calling the 1917-18 Council “a tragic-comic story, which exerted a minimal, or negative rather than positive, influence on the following life of the Church…”!) well knows.
<br />
<br />
A few weeks later, ... Fr. Gregory wrote a further “report”, dated November 11, 2002, in which he states that he “submits to Church authority and rejects the errors listed by the holy patriarch Tikhon” in a Nativity Epistle written on February 19, 1921.
<br />
<br />
...Let us examine what the patriarch supposedly said in this previously completely unknown Nativity epistle: “In these high days, when the Church is celebrating the Nativity of the God-Man, Who brought the peace and goodwill of God the Father to earth, I consider it appropriate to remind you in brief of the Athonite imyaslavtsi (name-glorifiers) and give you certain instructions on how to treat these monks. It can be seen, that the Holy Synod in its definition of April 22-25 1914, number 3479, was indulgent to the spiritual mood and to the way of thinking of the Athonite monks, who have a poor knowledge of theology as expounded in books and of the forms of paper work, and allowed them, instead of the previously required signing by the imyabozhniki (name-worshippers) of a denial of their false teaching, to substitute for this a written testimony (a promise on oath) of their Orthodox faith, with the kissing of the Holy Cross and the Gospel. They promised exactly to follow the Orthodox Church and obey the God-established hierarchy, believing exactly as the Holy Church teaches, neither adding anything from themselves, nor taking anything away. In particular in regard to the glorification of the name of God, they promised not to consider His name the essence of God, nor to separate it from God, not to venerate it as a separate Deity, nor to worship the letters and sounds and occasional thoughts about God. The Holy Synod decided to admit into Church those who believed in this way and declared their willingness to obey the Church authorities, and to allow their priests to serve. But, in rendering its indulgence, the Holy Synod did not change its former opinion of the very error contained in the writings of Anthony Bulatovich and his followers, whom the Synod decided to pass over for the consideration of the All-Russian Holy Council, upon which depends the resolution of the whole issue in essence”.
<br />
<br />
Now the teaching of Bulatovich can be summarized in two propositions: that the names of God are energies of God, and that the name of Jesus is Jesus Himself. Neither of these teachings is in the list of errors listed by the patriarch. “To consider His name the essence of God” was not one of Bulatovich’s teachings (although it may have been that of some of his more ignorant followers). For, as St. Gregory Palamas teaches, the essence of God is not to be identified with the energies of God. “To venerate it as a separate Deity” is, again, not one of Bulatovich’s teachings. “To worship the letters and sounds” is, again, not one of Bulatovich’s teachings. “To worship… occasional thoughts about God” is one of Bulatovich’s teachings, and the only one, therefore, which Lourie may be said to have renounced (although it is doubtful, judging from his dialogue with Vladimir Moss on the subject, that he would accept such a phrase as representing Bulatovich’s real view). In any case, the most important point is that the two propositions that summarise Bulatovich’s main views are not in this list, nor can they be reinterpreted to come within this list.
<br />
<br />
So why was the patriarch’s characterization of Bulatovich’s errors inaccurate? In order to answer this question, we need to investigate a little further. Let us begin by posing the question: In what other document of the time can we find this same list?
<br />
<br />
The answer is: in the judgement issued by the Moscow Diocesan Court with regard to the name-worshippers on May 8, 1914: “… The Synodal Office has found that in the confessions of faith in God and in the Name of God coming from the named monks, in the words, ‘I repeat that in naming the Name of God and the Name of Jesus as God and God Himself, I reject both the veneration of the Name of God as His Essence, and the veneration of the Name of God separately from God Himself as some kind of special Divinity, as well as any deification of the very letters and sounds and any chance thoughts about God’ – there is contained information allowing us to conclude that in them there is no basis for leaving the Orthodox Church for the sake of the teaching on the Names of God.’ (decree № 1443)”. The coincidence of wording is striking. It is obvious that the list of errors referred to by the patriarch in the document quoted by Lourié is in fact the list drawn up, not by the Holy Synod in its Resolution № 3479 of April 22-25, 1914, which does not contain a list of errors[130], but by the Moscow Diocesan Court on May 8, 1914.
<br />
<br />
However, it is essential to realise that the decision of the Moscow Diocesan Court of May 8, 1914 was overturned by the Holy Synod in its decree № 4136 of May 10-24, 1914, which set aside decree № 1443 of the Moscow Synodal Office, and confirmed the sentences against the name-worshippers. <strong>This confirmation of the sentences against the name-worshippers was again confirmed by decree № 2670 of March 10, 1916. And yet again by Patriarch Tikhon and his Synod on October 8/21, 1918. And yet again by the Nativity Epistle of 1921.</strong>
<br />
<br />
Lourié tries to get round this by claiming that there was yet another decree of the Holy Synod that was supposedly passed in 1921, just before the patriarch’s Nativity epistle, and which supposedly formed the basis for the patriarch’s Nativity epistle. “Unfortunately,” Lourié writes, “the true text of the decree of 1921 on removing all the bans from those name-worshippers who remained alive has not reached us”. Unfortunate indeed! And devastatingly destructive for his whole case. For since this mysterious decree “has not reached us”, I think we are fully entitled to conclude that it does not exist. After all, if it did exist, why should the patriarch not refer to it?
</blockquote>
So you see, Anastasia, that the Russian Synod was in fact consistent in its treatment of the name-worshippers: it issued decrees against them in 1913, 1914 and 1916. I hope you also see that Lourie and his disciples among the HOCNA bishops use the four points from Patriarch Tikhon's Nativity epistle and the decision of the Moscow Synodal Office as red herrings to make it seem as though the Russian Church authorities sympathized with the name-worshippers and opposed the synod.<br />
<br />
Regarding the Russian Synod, Fr. Mark concludes:<br />
<blockquote>
So, we come, now, to what I wrote to you in my last email. By the definition of the 1913 "synod", a Name-worshiper is someone who deifies the letters and sounds of God's name; believes that God's Name is His Essence; and that the name is a separate deity. The Athonite monks did not believe this. These heretical ideas were attributed to them by the synod of 1913. When investigations were actually done and the monks allowed to speak for themselves, they were found to the fully Orthodox. A final decision of the subject of Name-worship was expected at a pan-Russian synod which never occurred due to the revolution. </blockquote>
This paragraph is full of errors and misconceptions. First, the Russian Synod was not of 1913, its investigation and condemnation of name-worshipping were issued that year. The Athonite monks were not found to be fully Orthodox. Anthony Bulatovich, the chief proponent of name-worshipping, died a violent death outside the Church. The pan-Russian council did occur, but did not take up the issue of name-worshipping.<br />
<br />
The definition that Fr. Mark attributes to the Russian synod is in fact taken from the one the HOCNA bishops use to define a name-worshipper, including deifying letters and sounds, identifying God's Name with His Essence, or considering God's Name to be a separate deity. These were beliefs which the Moscow Synodal office found the name-worshippers did not hold and which Patriarch Tikhon listed as points for them to specifically renounce in returning to communion with the Orthodox Church. But they never constituted a definition of name-worshipping for anyone until the HOCNA hierarchs determined to use them in that way. In essence, in their statement "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA bishops have redefined name-worshipping to make it seem as though they have condemned it, when in fact they have also redefined Orthodox belief to include tenets of name-worshipping. It's propaganda, pure and simple.<br />
<br />
Fr. Mark then writes,<br />
<blockquote>
So, we can all condemn Name worshipers, because they do not exist (as I said, there may be someone, somewhere, but who knows?). St Philaret can condemn them as have our holy Hierarchs.</blockquote>
By the definition of the HOCNA hierarchs, indeed there may be no name-worshippers in the world. But by the traditional definition -- one who believes the name of God is God Himself -- the HOCNA bishops have made clear, in stating that the Name of God is an Energy of God and therefore God Himself, that they <strong><em>are</em></strong> name-worshippers. They are joined in their heretical beliefs by Lourie and his followers, and by "Bishop" Job, our former priest in the Ukraine who was consecrated a bishop by Lourie last summer, and his followers.<br />
<br />
The HOCNA bishops wrote in "Divergent Teachings:"<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All should understand that, by these pronouncements, we hierarchs are not Nameworshippers
as defined in this statement, and that we believe, confess and espouse the
Orthodox Christian belief, also defined in this statement.</blockquote>
Again, remembering that Orthodoxy is what the Church has taught always and everywhere, the fact that the HOCNA bishops needed to write their own definition of Orthodox belief should make you deeply suspicious. The fact that their definition of Orthodoxy includes the traditional definition of name-worshipping should be conclusive proof that they have fallen into error, and sadly have drawn Fr. Mark into error as well.<br />
<br />
Fr. Mark concludes,<br />
<blockquote>
Anastasia, the Name of God is a holy mystery. We cannot understand it. It is a Divine Energy which is a revelation of God (Like Grace). To say that the God's Energies are not divine is to fall under the anathemas of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy and it runs contrary to Holy Tradition.</blockquote>
This is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church, it is the teaching of the name-worshipping heretics of the early twentieth century and of their modern followers, Lourie and the HOCNA bishops.<br />
<br />
Hear St. Gregory of Nyssa: ...[N]ames were invented to denote the Supreme Being, not for His sake, but for our own.” (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book) And again, “We, following the suggestions of Scriptures, have learned that the nature [of
God] is un-nameable and unspeakable, and we say that every term, either invented by the
custom of men, or handed down to us by the Scriptures, is indeed explanatory of our
conceptions of the Divine Nature, but does not include the significance of that Nature
itself.” (To Ablabius)<br />
<br />
Hear St. Gregory the Theologian: <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">“The divinity is un-nameable." (Fourth Theological Oration)</span></span><br />
<br />
Hear St. Isaac the Syrian: <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">“There was a time when God had no name, and there will be a time when he will have no name.” (</span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">Unpublished Chapters on Knowledge</span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><br />
The Holy Fathers of the Church have spoken, and their teaching is not the teaching of the HOCNA bishops. God's Name is not His Energy.<br />
<br />
As a tree can be known by its fruit, so too can the heresy be detected by its effect. In the early twentieth century, the name-worshippers brought violence to Mt. Athos. Now, a century later, the revival of name-worshipping has brought devastation to HOCNA. Our former spiritual community has been divided. Holy Transfiguration Monastery has been divided. Parishes are being torn apart. As clergy and laity who recognize this heresy depart, the circle of HOCNA has grown even smaller and tighter. In embracing their own definition of Orthodoxy and rejecting all those who accept the decrees on name-worshipping, the HOCNA bishops also have more surely than ever isolated themselves from other old calendar true Orthodox Christians. <br />
<br />
Anastasia, our beloved HOCNA has ceased to be a true Orthodox Church and has devolved into a heretical sect. May our Lord enlighten and save you and Fr. Mark.</span>Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-59054562400310727272012-10-16T17:51:00.002-04:002013-05-28T10:48:42.007-04:00The HOCNA Statements of October 8 and 10<em><span style="font-size: x-small;">Revised 10/20/12.</span></em><br />
<br />
On October 8, Bishop Gregory of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) issued a statement on behalf of the synod criticizing Bishop Demetrius for the manner in which he left the synod.<br />
<br />
On October 10, the three bishops of HOCNA issued a statement contending that they are not name-worshippers but asserting that all Orthodox Christians must accept their beliefs concerning the name of God. They also issued a statement finding fault with the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens for accepting refugees from HOCNA.<br />
<br />
These documents can only be understood in context. <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-of-name-worshipping-in-hocna.html">The New England clergy of HOCNA learned on August 22 and August 25, 2012, that Fr. Panteleimon, the founder and elder of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, the spiritual center of HOCNA, had abused monks in his care over a long period of time.</a> They learned that the leaders of the monastery and the diocese, Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, knew this for many years, and decided to deny and conceal it.<br />
<br />
These revelations were important not because they exposed Fr. Panteleimon's sins, but because the commitment by Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, spiritual leaders of HOCNA, to deny and hide his sins took priority over the spiritual wellbeing of the Church. Together with Fr. Panteleimon, they made decisions which shaped HOCNA and led to its current isolation and disintegration. These revelations also explain why they lost their spiritual vision, and led their flock into crisis after crisis in recent years.<br />
<br />
The actions in the following list have a common thread -- putting the need to protect Fr. Panteleimon from investigation and potential punishment ahead of the spiritual needs of the synod. In essence, this is a new form of Sergianism. Where Metropolitan Sergius acquiesced to identify the joys and sorrows of the Russian Orthodox Church with the joys and sorrows of the Soviet state, the leaders of HOCNA identified the good of the monastery and parishes, and later the synod, with the good of Fr. Panteleimon.<br />
<br />
<h3 align="center">
The New Sergianism Takes Shape</h3>
<ul>
<li>Holy Transfiguration Monastery and the parishes which later formed HOCNA left the Russian Church Abroad in 1986, saying that the ROCOR was turning a blind eye to ecumenist practices of some bishops and that the ROCOR was headed for union with the Moscow Patriarchate. The monastery and the parishes left ROCOR separately. The parishes which left ROCOR acted only on their concerns regarding matters of faith, which over time were proven correct.<br />
<br />
However, it seems clear now that the ROCOR rightly accused the leaders of the monastery of leaving its jurisdiction when they did (some weeks before the parishes) to escape an investigation on charges of immorality and impending sanctions against Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac. <br /><br />
The parish clergy and laity did not believe the accusations against Fr. Panteleimon; they considered the investigation to be an attack by ROCOR in retaliation for the monastery's criticisms of ROCOR bishops. They believed ROCOR bishops were trying to silence the monastery so they could continue their ecumenistic practices without interference.<br />
<br />
The same could be said of most of the monks at Holy Transfiguration Monastery. They had pushed for the anathema against ecumenism which was proclaimed by the ROCOR in 1983, and they did not believe in the allegations against Fr. Panteleimon. They followed their leaders based on their stance on ecumenism.
