St. John of Kronstadt and the Name of God

Reply to Mr. Tom Deretich, no.2

Name-worshippers love to quote St. John Kronstadt: “the name of God is God Himself” and “you have in that name all the essence of the Lord” (My Life In Christ, pg. 359, St. Petersburg, 2001). Later, however, St. John explains that his understanding of these expressions is founded upon the patristic theology of the Church and not on the ravings of Anthony Bulatovich. The Saint’s words from ‘My Life In Christ’, pp. 467-468:

Since the Lord is everywhere present, His Cross works miracles, His name works miracles, His Icons are wonderworking”. “Since we are of flesh, the Lord attaches His presence, so to speak, and His very self with creation… He attaches Himself to the Temple, to the Icons, to the sign of the Cross, to His name composed of articulated sounds, with holy water, with the sanctified bread, wheat and wine… but there shall come a time when all the visible signs shall not be necessary, and we shall partake of Him more intensely then, ‘in the unwaning day of His Kingdom’, where as now only through the medium of the flesh and through Icons and signs.

First, the Saint well comprehends the basic understanding of God, held for more than three thousand years by the Church: God is omnipresent. The invocation that begins Orthodox services of prayers is the proclamation of this doctrine: “Heavenly King, O Comforter, the Spirit of truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things, O Treasury of every good and Bestower of life: come and dwell in us, and cleanse us from every stain, and save, O Good One, our souls”.

God is present everywhere, filling and interpenetrating all things, with no limit or bound, entirely free and unapproachable. He, God Himself, both the essence and the indivisible energy, operations, activity, and attributes, which are the uncreated glory in which He the uncreated God dwells; He is throughout us and in us: in the air we breathe and the food we eat and the raiment we wear and the blood that courses in our veins. He dwells in light unapproachable, i.e., we cannot touch or force Him: He is free and absolute and transcendent. Nothing can touch Him unless He will it. His will – one of His uncreated energies – can grant a grace to or effect a creature, but only at His volition. He is ‘ο ἐνεργών, (ho energon) while creation is τὸ ενεργούμενον, (to energoumenon), i.e. He is the energizer while creation is that which is energized. The energizer effects but is not affected by that which is energized; He remains inviolate, for He is uncreated and eternal, unchanging and ever the same. Only the creation is changeable, and never can the two ever be intermingled or confused.

St. John of Kronstadt makes this understanding clear by saying that God is everywhere, and He sanctifies them, who through various mediums, approach Him. This was the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which stated that we do not deify the medium – Icons, names, the Cross, etc – but our worship passes over and reaches the Divinity to attract His grace. It is obvious that the Saint considers the mediums as means created by mankind, which direct our attention and prayers to the prototype, Who, if He desires, can respond with His grace. St. John lists “name” along with the Church building, Icons, holy water, the Cross, etc (all of which are creations of man), where God Himself is approached and His grace can be received; he follows the decisions of the Seventh Council. There is no mention or hint of an uncreated name or of pantheism. St. John did not preach name-worshipping.

Another quote from St. John of Kronstadt, that the name-worshippers like to ignore is: “Let not the heart weak in faith think that the Cross or the name of Christ act of themselves, or that this Cross and this name of Christ produces miracles when I do not look with the eyes of my heart or with the faith of Christ”. (Sergieff, John I. (1897) My Life in Christ. (E.E. Goulaeff, Trans.). Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery (1971). p. 23.

This quote from St. John of Kronstadt shakes the very foundation of the name-worshippers doctrine. It is clear that St. John was not a name-worshipper, but only said that “the name of God, is God Himself” in the context of prayer and not as an identity or in a literal sense.

Anthony Bulatovich’s writings clearly and explicitly preach that the letters of God’s name are God Himself, as is also the spoken word. His modern followers preach the same as their ‘sainted’ founder. But when they are challenged because they are preaching the ludicrous doctrines of an uncreated creation, or of pantheism, they speedily demur, saying, “No one could ever be so illogical” (and Bulatovich rolls over in his grave). Such a tactic is common among heretics; they deny anything which is pointed out as being senseless or foreign to the Faith. They then send up a smokescreen of obfuscations, and then invent an even worse heresy; in this instance, the uncreated name. Some facets of this error have been mentioned above, but this same error has been condemned in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy and by all the Fathers, who have condemned the Platonic, Gnostic, Talmudic, Cabalistic pagan teachings in their entirety.

The name-worshippers exhibited a very poor taste in saints when they canonized Anthony Bulatovich. He was an arrogant, ambitious man who used violence to take over monasteries, evict monks and plunder their goods (see the many contemporary reports in the newspapers of the time especially ‘Ekklesiastike Aletheia’ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In order to forestall local authorities from dealing forcibly with the problems, the Patriarchate begged the Russian government to intervene so that there could be no doubt of injustice, since the Patriarchates were dependent on Russia for protection from the Turks and Mamelukes. Bulatovich, who used the sword of violence, died by the sword, according to our Saviour’s words. He was killed by robbers in 1919, (shortly after rejecting communion with the Church for the second time).

In any case, when controversy arises, the name-worshippers publicly reject the extremes of their founder; but when on fresh ground or privately, they repeat the old Bulatovichian doctrines. He believed that the Mysteries of the Church are accomplished by the invocation of God’s name. Baptism was in the name of Christ; and the change of the elements in Holy Communion was already accomplished in the proskomide, when the Lamb is excised from the offered bread. Of course, the modern followers might try to deny it, but they are trapped in the chains of their tradition and their attempts to explain and cover up.

One question arises from reading their writings is that the modern name-worshippers never say what name is the divine name. Hilarion and Bulatovich were definite: Hilarion said the name was “Jesus”, while Bulatovich declared that every word in the Gospel was God Himself, even when spoken aloud; wherefore, he was accused of Pantheism. Their present day followers usually say “the name of God is God Himself”, but do not elaborate. Perhaps they fear that they will be accused of declaring created letters and sounds to be divine. In any case, they now are at odds with their purportedly “sainted” founders. What do they mean? The name of God is a name? The name of God is the name? The name God is name? This obscurantism allows them to deny any Orthodox objection and to confuse the issue with pages of ambiguous verbiage, like squids escaping in a cloud of ink.

