Chronology: Document 10

From: Met. Ephraim [mailto:metephraim@homb.org]

Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:49 AM

Subject: article--ILL-CONSIDERED DECISIONS Sept 2012

"ILL-CONSIDERED DECISIONS"

By Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston

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.

For example, in the Minutes of the Councils (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, or in ignorance .

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!

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."

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?!

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."

So much for Rome’s present day claims of universal jurisdiction!

Do you know that a Church Council promoted the use of indulgences — a Roman Catholic practice tied to the heretical teaching concerning Purgatory??

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:

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.

(13th Article of the Council)

In fact, just to make things perfectly clear, the very same Synodal resolution (Article 13) adds with emphasis:

To say that only the Pope of Rome has the right to give out indulgences is a blatant lie!

Certainly, indulgences are as good a Latinism as you’ll find anywhere — including the "Trinity" icon!

From an "official" point of view, the resolutions of this Council have never been rescinded.

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.

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.

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.

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: "Every Orthodox bishop is infallible — until he makes a mistake!"

And that’s still the way it is.

What is truly marvelous is that the Church has always had the divine illumination of the Saints to guide her in overcoming these human errors.

"We follow in the footsteps of the Holy Fathers."

(4th Ecumenical Council)

Amen!
 

* See my previous article, "Our Fathers in Heaven.

** Metropolitan Ephraim’s Note: This aspect of the "giving out" of Indulgences is not mentioned in the Synodal resolution.

Chronology: Document 13

From Metropolitan Ephraim’s emailed file, "The Orthodox Veneration of the Name of God"

From: Met. Ephraim [mailto:metephraim@homb.org]

Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 8:26 PM

Subject: 2 attached articles

PRELUDE

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.

................................
 
[bold type in the original; rest of the PDF file, about the contents of which there is no contention, omitted]

Chronology: Document 12

The Entire Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Council Which Met in Constantinople in 861 AD

The portion pertinent to this Chronology is italicized.

CANON XV

 

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.

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 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.

The Rudder, p. 470-471.

, pp. 470-471.

Chronology: Document 9

 

Declarative Statement Submitted to the Bishops for Their Approval and Signature

 

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

Chronology: Document 15

Minutes of the HOCNA Synod Meeting Wherein the Hierarchs Recognized

the Orthodoxy and Canonicity of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece

Presided Over by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens

 
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.

1) Motion by Metropolitan Moses to except [sic: accept] the motions of the previous Synod meeting. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously.

2) Motion by Bishop Demetrius:

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" Liturgy of St Basil the Great). 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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The meeting of the Holy Synod continues on September 22/October 5, 2010.

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.

2) Motion by Metropolitan Makarios that Ecclesiastical decrees that require the signature [sic: signature] of a hierarch must be promulgated and signed by the ruling hierarch of the local Metropolis. 2nd by Bishop Demetrius. Motion carries unanimously.

3) Motion by Metropolitan Moses that we adjourn the meeting of the Holy Synod. 2nd by Metropolitan Ephraim. Motion carries unanimously.

Submitted faithfully in Christ,

+Bishop Demetrius

Secretary of the Holy Synod

Chronology: Document 16

Statement of St. Mark of Ephesus Cathedral Clergy

September 3/16, 2012
St. Anthimus the Hieromartyr

Most Rev. Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston; Most Rev. Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto; and Rt. Rev. Gregory, Bishop of Concord:

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.

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?

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.

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, in your decisions, dated September 21/October 4, 2010, 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.

We pray for the forgiveness and blessings and salvation of our merciful Savior on us all. Amen.

(signatures of Fr. Christos Constantinou, Fr. George Kamberidis, Fr. Demetrius Houlares)

Chronology: Document 5

— A —


From:
Pamela Houlares <pamhoulares@yahoo.com>

To:
Metropolitan Ephraim <metephraim@homb.org>

Cc:
Bishop Demetrius <bpdemetrius@homb.org>

Sent:
Monday, January 16, 2012 8:50 AM

Subject:
Meeting, Saturday, January 21, 2012

Your Eminence Metropolitan Ephraim:

I kiss your right hand.

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.

In Christ,

Diaconissa Pamela


— B —


January 30, 2012

Your Eminence Metropolitan Ephraim,

I kiss your right hand,

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

The parishioners of St. Mark’s Orthodox Cathedral look forward to continued communication and involvement in our Church.

In Christ,

Diaconissa Pamela Houlares

Chronology: Document 4

STATEMENT OF THE HOLY SYNOD

of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America

Beloved Christians:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

May God protect and shelter all of us.

+Metropolitan Ephraim

+Metropolitan Makarios

+Bishop Demetrius

November 19/December 2, 2011

Martyr Barlaam of Antioch

Chronology: Document 2

February 6/19, 2012

Sunday of the Last Judgment

His Eminence Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston, His Eminence Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto, His Grace Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle:

Holy Masters, bless!

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 your statement of November 19/December 2, 2011, 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).