Only the monastery leaders had hidden motives.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul>
<li>After the monastery and parishes had joined the synod of Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, Hieromonk Ephraim was chosen to be suffragan Bishop (later Metropolitan) of Boston. He has admitted that he chose not to investigate the allegations against Fr. Panteleimon. In retrospect, it seems clear his commitment to protect Fr. Panteleimon was essential to his being chosen as bishop.</li>
<br /><br />
<li>Hieromonk Makarios (Katre) was chosen to be suffragan Bishop (later Metropolitan) of Toronto, and consecrated in 1991. The perpetual contrast between his sharp, patristic words and his unwillingness to stand up for those words in the face of opposition from Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon strongly suggests that he also was chosen for his unswerving allegiance to the leaders of Holy Transfiguration Monastery.</li>
<br /><br />
<li>Archbishop Auxentius reposed in 1994, and gradually his synod fell apart, until only the HOCNA members were left. While they continued to maintain the synod of Archbishop Auxentius with Metropolitan Makarios as a locum tenens, they voted in 2001 to establish the Holy Orthodox Church in North America as an eparchial synod of the Church of Greece. Until then, HOCNA had existed only as a corporation, a legal vehicle for the parishes and monasteries in America. The eparchial synod was supposed to serve as a forum for administering local affairs. However, the eparchial synod quickly eclipsed the Church of Greece. Its president, Metropolitan Ephraim, gained significant control over the work of the synod. He effectively blocked any move that might threaten his ability to protect Fr. Panteleimon.</li>
<br /><br />
<li>Metropolitan Moses was removed from the see of Seattle in 2007 without canonical due process, allegedly because his divisive leadership was on the verge of destroying the cathedral parish of St. Nectarios. In fact, the brouhaha erupted after his brother, formerly a monk at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, secretly filed a complaint against Fr. Panteleimon with the Holy Synod. As president of the HOCNA synod, Metropolitan Ephraim presided over the removal of Metropolitan Moses from his see and disposed of the complaint against Fr. Panteleimon.</li>
<br /><br />
<li>Shortly after the October 2010 decision of the HOCNA synod to pursue closer relations with the synod of the new Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens (GOC), Metropolitan Ephraim began a solo campaign to reverse that decision, describing HOCNA as orphaned by the repose of Archbishop Auxentios, "newborn," yet in no need of relations with any other bishops, particularly none from outside America. In fact, pursuing closer relations and possible unity with the GOC opened the possibility that Greek bishops might gain authority in HOCNA and might use that authority to investigate and take measures against Fr. Panteleimon.</li>
<br /><br />
<li>Metropolitan Moses and Bishop Sergios, who opposed Metropolitan Ephraim's attempts to reverse the synod's decision, were persecuted by him and his allies and finally driven out of HOCNA in April of 2011. Fr. George Kochergin, dean of the east coast clergy, was also driven out for his refusal to accept Metropolitan Ephraim's position.</li>
</ul>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Effects of the New Sergianism</h3>
In 2010, this effects of this long-festering corruption began to be seen: a questionable teaching suddenly came to dominate public discussion and to wreak havoc in the Church. Metropolitan Ephraim began promoting in talks, in print and in e-mails his "Awake Sleeper" theory, the idea that Christ will give each person a chance to choose the Orthodox Christian faith, if not in this life, then after death. He made it clear this was his personal interpretation of passages from the lives of the saints, but he also would not tolerate any criticism. His campaign was aggressive and persistent. As a result of his refusal to drop it, the clergy and vast majority of the faithful of the diocese of Toronto departed from HOCNA in May of 2011.<br />
<br />
Barely a few months later, Metropolitan Ephraim was already planting the seeds for the name-worshipping controversy that has gripped HOCNA since November of 2011. He insisted that Bishop Demetrius visit "Bishop" Gregory Lourie, a schismatic bishop of questionable consecration and the main proponent of name-worshipping, on a trip to Russia in September of 2011. Metropolitan Makarios, the ruling bishop of the HOCNA parishes in Russia, objected to anyone having even a casual meeting with Lourie, yet Bishop Demetrius felt compelled to carry out the orders of his ruling bishop, Ephraim. He met with Lourie. After the meeting, he concluded that HOCNA could not have any relations with Lourie unless Lourie were regularized by another jurisdiction. Unknown to him, Lourie had already planned a trip to HOCNA parishes in Georgia. He left on this trip within a day of meeting Bishop Demetrius. On instructions from their ruling bishop, Metropolitan Ephraim, the Georgian parishes received him as a bishop and communed with him.<br />
<br />
Several weeks later, Lourie was received at Holy Transfiguration Monastery as a true Orthodox bishop and was allowed to commune during the Divine Liturgy, igniting the controversy over name-worshipping that is devastating HOCNA now. To date, Bishop Demetrius, some fifteen monks and laymen from the monastery, seven parishes with their clergy, two additional clergy, and a growing number of laity have left HOCNA for the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC).<br />
<br />
This is the context in which the three documents issued by the HOCNA hierarchs last week must be analyzed.<br />
<br />
<h3 align="center">
Letter Regarding Bishop Demetrius</h3>
<br />
In a letter from Bishop Gregory dated October 8 (n.s.), the synod complains that Bishop Demetrius didn't seem to think name-worshipping was a heresy when he asked for a friendly farewell letter or even a canonical release from the other HOCNA bishops:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In his statement of September 16, 2012, Bishop Demetrius, formerly of Carlisle, tries to convince the clergy and the faithful of HOCNA, that he departed from the Communion with his fellow bishops for matters of faith. In his own words:</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"Since my responsibility is to protect and defend the purity of our Confession of Faith, I can no longer remain a hierarch on the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Ortbodox Church in North America."</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We find it extremely difficult to take Bishop Demetrius' statement seriously, because in his correspondence with our Synod (September 11, 2012), he claimed that the reason for his departure were certain "differences", and not only did he not mention any lack of "purity of Confession of Faith" of HOCNA bishops, but in his second letter to us (September 12, 2012), he was even willing to receive a letter of release from the self-same Synod of HOCNA.</div>
</blockquote>
In other words, the synod finds it hard to believe that Bishop Demetrius would believe that name-worshipping is a heresy, yet soft-pedal his position to the bishops he was leaving. Yet in the context of the underlying motive of the leaders of HOCNA, to protect Fr. Panteleimon from investigation, it becomes clear that in choosing Bishop Demetrius to become a bishop, the deciding element was precisely that the HOCNA leaders felt they could count on him <em><strong>not</strong></em> to stand up to them. Hypocritically, they criticize him for exactly the approach they had always counted on him to take -- to not make waves, to not boldly state his position in opposition to theirs, to not become an adversary.<br />
<br />
In the last paragraph of the letter, Bishop Gregory enumerates all the factors that should have bound Bishop Demetrius to HOCNA, "the Church in which he was brought up, tonsured as a monastic, ordained as a deacon, as a priest and finally as a bishop." Then he suggests that opposition to name-worshipping was just a cover to justify leaving HOCNA. He undermines his own assertions. A bishop with such strong ties to HOCNA and with such a meek character would have to have a serious and substantive reason to leave.<br />
<br />
Finally, in a footnote, Bishop Gregory refers to an incident during Bishop Demetrius's trip to Russia and the Ukraine in the fall of 2011. A deacon whom he ordained to the priesthood allegedly asked Bishop Demetrius whether he believed name-worshipping is a heresy. The deacon allegedly only accepted ordination because Bishop Demetrius replied, "No." While the then-deacon, Fr. Martinian, may sincerely believe such a conversation took place, it is unlikely that his question was ever understood, because the two men were not fluent in any common language, and their interpreter, Fr. Yakov Tseitlin, never translated any such question. Further, had the question been posed, Bishop Demetrius knew little about name-worshipping at the time, since it had not yet been raised as a significant issue in HOCNA.<br />
<br />
The real motive behind this document seems to be to remove any doubts that might have been cast on name-worshipping by Bishop Demetrius's departure: Bishop Demetrius (allegedly) lied, therefore name-worshipping is not a heresy. The equation doesn't add up.<br />
<br />
<h3 align="center">
HOCNA Bishops on Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos</h3>
<br />
In their statement of October 10 (n.s.), the HOCNA bishops laud themselves for nearly a page for reaching out to the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC) in October of 2010, before they finally get to their complaint against the GOC:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By accepting, on four occasions, the breakaway bishops and the clergy from HOCNA, by calling us schismatics (schismatics from whom? we never belonged to the Kiousis group) and now by adding the false accusation of heresy against us, we have come to the sad conclusion that nothing has changed in that group since its uncanonical inception in 1985. The cunning tactics and arrogance that they used against the blessed Archbishop Auxentius, not only have not been abandoned, but are fully implemented even now. </blockquote>
The GOC accepted Metropolitan Moses, Bishop Sergios and the clergy and laity with them in April of 2011. It accepted Fr. George Kochergin in May of 2011, and it accepted the clergy and laity of Toronto in June of 2011. In September of 2012, the GOC received Bishop Demetrius and the parishes, clergy and laity with him. The GOC continues to receive those who are fleeing HOCNA. According to the statement of the HOCNA hierarchs, the GOC used cunning tactics and arrogance to bring this about. However, the minutes of the synod meeting in October of 2010 clearly recognize:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...this Synod is the closest Synod to us, since our Church in North America was established by the Church of Greece under the Presidency of His Beatitude, Archbishop Auxentios. The two Synods found themselves separated in 1984, but this separation had nothing to do with matters of Faith and both Synods officially have an identical ecclesiology.</blockquote>
The HOCNA hierarchs set their seal of approval on this synod, before backtracking to protect Fr. Panteleimon. This is why those who have separated themselves from HOCNA have asked to be accepted into the GOC. The GOC itself played a passive role: it did not encourage the refugees to leave HOCNA, it simply accepted them.<br />
<br />
In the remaining three paragraphs of their statement, the HOCNA hierarchs cast mud at the GOC, annul their decisions of October of 2010, and profess a desire for God to bring about unity in the Church where sinful humans are unable. They should beware what they wish! It seems God is indeed bringing about the union of the GOC and what formerly was HOCNA, against their will.<br />
<br />
<h3 align="center">
HOCNA Bishops on Name-Worshipping</h3>
<div align="center">
</div>
In their October 10 (n.s) statement titled "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs set forth their beliefs about the name of God and condemn those who do not hold those beliefs.<br />
<br />
The fact that name-worshipping was never discussed in HOCNA until Lourie communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery last fall is a clue to how sadly and deeply the HOCNA hierarchs have fallen from the truth, that they would stake their Orthodoxy and everyone else's on this issue. Virtually no one in HOCNA had heard of or cared about name-worshipping until a year ago. Suddenly it is the yardstick by which Orthodoxy is to be measured.<br />
<br />
In "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs first define four criteria for detecting a name-worshipper: <br />
<blockquote>
<strong>I. Name-worshippers believe:</strong> <br />
1) That God’s Name is his Essence. <br />
2) That God’s Name is separate from Him. <br />
3) That God’s Name is another deity. <br />
4) That created letters, sounds and random or accidental thoughts about God may be deified, or be used for occult or magical purposes</blockquote>
These four points are borrowed from <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-nativity-epistle-of-patriarch.html">St. Patriarch Tikhon's Nativity Epistle of 1921</a>. Patriarch Tikhon did not use them to define name-worshipping, but only called on his clergy to be sure that anyone who wished to repent of the name-worshipping heresy and be received back into the Orthodox Church did not hold any of these heretical beliefs. These four points do not encompass all name-worshipping beliefs, some of which the HOCNA hierarchs have snuck into their following definition:<br />
<blockquote>
<strong>II. Orthodox Christians believe:</strong> <br />
1) That God’s Name is not His Essence, but rather is the revealed truth about Himself, that is, His Uncreated Energy, His Uncreated Grace, His Providence, His Glory. In fact, His Essence is unknowable and has no name. <br />
2) That God’s Name is not separate from Him. <br />
3) That God’s Name is not another deity. <br />
4) That created letters, sounds and random or accidental thoughts about God must not be deified. Further, they believe that these letters or sounds must not be used for occult or magical purposes. </blockquote>
The astute reader will note that these are <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/analysis-of-statement-of-hocna-hierarchs.html">nearly the same four points that the HOCNA hierarchs claim to have distilled from St. Patriarch Tikhon's Navitiy Epistle of 1921</a>. Yet in adding the word "not" to each of Patriarch Tikhon's points to express Orthodox belief, they also have added considerably more to the first point. While they reject that God's Name is His Essence, they declare that it is uncreated, His Energy and His Grace. This is heretical, as the fathers of Holy Transfiguration Monastery showed <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/holy-transfiguration-monastery-on-name.html">in their examination of name-worshipping</a>. So the HOCNA hierarchs are insisting that to be Orthodox, a person must hold this heretical belief.<br />
<br />
They then cite a number of quotations from the Holy Fathers which in no way support them, and use linguistic sleight-of-hand to deduce the desired conclusion:<br />
<blockquote>
This makes matters perfectly clear, because, as Orthodox Christians, we know and believe that the only Entity that is eternal, holy, supremely-holy, and the source of sanctification by nature is God Himself! This can only mean that His Name is indeed God Himself — again, not in His Essence, but in His Grace.</blockquote>
The logic is absurd. The Holy Fathers did use the phrase "the Name of God" to refer to God, in a poetic attempt to express the inexpressible, just as the Psalms refer to "the face of God," "the voice of the Lord," the "right hand" of the Lord and other physical attributes. That does not mean that an actual name or word, however holy, is the uncreated energy and grace of God. Language is created, for it did not exist eternally. As Orthodox Christians we are taught that blessed water and oil are holy, that icons are holy, that the altar, antimension, and consecrated vessels are holy, that the relics of saints are holy, and so on. God's grace may abide in them, but they are not God. In the same way, the names that we use to refer to God are holy, but they are not God. The HOCNA hierarchs quote St. John of Kronstadt as saying,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... when you pronounce to yourself in your heart the Name of God, of the Lord, or that of the most Holy Trinity, or of the Lord of Sabaoth, or of the Lord Jesus Christ, then in that Name you have the Lord’s whole being; in it is His infinite mercy, His boundless wisdom, His inaccessible light, omnipotence, and immutability....</blockquote>
In other words, pronouncing in your heart the name of God, you bring Him to mind in the same way as you might upon seeing an icon. The word expresses God to you insofar as you can conceive of Him, but His energies and grace are not inherent in the word, they are a gift God freely bestows in responding to your prayer. <br />
<br />
In the last two sections of "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs condemn the resolutions against name-worshipping by Patriarchs Joachim III and Germanus of Constantinople and by the Holy Synod of Russia. They also try to invalidate any decisions of the Russian Synod with a quote from Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, the leading opponent of name-worshipping. Metropolitan Anthony deplores the fact that the synodal system was forced upon the Russian Orthodox Church to eliminate the competition a strong Patriarch might pose to the tsar. But Metropolitan Anthony himself participated in the Holy Synod for five years, and in the absence of a ruling patriarch, the decisions of the synod were accepted in Russia from the time of Peter the Great until the election of Patriarch Tikhon. In order to cast doubt on the validity of the Russian Synod's condemnation of name-worshipping in 1913, the HOCNA hierarchs are willing to invalidate more than 200 years of decisions by the synod, although those decisions were accepted and obeyed by the saints, hierarchs, monastics, clergy, tsars and laity of the Russian Church.<br />
<br />
The obsession of the HOCNA hierarchs with defending name-worshipping, yet insisting that they are not name-worshippers, is the latest manifestation of their loss of spiritual vision, the consequences of their new Sergianism. They continue to put the protection of one man ahead of the spiritual wellbeing of their last remaining, shrinking diocese, without seeming to consider that their course does not even benefit him spiritually. Recognizing this, HOCNA clergy and laity continue to flee to the GOC. Holy Transfiguration Monastery has been divided. Parishes are being divided, and so are families. There is only one way for HOCNA's leaders to end this tragedy: to publicly repent of their wrongdoing and heretical teachings, and to step down. Only then can their flock be united again under truly Orthodox bishops.
Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-88843930206392237242012-09-29T21:57:00.000-04:002013-05-28T10:47:54.787-04:00Chronology of Name-Worshipping in HOCNA<span style="color: blue; font-family: Verdana;"><em>Updated 11/19/12</em></span><br />
<br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;">
Chronology of Name-Worshipping in HOCNA</h1>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">as of September 14/27, 2012</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;">
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-family: Wingdings,Wingdings;"> </span></div>
<span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-family: Wingdings,Wingdings;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Universal Exaltation of the Precious Cross</span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-family: Wingdings,Wingdings;"> </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Assertions have been made that the HOCNA hierarchs were unaware of the clergy’s concerns regarding the Name-worshipping heresy until about the first or second week of September 2012. Below is a chronology of events that clearly shows that Metropolitan Ephraim and the other hierarchs have been well aware of the clergy’s and others’ concerns since at least as early as autumn 2011. </span>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The clergy and laity who have spoken out against the introduction of the Name-worshipping heresy are also accused of instigating this issue and promoting turmoil and dissension in the Church. However, as the facts below unambiguously demonstrate, the entire matter and the related turmoil have been instigated, promoted, and advanced by the supporters of the Name-worshipping doctrine. In this regard, HOCNA was peaceful until the Name-worshippers raised and pushed their teaching on the Church. </span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The same clergy and laity are further accused of acting rashly and rushing forward, not allowing the HOCNA synod ample time to work through this matter. But the historical record outlined below makes it abundantly obvious that the clergy and laity, for nigh unto a year, were patiently working with the HOCNA synod to bring this issue to a conclusion consistent with the Orthodox confession of Faith. Some suggested that those speaking against Name-worshipping wait until the completion of the HOCNA Clergy Synaxis in early October 2012 in case the HOCNA bishops would change their stance. However, as the record below makes sadly mani-fest, from any rational and reasonable perspective, this suggestion, however well-intended, was in vain since, as late as the third week in September 2012, the HOCNA synod publicly declared it would never accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without conditions. </span></div>
<br />
<i>— All dates in the chronology below are civil calendar dates. — </i><br />
<br />
<br />
November 3 or 4, 2011 — Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie (or Lourje), visiting from Russia, was communed at a midnight Liturgy at HTM. Metropolitans Ephraim and Makarios and Bishop Demetrius consented to communing Bishop Gregory Lourie. Afterwards, Bishop Demetrius regretted his assent and then asked forgiveness of the monastic fathers. <br />
<br />
November 5, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou has a conversation, in the HTM office, with Metropolitan Ephraim in which Name-worshipping is first mentioned between the two of them, called the "’Name of Jesus’ controversy" in Fr. Christos’s first written communication on the subject. Metropolitan Ephraim did not mention that Bishop Gregory Lourie was given Holy Communion. Instead, Metropolitan Ephraim stated he did not know the man and the Synod would investigate him as time goes on. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-1.html">Document 1</a> below.) As it happens, Metropolitan Ephraim was given information on Bishop Gregory Lourie as far back as 2001. (See the chronology entry below for August 27, 2012.)