After giving many quotations, declaring that the power, might, and glory of God protect and save mankind; then tacking on others wherein Mr. Deretich defines, that “in the name” means the same thing, he concludes that St. Cyril of Alexandria says that “the glory, authority, power, might, grace, name, and the truth are the ‘energy/activity/action’ of ‘Godhead that the Father and the Son share”. He then quotes a long passage from St. Cyril, as proof.

In the first part of this quotation, the Saint quotes the Scriptures, Philippians 2:9, “and gave Him a name which is above every name”. This signifies that He is given authority as the Son and Word of God: that Father and Son are of one essence. The Saint later on discusses Christ God’s protection of His disciples, in the “exercise [of] His power”, “by the power and glory of His Godhead”, etc. There is no identification of “name” and “power and glory”, except in Mr. Deretich’s mind. The Saint’s commentary on this scripture and the others, concerns the unity of the Father’s and Son’s essence and will. Mr. Deretich also mentions St. Clement of Rome, who when he wishes to refer to the uncreated power of God, he calls it the name of God. However, there is no statement that the name of God is an energy of God. In any case, these quotations are not from the only received genuine work of St. Clement: the Epistle to the Corinthians.

Mr. Deretich presents a passage in III Kings (no more exact reference is given), when Solomon consecrated the Temple, saying that it is God’s “name and glory (=energy) that fills the newly-built Solomonic Temple”. Here is the verse in question (8:10), “And it came to pass when the priests departed out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house. (8:11) And the priests could not stand to minister before the cloud, because the glory of the Lord filled the house”. There is no equivalence of glory and name mentioned or implied.

In III Kings 9:3 “to put my name there (the Temple) for ever”, is meant figuratively, which is proved as the sentence continues: “mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually”. If “name” is meant literally, then we must conclude that God has physical eyes and heart.

The tactic in these paragraphs is to present a number of Scriptural or patristic quotations mentioning “name” of God, with others, concerning “the glory, the power, activity, energy, operation, attributes of God”, and mixing them together so as to imply an equivalence which is simply not there; in fact most of their interpretations of the meaning of “name”, do not agree with that of most interpreters and translators. Proximity does not indicate equivalence, and even that is lacking here. We can only conclude that Mr. Deretich is, well, lying. Here, at least, he is showing himself to be a faithful follower of Bulatovich.

Again, this statement is introduced by Mr. Deretich, “name in ancient Greek can mean both a ‘symbol’ for something and it can also mean the thing itself” and it continues in a similar vein. True, a name can mean or signify or be a ‘symbol’ for something, that is, “the thing itself”. Since this is the definition for “name”, this is hardly a statement of great sagacity and even necessary. (Please explain how “something” or “the thing itself” differ?). It has never been believed, certainly not in the Church, that the name is the thing itself. We cannot drink out of the word “glass”. Nor eat the name “apple”. Nor will the word “lion” rip and tear us to pieces. Words which name something are not the thing named, as experience teaches us and as the Patriarchal decision of 1912 proclaimed. We can be starving but a grocery list will not feed us. A leopard will not change spots if we call him a panther. Names are human labels applied to physical objects or concepts so that we may communicate and understand our experience of creation.

God did not name the animals, but Adam did. (Genesis 2:19, “The Lord God... brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof). It is an illogical and false thesis and conclusion to say “the name of x is n, therefore n is x”. It is not a direct predication or equivalence. Rather we must understand that when we say “we are calling x by the name n”, (we are calling this beast (x) with the name lion (n) is what we mean. It is not a reversible predication nor equivalence. We are applying a conceptual generalization of a species, an abstraction, composed of thought and words of a rarefied matter as a label to a very concrete, material animal. Man has been called the creature, which abstracts, generalizes and names. Names are man made, and the lion couldn’t care less what we call it, just as long as we don’t shoot it.

Gregory Lourie has called such thinking “crassly nominalistic”. Unfortunately for him, it is the pragmatic doctrine of the Church and the way most of mankind thinks. However, he is the scion of Cabalistic ancestors, and appears to share in their magic mentality.

With all of their mixing of supposed quotations from the Fathers and Scriptures, which bear the word “name” and juxtaposing them with others which have the words “power or energy or activity”, etc., they declare an equivalence or identity upon no basis and with no hard references. We have seen, how they have misrepresented many of them, so that what they declare as fact cannot be trusted. They consistently violate logical and religious sense in their interpretations, so that their propositions and premises result in unfounded conclusions.

We later have some more juggling with history from Mr. Deretich. The name of the unfortunate Bishop Sergius (later Patriarchal locum tenens), is associated with the 1913 Synodal decision by insinuation, since the modern name-worshippers consistently refer to “the 1913 decision”. Sergius was not on the Synod and he certainly wrote against name-worshipping at other times besides 1913. This attempt to blacken the Synodal decision by association with Sergius, who broke much later under pressure by the communists is simply dishonest. Also, attempts to blacken Halki, thereby blackening the Ecumenical Patriarchate as being anti-Palamite, is pitiful. Certainly, the Encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs answering the Pope of Rome in 1895 was a model of Orthodoxy. In just a few years had everything changed? The Patriarchal decision of 1912, which is available on line in English and in the Synodal decision of 1913, praises the prayer of Jesus and hesychasm. Most had not attended western schools, but were instructed in the traditional Church schools where they read and learned Church Greek from reading the Fathers. They certainly knew of St. Gregory Palamas, for the Synodicon of Orthodoxy was read annually, and its history was part of the curriculum. In any case, calling “Infamous Germanos P. Strenopoulos? It was after his repose in 1920 that ecumenistic statements were made. “Archimandrite Vasileios Stephanides”? He was a deacon then, from Athens, to which he returned and had probably not yet studied abroad. The last two names are not archimandrites, but laymen; Mr. Deretich is mixing his time periods and facts.