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:

+ Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople (September 1912)

+ The Holy Kinot of the Holy Mountain (February 2, 1913)

+ Patriarch Germanos V of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (April 5, 1913)

+ Holy Synod of Russia (May 18, 1913; August 27, 1913; March 1916)

+ His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon (October 21, 1918)

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 letter by Priestmonk Gregory, 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:

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.


Among 4,800 Russian monks on Mt. Athos, about 800 professed this heresy, but many of them later repented.


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.


The Holy Synod of Russia never repealed its decision.


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.


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.

You have admitted that you erred in allowing Lourie to be communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in October of last year. 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.

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:

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, 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.

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.

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?

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.

In Christ,                                

Fr. Deacon Yakov Tseitlin

Chronology: Document 1

October 30/November 12, 2011

 SS. Cleopas and Artemas, the Apostles

Most Rev. Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston; Most Rev. Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto; and Rt. Rev. Demetrius, Bishop of Carlisle

Beloved Holy Masters:

I kiss your right hands and ask your blessings.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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?

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.

Beloved Masters, do you grasp the scandal and ecclesiological inconsistency and undermining of our own canonical and confessional integrity?

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Kissing, again, your right hands, I remain your unworthy servant in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Father Christos Constantinou

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.

Analysis of the Statement of the HOCNA Hierarchs

Updated 9/20/12: information added to note 1.  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.

Statement of the Holy Synod

5/18 September, 2012

Holy Prophet Zacharias

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 [1] ) (See note 1) that espouses teachings condemned and anathematized three times by the Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351. (See note 2)

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. (See note 3)

We are not "name-worshippers"; therefore, we reject the false teachings ascribed to them. (See note 4)

We do not believe that:

1. God's Name is His essence; (See note 5)
2. God's Name is to be separated from Him;
3. God's Name is another deity;
4. The letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God are to be deified, or used for magical purposes. (See note 6)

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. (See note 7) This is our Confession of the Holy Orthodox Christian faith, so help us God.

+ Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston

+ Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto

+ Gregory, Auxiliary Bishop of Concord

Protocol # 2917



1 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. (See note 1)

_______________________________________________________________________

Analysis

 

Note 1.   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.

 

True or false?  Or simply misleading?

 

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.

 

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. (Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, third edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 257)

 

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.

Further, while the HOCNA hierarchs do not recognize this synod as valid, the members of the Russian Orthodox Church in their day did.  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.

 

Note 2.  The HOCNA hierarchs allege that the Russian Synod of 1913 based its decision on teachings condemned by the Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351.

True or false?

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.

This charge is false, and it has already been answered by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, by Fr. Maximos of Holy Ascension Monastery, and by other authors whose work appears on this site.  Here is a quote from the HTM fathers' Historical Events and Analysis of the Name Worshipping Controversy:

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. 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, since they declare a created name is God Himself.

To quote from Fr. Maximos's essay, Smokescreens:

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, 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. 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.
 

Note 3.  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...."

Decoded: They will not have any relations with the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.  This is the Church whose hierarchs have spoken out against the name-worshipping heresy, 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 Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle, 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.

Note 4.  The HOCNA hierarchs write, "We are not 'name-worshippers'; therefore, we reject the false teachings ascribed to them."

If that is true, why this long and carefully worded statement? 

They could simply write, "We join with the rest of the Orthodox Church in condemning the heresy of name-worshipping."

But they did not.

Note 5.  The HOCNA hierarchs write that they do not believe that God's Name is His essence. 

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 quoted as saying:

He (Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich) founded his teaching on the Divinity of the Names of God above all on the basis that the Divine Name is, according to the Holy Fathers; His energy or operation, and that God’s energy is God Himself.

Name-worshippers contend that God's Name is His energy, but not His unapproachable essence.

Note 6.  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...."

Again, according to Senina as quoted, neither do name-worshippers:

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....

Note 7.   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."

 

Unfortunately, as has been shown elsewhere on this site, 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:

But what did Patriarch Tikhon really say? In addition to these four particular points (repeated by the HOCNA hierarchs in their statement above), 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:

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...

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.

Conclusions:  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.

 

Sadly for them, the Orthodox Church has spoken on name-worshipping.  As the HTM fathers wrote,

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.

Statement of Bishop Demetrius

September 3/16, 2012
Hieromartyr Anthimus

Beloved Faithful:

In the Holy Orthodox Church, the bishop's first responsibility is to protect and defend the purity of our Confession of Faith. Within the past few years multiple issues have arisen which have disturbed the peace of HOCNA. These issues caused separation from Bishops, clergy, and laity. Particularly in this last year, a doctrine called Name-worshipping (or Name-glorifying) has been allowed to enter into the Holy Orthodox Church in North America, especially affecting the Metropolis of Boston. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Church of Russia, and the Holy Mountain of Athos condemned this teaching as a heresy some 100 years ago. From then until today, the entire Orthodox Church accepted these decisions. Now, there are some persons who wish to revive this teaching. They are casting doubt on the validity of the synods and confusing the synodal decisions in order to have this teaching gain acceptance by the faithful.