<br />
<br />
November 12, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou sends the first written communication protesting the communing of Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie. (See, again, <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-1.html">Document 1</a> below.)
<br />
<br />
On or about November 14, 2011 — Metropolitan Ephraim summons Fr. Christos Constantinou to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices to discuss the contents of <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-1.html">Document 1</a>; also present were Fr. John Fleser and hieromonk Gregory (now Bishop Gregory of Concord). Among the subjects raised were the controversies around Bishop Gregory Lourie. Metropolitan Ephraim had with him and cited documentation concerning these controversies, among which were Bishop Gregory Lourie’s advocacy of Name-worshipping, his use of "punk rock" as a missionary tool, and his association with a nun who does not wear monastic garb. (The Metropolitan had a photo of that nun in civilian attire.) Fr. Christos repeated his positions noted in <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-1.html">Document 1</a>: the synod bishops must fully examine other bishops before communing them and present a report to the Church, to which the bishops are accountable, and there needs to be a Church-wide council, to which for years the Metropolitan has been adamantly opposed, to discuss such doctrinal issues and the governance of the Church. <br />
<br />
November 15, 2011 —Metropolitan Makarios was implored by clergy to work with Bishop Demetrius to put an end to the present crisis that was gripping HOCNA and threatening to tear it apart.
<br />
<br />
November 1, 2011 - April 8, 2012 — Fr. Yakov Tseitlin expressed in many written and verbal communications to the HOCNA hierarchs his serious objections to (a) HOCNA ties with Bishop Gregory Lourie because of his support of Name-worshipping and (b) rumored future ordination of hieromonk Gregory because of his support of Name-worshipping. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-2.html">Document 2</a> below for one example of Fr. Yakov’s statements.)
<br />
<br />
Mid-November 2011 — In another conversation with Fr. Christos Constantinou on the Name-worshipping issue, Metropolitan Ephraim called Anthony Bulatovich an "aggressor" rather than a "confessor" as Bishop Gregory Lourie views that chief proponent of the Name-worshipping doctrine. <br />
<br />
November 25 & 30, 2011 — With the blessing of Metropolitan Ephraim, hieromonk Gregory sent a broadcast email containing Fr. Gregory’s opinion that the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping were motivated by other than doctrinal considerations and cast doubts on the decisions’ validity. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-3.html">Document 3</a> below.) This engendered increased and openly expressed objections from clergy and laity. <br />
<br />
December 2, 2011 — The HOCNA synod issued a qualified apology for communing Bishop Gregory Lourie and stated the Name-worshipping teaching is a matter for the Russian Church. When the HOCNA synod said the issue has been raging for 100 years and the bishops do not wish to "take sides," the synod effectively denied the synodal decisions that had, in fact, made a determination against Name-worshipping. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-4.html">Document 4</a> below.) Clergy and laity objected that the bishops did not plainly state that they accept the synodal decisions regarding Name-worshipping as all of Orthodoxy has done. <br />
<br />
On or about December 19, 2011 — Fr. Panteleimon was intent on giving a talk on Name-worshipping in Toronto, but Metropolitan Makarios prevailed on Father to comply with the synod’s directive and not discuss the issue. <br />
<br />
Throughout December 2011 — Many broadcast emails, from people within and without HOCNA, were sent all over the USA and abroad regarding the communing of Bishop Gregory Lourie and the introduction of the Name-worshipping doctrine within HOCNA, and the HOCNA hierarchs were in receipt of these emails. Both Frs. John Fleser and Yakov Tseitlin were encouraging Metropolitan Ephraim to convene a Church council to deal with the Name-worshipping issue, the election of a bishop, and other matters concerning the governance of the Church, but the Metropolitan was opposed. <br />
<br />
January 21, 2012 — Fifteen laity, among whom were Diaconissa Panagiota Houlares and at-torney Athanasios George, met with Metropolitan Ephraim and hieromonk Gregory, by then bishop-elect, and Frs. John Fleser and Isaac requesting a postponement of Fr. Gregory’s ordination due, in part, to his support of Name-worshipping, and asking for assurances, given his negative views of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, that he would abide by the HOCNA synod’s decision not to discuss the matter. Both the Metropolitan and hieromonk Gregory assured the laity gathered there that the Name-worshipping issue would be dropped and neither of them would continue to be involved in the issue. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-5.html">Document 5, A & B</a>, below.) <br />
<br />
March 23, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim met with Fr. Yakov, in the presence of Bishop Demetrius, Fr. John Fleser, and Fr. Christos Constantinou, to have Fr. Yakov cease from his publicly expressing his objections to HOCNA’s equivocal stance regarding Name-worshipping and Fr. Gregory’s impending ordination. Both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Yakov had documentation with them concerning Name-worshipping and read from them during this meeting, Fr. Yakov citing texts against Name-worshipping, Metropolitan Ephraim citing texts he took to cast doubts on the history and the validity of the decisions. <br />
<br />
May 9, 2012 — In violation of the HOCNA synod’s directive, Fr. Panteleimon referenced Name-worshipping in a sermon at HNC. Priestmonk Menas, who was serving with Fr. Panteleimon protested. From months before, there was a controversy at HTM over Name-worshipping, and many monks, among whom were Frs. Haralampos and Basil, were disconcerted that the HOCNA and HTM administrations did not come down on the issue with full support for the synodal decisions. <br />
<br />
June 19-26, 2012 — In violation of his own synod’s decision and his promise to the laity in the January meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a limited-broadcast email to a select group of clergy and laity in the USA which contained his response to a man in Russia who asked about Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan expressed his view that he was uncertain about the issue, and he cast doubt on the validity of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, using some of the arguments employed by both Bishops Gregory. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/chronology-document-6.html">Document 6</a> below.) Fr. Christos Constantinou wrote the Metropolitan that, by sending the email around, he was violating the HOCNA synod’s decision not to get into the matter and was disturbing the peace of the flock and creating serious doubt in the minds of some clergy and laity regarding HOCNA’s Orthodoxy. The Metropolitan heard similar objections from others, but, in all cases, he rebuffed the criticisms, saying he had permission from his brother bishops to send the email to the individual in Russia. <br />
<br />
Mid-June – mid-August 2012 — Clergy and laity, as well as HTM monastics, were expressing grave concerns regarding the deepening rift in HOCNA over the Name-worshipping doctrine and the HOCNA synod’s refusal to put an end to the matter with an unequivocal acceptance of the synodal decisions. Fr. Haralampos of HTM produced <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/holy-transfiguration-monastery-on-name.html">a treatise that explained the history and theology undergirding the Orthodox position regarding the Name-worshipping heresy</a>. <br />
<br />
August 20, 2012 — Twelve New England clergy decided to meet together 5 days later (10 actually made it) to discuss as brothers in Christ the turbulence in the Church due to the Name-worshipping doctrine and to see if they could come to an agreement how to approach the issue with the Metropolitan in order to preserve the Orthodoxy and unity of the Church. <br />
<br />
August 22, 2012 — The decades-long cover-up of the HTM scandal was revealed to the non-monastic clergy. <br />
<br />
August 25, 2012 — The 10 clergy met and, along with the Name-worshipping teaching, dis-cussed the HTM cover-up. Concerning Name-worshipping, the clergy agreed that the HOCNA synod needed to declare its oneness of mind with the definitive position of all of Orthodoxy in accepting the decisions against the heresy and its supporters. Concerning the HTM scandal, the clergy agreed that the synod needed to take immediate and decisive action to protect the Church. Then and there, the clergy went to Metropolitan Ephraim to present their views regarding both matters. Fr. Barsanuphius was present, and Fr. Isaac was also present and acknowledged to the clergy as a group that the allegations, from many years ago and more recent years, against Fr. Panteleimon were true and that he and Fr. Panteleimon agreed to the cover-up. Metropolitan Ephraim stated that, when he heard about the allegations, he chose not to investigate them. The clergy protested that the Church, the victims, and all the people were used and abused and betrayed in this manner. The clergy also said that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church, and, at the very least, resignations were in order, and the Name-worshipping matter had to be put to rest once and for all because HTM was now permanently divided, and clergy and parishes were being torn asunder by both scandals. The 10 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Vassily Mihailoff, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, and Jacob Wojcik. <br />
<br />
August 27, 2012 — In an email to Bishop Demetrius and copied to Fr. John Fleser, Fr. Nicholas of HTM set the record straight concerning Metropolitan Ephraim’s and Fr. Panteleimon’s knowledge of Bishop Gregory Lourie. This email was forwarded to the clergy, as well, so they would know the facts regarding the Metropolitan’s insistence he knew nothing about Bishop Gregory Lourie. According to the record, as far back as 2001, Fr. Nicholas presented both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon with a nine-page report regarding Bishop Gregory Lourie and his involvement with the Name-worshipping heresy. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/chronology-document-7.html">Document 7</a> below.) <br />
<br />
August 26-31, 2012 — Clergy from beyond New England were voicing their concerns over HOCNA’s handling of both issues. Some clergy saw a direct spiritual connection between the two issues and voiced this view. Specifically, the decades-long cover-up morally compromised the hierarchs and the HTM administration, leading to the turbulent series of recent crises and controversies, one after the other, eventually weakening the defense of the Faith and culminating in the introduction of foreign, even synodically condemned, doctrine. <br />
<br />
September 1, 2012 — Eighteen clergy, Fr. Isaac, and the 3 local bishops, met at the HOMB offices to press for the resolution of both matters and to urge the hierarchy to speak out against libelous charges being hurled against the clergy. Fr. Isaac again acknowledged the longstanding cover-up of the numerous instances of the HTM scandal. Metropolitan Ephraim would not agree to accept without reservations the synodal decisions, as has all of Orthodoxy for 100 years, against Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan stated the synod would convene before the October Clergy Synaxis and produce a clearer statement regarding Name-worshipping and, further, the matter would be placed on the agenda of the Synaxis for discussion by all the clergy, and everyone should wait until then. Most of the clergy reiterated that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church and ought to retire. Metropolitan Ephraim was also told HOCNA was on the verge of losing every-thing that was built up over the last 40-50 years, and his legacy would be in shambles. Bishop Gregory praised the Metropolitan and said his would be "one of the greatest legacies" ever. The 18 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Dimitry Kukunov, Otari Deisadze, Christopher Catanzano, Vassily Mihailoff, Andrew Snogren, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, James Graves, Christos Con-stantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, Michael Marcinowski, Jacob Wojcik, Andrew Boroda, and David Ruffner. <br />
<br />
September 3, 2012 —In a quick and direct violation of his statement above that everyone should wait until the Clergy Synaxis, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. One of the papers was a resend of the Metropolitan’s June 2012 email to a man in Russia. (See the chronology entry above for June 19-26, 2012 and <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/chronology-document-6.html">Document 6</a> below.) The other paper, titled "Excursus," was yet another presentation of arguments by Metropolitan Ephraim with the goal of undermining the validity of the synodal decisions against the Name-worshipping heresy. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/chronology-document-8.html">Document 8</a> below.) <br />
<br />
September 6, 2012 —In another violation of his statement above, Metropolitan Ephraim, with Bishop Gregory, held a meeting at the Kukunovs’ home with laity in which they discussed their views that the Russian synods against Name-worshipping were not valid synods and that, because of internal theological errors, the decisions are not acceptable as they stand. Scandalous accusations, known not to be true, were made by some of the laity against some of the clergy, but neither hierarch refuted the charges. <br />
<br />
September 10, 2012 — Metropolitan Makarios agreed to meet with the Boston Metropolis clergy, but cancelled the meeting. Frs. George Liadis, Demetrios Houlares, and Christos Constantinou met with Metropolitan Makarios, anyway, and impressed on him that, without an unconditional statement from HOCNA accepting the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, HOCNA would begin losing some clergy and parishes who were having strong doubts about the integrity of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. At the request of Metropolitan Makarios, the clergy faxed the text of a declaration that, if signed by the synod bishops, would preserve the Orthodoxy of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-9.html">Document 9</a> below.) Also, again in violation of his statement above for everyone to wait until the Clergy Synaxis for Name-worshipping to be discussed there, Metropolitan Ephraim sent out broadcast emails in which he once more pushed his position that the synods and the decisions against Name-worshipping are of questionable validity. (See, for one example, <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-10.html">Document 10</a> below, in which the Metropolitan disparages the Russian synods from the time of Czar Peter to the twentieth century with the intent of thereby discrediting their decisions, aiming right for the decisions against Name-worshipping.) <br />
<br />
September 11, 2012 — Because of the intransigence of the HOCNA synod regarding the Name-worshipping heresy, <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/statement-of-bishop-demetrius.html">Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle resigned from the synod and withdrew from HOCNA for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council</a>. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/statement-of-bishop-demetrius.html">Document 11 below for Bishop Demetrius’s statement</a> and <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-12.html">Document 12</a> below for Canon 15.) A petition bearing the signatures of over 40 lay men and women and urging the HOCNA synod to issue a declaration as described above and to retire Met-ropolitan Ephraim was faxed to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices for consideration at that day’s synod meeting. The HOCNA synod did, in fact, meet but did not issue a statement as described above. Instead, the bishops addressed five clergy, "categorically demand[ing]" that they state their views concerning purported internal theological errors in the <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/decision-of-russian-synod-1913.html">1913 decision of the Russian Synod</a>. The bishops’ action was consistent with their oft-repeated stance, adopted from the Name-worshippers, to deflect attention from what has been the sole issue all along, that the decisions, themselves, condemning the heresy of Name-worshipping are valid and universally accepted by the Orthodox Church. <br />
<br />
September 15, 2012 — Although the bishops, at the September 11 synod meeting, had agreed among themselves to cease from circulating Name-worshipping material, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two additional documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. The one file was titled "The Name of God in the Psalms," about the contents of which there is no contention anyway. The other file, "The Orthodox Veneration of the Name of God" (17 pages in length), however, plainly promoted the Metropolitan’s view in the opening "Prelude." (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-13.html">Document 13</a> below.) <br />
<br />
September 16, 2012 — At the St. Mark parish meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim’s position was accurately represented by non-parishioners Thomas Deretich and Michael Vagianos. A number of parishioners stated they felt they were lied to by Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory because the two bishops did not adhere to their synod’s decision and their promise to the laity not to pursue the Name-worshipping issue. When there was a consideration to ask the Metropolitan to come to the meeting, Michael Vagianos stated clearly that the Metropolitan was willing to come, but his position on the Name-worshipping issue would be the same as circulated in his recent statements: he would not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without qualifying reservations and conditions. The clergy reiterated the Orthodox position on the matter: the Orthodox Church Universal has upheld the decisions against Name-worshipping and its adherents without reservations; any purported internal theological errors do not negate the validity of the decisions. <br />
<br />
September 18, 2012 — A statement was issued by the HOCNA synod declaring that those bishops would never agree to accept, without reservations, the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping and will not associate with any hierarchy or church that does. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/analysis-of-statement-of-hocna-hierarchs.html">Document 14</a> below.) <br />
<br />
September 22, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim called for a meeting at St. Anna’s parish with the Metropolitan and Bishop Gregory. Present were Fr. Dimitry Kukunov and laity from St. Anna and St. Mark. The meeting was presided over by Judge Leonid Ponomarchuk of Seattle, WA, and only clergy who were commemorating Metropolitan Ephraim were permitted to attend. In this meeting, libelous charges against some clergy were again brought up and, though known not to be true, were not refuted by the hierarchs. It was here in this meeting where Metropolitan Ephraim stated that it was only one or two weeks before this meeting that he was made aware of the clergy’s concern regarding the Name-worshipping heresy. Despite frequent attempts by laity for the Metropolitan to clarify this remark, given all the history presented above, Metropolitan Ephraim did not modify this statement. <br />
<br />
he foregoing chronological record is irrefutable evidence that the Name-worshipping heresy was openly introduced into HOCNA approximately one year ago, and its supporters openly have been pushing it on the Church since then. Early in the twentieth century, three synods condemned Name-worshipping as a heresy, and the entirety of the Orthodox Church has accepted these decisions without reservations for the last 100 years. The Church has spoken concerning that teaching and its adherents. Orthodox Christians are faithful to the decisions of councils the Church has accepted. Therefore, faithful Orthodox Christians cannot sit idly when their hierarchs, or anyone else for that matter, teaches or allows to be introduced into the Church doctrines already determined to be heretical. <br />
<br />
