HOCNA, the Name-Worshipping Heresy and the Synod of Archbishop Makarios of Athens

Sister Churches in More Ways Than One

by Fr. Panagiotes Carras

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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, A Brief Explanation of Onomatodoxy, 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, The Name of God as A Sign Spoken Against 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 Gregory Lourie's site which also includes an icon of the heretic, Anthony Bulatovich, founder of the Name-Worshippers.

 

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 Freemonks. This was a rock band named Paparokades. By 2005 the monks abandoned Moulatsiotis and monasticism.

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. At one of Moulatsiotis' demonstrations, Archbishop Makarios proclaimed, "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."  Archbishop Makarios also joined Moulatsiotis in rallies sponsored by the political group ELKIS.

 

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 STATEMENT OF EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION 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.

 

HOCNA and the Lamians are truly sister churches in more ways than one.

Why the Russian Synod of 1913 Was Not Heretical

By Fr. Maximos Marretta of Holy Ascension Monastery

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.¹

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moreover, it is clear that the Nameworshippers reject 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.

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.

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!

¹ 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.

On the Economist articles

Several weeks ago, a British news magazine, The Economist, 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.

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.

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?

They shouldn't.

Instead, they should be asking their friends in HOCNA some questions.

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?

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.

The main article, "In the name of the Name," 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?!!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

The second article, "How the name-glorifier's influence rippled through intellectual history," 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?

Chronology: Document 8

Metropolitan Ephraim’s emailed file, “Excursus”

From: Holy Nativity Convent
Date: September 3, 2012 11:41:00 AM EDT
To: us HNC
Subject: From Metropolitan Ephraim

Excursus.pdf   LetterMetNNENG.pdf
Respected Fathers,

Evlogeite! Metropolitan Ephraim has asked that we send these letters to you all...

THE PAPER TITLED “EXCURSUS”:

A Historical Note

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 five times.

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:

From the letter of Holy Tsar-Martyr Nicholas to the Overseer of the Holy Synod,

Pascha, 15 of April 1914

 

“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.”
 

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.

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:

“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)”

And that:

“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.”
 

And concluded:

“The Moscow Synodal Office resolved … to stop the ecclesiastical trial against them.”
 

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.

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. 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. The Synod had simply lied.

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.

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.

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.


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.

Chronology: Document 7

The Relevant Portion of Fr. Nicholas’s Email

From: Father Nicholas
Subject: Previous on Bp. Gregory Lourie?
Date: August 27, 2012 3:27:35 PM EDT
To: Bishop Demetrius
Cc: "Fr. John Fleser" , Father John Fleser
Reply-To: Father Nicholas

Evlogeite!

As the person responsible for many years for keeping our hierarchs, clergy, and monastics informed on the latest developments on the Russian Orthodox Church scene, I am very dismayed to hear that Metropolitan Ephraim is now attempting to convince people that, prior to the furor over Bishop Gregory Lourie's taking of Communion at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in October 2011, he, Metropolitan Ephraim, supposedly had little knowledge of Bishop Gregory and his teachings, and had only limited and positive information about the name-worshipers.

The contents of my filing cabinet and of my e-mail box tell an entirely different story. Allow me to share three documents with you to illustrate my point. I, as the translator, had given them to Metro-politan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon, among others.

(Of late, those of us who have any sort of archival materials, or even a good memory, are sometimes not appreciated in certain quarters. One needs to keep invoking the well known saying: "Don't shoot the messenger!")

1) In 1998, the then still layman, Basil Lourie (not even being a member of our church!) contacted our Georgian clergy, urging them to rebel against their hierarchs over the issue of The Dogma of Redemption by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. Basil states that "The Dogma of Redemption" is 'pure and unadulterated heresy', yet he goes on to claim that that fact does not make Metropolitan Anthony a heretic! Rather interesting logic, no?!

As if that was not enough, he declares that Vladyka Gregory Grabbe could not comprehend Ortho-dox dogmatics at all! (Of course, it goes without saying, that Basil Lourie can and does!)

2) In early 2001, the by now Father Gregory Lourie raised the issue of name-worshiping within the synod of Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal, to whose synod he then belonged. A certain priest's wife in Russia of that jurisdiction appealed to Matushka Anastasia Schatiloff (née Grabbe) for assistance and material to refute that teaching. Matushka Anastasia, in turn, sought our advice and aid.

I submitted a nine-page summary in English of all the materials in Russian which they had sent to us, and I gave it to Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon. Attached here is the cover letter to that collection, in which I ask for their instructions on how to reply to Matushka Anastasia. When I wrote the words "since it appears that this issue of 'name-worshiping' is going to assume serious proportions...", I never dreamed then that it would become such a problem here with us!

3) The third document attached here is the response which Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon instructed me to make to Matushka Anastasia at that time.