After the 1920’s, with the destruction of Asia Minor and its schools, and finally the closure of Halki in 1956, Patriarchal students were forced to study abroad. In any case, the decisions of Halki’s faculty, the Ecumenical Patriarchal Synod’s decree of 1912 by the saintly Patriarch Joachim, and the confirmation in 1913, by Patriarch Germanos are faultlessly Orthodox and in conformity with Patristic Theology, which is why the Russian Synod quoted them in accepting it as the official Theological statement for their decision, and then dealt with the practical portion. All the Orthodox have accepted them.

In the last paragraph, Mr. Deretich returns to the first position, “the name of God is God Himself”, as if all the intervening verbiage had proved it. We see that St. John of Kronstadt, understood it in the Orthodox way: “God is everywhere present” and in the manner in which the Seventh Ecumenical Council determined. The names are worshipped but not to be deified. The name cannot be God Himself. The Church has dogmatized for 3000 years, that no name is God Himself.

Another statement in a previous “summary” paragraph: “The Orthodox Church does teach that God fills and dwells in his created names”. We challenge this statement as entirely false; present us with a reference. It will not be found, neither in an official council nor in any of the Saints of the Church. The next statement is inarguably acceptable “God is present everywhere and fills all created things”. But then the statement which violates the former, as we explained earlier on, “God ‘dwells’ especially in sacred, created things”; then Mr. Deretich proceeds to return to all the errors of the name-worshippers: “the name can sometimes have a meaning different from ‘mere created names”, “the uncreated power of God (which is sometimes called the [uncreated] name of God” (where? No where!) and so on and so forth. An incoherent spate of unsupported claims, and unconnected thoughts foreign to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas and all the great Fathers whom we faithfully follow.

Perhaps it is unfair to cast all the opprobrium of false teaching upon Mr. Deretich. He is apparently a spokesman – since he is an employee of HOCNA – for Gregory Babunashvili of HOCNA. He (Gregory Babunashvili) is a faithful disciple of Gregory Lourie, repeating his exact words. I have been told by many who have heard him preach his doctrines, that when someone presents facts or doctrines of the Church’s saints which refute his teachings, so that he cannot answer, he then resorts to shouted denials. For this reason most of the Clergy and people deserted HOCNA, people of the theological knowledge and stature as: Frs. Michael Azkoul, John Fleser, Christos Constantinou, Christos Patitsas and Andrew Snogren. It is evident that Gregory Babunashvili is ignorant of the doctrines of the Church’s saints, even of St. Gregory Palamas, whom he claimed he understood. Furthermore, he makes definite affirmations of facts and references, which upon investigation, are revealed to be false or non-existent. As someone said, “I wouldn’t accept anything he said, even if pearls and diamonds fell from his lips”. His writings also corroborate his ignorance of the fundamentals of the Church’s theology.

Returning to Mr. Deretich’s “In summary” paragraph, third before the end, he states, “The Orthodox Church does teach that God fills and dwells in his created names”. [a ‘teaching’ found nowhere, except in Anthony Bulatovich]… God is everywhere present and fills all created things. And God “dwells” especially in sacred, created things: in the saints, angels, relics, the Cross, icons…” etc. He repeats further on the word “dwells”, with quotation marks and without quotation marks. He states: “God’s power sometimes works miracles through created holy icons”. He is obviously attempting to return to the phrase “the name of God is God Himself”, the keystone of name-worshipping. The Orthodox Church recognizes God’s presence everywhere and in everything, as we have stated. Here, Mr. Deretich is attempting to make a special kind of presence with the word “dwells” or “fills”, although he repeats the Church’s teaching of God’s omnipresence, Who fills all things. What is he implying by these words and their repetition? By his return to the formula “the name of God is God Himself”, this intimates more than the usual divine omnipresence. If he is implying an “incarnation” of God, he would be condemned and anathematized by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. Various words are used by the Church for the presence of God in the Church: ‘overshadowing’, ‘presence’, ‘attached’, ‘abiding’, ‘to come upon’, ‘be present’, ‘sense’, ‘nearness’, ‘means’, but usually in a temporary or passing sense. This insistence on “dwells” and “fills” are words also used by many in the Church, but taken in conjunction with Deretich’s other statements, he is implying something more, but dares not say “incarnation”. It reminds one of the Hindu doctrine of Avatars. Rama and Krishna were avatars of Vishnu, in ancient Brahmanism. Throughout India, in the temples of Hanu-man, the mobs of monkeys scrambling about there, are his avatars, ‘God Himself’ as you would be told.

St. John Kronstadt avoids that trap because he obeyed the Church’s doctrine expressed in the Seventh Ecumenical Council. We can approach an Icon of Christ and pray before it, and Christ God can work miracles; for He is present since He is everywhere. But it is our volition, our will, which reaches Him through the created Icon, but the Icon is not deified, it is not God Himself, as the Seventh Ecumenical Council has dogmatized. Any other doctrine or Hindic avatar teaching is anathematized.

I repeat: No Father has ever said that the name of God is an energy of God. Nowhere does the Church teach of an uncreated name of God.

Names are created by man, and do not pertain to God. “…by the gift of God, it pertains to men alone both to make the invisible thought of the intellect audible by uniting it with the air and to write it down so that it may be seen with and through the body. God thus leads us to a steadfast faith in the abiding presence and manifestation of the supreme Logos in the flesh”. (#63 from the 150 Chapters of St. Gregory Palamas, in the Philokalia, vol. 4). Here the unique Incarnation of the Son of God is affirmed, where the hypostasis of the Word took upon Himself the human nature from the Ever-virgin Mary. There is one hypostasis with two natures, divine and human, inseparably united, undivided yet not confused, two separate and different natures in the one Person of the Word of God, perfect God and perfect man. This is proclaimed by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils.

“There is no intermediate nature between the created and uncreated, neither is there any such operation (energy). Therefore, if it is created, it will show only a created nature, if it is uncreated, it will indicate an uncreated substance only. The natural properties must correspond with the nature absolutely, since the existence of a defective nature is impossible. The natural operations, moreover, does not come from anything outside the nature, and it is obvious that the nature can neither exist nor be known without its natural operation. For by remaining invariable, each thing gives of its own nature”. St. John Damascus Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 15.