It is out of this faithfulness to the Church’s doctrines, then, that clergy and laity, over the past year protested this incursion of the Name-worshipping heresy into the HOCNA synod. The clergy were accused by some of violating the canons when the clergy met without their bishop. However, the relevant canons address insurrections against a bishop, conspiracies and plots to undermine the bishop, the setting up of an administration within an administration, the issuance of decisions without episcopal authority, etc. Under no circumstances are brothers in Christ forbidden to gather together to discuss issues important to the Church family and to come up with proposals to solve problems. That is one of the things concerned members of a family do. And what greater problem is there than a violation of Church doctrine? <br />
<br />
Some have said the latest Protocol #2917 (<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/analysis-of-statement-of-hocna-hierarchs.html">Document 14</a> below) is "what we’ve been waiting for" because the bishops say they are not Name-worshippers. However, this document is none other than an official, synodal restatement of all that Metropolitan Ephraim and those with him have been writing and saying for a while now. The only really "new" thing is they make it very clear—in writing—they just will not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, as has all of Orthodoxy so peacefully for 100 years, without qualifications. This has been the fundamental issue all along, and it is this that puts them in opposition to Orthodoxy and St. Tikhon, who, himself, made it clear, in <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-nativity-epistle-of-patriarch.html">the very Nativity encyclical</a> they cite, that the decisions stand unchanged at least until the Russian church ever cares to re-examine the matter, which that Church has not done. Effectively, HOCNA’s position is it and Bishop Gregory Lourie’s group are the only Orthodox synods in the world since all other Orthodox Churches accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without reservations. <br />
<br />
Had HOCNA never gotten involved in what was up until then a non-issue, this would not be of concern now. Once HOCNA unnecessarily thrust itself into this matter, having realized the turmoil it created, it could have honored its own resolutions and been silent, leaving the matter alone since, as HOCNA correctly said, this was the affair of the Russian Church. Instead, the hierarchy kept hammering away with the same arguments of the Name-worshippers, casting doubts in the minds of the faithful about the validity of the Russian synods and the syn-odal decrees, the purpose of which doubts is to invalidate the decisions against Name-worshipping. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, relying on <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-nativity-epistle-of-patriarch.html">St. Tikhon’s Nativity Encyclical</a> as a means to bring peace is nothing other than a compromise, a vain attempt to bring together two irreconcilable teachings, Orthodoxy and Name-worshipping, because of the history how that document is understood by the Orthodox and manipulated by the Name-worshipping advocates. To illustrate this point, it is as if, in the midst of the Arian heresy, the synod of bishops said we fully support and uphold everything that the Holy Gospels and Prophecies say concerning Jesus Christ. That is a perfectly sound Orthodox position, which, nonetheless, the Arians would also accept and put their names to, only to manipulate the Sacred Scriptures to suit their doctrine. <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-nativity-epistle-of-patriarch.html">This is exactly what is happening with St. Tikhon’s encyclical. He said, without qualifiers, the decisions stand.</a> Why do not the HOCNA hierarchs say the same? <br />
<br />
ADDENDUM <br />
As of September 27, 2012, the following faithful have separated themselves from HOCNA, for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council, and have been received into the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius of Boston: Demetrius, former Bishop of Carlisle, now Bishop of Boston; Fr. Nicodemos Gayle and St. Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church in Glen Allen, VA; Frs. Michael Marcinowski and Jacob Wojcik and St. Philaret Mission Orthodox Chapel in Chicopee, MA; Fr. George Liadis and Ascension of our Saviour Orthodox Mission in Carver, MA; Frs. Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, and Demetrios Houlares and St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral in Boston, MA; Fr. Vassily Mihailoff and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco Orthodox Mission in Kennebunk, ME; Fr. George Kochergin and family; and Fr. Yakov Tseitlin and family. (See <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-15.html">Document 15</a> for the HOCNA synod’s official and publicly proclaimed recognition of the Orthodoxy and Canonicity of the GOC and <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-17.html">Document 16</a> for the St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral clergy and parish withdrawal from HOCNA and appeal to the GOC.) <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br />
<em><span style="color: blue;">Update as of 11/19/12: Since this document was published, Frs. Andrew Snogren and Alexander Buterbaugh and the Dormition of the Theotokos Church in Concord, NH; Fr. Michael Azkoul and St. Katherine of Sinai Mission Church in St. Louis, MO; Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Albany, GA; Fr. John Knox, Fr. Michael Knox, Fr. James Graves and St. John the Confessor Church in Ipswich, MA; Fr. Christopher Catanzano and family; and Fr. Christos Patitsas have also been received under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius. </span></em><br />
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>LIST OF SOME ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CHRONOLOGY ABOVE </b>
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">HOCNA = Holy Orthodox Church in North America, presided over by Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">HOMB = Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston, a diocese of HOCNA under Metropolitan
Ephraim
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">HTM = Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">HNC = Holy Nativity Convent in Brookline, MA </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">GOC - Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, presided over by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens </span><br />
<i></i> </div>
<i></i><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">See supporting Documents on the following pages.</span></i></div>
<i>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span></i><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">This Chronology is the product of the collaboration of several members of:
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Boston, MA </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-1.html">Document 1</a></span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-2.html">Document 2</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-3.html">Document 3</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-4.html">Document 4</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-5.html">Document 5</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/chronology-document-6.html">Document 6</a> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/chronology-document-7.html">Document 7</a> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/10/chronology-document-8.html">Document 8</a> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-9.html">Document 9</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-10.html">Document 10</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/statement-of-bishop-demetrius.html">Document 11</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-12.html">Document 12</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-13.html">Document 13</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/analysis-of-statement-of-hocna-hierarchs.html">Document 14</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-15.html">Document 15</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-17.html">Document 16</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-67215490450691292092012-09-29T21:54:00.003-04:002013-05-28T11:41:09.204-04:00Chronology: Document 10<br />
<br />
<b>From: </b>Met. Ephraim [mailto:metephraim@homb.org]
<br />
<br />
<b>Sent: </b>Monday, September 10, 2012 11:49 AM
<br />
<br />
<b>Subject: </b>article--ILL-CONSIDERED DECISIONS Sept 2012
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;">"ILL-CONSIDERED DECISIONS"</span></div>
<span style="color: #c00000; font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;">
</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
By Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston </div>
<br />
<br />
In the Church’s history, there have been occasions when local synods of bishops have made honest mistakes. One sees this again and again in the Lives of the Saints and in the chronicles of the Church councils. <br />
<br />
For example, in the <em>Minutes of the Councils </em>(Mansi 9, 568E), it is recorded that "many times things are said during the Councils, either in defense [of the Church’s teaching], or in opposition, <em>or in ignorance</em>
.
<br />
<br />
By way of example, the Synod of Jerusalem in A. D. 415 acquitted the heresiarch Pelagius, who had been condemned in A. D. 411 by the Council of Chalcedon. Furthermore, the Council of Orange in A. D. 529 declared the teaching of St. John Cassian (whom St. Benedict of Nursia and all the Fathers of the East esteemed highly) heretical! <br />
<br />
A professor of theology, V. I. Exemlyarskii, wrote, "If a theological opinion, or even a local council, is at variance with the word of the Lord [or the writings of universally acknowledged Church Fathers, or the resolutions of acknowledged Church Councils], then such an erroneous ecclesiastical teaching should be subject to condemnation." <br />
<br />
And if we have read the Life of St. John Chrysostom, how can we forget that he had been condemned and anathematized by a Church Council, and that he was ultimately banished to the outer limits of the Roman Empire?! <br />
<br />
Also, in the time of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (540-604), an African council, in an ill-considered decision, offered the title "Universal Bishop" to the bishops of Rome, thinking, as they sup-posed, that they would thereby honor the holy Apostle Peter. And what was the response of Pope St. Gregory the Great? He refused this unfitting title! The Saint explained that he refused this title "lest, by confer-ring a special status upon one [bishop] alone, all [the others] might be deprived of the honor which is their due." <br />
<br />
So much for Rome’s present day claims of universal jurisdiction! <br />
<br />
Do you know that a Church Council promoted the use of indulgences — a Roman Catholic practice tied to the heretical teaching concerning Purgatory?? <br />
<br />
Well, in the year 1727, the Council of Constantinople, endorsed by Ecumenical Patriarch Paisius II, Patriarch Sylvester of Antioch, Patriarch Chrysanthos of Jerusalem and by other participating bishops — without, at least, openly ratifying the teaching about Purgatory — passed the following resolution: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The authority to remit sins, which if they are given out in writing, the Eastern Church of Christ calls "certificates of absolution" (synchorochártia) and the Latins call Indulgences, are given by Christ in the Holy Church. These certificates are given out [i.e. sold]** in the whole Catholic Church by the four patriarchs: of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
(13th Article of the Council) </div>
</blockquote>
<br />
In fact, just to make things perfectly clear, the very same Synodal resolution (Article 13) adds with emphasis: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To say that only the Pope of Rome has the right to give out indulgences is a blatant lie! </blockquote>
<br />
Certainly, indulgences are as good a Latinism as you’ll find anywhere — including the "Trinity" icon! <br />
<br />
From an "official" point of view, the resolutions of this Council have never been rescinded. <br />
<br />
That is why the words of the Russian professor Exemlyarskii (see above) come to mind. For our own instruction, it is good to be aware of these "honest mistakes" committed in ignorance by Church councils. This is yet one more piece of information that we learn from the Lives of the Saints. <br />
<br />
This brings to mind another type of "synod": the Russian "Synod" after the time of Czar Peter the Great up until the time of the restoration of the Patriarchate in Russia in the early part of the 20th century. The "synod" established by Peter the Great was not a council or synod as we understand it, that is, in the sense of an ecumenical synod or a local council, as, for example, the Local Council of Carthage. Instead, in Russia, the "Holy Synod" was an administrative body of eleven bishops hand-picked by the Czar and over-seen by an "oberprocurator" who was a lay-person (a government official) who, in some instances, was not even an Orthodox Christian, but, sometimes, a Lutheran! Hence, on one occasion, the "Russian Synod" even passed a resolution that it was permitted for Orthodox Christians to receive "holy communion" from the Lutherans! Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky protested this violation. <br />
<br />
Thus, in reality, the Russian Synod at that time was something more akin to a government Department of Religious Affairs, and not a canonical Council of Bishops. A proper Council of Bishops had not been convened in Russia for over 200 years. <br />
<br />
Many decades ago, we often met with Roman Catholic clergy at an ecumenical seminar. Whenever they would begin to argue in favor of papal infallibility, we would respond: "<i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;">Every </span></span></i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"></span></span>Orthodox bishop is infallible — until he makes a mistake!" <br />
<br />
And that’s still the way it is. <br />
<br />
What is truly marvelous is that the Church has always had <b><i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;">the divine illumination of the Saints </span></span></i></b><i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"></span></span>to guide her in overcoming these human errors. <br />
<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
"We follow in the footsteps of the Holy Fathers." </div>
<br />
(4th Ecumenical Council) </blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Amen! <br />
</blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: normal;">* See my previous article, "Our Fathers in Heaven. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: xx-small;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: normal;">** Metropolitan Ephraim’s Note: This aspect of the "giving out" of Indulgences is not mentioned in the Synodal resolution. </span> Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-20974839025776772122012-09-29T21:29:00.000-04:002013-05-28T10:52:26.815-04:00Chronology: Document 13<h3 style="text-align: center;">
From Metropolitan Ephraim’s emailed file, "The Orthodox Veneration of the Name of God" </h3>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><b><br /></b><span style="font-size: small;"></span><span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;">From: Met. Ephraim [mailto:metephraim@homb.org] <br />
<br />
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:26 PM <br />
<br />
Subject: 2 attached articles <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></span></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;">PRELUDE </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Verdana,Verdana; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">The following selection of passages is intended to show that the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and the Divine Services of the Church teach us that the Name of God (its inner significance and meaning and not its outward letters and sounds) is the divinely-revealed Truth about God Himself; just like all revelation of God about Himself, it is His uncreated operation, His power, His energy, His grace. According to the teaching of the Church, the Grace of God is God Himself (not His Essence, but His Energy). Hence, it is in this sense that St. John of Kronstadt’s famous saying "The Name of God is God Himself" should be understood, for it is in perfect harmony with the teaching of the Church. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
</span><b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"></span></span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;">................................ <br />
</span></span></b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"></span></span><i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;">[bold type in the original; rest of the PDF file, about the contents of which there is no contention, omitted</span></span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;">] </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"></span></span><br /></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-90965597551095594572012-09-29T18:37:00.000-04:002013-05-28T10:54:14.061-04:00Chronology: Document 12<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
The Entire Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Council Which Met in Constantinople in 861 AD </h3>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><i></i></span></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><i>The portion pertinent to this Chronology is italicized. </i></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><i>
</i></span><i><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</i></span><i><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</i><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
CANON XV </h3>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"></span></span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;">The rules laid down with reference to Priests and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Priest or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to se-cede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch and fails to mention the latter’s name, in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a synodal verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof and create a schism and disrupt the union of the Church. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;">
</span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: small;">But, as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop, before any synodal verdict has been rendered, but </span><i><span style="font-size: small;">also, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism but, on the contrary, have been sedu-lous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions. </span></i></span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">
</span><br />
</i></span></span></i><div style="text-align: right;">
<i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><i><span style="font-size: small;">The Rudder, p. 470-471.</span></i></span></span></i></div>
<i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><i>
</i><div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;">, pp. 470-471. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"></span></span><br /></div>
</span></span></i><i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"></span></span></i><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: medium;"></span></span><br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-26687111254074133152012-09-29T18:31:00.001-04:002013-05-28T10:57:08.139-04:00Chronology: Document 9<h3 style="text-align: center;">
</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Declarative Statement Submitted to the Bishops for Their Approval and Signature </h3>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;">Out of love for our Master, God, and Savior, Jesus Christ, and in loving reassurance of His Church, the People of God under our archpastoral care, and to dispel — indeed, utterly banish — any and all concerns, misgivings, misconceptions, and misperceptions, we, the undersigned hierarchs of the Holy Synod of The Holy Orthodox Church in North America do declare that we fully and unconditionally and without any reservation accept all the Ecumenical and local Councils and Synods and all their acts and decisions and proclamations accepted by the Orthodox Church Universal, including all the Patriarchal and Synodal</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino; font-size: small;">
</span></span>Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-23531121689893003952012-09-29T16:17:00.002-04:002013-05-28T10:58:44.033-04:00Chronology: Document 15<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Minutes of the HOCNA Synod Meeting Wherein the Hierarchs Recognized </h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
the Orthodoxy and Canonicity of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece </h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Presided Over by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens </h3>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">The Synod meeting takes place in the Holy Metropolis House of Boston under the Presidency of His Eminence Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston, on September 21/October 4th, 2010. <br />