Note what they told me to say to her:
a) Name-worshiping is an internal affair of the Russian Church, and we cannot get involved.
b) We are unable to read most of the literature on the topic, which is in Russian, so it's beyond our competency.
c) On no account will we allow Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky to be disparaged.

It's very sad and disconcerting to see how much things have changed in eleven years! The documents given above are only a sample of what we have on file. Subsequently, I have kept Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon abreast of all of Bp. Gregory Lourie's later pronouncements, undertakings, and various shenanigans....

[rest of email and its attachments omitted]

Chronology: Document 6

June 19/6, 2012
Righteous Hilarion the New

Dear ______ ,

I pray that this letter finds you in the grace and peace of our Saviour. Amen...

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.

What I will write to you now is what I have learned so far personally 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).

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.

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.

HALKI
by
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston

The inspiration for this article came from an essay in Theodromia (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.

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: Heybeli Ada) in the Bosporus. Fortunately, the Turks closed the school some years ago.

Its professors were trained in the Protestant and Roman Catholic schools of the West, and they absorbed many of those Western prejudices.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Thank you, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther.

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."

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.

I could go on, but enough is enough.

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 [fournión, fournión] of bishops, like muffins out of a bakery, that will one day gather together in an assembly to dissolve Orthodox Christianity."

Well, my beloved Orthodox Christians, do we not see Flamiatos’ prophecy coming true right before our eyes?

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.

Let us turn now to the Russian Holy Synod and their decision.

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.

The only problem here is that St. Gregory is misquoted by all three!

Here, for example, in parallel columns  is what the Russian Holy Synod claims that St. Gregory says and what St. Gregory Palamas actually teaches: [Ed: columns not reproduced here for technical reasons; contrasting statements are presented one after another]

Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God

The Hierarch [St. Gregory Palamas] nowhere calls [God’s] energies ‘God,’ but teaches that one should call it ‘Divinity’ (not theos, but theotes)

Epistle of the Russian Synod, 1913

Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God

Every [divine] power or energy is God Himself.

Letter to John Gabra

Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God

Saint Gregory [Palamas]...requires that one call the energy of God not God, but rather divine, and to refer to it not as God, but as "divine" or "Divinity" (theotis, and not theos).

The energy and will of the Divinity have divineness (although without being God).

Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky,

On the New False Teaching, the Deifying Name, and the "Apology" of Antony Bulatovich

Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God

Since God Himself is the Grace, 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...?

Since that which the Saints have received, the same by which they are deified, is nothing other than God Himself, how is it, then, that according to you this grace is created?

Against Acyndinus, III, 8.

 

Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God

The Palamites taught that the Energies of God are Divinity, but not God.

Professor S. Troitsky,
Turmoil on Athos: Holy Orthodoxy and the Name-worshipping Heresy

Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God

When we speak of one Godhead, we speak of everything that is God, namely, both essence and energy.

Topics of Natural and Theological Science, 126.

Since God is wholly present in each Divine Energy, He is named through each one of them.

Triads in Defence of the Hesychasts, III, 2, 7.

 

 

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.

This is the first important factor that must be taken into account.

The second is an important Encyclical written by the holy Patriarch Tikhon in February 1921.

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:

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, 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.

February 19, 1921

Protocol #3244

Now, it seems to me that if anybody (including Father Anthony Bulatovich) is guilty of:

1. Believing that God’s Name is God’s essence,

2. Separating God’s Name from God,

3. Considering God’s Name to be another deity,

4. Deifying letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God,

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.

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?

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.

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.

I thank you for your patience. May God bless you and your family.

In Christ,

✠Ephraim, metropolitan

[1]  Father Anthony Bulatovich himself asked that he be judged on the basis of his written “Confession of Faith”.

Dear Anastasia, On Your Letter from Fr. Mark

Dear Anastasia,

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Fr. Mark writes:

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?

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.

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?

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. As Fr. Barsanuphius has pointed out, the Name of God is an icon in a word.

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.

 Fr. Mark writes further:

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..."

(Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, Voice of the Church, Jan 1912).

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.

Fr. Mark continues,

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."

This is factually incorrect.

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.)

Vladimir Moss, who was Lourie's chief opponent at the time, has written an extensive review of name-worshipping.  In an appendix, he writes:

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.

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.

...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”.

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.

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?

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.

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. 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.

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?

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.

Regarding the Russian Synod, Fr. Mark concludes:

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. 

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.

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.

Fr. Mark then writes,

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.

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 are 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.

The HOCNA bishops wrote in "Divergent Teachings:"

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.

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.

Fr. Mark concludes,

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.

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.

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)

Hear St. Gregory the Theologian: “The divinity is un-nameable." (Fourth Theological Oration)

Hear St. Isaac the Syrian: “There was a time when God had no name, and there will be a time when he will have no name.” (Unpublished Chapters on Knowledge)

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.

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. 

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.