St. John of Damascus explains: “The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things. But God, Who is good and brought us out of nothing into being that we might share in His goodness, and Who gave us the faculty of knowledge, not only did not impart to us His essence, but did not even grant us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible for nature to understand fully the super-natural. Moreover, if knowledge is of things that are, how can there be knowledge of the super-essential? Through His unspeakable goodness, then, it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowledge of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague. Inasmuch, then, as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnameable. But inasmuch as He is the cause of all and contains in Himself the reasons and causes of all that is, He receives names drawn from all that is, even from opposites: for example, He is called light and darkness, water and fire: in order that we may know that these are not of His essence but that He is super-essential and unnameable: but inasmuch as He is the cause of all, He receives names from all His effects”. St. John Damascus Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I, 12.

There is no mixture or fusing of created and uncreated. Names are created, as the precious quotation from St. Gregory Palamas stated, who collated and summarized the Patristic teachings. An uncreated name is impossible according to St. John, as quoted, and to all the Fathers. There is no such thing as an uncreated name, as St. John Damascus says above.

“We apply all the names of these attributes to the supra-essential Being that is absolutely nameless”. St. Cyril, Treasuries, PG 14, 240A.

The fathers talk about three levels of prayer (St. Theophan the Recluse. What is Prayer). Oral, mental and spiritual. When one reaches spiritual prayer, the invocation of the name of God ceases. This is what St. Isaac the Syrian means by, “silence is the mystery of the age to come.” (St. Isaac the Syrian. Ascetical Homilies. Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Brookline, MA. (1984) Homily 65, p. 321).

The attributes are the energies of God, the things that pertain to God. We give the names, as is obvious from the above, and the name is not the energy, as is also obvious, for it is God and therefore nameless.

I prefer to follow the Third, Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, and all the Holy Fathers before and after. I will follow the Councils of 1912 and 1913, which are vilified by your Bulatovich, Gregory Lourie and Gregory Babunashvili, yet believed in by scores of saints and wise and holy men and of martyrs from then till now, whom you slander. I will follow the Apostle Peter who declares: “No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”. (2 Peter, 1:20-21).

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?

The HOCNA Statements of October 8 and 10

Revised 10/20/12.

On October 8, Bishop Gregory of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) issued a statement on behalf of the synod criticizing Bishop Demetrius for the manner in which he left the synod.

On October 10, the three bishops of HOCNA issued a statement contending that they are not name-worshippers but asserting that all Orthodox Christians must accept their beliefs concerning the name of God.  They also issued a statement finding fault with the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens for accepting refugees from HOCNA.

These documents can only be understood in context.  The New England clergy of HOCNA learned on August 22 and August 25, 2012, that Fr. Panteleimon, the founder and elder of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, the spiritual center of HOCNA, had abused monks in his care over a long period of time. They learned that the leaders of the monastery and the diocese, Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, knew this for many years, and decided to deny and conceal it.

These revelations were important not because they exposed Fr. Panteleimon's sins, but because the commitment by Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, spiritual leaders of HOCNA, to deny and hide his sins took priority over the spiritual wellbeing of the Church.  Together with Fr. Panteleimon, they made decisions which shaped HOCNA and led to its current isolation and disintegration. These revelations also explain why they lost their spiritual vision, and led their flock into crisis after crisis in recent years.

The actions in the following list have a common thread -- putting the need to protect Fr. Panteleimon from investigation and potential punishment ahead of the spiritual needs of the synod. In essence, this is a new form of Sergianism. Where Metropolitan Sergius acquiesced to identify the joys and sorrows of the Russian Orthodox Church with the joys and sorrows of the Soviet state, the leaders of HOCNA identified the good of the monastery and parishes, and later the synod, with the good of Fr. Panteleimon.

The New Sergianism Takes Shape

• Holy Transfiguration Monastery and the parishes which later formed HOCNA left the Russian Church Abroad in 1986, saying that the ROCOR was turning a blind eye to ecumenist practices of some bishops and that the ROCOR was headed for union with the Moscow Patriarchate.  The monastery and the parishes left ROCOR separately.  The parishes which left ROCOR acted only on their concerns regarding matters of faith, which over time were proven correct.
  
  However, it seems clear now that the ROCOR rightly accused the leaders of the monastery of leaving its jurisdiction when they did (some weeks before the parishes) to escape an investigation on charges of immorality and impending sanctions against Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac.
  
  The parish clergy and laity did not believe the accusations against Fr. Panteleimon; they considered the investigation to be an attack by ROCOR in retaliation for the monastery's criticisms of ROCOR bishops.  They believed ROCOR bishops were trying to silence the monastery so they could continue their ecumenistic practices without interference.
  
  The same could be said of most of the monks at Holy Transfiguration Monastery.  They had pushed for the anathema against ecumenism which was proclaimed by the ROCOR in 1983, and they did not believe in the allegations against Fr. Panteleimon.  They followed their leaders based on their stance on ecumenism. Only the monastery leaders had hidden motives.

• After the monastery and parishes had joined the synod of Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, Hieromonk Ephraim was chosen to be suffragan Bishop (later Metropolitan) of Boston. He has admitted that he chose not to investigate the allegations against Fr. Panteleimon.  In retrospect, it seems clear his commitment to protect Fr. Panteleimon was essential to his being chosen as bishop.



• Hieromonk Makarios (Katre) was chosen to be suffragan Bishop (later Metropolitan) of Toronto, and consecrated in 1991. The perpetual contrast between his sharp, patristic words and his unwillingness to stand up for those words in the face of opposition from Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon strongly suggests that he also was chosen for his unswerving allegiance to the leaders of Holy Transfiguration Monastery.



• Archbishop Auxentius reposed in 1994, and gradually his synod fell apart, until only the HOCNA members were left.  While they continued to maintain the synod of Archbishop Auxentius with Metropolitan Makarios as a locum tenens, they voted in 2001 to establish the Holy Orthodox Church in North America as an eparchial synod of the Church of Greece.  Until then, HOCNA had existed only as a corporation, a legal vehicle for the parishes and monasteries in America.  The eparchial synod was supposed to serve as a forum for administering local affairs.  However, the eparchial synod quickly eclipsed the Church of Greece.  Its president, Metropolitan Ephraim, gained significant control over the work of the synod.  He effectively blocked any move that might threaten his ability to protect Fr. Panteleimon.