<br />
1) Motion by Metropolitan Moses to except [sic: accept] the motions of the previous Synod meeting. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">2) Motion by Bishop Demetrius: <br />
<br />
Having clearly examined the ecclesiastical situation in the Orthodox Church within the past decade, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in North America has unanimously resolved to continue the path that it has been following, namely to "follow in the footsteps of the Holy Fathers". These Holy Fathers from generation to generation have fought tirelessly to preserve the Orthodox Faith and the unity of the Faith, witnessing It's purity to the world. Our contemporary struggle as the local Orthodox Church in America deals with the heresy of Ecumenism. As is the case in every generation, whenever heresy enters into the Church, much confusion and even administrative division results. Holy Fathers such as Saint Cyril of Alexandria, St Eusebius of Samosata, St Meletios of Antioch, St Basil the Great, St John of Kronstandt, and many other holy fathers, taught that the unity of the Orthodox Church is an important dogmatic reality, since it is an expression of the love which Christ taught us and which is the greatest commandment of all. The Saints prayed for unity in the Liturgy ("make to cease the schisms in the Churches" </span></span><i><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">Liturgy of St Basil the Great</span></span></i><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">). Today, however, we see with great sorrow that suspicion, malice, ambition etc, have displaced the love among some Orthodox Christians. We believe that this suspicion and malice must cease; otherwise, it will be the cause of greater harm. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">Within the past five years, our Synod of Bishops have come to the realization that the Unity of the Faith is of utmost importance. Therefore, by Divine providence, we have found ourselves, albeit unofficially, having dialog and friendly contacts with members of the Synod of the late Archbishop Chrysostomos Kioussis of Athens. This is only fitting since this Synod is the closest Synod to us, since our Church in North America was established by the Church of Greece under the Presidency of His Beatitude, Archbishop Auxentios. The two Synods found themselves separated in 1984, but this separation had nothing to do with matters of Faith and both Synods officially have an identical ecclesiology. After the repose of Archbishop Auxentios, the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos lifted their depositions against the Archbishop and reinstated him in the diptychs. <br />
<br />
Now that Archbishop Chrysostomos Kioussis has also reposed, we bring to mind the words of St Photius the Great: " Let God consign previous events to oblivion. As for us, let us find strength in forgiveness and not call wrongs to mind. It will be best to remain silent about these affairs, or at least to speak about them only briefly and with restraint. Since we are sinful and insignificant people, it will be best to stay quiet about the enmity we caused; only in the case of great need should we speak about it at all". <br />
<br />
For reasons of Church unity, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in North America also unanimously resolves to lift depositions imposed in 1985 against those bishops currently be-longing to the Synod of the late Archbishop Chrysostomos Kioussis, with the aim of achieving full Eucharistic Communion in the future with this Synod, whensoever God wills it. In lifting these depositions, we hereby recognize de facto that the Church of Greece is headed by the Synod of the late Archbishop Chrysostomos Kioussis. The faithful who travel to Greece are free to attend the Churches which belong to this Synod with the full blessing and approval of our Synod of Bishops. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
3) Motion by Metropolitan Makarios that the Holy Synod dissolve the office of locum tenency of the throne of Athens held by Metropolitan Makarios up until now. 2nd by Bishop Demetrius. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
4) Motion by Metropolitan Moses that the Holy Synod write a letter of condolences for the re-pose of Archbishop Chrysostomos to the Holy Synod of Greece. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
5) Motion by Metropolitan Makarios that the Holy Synod write a congratulatory letter to the new Archbishop of Greece. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
6) Motion by Metropolitan Ephraim that we adjourn the meeting of the Holy Synod and meet again the next day. 2nd by Bishop Demetrius. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
The meeting of the Holy Synod continues on September 22/October 5, 2010. <br />
<br />
1) Motion by Bishop Demetrius that Priestmonk Basil of Holy Transfiguration Monastery make a study on Eparchial Synods. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
2) Motion by Metropolitan Makarios that Ecclesiastical decrees that require the signature [<i><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;">sic</span></span></i><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Arial;"></span></span>: signature] of a hierarch must be promulgated and signed by the ruling hierarch of the local Metropolis. 2nd by Bishop Demetrius. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
3) Motion by Metropolitan Moses that we adjourn the meeting of the Holy Synod. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously. <br />
<br />
Submitted faithfully in Christ, <br />
<br />
+Bishop Demetrius <br />
<br />
Secretary of the Holy Synod </span></span>Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-66204998609646651922012-09-29T14:26:00.000-04:002013-05-28T11:00:18.251-04:00Chronology: Document 16<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Statement of St. Mark of Ephesus Cathedral Clergy <br />
</b><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype,Palatino;"></span></span></div>
September 3/16, 2012 <br />
St. Anthimus the Hieromartyr <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Most Rev. Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston; Most Rev. Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto; and Rt. Rev. Gregory, Bishop of Concord: <br />
<br />
Dear Masters, purported internal theological errors in the Epistle of the Russian Synod of August 1913 are not at issue here. The issue is that the whole Orthodox Church has accepted all the synodal decisions regarding Name-worshipping without conditions and reservations, but you wish to qualify your possible acceptance of these decisions. Certainly, no sound Orthodox Christian, including us, on coming across a genuine theological error, would agree with that error, but that does not invalidate the decisions. In actuality, the Name-worshippers are not concerned with the internal theological errors; they are concerned with the decisions, themselves, which condemn the teaching they advocate. This is their real target. <br />
<br />
None of this was an issue anywhere in the Orthodox Church until today’s Name-worshipping advocates made it an issue. The whole Church, and our jurisdiction there-in, was in peace over this matter until it was recently thrust on the Church. So, since you have permitted the Name-worshipping doctrine to come into our midst, we have been asking you to make it clear that you accept the decisions without conditions and reservations just as all of Orthodoxy has done now for about 100 years. Further, if you say it is the proper province of the Russian Church to deal with this issue (and that Church has been at ease with the decisions), who is our Synod, and what are you doing raising the issue and nit-picking your way through the decisions? <br />
<br />
In any case, it is clear to us from your response of 29 August/11 September, 2012, and from your earlier statements, that you object to the decisions against Name-worshipping as they have been universally accepted by the Orthodox Church. This puts you in opposition to all of Orthodoxy and to New Hieromartyr St. Tikhon’s expressed position that these decisions stand. <br />
<br />
Therefore, we herewith submit our withdrawal, together with the majority of the pa-rishioners of St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral who on this day have voted to do so, from The Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston under the jurisdiction of The Holy Orthodox Church in North America. We are leaving on the canonical grounds of pre-serving our Orthodox Christian confession of faith. Because of this reason alone, we are not creating a schism. Yet further in this regard, we are not creating a new synod but going to a Synod of Bishops that already exists. Indeed, we are seeking refuge in the very Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece which you, <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-15.html">in your decisions, dated September 21/October 4, 2010,</a> by your de facto recognition thereof and the lifting of the depositions (Motion 2) publicly and synodically acknowledged to have soundness in its confession of Faith and integrity in its canonicity, so much so that you dissolved the office of locum tenens of the throne of Athens (Motion 3), effectively relinquishing the See of Athens to that Synod. <br />
<br />
We pray for the forgiveness and blessings and salvation of our merciful Savior on us all. Amen. <br />
<br />
(signatures of Fr. Christos Constantinou, Fr. George Kamberidis, Fr. Demetrius Houlares)</div>
Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-89710361372361336752012-09-29T13:48:00.000-04:002013-05-28T11:01:32.088-04:00Chronology: Document 5— A —<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>From:</strong> <br />
Pamela Houlares <pamhoulares@yahoo.com> <br />
<br />
<strong>To:</strong> <br />
Metropolitan Ephraim <metephraim@homb.org> <br />
<br />
<strong>Cc:</strong> <br />
Bishop Demetrius <bpdemetrius@homb.org> <br />
<br />
<strong>Sent:</strong> <br />
Monday, January 16, 2012 8:50 AM <br />
<br />
<strong>Subject:</strong> <br />
Meeting, Saturday, January 21, 2012 <br />
<br />
Your Eminence Metropolitan Ephraim: <br />
<br />
I kiss your right hand. <br />
<br />
Many Blessings for the Feast! A group of parishioners requests respectfully that we meet with you to discuss several concerns in regards to the election of the next bishop, the "Name Worshipping" controversy and the need for an all Church Council. If possible, we would like to meet with you this Saturday, January 21 at 11AM at the Diocese House. We also ask that Bishop Demetrius and Fr. Gregory, the newly elected Bishop, be present. We await your response. <br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
<br />
Diaconissa Pamela <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>— B —</strong> <br />
<br />
<br />
January 30, 2012 <br />
<br />
Your Eminence Metropolitan Ephraim, <br />
<br />
I kiss your right hand, <br />
<br />
Thank you again for meeting with us on Saturday, January 21, to discuss concerns raised by pa-rishioners of St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral. There were a broad representation of parishioners at the meeting including the Co-President of the St. Philothei Philoptochos, the manager of St. Mark’s Bookstore, several Parish Council members, St. Xenia Camp Assistant Directors and members of the Church Choir. There were other parishioners that could not attend due to family and job related obligations. <br />
<br />
In summary, as a matter of record, there were three items discussed and responded to by your Eminence, Bishop Demetrius and Father Gregory (Bishop Elect). These included the following: <br />
<br />
Father Gregory will visit parishes and speak to clergy and laity in order to get acquainted with clergy and flock. There was a recommendation that you consider moving the date of the consecration in order to allow the time and consideration for all involved. <br />
<br />
The Name Worshipping Heresy is a concern of the Russian Church and. thus, will no longer be discussed or written about by our Bishops or clergy. <br />
<br />
You will schedule general counsel meetings of clergy and laity representatives from all parishes on a periodic basis to keep the lines of communication and dialogue open. These councils would be in addition to the annual Clergy Synaxis and could be regional in order to welcome participants from different areas of the country. <br />
<br />
The parishioners of St. Mark’s Orthodox Cathedral look forward to continued communication and involvement in our Church. <br />
<br />
In Christ, <br />
<br />
Diaconissa Pamela Houlares Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-34481373331717864152012-09-29T13:41:00.001-04:002013-05-28T11:03:49.527-04:00Chronology: Document 4<div style="text-align: center;">
STATEMENT OF THE HOLY SYNOD </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America </div>
<br />
Beloved Christians: <br />
<br />
We recently welcomed Bishop Gregory Lourie as a visitor to our monastery in Boston. While here, he asked if he could receive Holy Communion, and after we consulted among ourselves, and upon asking the counsel of other of our clergy, we agreed to share the Holy Mysteries with him. <br />
<br />
By doing this, we did not intend to get involved in theological debates that have raged in the Russian Church for some one hundred years now. Nor do we intend to take sides in them. <br />
<br />
In hindsight, it would have been more prudent perhaps to wait until that time when this issue and other issues in the Russian and Greek Churches are addressed. At the same time, while we realize that many matters still divide them, we want to promote unity among all these groups. If we erred in our judgment, we ask forgiveness, since it was an honest mistake committed out of a desire to foster the oneness that must exist among all Orthodox Christians in the Holy Body and Blood of our Saviour. <br />
<br />
It is true that, as they themselves admitted to us, our predecessors, St. Philaret of New York and Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, also made missteps in the confused times and conditions that the Church now finds itself. But their love of the Truth, their purity of intention and their confession of Orthodoxy was also evident and true. <br />
<br />
We ask for your prayers that God may help us navigate in these turbulent waters that surround the Ark of the Church. We seek only your ― and our ― salvation, and we call upon the mercy of God to overlook our human failings. <br />
<br />
May God protect and shelter all of us. <br />
<br />
+Metropolitan Ephraim <br />
<br />
+Metropolitan Makarios <br />
<br />
+Bishop Demetrius <br />
<br />
November 19/December 2, 2011 <br />
<br />
Martyr Barlaam of Antioch Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-47071602901247370962012-09-29T13:35:00.002-04:002013-05-28T11:16:17.329-04:00Chronology: Document 3November 30/17, 2011 <br />
<br />
Saint Gregory the Wonderworker <br />
<br />
[for your information] <br />
<br />
Response of Father Andrew Boroda to Father Michael Azkoul<>Friday, November 25, 2011 <br />
<br />
Dear Fr. Michael, <br />
<br />
I know Bishop Gregory Lourie for number of years by correspondence and met him
in person for the first time month ago in New York. I read some of his works, some of his sermons and found in them no heresy or anything in variance with
teaching of the Apostolic Church. I cannot claim that I read all his writings
and I may miss something even in what I have read. However, unsubstantiated
accusations in heresy should be rejected outright. It is not right to accept
bare words, but we need to see what kind of false teaching man proclaims so
that we may analyze it or even ask author to speak for himself and explain it.
<br />
<br />
As about anyone's personal life, I cannot speak to that and it is out of my
interest. I do not read any gossips on so-called internet news groups, sites,
etc. I keep my attention away from those sources. <br />
<br />
Father Michael, it is first time we exchange letters and I want use a chance to express gratitude for your lifelong work in the field of Church education. Often I give to read your articles and your book Delivered to the saints to new people coming to our Church. It was Deacon Photius, of blessed memory, who introduced your works to me. <br />
<br />
Father, we live in desert-like world in which Christ the Savior the source of life is long forgotten. As Diogenes of old, we have to go abroad with a lamp searching for even single likeminded man. I rather be mistaken in trusting than be strict in mistrusting (remember how it was with St. Gregory the Theologian and Maximus the Cynic?). God is our judge. <br />
<br />
Yours in Christ, <br />
<br />
Fr Andrew Boroda <br />
<br />
P.s. Metroplitan Ephraim forwarded to me a letter of Mr. Alajaji. He puts a title MD by his name. Doctor of Medicine is reputable profession. One should ask him if he ever makes final diagnosis without seeing a patient or reviewing his medical records or reading analyses of his tests? That would be my answer to his letter. <br />
<br />
****************************************************************************** <br />
<br />
Response of Father Gregory [HTM] to a layman <> November 25, 2011 <br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">Dear in Christ _____<br />
<br />
Thank you for your kind words! Please pray for me, that I may serve at the Holy Table in purity and fear of God. <br />
<br />
Concerning your question about Bishop Gregory. </span></span><i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman;"><br />
</span></span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">There was a lot of misinformation and slanders about these worthy Athonite fathers. The
Church of Constantinople was motivated solely by political reasons of expelling as much Slavs
from the Holy Mountain as possible. Thus it used the accusation of "heresy" to demand from the
Russian government the removal of supposed heretics from the Mountain. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">As for the decision of
the Russian synod - it rests on very shaky theological grounds and contains some very erroneous
teachings. The fact is that this very same decision against them was reversed several times, so,
which one of them are we supposed to believe? If the synodal decision was wrong, then it was
wrong, there should be no shame in admitting it. Other conciliar decisions turned out to be
mistaken in Church history. We know, for example that St. Tikhon the Confessor disregarded
this synodal decision and personally liturgized with the leaders of the Imyaslavtsy in Moscow
churches. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">Bishop Gregory Lourie is not making an issue out of this question. He
simply believes that that the Athonite fathers were right and that the hierarchs were wrong (how
many times has such a thing happened in history?) and that one day the Church will (formally or
informally) make a correct judgement about this matter.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">I should like to recommend you to read <a href="http://www.pravoslav.de/imiaslavie/english/dialogue/d1b.htm#_ftnref9">this letter about the subject</a>, written by Bishop Gregory
to Vladimir Moss.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">As for the ordination of Bishop Gregory. He was ordained by Bishops Sebastian and Ambrose of
Valentine's Synod. When, then, Father Gregory was defrocked by Valentine in breach of all
canonical procedures, these two bishops were so disgusted by the whole affair, that they
withdrew from participating in the synod. Namely, these bishops were forced by Met. Valentine
to sign an empty piece of paper where the uncanonical defrockment of Father Gregory was then
written in. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">On top of this, the so called "synod" of Met. Valentine is a self-appointed assembly of
those bishops that happen to be at his residence at a given time, the existence of which has never
been sanctioned by a Sobor, as specified by ROAC by-laws. In fact, there has not been a single Sobor in ROAC throughout the duration of its existence. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">In accordance with 84 Canon of
Council of Carthage, these two bishops instituted a local gathering of bishops within the Russian
Orthodox Autonomous Church, which in absence, and until the restoration of, the conciliar
order in that church, allows them to proceed with canonical existence without, at the same time,
breaking into a schism. These are the bishops that ordained Bishop Gregory.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">I will be happy to supply you with any other information about this matter.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">Please pass my regards to Daniel, whom I met during his stay here at the monastery.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">I embrace you with brotherly love.