Efforts in the past year to quell this invasion of false doctrine have failed. Worse, despite pleas from clergy and laity, the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America will not formally issue an unequivocal pronouncement accepting all the decisions condemning the heresy of Name-worshipping and excommunicating those who adhere to it. 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 Orthodox Church in North America.

I am not forming a new synod; I am not creating a schism; I am not remaining a "floating" bishop. On the contrary, I am petitioning to be received as a member of the existing synod of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, whose president is Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens. This same synod was unanimously, officially, and publicly acknowledged as a rightly confessing and canonical True Orthodox Church on September 21/0ctober 4, 2010 by the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America. The same Synod of Bishops unanimously decided to lift the 1985 depositions against those bishops in the current GOC Archbishop Kallinikos Synod. They also dissolved the locum tenency of the throne of Athens that was held by Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto. These actions mean that Archbishop Kallinikos' Synod is the canonical successor of the True Orthodox Church of Greece under Archbishop Auxentius of Athens to which we belonged and from which we derived our hierarchy.

The Name-worshipping heresy has wreaked havoc in our Church in North America. We had already suffered division as a result of the "Awake, Sleeper" controversy. Sorne consider "Awake, Sleeper" to be a debatable theological point which unnecessarily caused controversy in the Church, while others consider it heretical as well. Name-worshipping, however, is not debatable. The synodal decisions of 100 years ago clearly condemn it as a heresy. That is why so many of our clergy and laity are disturbed by the introduction of this teaching into the Church. Metropolitan Ephraim's articles such as 'Halki' and 'Ill-Considered Decisions' subtly support the Name-worshippers by insulting the Synods that condemned the heresy. A layperson who knows nothing about a strange doctrine, but has a terrible opinion of the authorities which condemned it, will be easily led to believe the doctrine.

Numerous clergy and many of the Faithful no longer trust the Metropolitan to lead the Church. Many clergymen have asked their Metropolitan to retire, and fifteen monks of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery are leaving. Clergy and laity have indicated they have stopped or will cease commemorating their Metropolitan. The issue is the purity of our Confession of Faith.

Furthermore, questions have been arising about the very foundation of HOCNA, the purpose of its inception and existence, the reasons for Metropolitan Ephraim's insistence for independence, and intercommunion only on his terms. Issues like 'Awake, Sleeper' and 'Name-worshipping' continue to push us away from other Synods, create discord in our own Synod, and Metropolitan Ephraim will not stop. Now, those who are leaving are being branded as rebels and troublemakers for their refusal to compromise on matters of Faith.

Under normal circumstances, according to the Holy Canons, a smaller, local synod can appeal to a greater synod when questions arise concerning doctrine, the tenure of hierarchs, and canonical order. There is no such official arrangement for the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America. This lack of a higher authority makes resolving such disputes very frustrating. To whom can the faithful appeal? My petition to be received into the Synod of Bishops of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece is an appeal on behalf of myself, our faithful clergy, and laity, for refuge from false teaching and a witness to our Savior' s Truth.

In the love of our Lord Jesus Christ,

+ Bishop Demetrius

The Nativity Epistle of Patriarch Tikhon: What He Really Said

Updated 9/15/12: 

 

A passage from the Holy New Hieromartyr Patriarch Tikhon's Nativity epistle to diocesan hierarchs in 1921 is often misrepresented and mistranslated by proponents of name-worshipping in an effort to portray Patriarch Tikhon as sympathetic to their cause.

 

On September 11, 2012, the remaining three bishops of the synod of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (Ephraim of Boston, Makarios of Toronto and Gregory of Concord) issued a statement on name-worshipping, in which they attempt to use this passage from the Nativity Epistle of Patriarch Tikhon in exactly such a way.

 

 

In fact, Patriarch Tikhon upheld the synodal decisions condemning name-worshipping, as well as those extending economia to repentant name-worshippers who wished to rejoin the Orthodox Church.  Here is a correct translation:

From the Nativity Greeting of Patriarch Tikhon to the Diocesan Hierarchs

…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, [and it, the Synod of 1914] allowed the previously required signed repudiation by the name-worshippers of their false teaching to be replaced with a written testimony [i.e., from witness] (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 [of 1914] 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 Anthony 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…

February 19, 1921

Protocol No. 3244

The bishops of HOCNA introduce this passage with the following remark:  "Our Holy Synod endorses and espouses the theological solution to the controversy surrounding the Name of God, found in the following Encyclical of St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow:"  Then they highlight these sentences in italics:

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,

They continue to insist on boiling down the essence of Patriarch Tikhon's words to these four points, which even the most fervent advocate of name-worshipping, Gregory Lourie, could embrace.

But what did Patriarch Tikhon really say?  In addition to these four particular points, 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:

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...

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.