• Metropolitan Moses was removed from the see of Seattle in 2007 without canonical due process, allegedly because his divisive leadership was on the verge of destroying the cathedral parish of St. Nectarios.  In fact, the brouhaha erupted after his brother, formerly a monk at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, secretly filed a complaint against Fr. Panteleimon with the Holy Synod.  As president of the HOCNA synod, Metropolitan Ephraim presided over the removal of Metropolitan Moses from his see and disposed of the complaint against Fr. Panteleimon.



• Shortly after the October 2010 decision of the HOCNA synod to pursue closer relations with the synod of the new Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens (GOC), Metropolitan Ephraim began a solo campaign to reverse that decision, describing HOCNA as orphaned by the repose of Archbishop Auxentios, "newborn," yet in no need of relations with any other bishops, particularly none from outside America.  In fact, pursuing closer relations and possible unity with the GOC opened the possibility that Greek bishops might gain authority in HOCNA and might use that authority to investigate and take measures against Fr. Panteleimon.



• Metropolitan Moses and Bishop Sergios, who opposed Metropolitan Ephraim's attempts to reverse the synod's decision, were persecuted by him and his allies and finally driven out of HOCNA in April of 2011.  Fr. George Kochergin, dean of the east coast clergy, was also driven out for his refusal to accept Metropolitan Ephraim's position.

Effects of the New Sergianism

In 2010, this effects of this long-festering corruption began to be seen: a questionable teaching suddenly came to dominate public discussion and to wreak havoc in the Church.  Metropolitan Ephraim began promoting in talks, in print and in e-mails his "Awake Sleeper" theory, the idea that Christ will give each person a chance to choose the Orthodox Christian faith, if not in this life, then after death.  He made it clear this was his personal interpretation of passages from the lives of the saints, but he also would not tolerate any criticism.  His campaign was aggressive and persistent.  As a result of his refusal to drop it, the clergy and vast majority of the faithful of the diocese of Toronto departed from HOCNA in May of 2011.

Barely a few months later, Metropolitan Ephraim was already planting the seeds for the name-worshipping controversy that has gripped HOCNA since November of 2011.  He insisted that Bishop Demetrius visit "Bishop" Gregory Lourie, a schismatic bishop of questionable consecration and the main proponent of name-worshipping, on a trip to Russia in September of 2011.  Metropolitan Makarios, the ruling bishop of the HOCNA parishes in Russia, objected to anyone having even a casual meeting with Lourie, yet Bishop Demetrius felt compelled to carry out the orders of his ruling bishop, Ephraim.  He met with Lourie.  After the meeting, he concluded that HOCNA could not have any relations with Lourie unless Lourie were regularized by another jurisdiction.  Unknown to him, Lourie had already planned a trip to HOCNA parishes in Georgia.  He left on this trip within a day of meeting Bishop Demetrius.  On instructions from their ruling bishop, Metropolitan Ephraim, the Georgian parishes received him as a bishop and communed with him.

Several weeks later, Lourie was received at Holy Transfiguration Monastery as a true Orthodox bishop and was allowed to commune during the Divine Liturgy, igniting the controversy over name-worshipping that is devastating HOCNA now.  To date, Bishop Demetrius, some fifteen monks and laymen from the monastery, seven parishes with their clergy, two additional clergy, and a growing number of laity have left HOCNA for the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC).

This is the context in which the three documents issued by the HOCNA hierarchs last week must be analyzed.

Letter Regarding Bishop Demetrius

In a letter from Bishop Gregory dated October 8 (n.s.), the synod complains that Bishop Demetrius didn't seem to think name-worshipping was a heresy when he asked for a friendly farewell letter or even a canonical release from the other HOCNA bishops:

In his statement of September 16, 2012, Bishop Demetrius, formerly of Carlisle, tries to convince the clergy and the faithful of HOCNA, that he departed from the Communion with his fellow bishops for matters of faith. In his own words:

"Since my responsibility is to protect and defend the purity of our Confession of Faith, I can no longer remain a hierarch on the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Ortbodox Church in North America."

We find it extremely difficult to take Bishop Demetrius' statement seriously, because in his correspondence with our Synod (September 11, 2012), he claimed that the reason for his departure were certain "differences", and not only did he not mention any lack of "purity of Confession of Faith" of HOCNA bishops, but in his second letter to us (September 12, 2012), he was even willing to receive a letter of release from the self-same Synod of HOCNA.

In other words, the synod finds it hard to believe that Bishop Demetrius would believe that name-worshipping is a heresy, yet soft-pedal his position to the bishops he was leaving.  Yet in the context of the underlying motive of the leaders of HOCNA, to protect Fr. Panteleimon from investigation, it becomes clear that in choosing Bishop Demetrius to become a bishop, the deciding element was precisely that the HOCNA leaders felt they could count on him not to stand up to them.  Hypocritically, they criticize him for exactly the approach they had always counted on him to take -- to not make waves, to not boldly state his position in opposition to theirs, to not become an adversary.

In the last paragraph of the letter, Bishop Gregory enumerates all the factors that should have bound Bishop Demetrius to HOCNA, "the Church in which he was brought up, tonsured as a monastic, ordained as a deacon, as a priest and finally as a bishop."  Then he suggests that opposition to name-worshipping was just a cover to justify leaving HOCNA.  He undermines his own assertions.  A bishop with such strong ties to HOCNA and with such a meek character would have to have a serious and substantive reason to leave.

Finally, in a footnote, Bishop Gregory refers to an incident during Bishop Demetrius's trip to Russia and the Ukraine in the fall of 2011.  A deacon whom he ordained to the priesthood allegedly asked Bishop Demetrius whether he believed name-worshipping is a heresy.  The deacon allegedly only accepted ordination because Bishop Demetrius replied, "No."  While the then-deacon, Fr. Martinian, may sincerely believe such a conversation took place, it is unlikely that his question was ever understood, because the two men were not fluent in any common language, and their interpreter, Fr. Yakov Tseitlin, never translated any such question.  Further, had the question been posed, Bishop Demetrius knew little about name-worshipping at the time, since it had not yet been raised as a significant issue in HOCNA.