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,Georgia;">In Christ our Saviour, <br />
<br />
Gregory, hieromonk. </span></span>Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-44883237303871814272012-09-29T13:28:00.003-04:002013-05-28T11:19:04.321-04:00Chronology: Document 2<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
February 6/19, 2012 </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
Sunday of the Last Judgment </div>
<br />
His Eminence Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston, His Eminence Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto, His Grace Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle: <br />
<br />
Holy Masters, bless! <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In his second epistle, St. Peter wrote, "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." (2 Peter 3:17) Dear Despotas, I am writing to you because I believe you have fallen into such an error. In <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-4.html">your statement of November 19/December 2, 2011</a>, you characterized imyaslavie (name-worshiping) as an open theological debate which has raged in the Russian Church for some one hundred years. This is false. Imyaslavie is a heresy condemned one hundred years ago by both the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Russia. And since then there has been no debate within the True Orthodox Church. Based on this false view, you have made and continue to make grave errors. The most serious of these is your insistence on consecrating Priestmonk Gregory (Babunashvili). </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As you surely know, imyaslavie is the teaching that the name of God is God Himself. It arose in early twentieth century Russia through the teachings and writings of Schema-monk Ilarion and especially Hieromonk Fr. Anthony Bulatovich, and spread to the Russian monasteries on Mt. Athos. Imyaslavie was condemned as a heresy by: </div>
<br />
+ Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople (September 1912) <br />
<br />
+ The Holy Kinot of the Holy Mountain (February 2, 1913) <br />
<br />
+ Patriarch Germanos V of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (April 5, 1913) <br />
<br />
+ Holy Synod of Russia (<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/decision-of-russian-synod-1913.html">May 18, 1913</a>; August 27, 1913; March 1916) <br />
<br />
+ His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon (October 21, 1918) <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Somehow, Despotas, you have been led to believe that serious debate took place in the Russian Orthodox Church after the Holy Synod's decision, and continues to take place today. This is untrue. You have also circulated <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-3.html">a letter by Priestmonk Gregory</a>, in which he echoes the argument that the history of imyaslavie was a dispute between hierarchs and monastic ascetics in which the hierarchs prevailed not by truth, but by political maneuvering and force. This characterization is also false. In truth: </div>
<br />
<ul><div style="text-align: justify;">
<li>
All 200+ bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church accepted the decision of the Holy Synod. The elders of Optina Pustyn, Valaam Monastery and of all other monasteries throughout Russia also received the decision of the Holy Synod without question.</li>
<br />
<li>Among 4,800 Russian monks on Mt. Athos, about 800 professed this heresy, but many of them later repented. </li>
<br />
<li>
The seven members of the Holy Synod of Russia which condemned this heresy included Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and Proto New Martyr Vladimir, at that time Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. You could hardly characterize them as bureaucratic hierarchs with "shaky theology" or little knowledge of the Je-sus Prayer. Attached, please find the 1913 report of Metr. Anthony on imyaslavie. It is patristic and sound.
</li>
<br />
<li>The Holy Synod of Russia never repealed its decision. </li>
<br />
<li>
Our venerable hierarchs and fathers in faith, Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy and St. Philaret of the free Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, never treated imyaslavie as an open question.
</li>
<br />
<li>
The only figures to defend the teaching of imyaslavie or to question its condemnation as a heresy were the original teachers and disciples of this heresy; followers of heretical philosopher Vladimir Soloviev such as Sergey Bulga-kov, Nikolay Berdyaev, Alexey Losev, and Pavel Florensky, who laid the foundation of the corrupt Paris theological school; "Bishop" Ilarion Alfeyev, a Moscow Patriarchate "theologian", whose background, education, and experience are all suspect; and Gregory Lourie, a self-described purveyor of punk Orthodoxy and self-proclaimed bishop.
</li>
<br /></div>
</ul>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/chronology-document-4.html">You have admitted that you erred in allowing Lourie to be communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in October of last year.</a> An academic who philosophizes over details while failing to grasp fundamental truths, Lourie has published sermons on such topics as why St. Nicholas should be worthy of veneration when the few hard facts reveal him as an ordinary provincial bishop and when the miracles attributed to him seem mythological. Far from traditional Orthodoxy, to say the least. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lourie was ordained to the priesthood in 1999 by the Synod of Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal to be pastor of the parish of St. Elizabeth the New Martyr in St. Petersburg, Russia. He was suspended by the same synod in July of 2005, and then defrocked in September of 2005, precisely for promoting imyaslavie. In the letter notifying him of his suspension, Metr. Valentin wrote: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
Over the course of many years, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church has received several complaints from bish-ops, priests, monks, and lay persons, concerning intolerable and extremely scandalous remarks made by you, <b>together with your spreading of the heresy of "name worshipping," and, despite the fact that you were warned several times to cease and desist from disseminating heresy via the internet, and you promised to abandon your waywardness and return to the true path, which leads to salvation, you continued, and even until now continue, to spread the heresy of "name worshipping," publishing the false teaching of hieromonk An-thony Bulatovich on the web page Portal-Credo.ru. </b></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
True to his nature, Lourie disputed the details of the procedure by which he was defrocked. He failed to accept the essence of the matter: because of his militant belief in imyaslavie, the synod considered him no longer worthy of the priesthood, and later even excommunicated him and his followers. Lourie continued to serve in rebellion. In November of 2008, he dared to accept consecration as bishop by two bishops suspended by Metr. Valentin, taking for himself the title last rightly held by the New Martyr Metr. Joseph, "Bishop of Petro grad and Gdov." Further, despite claims of persecution, Lourie's parish of St. Elizabeth the New Martyr is the only nonMoscow Patriarchate parish that has been allowed to function openly in St. Petersburg in a traditional church building open to the public. In Putin's Russia, this can only mean Lourie has powerful governmental protection. In other words, he is not only pseudo-Orthodox and even heretical in his beliefs, a pseudo-bishop in his canonicity, but he is also clearly perceived as useful in some way by the government. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Your failure to grasp both the heretical nature of imyaslavie and the utter unworthiness of Gregory Lourie are why Priestmonk Gregory is still a candidate for bishop. In his letter of November 25, 2011, Fr. Gregory openly supported both the heresy of imyaslavie and the canonicity of Lourie, whom he has also described as a renowned theologian. (!!!) God allowed him to reveal both his heretical beliefs and his poor judgment before his consecration. Yet all you have asked him to do is to promise to keep these opinions to himself. Despotas , how can you think this is satisfactory? Since when is it acceptable for a bishop to believe in heresy but keep it to himself? Since when is a man who believes in heresy a valid candidate for consecration? You continue to look to St. Metr. Philaret as an example; how can you imagine that Fr. Gregory would have been acceptable to him? </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The consecration of a bishop is an extremely serious matter for the whole Church. In a small synod like ours, the man who is chosen will influence decisions for years to come. Candidates should be men whose Orthodox faith and judgment are unimpeachable. With more than thirty monks at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, it is simply impossible that the best qualified candidate is this relatively unknown man who came to this country less than five years ago, was tonsured barely two years ago, and who now has revealed these serious errors in faith and in judgment. If you do not wish to "fall from your own steadfastness," you should not consecrate him. If you are truly seeking the best candidates and desire the unity of the Church, I respectfully urge you to tum to the whole Church to nominate new candidates. Let men be chosen who are supported not just by a majority of the Holy Synod, but by the laity, clergy and bishops. Let there be several candidates, and let the one to be consecrated be chosen from among them by lot. In this way, setting aside our own will in this matter, we would allow God's will be revealed. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
In Christ, </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
Fr. Deacon Yakov Tseitlin </div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-71962496654815238092012-09-29T13:05:00.001-04:002013-05-28T11:20:57.965-04:00Chronology: Document 1October 30/November 12, 2011 <br />
<span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-family: Wingdings,Wingdings;"><span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-family: Wingdings,Wingdings;"></span></span><br />
<span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-family: Wingdings,Wingdings;"><span lang="ZH-TW" style="font-family: Wingdings,Wingdings;"> </span></span>SS. Cleopas and Artemas, the Apostles <br />
<br />
Most Rev. Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston; Most Rev. Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto; and Rt. Rev. Demetrius, Bishop of Carlisle <br />
<br />
Beloved Holy Masters: <br />
<br />
I kiss your right hands and ask your blessings. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In both written and verbal communications with you over the years, I have said to you that, if a son really loves his father, then, when a son sees his father in error, the son—precisely because he loves his father—corrects him. So I communicate again now with you in this same spirit because I love our Savior and His Church and you, my fathers in the Faith. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Over the last week or so, it has been established that Bishop Gregory Lourje of one of the non-State Church Orthodox jurisdictions in Russia, with the consent of the three of you, received Holy Communion with His Eminence Ephraim during the Divine Liturgy at Holy Transfiguration Monastery sometime near the close of Bishop Gregory’s very recent visit there. I am astounded by how muddled and inconsistent this decision has rendered our ecclesiology and by the entire manner by which you came to this decision. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When I arrived at the Monastery for the Saturday Divine Liturgy approximately two weeks ago, it happened to be right at the time of Bishop Gregory’s departure. Fr. Panteleimon asked me to greet Bishop Gregory, whom I did not even know was in town (which, of course, does not matter) and briefly introduced me to the bishop. I asked Father if the bishop is one of ours, and he said yes. Shortly after greeting the bishop, I approached His Eminence Ephraim, who was seated in his usual spot in the office, and inquired about this bishop. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
His Eminence took the time to provide me with a brief background, told me we were reaching out to this man in the spirit of trying to establish an ongoing relationship that might eventually lead to a Sister Churches type of intercommunion, said that we advised this bishop to attempt to join the Tikhon Synod, noted that there were conflicts between this man and that Synod, and remarked that he (His Eminence Ephraim) did not fully comprehend all of the issues, part of which centered on the "Name of Jesus" controversy in the Russian Church. His Eminence gave me the very distinct impression that we would cautiously proceed to evaluate Bishop Gregory and the situation in Russia, which seemed fine to me. And then, this past week, I learned about the bishop’s receiving the Mysteries, which would have had to happen before His Eminence and I had the aforementioned
conversation.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How, I ask, is it proper to commune with a bishop whom we are still evaluating and the controversies around whom we do not understand? Such a weighty decision—bishops com-muning with one another—is made on the basis of an impromptu phone call while the jury is still out on Bishop Gregory’s trustworthiness? How do we jump so fast to communion with this man, whom we truly barely know, while exercising all due caution, for example, with a bishop from another jurisdiction who has been in direct communication with us for over a year and with whom you have met and held discussions in person on more than one occasion? You write, laudably, in your recent "A Historical Clarification" that it is our desire to be in communion with those who, in effect, have canonical and confessional integrity. Where have you estab-lished that this Bishop Gregory meets this criterion?</div>
And here is one glaringly obvious way in which you have seriously confused our ecclesiology. If you can commune with a hierarch whose canonical and confessional integrity we have not thoroughly studied and the controversies around whom we do not adequately comprehend, then, by your own unanimous decision of a little over a year ago when you officially recognized the Kiousis/Kallinikos Synod as the legitimate True Orthodox Church of Greece and turned over your responsibility for Athens to that Synod, you must forthwith commune with each and every one of the hierarchs on that Synod, whose canonical and confessional integrity you have determined and publicly proclaimed.<br />
<br />
Beloved Masters, do you grasp the scandal and ecclesiological inconsistency and undermining of our own canonical and confessional integrity?
<br />
<br />
As for Bishop Gregory, by your own standards, either you have to produce—for the whole Church to see—the evidence of your study of him and his situation and his canonical and confessional integrity or you publicly have to repeal communing him until an unhurried and thor-ough evaluation and a proper and correct decision can be made. After all, you have an entire Church to answer to. Sad to say (for us), but even the Kallinikos Synod, its shortcomings not-withstanding, took longer in its deliberations and response time before accepting into commun-ion our departed hierarchs, clergy, and parishes.
<br />
<br />
And this brings us—yet again—to the beyond lamentable manner in which we govern the affairs of our Church. You have objected to the description of our Synod as dysfunctional. Fine; I’m not wedded to that specific word. But please tell me what word you would use to describe a group of people who do not adhere to their own policies, who act impulsively (in contradiction to their oft-declared "cautiously"), and who, in the face of ongoing, self-inflicted damage to our Church, steadfastly make momentous decisions without full, well-rounded consultation and deliberation. <br />
<br />
As for inconsistency with our Synod’s policies and impulsivity, so as not to belabor these points, the several paragraphs prior to the one before this constitute ample evidence. Surely, given all of our past communications, I do not have to repeat prior instances. If you simply had adhered to your own policies and to your purported caution, Bishop Gregory receiving Holy Communion would not now be an issue. And this brings us to the third point, advice and guidance, beyond whatever you may or may not be obtaining now.<br />
<br />
Our Synod appears to make decisions as if our hierarchs are in a vacuum, as if there is no rest of the Church which has a say in the Church’s governance and to whom our hierarchs must give account. The three citations immediately below, I hope, will help illustrate what I mean: <br />
<br />
In a paper you distributed at this year’s Clergy Synaxis, Fr. Haralampos noted how even the Holy Apostles gathered in council with all of the people present, including laymen, and everyone expressed his view. (Father even remarked on the "Mediterranean" character of the proceedings.) <br />
<br />
When we were searching for an Orthodox hierarch in 1987, follow-ing ROCOR’s departure from the Confession of Faith of St. Philaret, the whole church was involved—yes, even laymen. Further, we took several months to make our decision, and, when Archbishop Auxentios came increasingly into view, we actually met with him more than once, asked him anything and everything we wanted, answered any and all of his questions, and then decided the matter together, as the whole Body of Christ. <br />
<br />
On and off over the last six years or so, the clergy have urged that you seek full counsel before deciding issues with serious ramifications. One suggestion has been the establishment of a standing board of advisors composed of parish clergy and perhaps laity. Another suggestion has been the convening, from time to time, of a Church-wide council. In both cases, their function would be to study carefully and to give you direction on how to handle serious pastoral and administrative issues and controversial matters of con-sequence. Both approaches have been applied in the Church throughout the centuries. <br />
<br />
These three examples stand in sharp contrast to the way our Holy Synod, especially these last several years, determines how to handle situations with significant repercussions or arrives at decisions with far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, our history gives the impression either we are not aware of either of these potential outcomes or we just do not care. Indeed, I posit that because, to date, you have effectively ignored the suggestions above regarding advisors and councils, some of your more significant decisions and courses of action have increased the tension, turmoil, and division in our Church. Our Synod’s handling of weighty matters and decisions appears to be less thoughtful and open and conciliar within the context of an entire Church and more, I’m sorry to say, impetuous and private and personal, with the too-frequent aura of backroom deals. I know we are capable of conducting the business of the Church much better than that. <br />
<br />
You have seen as recently as the end of this September in a meeting with clergy with His Eminence Ephraim and, again, at the last Synaxis that a number of clergy share this concern. In fact, some said they were relieved to learn that other clergy have the same understanding of our conduct and the same concerns addressed in this letter and in previous communications with you and that these concerns have been raised with you, but they are thus far disappointed in our Synod’s overall response. They said they would receive, on occasion, material from our hierarchs showing support for how our Synod was handling a controversial matter, but the same clergy never were made aware by our hierarchs that there were serious opposing views to how our Synod was handling things. I, too, was reassured to learn that others of my brother clergy are of a similar mind.
<br />
<br />
Are you not tempting God by willfully (after all, you are not in ignorance here) continuing to preside over this self-inflicted destruction? And if you are, for how long will our Lord forbear? You know He allowed His people to be defeated in war in order to teach them to have faith in Him and to be obedient to His will. Clergy, laity, and parishes have departed, a sizable number of our remaining clergy and laity are in dismay and are having temptations, and all of our mon-asteries (what’s left of them) are, at best, on shaky ground and/or divided. (This includes Holy Transfiguration; just pay honest attention to what is going on around you.) And all of this is re-lated to our Synod’s conduct. Are we to lose, perhaps irretrievably, everything built up by di-vine grace and our decades-long labor before we mend our ways? <br />
<br />
Kissing, again, your right hands, I remain your unworthy servant in our Lord Jesus Christ. <br />
<br />
Father Christos Constantinou <br />
<br />
P.S. Some of those same clergy asked that they be "kept in the loop" concerning matters such as these. Thus, whereas in the past I have not sent my communications with you broadly to others, I am sending this letter and similar others in the future to those who asked to be kept up on such things. Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-65609715350563718662012-09-18T13:26:00.001-04:002013-05-28T11:22:49.632-04:00Analysis of the Statement of the HOCNA Hierarchs<em><span style="background-color: #cc0000; color: white;"><strong>Updated 9/20/12: information added to note 1.</strong></span> The statement released by the remaining three hierarchs of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America appears below in regular text, followed by analysis of the statement. The notes in blue italics in the text of the statement have been added to correlate each point with the analysis below.</em><br />
<br />
<br />
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
Statement of the Holy Synod
</h4>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>5/18 September, 2012
</em></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Holy Prophet Zacharias</em>
</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To quote St. Maximus the Confessor "Even if the whole universe were to hold communion with these Churches, I will not hold communion with them." Under no circumstances will we, the undersigned hierarchs, endorse or accept a "Synod" (which was not a Synod at all <span style="font-size: x-small;">[1]</span> ) <em><span style="color: blue;">(See note 1) </span></em>that espouses teachings condemned and anathematized three times by the Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351. <em><span style="color: blue;">(See note 2)</span></em>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, we will not have any relations with hierarchs or church affiliations that consciously and deliberately accept the false teachings of the same Russian Synod of 1913, which teachings are under the anathemas of the aforesaid Council of Constantinople of 1351.
<em><span style="color: blue;">(See note 3)</span></em></div>
<br />
We are not "name-worshippers"; therefore, we reject the false teachings ascribed to them.
<em><span style="color: blue;">(See note 4)</span></em><br />
<br />
We do not believe that:
<br />
<br />
1. God's Name is His essence;
<em><span style="color: blue;">(See note 5)</span></em>
<br />
2. God's Name is to be separated from Him;
<br />
3. God's Name is another deity;
<br />
4. The letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God are to be deified, or used for magical purposes.
<em><span style="color: blue;">(See note 6)</span></em><br />
<br />
We espouse and embrace the February, 1921 Encyclical of the Holy Confessor Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, as a resolution of the so-called name-worshipping controversy.
<em><span style="color: blue;">(See note 7) </span></em>This is our Confession of the Holy Orthodox Christian faith, so help us God.
<br />
<br />
+ Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston
<br />
<br />
+ Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto
<br />
<br />
+ Gregory, Auxiliary Bishop of Concord
<br />
<br />
Protocol # 2917
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">1</span> In fact, the Russian Synod of 1913 was not a Synod or a Council at all in the true sense, but more like a department of religious affairs of the Russian govemment. <span style="color: blue;"><em>(See note 1)</em></span><br />
<em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<em><span style="color: blue;">_______________________________________________________________________</span></em></div>
<em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em><br />
<em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em><br />
<h4 align="center">
Analysis</h4>
<div align="center">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Note 1.</strong></span> The HOCNA hierarchs allege that the Russian Synod of 1913, which condemned name-worshipping, was not a valid synod, and that it was a branch of the civil government rather than a true governing body of the Church.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
True or false? Or simply misleading?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
First, the heresy of name-worshipping was condemned not only by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, but also by two successive patriarchs of Constantinople and by the Sacred Community of Mt. Athos. So even if critics were able to discard the decision of the Russian Synod of 1913, the condemnation of name-worshipping as a heresy by the Orthodox Church would still remain in force.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Second, it is true that Tsar Peter I, known as "the Great," did away with the position of the patriarch of Moscow and replaced it with a Holy Synod. A government official with the title "Ober Procurator" was appointed to oversee the work of the synod. This arrangement did not allow the emperor or civil government to have any say in questions of faith. It received approval from other Orthodox patriarchs. The chief result of this change was to ensure that there would be no patriarch to oppose the tsar. <em>(Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, third edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 257)</em></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In 1913, the synod of bishops had seven members. They were metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, not government employees. The head of the synod was the metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Vladimir, who had a long and distinguished career as a bishop and who was to become the first hieromartyr of the communist yoke. The chief opponent of name-worshipping on the synod was Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory, a theologian and distinguished bishop who went on to become the first of the first hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad and spiritual father of saints, including St. John Maximovich and St. Justin Popovich. Ironically, after the HOCNA clergy departed from the Russian Church Abroad, they venerated Metropolitan Anthony as their spiritual forefather and a yet-to-be-glorified saint.<br />
<br />
Further, while the HOCNA hierarchs do not recognize this synod as valid, the members of the Russian Orthodox Church in their day <strong><em>did. </em></strong>The decision of 1913 was accepted by all the bishops of the Church (the vast majority of whom went on to become confessors and martyrs under the communist yoke) and by all the monasteries, including Optina Pustyn and its elders.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Note 2.</strong> </span><span style="color: black;">The HOCNA hierarchs allege that the Russian Synod of 1913 based its decision on teachings condemned by the Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
True or false?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
First, let's decode the allegation. The Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351 was the last in a series of councils that met to decide whether the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas on hesychasm were Orthodox or heretical. At this council, St. Gregory Palamas was vindicated, and his opponents, Barlaam and Acindynos, were condemned. So the HOCNA hierarchs are accusing the Russian Synod of 1913 of falling into the heresy of the Barlaamites, and unwittingly opposing the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas.<br />
<br />
This charge is false, and it has already been answered by <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/holy-transfiguration-monastery-on-name.html">Holy Transfiguration Monastery</a>, by <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/smokescreens-for-heresy.html">Fr. Maximos of Holy Ascension Monastery</a>, and by other authors whose work appears on this site. Here is a quote from the HTM fathers' <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/holy-transfiguration-monastery-on-name.html">Historical Events and Analysis of the Name Worshipping Controversy</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The natural energy of God’s essence does not differ from God’s essence and is
not separate from it. They are not two separate things for God’s natural energy is simple
as is His essence. St Gregory Palamas repeated this Patristic truth against the
Barlaamites, when he declared, that it was a God-befitting distinction, which in no way
violated the divine simplicity. God is not diminished, but he is everywhere present in all
his essence, wherever his energy is differentiated and measured out according to His will;
He is present in His grace in the measure he determines for every creature. <em><strong>The Nameworshippers
call those who do not believe in their new teaching, Barlaamites. However, it
is their “dogma” that resembles the Barlaam heresy; for they, like Barlaam, declare that
the grace of God is created</strong></em>, since they declare a created name is God Himself.
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
To quote from Fr. Maximos's essay, <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/smokescreens-for-heresy.html">Smokescreens</a>:</div>
<blockquote style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Recently, a heresy called “name-worshipping” has reared its head. This heresy is so called because its adherents believe that the name of God is God Himself; that is, that His name is a divine energy and hence uncreated. This ridiculous idea was condemned by the Synod of Constantinople in 1913 and again by the Russian Synod the same year. These Synods declared heretical the idea that the name of God is an energy of God or God Himself. This is the central point of the heresy, from which all of their other deviant beliefs follow. The Russian Synod, however, added a few comments of its own on the subject of the divine energies and the divinity, <em><strong>which used a slightly different terminology than the manner of expression used by St. Gregory Palamas (the expositor par excellence on the subject of the divine energies.) The Synod’s terminology was not so much heretical as not as clear and precise as St. Gregory’s exposition; and this was evidently the result of the Russian bishops’ lack of familiarity with the polemical writings of the saint, which had mostly not been translated into Russian at the time. The modern name-worshippers have seized upon this imprecision of terminology and have made it their banner; or rather, their smokescreen, declaring that they cannot accept the Russian council because it opposes the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas. In so doing, they have missed the main point, which is that even if the Russian Synod expressed itself poorly, name-worshipping is still a heresy.</strong></em> The Russian condemnation of name-worshipping is still valid in and of itself, even if the terminology it used in its further explanation of the subject is questionable. Moreover, the heresy was also condemned by the Synod of Constantinople, which used no dubious terminology. Yet the name-worshippers also refuse to recognize this council. Hence, it is clear that their motivation in attacking the language of the Russian Synod is not pious concern over expression, but rather because they simply do not accept the Orthodox teaching on the name of God. <br />
</div>
</blockquote>
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Note 3. </span></strong> The HOCNA hierarchs write, "we will not have any relations with hierarchs or church affiliations that consciously and deliberately accept the false teachings of the same Russian Synod of 1913...."<br />
<br />
Decoded: They will not have any relations with the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. This is the Church <a href="http://www.gocportland.org/photios_reply_to_name-worshippers.html">whose hierarchs have spoken out against the name-worshipping heresy</a>, and to which former HOCNA bishops, clergy and laity continue to flee. Not only did the entire Metropolis of Portland and the West and the vast majority of the Metropolis of Toronto seek refuge in the GOC in 2011, but now <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/statement-of-bishop-demetrius.html">Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle</a>, along with clergy and laity from the Metropolis of Boston, are appealing to be received by the Holy Synod of the GOC at its meeting in Greece this week.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Note 4.</strong></span><span style="color: black;"> The HOCNA hierarchs write, "We are not 'name-worshippers'; therefore, we reject the false teachings ascribed to them."</span><br />
<br />
If that is true, why this long and carefully worded statement? <br />
<br />
They could simply write, "We join with the rest of the Orthodox Church in condemning the heresy of name-worshipping."<br />
<br />
But they did not.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Note 5. </strong></span><span style="color: black;">The HOCNA hierarchs write that they do not believe that God's Name is His essence. </span><br />
<span style="color: black;"></span><br />
Name-worshippers do not believe this either, according to Tatiana Senina, a prominent defender of name-worshipping and disciple of "Bishop" Gregory Lourie. In defining what name-glorifiers (as name-worshippers prefer to be called) believe, she is <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/name-worshippers-in-their-own-words-vs.html">quoted</a> as saying:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
He (Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich) founded his teaching on the Divinity of the Names of God above
all on the basis that<strong> </strong>the Divine Name is, according to the Holy Fathers;
His energy or operation, and that God’s energy is God Himself.</blockquote>
Name-worshippers contend that God's Name is His energy, but not His unapproachable essence.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Note 6. </strong></span><span style="color: black;">The HOCNA hierarchs write that they do not believe "[t]he letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God are to be deified, or used for magical purposes...."</span><br />
<br />
Again, <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/name-worshippers-in-their-own-words-vs.html">according to Senina as quoted</a>, neither do name-worshippers:<br />
<blockquote style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Indeed, if we were considering a teaching that equated created letters or sounds
with God, which it would be enough for anyone to write or pronounce in order to
achieve the desired miracle, then such a teaching could be called
‘name-worshipping’ and compared with magic and shamanism....</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong><span style="color: blue;">Note 7. </span></strong> The HOCNA hierarchs write, "We espouse and embrace the February, 1921 Encyclical of the Holy Confessor Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, as a resolution of the so-called name-worshipping controversy."</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Unfortunately, <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/from-nativity-epistle-of-patriarch.html">as has been shown elsewhere on this site</a>, the HOCNA hierarchs pick and choose from Patriarch Tikhon's words to make it seem he is sympathetic to name-worshipping, when he is not:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what did Patriarch Tikhon really say? In
addition to these four particular points <em><span style="color: blue;">(repeated by the HOCNA hierarchs in their statement above)</span></em>, he wrote that the synod was extending
economia to the repentant name-worshipping monks, condescending to their
spiritual mood and disposition. But even in this economia, they were required
to testify to:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
their exact following of the Orthodox Church, and of
their obedience to the God-established hierarchy, believing according to the
teaching of the Holy Church, adding nothing and subtracting nothing on their
own...</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Further, Patriarch Tikhon wrote that while it
was manifesting condescension to the repentant monks (extending economia to them
in helping them return to Orthodoxy), the Holy Synod did not change its judgment
on the heresy of name-worshipping itself. The Holy Synod condemned
name-worshipping as a heresy in 1913. That judgment was never modified or
overturned by the Holy Pan-Russian Local Council. It stands to this day.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: blue;"><strong>Conclusions: </strong></span><span style="color: black;">The statement of the HOCNA hierarchs seems to try to stake out a middle ground, in which they can deny to be name-worshippers without actually condemning name-worshipping as a heresy. On the one hand, they would like to appease the clergy and laity who are fleeing from under their omophorion. On the other, they would like to retain the privilege to profess certain name-worshipping beliefs, and to excuse their friendships with "Bishop" Gregory Lurie of St. Petersburg, Russia, and the newly-consecrated "Bishop" Job of Rivne, Ukraine.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Sadly for them, the Orthodox Church has spoken on name-worshipping. <a href="http://onimyaslavie.blogspot.com/2012/09/holy-transfiguration-monastery-on-name.html">As the HTM fathers wrote</a>, </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Indeed, the entire Church has condemned the Name-worshippers, either by words
of agreement, or by acquiescing to the formal decrees of the condemnation by the
Patriarchates.
When the Church condemns something, it is binding.</blockquote>
Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2371182919580754856.post-3543246924835256302012-09-18T09:26:00.001-04:002013-05-28T09:34:33.802-04:00Name-Worshippers in Their Own Words Vs. The Holy Fathers<h4>
WHAT A NAME-GLORIFIER IS
</h4>
<br />
A study by Nicholas Snogren
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Even if bishops are driven from their Churches, be not dismayed. If traitors have
arisen from among the very clergy themselves, let not this undermine your
confidence in God. <em>We are saved not by names</em>, but by mind and purpose, and <em>genuine
love toward our Creator</em>.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Basil the Great: Letter CCLVII, To the monks harassed by the Arians</em></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"If, then, one who speaks of the Son does not by that word refer to a creature, he is
on our side and not on the enemy's; but if any one applies the name of Son to the
creation, he is to be ranked among idolaters.” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, S:8
</em></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Because of the confusion over the subject of God’s name, and the disinformation being
spread about it (that Name-glorifiers don’t really believe the Name of God is God), it
seemed prudent to supply the Faithful with an exact definition.