The real motive behind this document seems to be to remove any doubts that might have been cast on name-worshipping by Bishop Demetrius's departure:  Bishop Demetrius (allegedly) lied, therefore name-worshipping is not a heresy. The equation doesn't add up.

HOCNA Bishops on Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos

In their statement of October 10 (n.s.), the HOCNA bishops laud themselves for nearly a page for reaching out to the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC) in October of 2010, before they finally get to their complaint against the GOC:

By accepting, on four occasions, the breakaway bishops and the clergy from HOCNA, by calling us schismatics (schismatics from whom? we never belonged to the Kiousis group) and now by adding the false accusation of heresy against us, we have come to the sad conclusion that nothing has changed in that group since its uncanonical inception in 1985. The cunning tactics and arrogance that they used against the blessed Archbishop Auxentius, not only have not been abandoned, but are fully implemented even now. 

The GOC accepted Metropolitan Moses, Bishop Sergios and the clergy and laity with them in April of 2011.  It accepted Fr. George Kochergin in May of 2011, and it accepted the clergy and laity of Toronto in June of 2011.  In September of 2012, the GOC received Bishop Demetrius and the parishes, clergy and laity with him.  The GOC continues to receive those who are fleeing HOCNA.  According to the statement of the HOCNA hierarchs, the GOC used cunning tactics and arrogance to bring this about. However, the minutes of the synod meeting in October of 2010 clearly recognize:

 ...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.

The HOCNA hierarchs set their seal of approval on this synod, before backtracking to protect Fr. Panteleimon.  This is why those who have separated themselves from HOCNA have asked to be accepted into the GOC.  The GOC itself played a passive role: it did not encourage the refugees to leave HOCNA, it simply accepted them.

In the remaining three paragraphs of their statement, the HOCNA hierarchs cast mud at the GOC, annul their decisions of October of 2010, and profess a desire for God to bring about unity in the Church where sinful humans are unable.  They should beware what they wish!  It seems God is indeed bringing about the union of the GOC and what formerly was HOCNA, against their will.

HOCNA Bishops on Name-Worshipping

 

In their October 10 (n.s) statement titled "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs set forth their beliefs about the name of God and condemn those who do not hold those beliefs.

The fact that name-worshipping was never discussed in HOCNA until Lourie communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery last fall is a clue to how sadly and deeply the HOCNA hierarchs have fallen from the truth, that they would stake their Orthodoxy and everyone else's on this issue.  Virtually no one in HOCNA had heard of or cared about name-worshipping until a year ago.  Suddenly it is the yardstick by which Orthodoxy is to be measured.

In "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs first define four criteria for detecting a name-worshipper:

I. Name-worshippers believe:
1) That God’s Name is his Essence.
2) That God’s Name is separate from Him.
3) That God’s Name is another deity.
4) That created letters, sounds and random or accidental thoughts about God may be deified, or be used for occult or magical purposes

These four points are borrowed from St. Patriarch Tikhon's Nativity Epistle of 1921.  Patriarch Tikhon did not use them to define name-worshipping, but only called on his clergy to be sure that anyone who wished to repent of the name-worshipping heresy and be received back into the Orthodox Church did not hold any of these heretical beliefs.  These four points do not encompass all name-worshipping beliefs, some of which the HOCNA hierarchs have snuck into their following definition:

II. Orthodox Christians believe:
1) That God’s Name is not His Essence, but rather is the revealed truth about Himself, that is, His Uncreated Energy, His Uncreated Grace, His Providence, His Glory. In fact, His Essence is unknowable and has no name.
2) That God’s Name is not separate from Him.
3) That God’s Name is not another deity.
4) That created letters, sounds and random or accidental thoughts about God must not be deified. Further, they believe that these letters or sounds must not be used for occult or magical purposes. 

The astute reader will note that these are nearly the same four points that the HOCNA hierarchs claim to have distilled from St. Patriarch Tikhon's Navitiy Epistle of 1921.  Yet in adding the word "not" to each of Patriarch Tikhon's points to express Orthodox belief, they also have added considerably more to the first point.  While they reject that God's Name is His Essence, they declare that it is uncreated, His Energy and His Grace.  This is heretical, as the fathers of Holy Transfiguration Monastery showed in their examination of name-worshipping.  So the HOCNA hierarchs are insisting that to be Orthodox, a person must hold this heretical belief.

They then cite a number of quotations from the Holy Fathers which in no way support them, and use linguistic sleight-of-hand to deduce the desired conclusion:

This makes matters perfectly clear, because, as Orthodox Christians, we know and believe that the only Entity that is eternal, holy, supremely-holy, and the source of sanctification by nature is God Himself! This can only mean that His Name is indeed God Himself — again, not in His Essence, but in His Grace.

The logic is absurd.  The Holy Fathers did use the phrase "the Name of God" to refer to God, in a poetic attempt to express the inexpressible, just as the Psalms refer to "the face of God," "the voice of the Lord," the "right hand" of the Lord and other physical attributes.  That does not mean that an actual name or word, however holy, is the uncreated energy and grace of God. Language is created, for it did not exist eternally. As Orthodox Christians we are taught that blessed water and oil are holy, that icons are holy, that the altar, antimension, and consecrated vessels are holy, that the relics of saints are holy, and so on.  God's grace may abide in them, but they are not God.  In the same way, the names that we use to refer to God are holy, but they are not God.  The HOCNA hierarchs quote St. John of Kronstadt as saying,

... when you pronounce to yourself in your heart the Name of God, of the Lord, or that of the most Holy Trinity, or of the Lord of Sabaoth, or of the Lord Jesus Christ, then in that Name you have the Lord’s whole being; in it is His infinite mercy, His boundless wisdom, His inaccessible light, omnipotence, and immutability....

In other words, pronouncing in your heart the name of God, you bring Him to mind in the same way as you might upon seeing an icon.  The word expresses God to you insofar as you can conceive of Him, but His energies and grace are not inherent in the word, they are a gift God freely bestows in responding to your prayer. 