<br />
<br />
This article contains definitions of the Name-glorifiers from articles written by a prominent
Name-glorifier, Tatiana Senina; as well as quotes from Anthony Bulatovich himself.
Bulatovich was the principle Name-glorifier ‘theologian’. These definitions are then
contrasted to direct quotes from the Holy Fathers of the Church.
<br />
<br />
<h4>
PART I. WHAT THE NAME-GLORIFIERS SAY THEY BELIEVE.
</h4>
<br />
To begin, here are quotes taken from Tatiana Senina’s article on Name-glorifiying. All quotes
are from her and the author of their doctrine, Anthony Bulatovich, and can be found <a href="http://www.pravoslav.de/imiaslavie/english/senina_onomatodoxes_and_onomatoclasts.htm">here</a>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
(accessed September 11 new-style, 2012)</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The formula ‘The Name of God is God Himself’ may indeed seem strange
to one unfamiliar with patristic doctrine or with the practice of noetic prayer.
In my opinion, this formula evoked and continues to evoke
misunderstanding because people are accustomed to understand as ‘names’
only conventional signs and symbols that could of course not be identified
with the object named.”</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em> Tatiana Senina: Name-Glorifying or Name-Worshipping?</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The essential definition of a Name-glorifier is the belief that the Name of God is God. Let’s
see how she breaks down the statement for those of us who are “unfamiliar with patristic
doctrine or noetic prayer.” She continues:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“…We are obligated to explain how the Holy Fathers understood the Names
of God and what they taught about prayer, and then compare their teaching
with the teaching of the name-glorifiers and then decide whether the former
is a heresy… Indeed, if we were considering a teaching that equated created
letters or sounds with God, which it would be enough for anyone to write or
pronounce in order to achieve the desired miracle, then such a teaching could
be called ‘name-worshipping’ and compared with magic and shamanism...” </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Ibid.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
At a cursory glance there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with this second quote. She
affirms that the created letters and sounds of the name of God cannot work miracles when
pronounced by just anyone (think about a Hispanic whose name is Jesus). However, she
does not say that the created letters and sounds which specifically refer to God aren’t God.
<br />
<br />
Continuing with Senina’s definition:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“He (Bulatovich) founded his teaching on the Divinity of the Names of God
above all on the basis that<strong> the Divine Name is, according to the Holy
Fathers; His energy or operation, and that God’s energy is God
Himself.</strong> This is the point around which the polemics essentially turned.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Ibid.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
So, a Name-glorifier is someone who thinks that the name of God is His energy, which
energy is God Himself. If A is B and B is C, A is C. Why does Senina only say that God’s
name is his Energy? To get around the fact that the Russian Church and the Patriarch of
Constantinople decreed that to say God’s name is His ‘essence’ is a heresy.* The Church
Fathers understood that there is no division in God.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“No difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Gregory of Nyssa: Letter to Ablabius, On Not Three Gods</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“There is not one subsistent Person, but a similar substance in both Persons. There is
not one name of God applied to dissimilar natures, but a wholly <em>similar essence</em>
belonging to <em>one name and nature</em>.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: Sirmium by the Easterns to oppose Photinus. 64.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The heretics when beset by authoritative passages in Scripture are wont only to
grant that the Son is like the Father in might <em>while they deprive Him of similarity of nature</em>.
This is foolish and impious, for they do not understand that similar might can only
be the result of a similar nature.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: On the Councils, or, The Faith of the Easterns 19.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“If any one grant the Son only a likeness of activity, but rob Him of the likeness of
essence which is the corner-stone of our faith, in spite of the fact that the Son
Himself reveals His essential likeness with the Father in the words, ‘For as the Father
hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself (John v.
26)… such a man<em> robs himself of the knowledge of eternal life</em>… let him be anathema.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: On the Councils, or, The Faith of the Easterns. VI.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
If you say God’s name is His energy, then (according the the Holy Fathers), you have to say
it’s His nature, or <em>essence</em>, or <em>substance</em>, as well! People may gainsay the 1913 Anathema against
the Name-worshipers all they want- they’re already condemned!
<br />
<br />
Which Holy Fathers does Bulatovich quote to support his ideas? Senina tells us:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“According to the quotations in his writings, Antony Bulatovich <em>did not have</em>
at his disposal <em>the majority of sources</em> that were used by Gregory Palamas, nor
the works of Palamas himself…n<em>ot once did Antony quote Palamas in his
writings</em>.’…if, while writing his treatises, Gregory Palamas referred to the
dogmatic works of the fathers, Antony Bulatovich in his works <em>focused on the
scriptures</em> and on the liturgical texts.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Tatiana Senina: </em><a href="http://scrinium.academia.edu/KassiaSenina/Papers/1060099/The_status_of_divine_revelation_in_the_works_of%20_Hieromonk_Anthony_Bulatovich"><em>The Status of Divine Revelation in Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich</em></a></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The great Saint of our Church, Gregory Palamas, in his humility, founded his writings on the
explanations of the Church Fathers. Bulatovich, a Russian author, admits that he based his
work on the Scriptures, without even having the Church Fathers available! Personal
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is Protestantism. The Orthodox rely strictly on what
the Fathers of the Church, who were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and taught by the
Apostles themselves, have handed down to us.
<br />
<br />
Name-glorifiers have a habit of trying to hide the actual meaning of their belief by fancy
language which makes them sound innocent at first.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“…These sounds and letters [of the Name] are different in every language,
and they will not carry over into eternity, and are not united in any way with
the Lord Jesus Christ, because when we, speaking about the Name, have in
mind created human words with which we express ideas about God and
about Christ…”
</blockquote>
<br />
Before we finish that sentence, take note of the meaning so far. Sounds and letters will not
carry over into eternity. They are not united in any way with the Lord Jesus Christ. When we
speak about the Name, we have, <em>in mind, <strong>created words</strong></em>, with which we express our
perceptions and conceptions of God. Now let’s see the rest of the sentence:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: left;">
“When we, speaking about the Name, have in mind created human words
with which we express ideas about God and about Christ, then it is
appropriate to speak of the presence of God in His Name…”</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich), Moia bor’ba s imiabortsami na Sviatoi Gore [My Battle with the
Onomatoclasts on the Holy Mountain], p. 117</em>.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The second half of the sentence says the exact opposite of the first! The sounds and letters
of the name are in no way united with Jesus Christ, but it is appropriate to speak about His
presence in them when we have them <em>in mind</em>. They are un-united, but He is in them.
<br />
<br />
Name-glorifiers have this trick of saying that the letters and sounds which make up a written
or spoken name are not related to the mental image of a name. The Fathers often refer to
our mental images or ideas as ‘conceptions’, which are a capability of our ‘reasoning’:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
‘The reasoning part of the soul is divided into conception and articulation.
Conception is an activity of the soul originating in the reason without resulting in
utterance… And it is this faculty chiefly which constitutes us all reasoning beings…
But articulation by voice or in the different dialects requires energy: that is to say, the
word is articulated by the tongue and mouth, and this is why it is named articulation.
It is, indeed, the messenger of thought, and it is because of it that we are called
speaking beings.”</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Hilary of Poitiers: De Trinitate. Book II, Chapter XXI.—Concerning Conception and Articulation.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
When Bulatovich speaks of the Name of God “in mind”, he is referring to our conception.
According to the Apostolic teaching of the Church, here defined by St Hilary, conception is
reasoning without utterance and articulation is the utterance of that same reasoning.
Therefore, if we were to <em>articulate </em>our conception of this “Name”, we’d be articulating God!
That is, according to Name-glorifiers.
<br />
<br />
In the beginning of this article, we pointed out a subtlety in Senina’s apology for the “Nameglorifiers”,
namely, that words and letters which equate with God do not work miracles on
their own. She does not say that the words and letters which make up <u><strong>THE</strong></u> name of God
are not God, since that’s what they really believe. Rather, she mixes her language to lure
people into a false sense of trust, so that they swallow poison mixed with honey.<br />
<br />
Here is the rest of the previous quote from Bulatovich:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“But when we have <em>in mind</em> the Name itself, that is Truth itself, <em>that is</em> <em>God
Himself</em>, as the Lord said of Himself: ‘I am… the Truth’ (Jn 14:6).”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich), Moia bor’ba s imiabortsami na Sviatoi Gore [My Battle with the
Onomatoclasts on the Holy Mountain], p. 117.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The main thesis of the adherents of Onomatodoxy [Name-glorifying] is that
every energy of God is God and is called God, and therefore the words of
God recorded in the Holy Scripture, are also not the dead words of God but
the living words. Hence <em>the names of God are also the Spirit and Life</em> in their
innermost mystery, and they possess divine dignity and <em>can be rightly called God
Himself</em>, as the Energy of the Divinity, <em><strong>inseparable from the substance of
God.”</strong></em>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich): Idem, Moya mysl’ vo Khriste: </em></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>O Deyatel’nosti (Energii) Bozhestva (My Thought in Christ: </em></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>On
Activity (Energy) of the Godhead) (Petrograd: Ispovednik, 1914), p. 5</em></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The definition of a Name-glorifier then is that the Name of God is God, whether spoken, or
written on a chalkboard. God is His name. God is a creature.
<br />
<br />
Let’s see what Bulatovich would have realized if he had actually founded his ideas on the
teaching of the Holy Fathers.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
PART II. WHAT THE HOLY FATHERS SAY ABOUT THE NAME OF GOD.
</h4>
<br />
Senina assures us that the theology on the uncreated thought of the Name of God is from
the Holy Fathers, and admits that if it were not, it would be a heresy. So, what <em>do</em> the Fathers
say? All quotes (except St. Isaac) are taken from the <a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html">Early Church Fathers series</a>, second
edition, <span style="font-size: x-small;">(accessed on 9/10/12, new
style)</span>. St. Isaac’s quotes are taken from the Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s publication of
his <em>Ascetical Homilies</em>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Because the Deity is goodness itself, true mercy and an abyss of loving bounty - or,
rather, He is that which embraces and contains this abyss, since He <em>transcends every
name that is named and everything we can conceive</em> - we can receive mercy only by union
with Him.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Gregory Palamas: On Prayer and Purity of Heart no. 1</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one <em><strong>dare</strong></em> to say that
there is <em>a name</em>, he raves with a hopeless madness.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Clement: First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter LXI.--Christian baptism.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"There exists <em>no name</em> which embraces the whole nature of God, and is sufficient to
declare it; more names than one, and these of very various kinds, each in accordance
with its own proper connotation, <em>give a collective idea</em> which may be dim indeed and poor
when compared with the whole, but is enough for us."
- </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Basil the Great: Prolegomena, Dogmatic Works; i, Against Eunomius</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Things are not made for names, but names for things. Eunomius unhappily was led
by distinction of name into distinction of being."
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The last word of Nicene orthodoxy has to be uttered; and it is, that God is really
incomprehensible, and that here we can never know His name.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Preface to St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Select Writings and Letters, trans. William Moore, M.A.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“For God cannot be called by any proper name, for names are given to mark out and
distinguish their subject-matters, because these are many and diverse; but neither did
any one exist before God who could give Him a name, nor <em>did He Himself think it right to
name Himself</em>, seeing that He is one and unique, as He Himself also by His own
prophets testifies, when He says, "I am the first and I am hereafter and beside me
there is no other God." (Isa. xliv. 6.)”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Justin the Philosopher: Hortatory Address to the Greeks: Chapter XXI.--The namelessness of God.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The One above conception is <em>inconceivable to all conceptions</em>; and the Good above word
is unutterable by word… and Word unutterable, speechlessness, and inconception,
<em>and namelessness </em>-- being after the manner of no existing being, and Cause of being to
all, but Itself not being…”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Dionysius the Areopagite: On the Divine Names, caput I, section I.</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“. . the most proper of all the names <em>given to God</em> is ‘He that Is’…”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. John of Damascus: An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith; Chapter IX.—Concerning what is affirmed
about God.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“From many similar instances in Holy Scripture it may be proved that the name of
God has <em><strong>no pre-eminence over other words</strong></em> which are applied to the divine…”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Basil the Great: Letter to Eustatius the physician, section 5.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“…but thou, beloved, when thou hast heard of ‘The Word,’ <em>do not endure</em> those who
say, that He is a work; nor those even who think, that <em>He is simply a word</em>. For many
are the words of God which angels execute, but of those words <em>none is God</em>; they all
are prophecies or commands…”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. John Chrysostom: Homily IV, John i. 1.-“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.”</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Let us not then confound the creation with the Creator, lest we too hear it said of
us, that ‘they served the creature rather than the Creator’ ( Rom. i. 25 ) Who changed
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Ibid.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The good Cause of all is… without utterance; as<em> having neither utterance nor conception</em>,
because It is superessentially exalted above all, and manifested without veil and in
truth, to those alone who… leave behind all divine lights and sounds, and heavenly
words, and enter into the gloom, where really is, as the Oracles say, He Who is
beyond all.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Dionysius the Areopagite: Mystic Theology, Caput I, section III.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Every name of God is due to a conception.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, S:8</em></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“If any man says that the Son of God is the internal or uttered Word of God: let him
be anathema.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: The Creed according to the Council of the East. VIII.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
How does the<em> consensus of the Fathers</em> sound compared to Name-glorifiers?
<br />
<br />
Who is to be trusted more, a few 20th century Russian monks, or the consensus of the
Fathers of our Church who were taught by the Apostles themselves and enlightened by the
All-Holy Spirit?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“When… all reflections and<em> thoughts</em> cease within you… you have been worthy of the
operation of grace.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Isaac the Syrian- Appendix B, 4:59</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“When the intellect wishes mystically to go before the One, it must refrain from all
thoughts…”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Ibid. 4:63</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“It [God] is neither soul, nor mind… or reason, or conception; neither is expressed,
nor conceived; neither has power, nor is power, nor light… <em>nor truth</em>… neither Deity,
nor Goodness; nor is It Spirit according to our understanding… neither is there
expression of It, <em>nor name</em>, nor knowledge; neither is It darkness, nor light; nor error,
nor truth; neither is there any definition at all of It, nor any abstraction.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Dionysius. Mystic Theology, CAPUT V.</em></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>That the pre-eminent Cause of every object of intelligible perception </em></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>is
none of the objects of intelligible perception.</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“God is not matter----soul, mind, spirit, any being, nor even being itself, but above
and beyond all these.”
- </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Preface to ‘Mystic Theology'</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“They left the head and worship the hat.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>Elder Kallinikos the Hesychast</em>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
So we see what the<strong> consensus of the Fathers</strong> is concerning the name of God. To say the
Name of God is God clearly goes against the teaching of the Church. The quote at the
beginning of this article was against the Arians, who tried to say that Jesus Christ was only a
man. How much worse to worship a WORD as God!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“When Paul is investigating the special methods of the work of redemption he seems
to grow dizzy before the mysterious maze which he is contemplating, and utters the
well-known words, ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of
God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!’ These
things are beyond the reach even of those who have attained the measure of Paul’s
knowledge. <em><strong>What then is the conceit of those who announce that they know
the essence of God!…</strong></em> All who have even a<em> limited</em> loyalty to truth ought to dismiss
all corporeal similitudes. They must be very careful not to sully their conceptions of
God by material notions. They must follow the theologies delivered to us by the Holy
Ghost. They <em><strong>must shun questions which are little better than conundrums,
and admit of a dangerous double meaning…</strong></em> before the incarnation He <em>neither had
the name above every name</em> nor was owned by all to be Lord… ‘And Jesus came to them
and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and
on earth.’ (Matt. Xxviii. 18) We must understand this of the <em>incarnation</em>, and not of the
Godhead.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<em>St. Basil the Great: Prolegomena, Dogmatic Works; i, Against Eunomius</em></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Notes:</h4>
* His energy is His action, or operation, in the world, and His nature, or essence, is what He is. According to the Fathers, it is impossible for us to know his essence- our minds and language cannot contain it.Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10290905304836565453noreply@blogger.com