In the last two sections of "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs condemn the resolutions against name-worshipping by Patriarchs Joachim III and Germanus of Constantinople and by the Holy Synod of Russia.  They also try to invalidate any decisions of the Russian Synod with a quote from Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, the leading opponent of name-worshipping.  Metropolitan Anthony deplores the fact that the synodal system was forced upon the Russian Orthodox Church to eliminate the competition a strong Patriarch might pose to the tsar.  But Metropolitan Anthony himself participated in the Holy Synod for five years, and in the absence of a ruling patriarch, the decisions of the synod were accepted in Russia from the time of Peter the Great until the election of Patriarch Tikhon.  In order to cast doubt on the validity of the Russian Synod's condemnation of name-worshipping in 1913, the HOCNA hierarchs are willing to invalidate more than 200 years of decisions by the synod, although those decisions were accepted and obeyed by the saints, hierarchs, monastics, clergy, tsars and laity of the Russian Church.

The obsession of the HOCNA hierarchs with defending name-worshipping, yet insisting that they are not name-worshippers, is the latest manifestation of their loss of spiritual vision, the consequences of their new Sergianism.  They continue to put the protection of one man ahead of the spiritual wellbeing of their last remaining, shrinking diocese, without seeming to consider that their course does not even benefit him spiritually.  Recognizing this, HOCNA clergy and laity continue to flee to the GOC.  Holy Transfiguration Monastery has been divided.  Parishes are being divided, and so are families.  There is only one way for HOCNA's leaders to end this tragedy: to publicly repent of their wrongdoing and heretical teachings, and to step down.  Only then can their flock be united again under truly Orthodox bishops.

Updated 11/19/12

Chronology of Name-Worshipping in HOCNA

as of September 14/27, 2012



Universal Exaltation of the Precious Cross
 



Assertions have been made that the HOCNA hierarchs were unaware of the clergy’s concerns regarding the Name-worshipping heresy until about the first or second week of September 2012. Below is a chronology of events that clearly shows that Metropolitan Ephraim and the other hierarchs have been well aware of the clergy’s and others’ concerns since at least as early as autumn 2011.

The clergy and laity who have spoken out against the introduction of the Name-worshipping heresy are also accused of instigating this issue and promoting turmoil and dissension in the Church. However, as the facts below unambiguously demonstrate, the entire matter and the related turmoil have been instigated, promoted, and advanced by the supporters of the Name-worshipping doctrine. In this regard, HOCNA was peaceful until the Name-worshippers raised and pushed their teaching on the Church.
The same clergy and laity are further accused of acting rashly and rushing forward, not allowing the HOCNA synod ample time to work through this matter. But the historical record outlined below makes it abundantly obvious that the clergy and laity, for nigh unto a year, were patiently working with the HOCNA synod to bring this issue to a conclusion consistent with the Orthodox confession of Faith. Some suggested that those speaking against Name-worshipping wait until the completion of the HOCNA Clergy Synaxis in early October 2012 in case the HOCNA bishops would change their stance. However, as the record below makes sadly mani-fest, from any rational and reasonable perspective, this suggestion, however well-intended, was in vain since, as late as the third week in September 2012, the HOCNA synod publicly declared it would never accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without conditions.

— All dates in the chronology below are civil calendar dates. —


November 3 or 4, 2011 — Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie (or Lourje), visiting from Russia, was communed at a midnight Liturgy at HTM. Metropolitans Ephraim and Makarios and Bishop Demetrius consented to communing Bishop Gregory Lourie. Afterwards, Bishop Demetrius regretted his assent and then asked forgiveness of the monastic fathers.

 November 5, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou has a conversation, in the HTM office, with Metropolitan Ephraim in which Name-worshipping is first mentioned between the two of them, called the "’Name of Jesus’ controversy" in Fr. Christos’s first written communication on the subject. Metropolitan Ephraim did not mention that Bishop Gregory Lourie was given Holy Communion. Instead, Metropolitan Ephraim stated he did not know the man and the Synod would investigate him as time goes on. (See Document 1 below.) As it happens, Metropolitan Ephraim was given information on Bishop Gregory Lourie as far back as 2001. (See the chronology entry below for August 27, 2012.)

 November 12, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou sends the first written communication protesting the communing of Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie. (See, again, Document 1 below.)

 On or about November 14, 2011 — Metropolitan Ephraim summons Fr. Christos Constantinou to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices to discuss the contents of Document 1; also present were Fr. John Fleser and hieromonk Gregory (now Bishop Gregory of Concord). Among the subjects raised were the controversies around Bishop Gregory Lourie. Metropolitan Ephraim had with him and cited documentation concerning these controversies, among which were Bishop Gregory Lourie’s advocacy of Name-worshipping, his use of "punk rock" as a missionary tool, and his association with a nun who does not wear monastic garb. (The Metropolitan had a photo of that nun in civilian attire.) Fr. Christos repeated his positions noted in Document 1: the synod bishops must fully examine other bishops before communing them and present a report to the Church, to which the bishops are accountable, and there needs to be a Church-wide council, to which for years the Metropolitan has been adamantly opposed, to discuss such doctrinal issues and the governance of the Church.

 November 15, 2011 —Metropolitan Makarios was implored by clergy to work with Bishop Demetrius to put an end to the present crisis that was gripping HOCNA and threatening to tear it apart.

 November 1, 2011 - April 8, 2012 — Fr. Yakov Tseitlin expressed in many written and verbal communications to the HOCNA hierarchs his serious objections to (a) HOCNA ties with Bishop Gregory Lourie because of his support of Name-worshipping and (b) rumored future ordination of hieromonk Gregory because of his support of Name-worshipping. (See Document 2 below for one example of Fr. Yakov’s statements.)

 Mid-November 2011 — In another conversation with Fr. Christos Constantinou on the Name-worshipping issue, Metropolitan Ephraim called Anthony Bulatovich an "aggressor" rather than a "confessor" as Bishop Gregory Lourie views that chief proponent of the Name-worshipping doctrine.

 November 25 & 30, 2011 — With the blessing of Metropolitan Ephraim, hieromonk Gregory sent a broadcast email containing Fr. Gregory’s opinion that the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping were motivated by other than doctrinal considerations and cast doubts on the decisions’ validity. (See Document 3 below.) This engendered increased and openly expressed objections from clergy and laity.

 December 2, 2011 — The HOCNA synod issued a qualified apology for communing Bishop Gregory Lourie and stated the Name-worshipping teaching is a matter for the Russian Church. When the HOCNA synod said the issue has been raging for 100 years and the bishops do not wish to "take sides," the synod effectively denied the synodal decisions that had, in fact, made a determination against Name-worshipping. (See Document 4 below.) Clergy and laity objected that the bishops did not plainly state that they accept the synodal decisions regarding Name-worshipping as all of Orthodoxy has done.

 On or about December 19, 2011 — Fr. Panteleimon was intent on giving a talk on Name-worshipping in Toronto, but Metropolitan Makarios prevailed on Father to comply with the synod’s directive and not discuss the issue.

 Throughout December 2011 — Many broadcast emails, from people within and without HOCNA, were sent all over the USA and abroad regarding the communing of Bishop Gregory Lourie and the introduction of the Name-worshipping doctrine within HOCNA, and the HOCNA hierarchs were in receipt of these emails. Both Frs. John Fleser and Yakov Tseitlin were encouraging Metropolitan Ephraim to convene a Church council to deal with the Name-worshipping issue, the election of a bishop, and other matters concerning the governance of the Church, but the Metropolitan was opposed.

 January 21, 2012 — Fifteen laity, among whom were Diaconissa Panagiota Houlares and at-torney Athanasios George, met with Metropolitan Ephraim and hieromonk Gregory, by then bishop-elect, and Frs. John Fleser and Isaac requesting a postponement of Fr. Gregory’s ordination due, in part, to his support of Name-worshipping, and asking for assurances, given his negative views of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, that he would abide by the HOCNA synod’s decision not to discuss the matter. Both the Metropolitan and hieromonk Gregory assured the laity gathered there that the Name-worshipping issue would be dropped and neither of them would continue to be involved in the issue. (See Document 5, A & B, below.)

 March 23, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim met with Fr. Yakov, in the presence of Bishop Demetrius, Fr. John Fleser, and Fr. Christos Constantinou, to have Fr. Yakov cease from his publicly expressing his objections to HOCNA’s equivocal stance regarding Name-worshipping and Fr. Gregory’s impending ordination. Both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Yakov had documentation with them concerning Name-worshipping and read from them during this meeting, Fr. Yakov citing texts against Name-worshipping, Metropolitan Ephraim citing texts he took to cast doubts on the history and the validity of the decisions.

 May 9, 2012 — In violation of the HOCNA synod’s directive, Fr. Panteleimon referenced Name-worshipping in a sermon at HNC. Priestmonk Menas, who was serving with Fr. Panteleimon protested. From months before, there was a controversy at HTM over Name-worshipping, and many monks, among whom were Frs. Haralampos and Basil, were disconcerted that the HOCNA and HTM administrations did not come down on the issue with full support for the synodal decisions.

 June 19-26, 2012 — In violation of his own synod’s decision and his promise to the laity in the January meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a limited-broadcast email to a select group of clergy and laity in the USA which contained his response to a man in Russia who asked about Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan expressed his view that he was uncertain about the issue, and he cast doubt on the validity of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, using some of the arguments employed by both Bishops Gregory. (See Document 6 below.) Fr. Christos Constantinou wrote the Metropolitan that, by sending the email around, he was violating the HOCNA synod’s decision not to get into the matter and was disturbing the peace of the flock and creating serious doubt in the minds of some clergy and laity regarding HOCNA’s Orthodoxy. The Metropolitan heard similar objections from others, but, in all cases, he rebuffed the criticisms, saying he had permission from his brother bishops to send the email to the individual in Russia.

 Mid-June – mid-August 2012 — Clergy and laity, as well as HTM monastics, were expressing grave concerns regarding the deepening rift in HOCNA over the Name-worshipping doctrine and the HOCNA synod’s refusal to put an end to the matter with an unequivocal acceptance of the synodal decisions. Fr. Haralampos of HTM produced a treatise that explained the history and theology undergirding the Orthodox position regarding the Name-worshipping heresy.

 August 20, 2012 — Twelve New England clergy decided to meet together 5 days later (10 actually made it) to discuss as brothers in Christ the turbulence in the Church due to the Name-worshipping doctrine and to see if they could come to an agreement how to approach the issue with the Metropolitan in order to preserve the Orthodoxy and unity of the Church.

 August 22, 2012 — The decades-long cover-up of the HTM scandal was revealed to the non-monastic clergy.

 August 25, 2012 — The 10 clergy met and, along with the Name-worshipping teaching, dis-cussed the HTM cover-up. Concerning Name-worshipping, the clergy agreed that the HOCNA synod needed to declare its oneness of mind with the definitive position of all of Orthodoxy in accepting the decisions against the heresy and its supporters. Concerning the HTM scandal, the clergy agreed that the synod needed to take immediate and decisive action to protect the Church. Then and there, the clergy went to Metropolitan Ephraim to present their views regarding both matters. Fr. Barsanuphius was present, and Fr. Isaac was also present and acknowledged to the clergy as a group that the allegations, from many years ago and more recent years, against Fr. Panteleimon were true and that he and Fr. Panteleimon agreed to the cover-up. Metropolitan Ephraim stated that, when he heard about the allegations, he chose not to investigate them. The clergy protested that the Church, the victims, and all the people were used and abused and betrayed in this manner. The clergy also said that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church, and, at the very least, resignations were in order, and the Name-worshipping matter had to be put to rest once and for all because HTM was now permanently divided, and clergy and parishes were being torn asunder by both scandals. The 10 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Vassily Mihailoff, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, and Jacob Wojcik.

 August 27, 2012 — In an email to Bishop Demetrius and copied to Fr. John Fleser, Fr. Nicholas of HTM set the record straight concerning Metropolitan Ephraim’s and Fr. Panteleimon’s knowledge of Bishop Gregory Lourie. This email was forwarded to the clergy, as well, so they would know the facts regarding the Metropolitan’s insistence he knew nothing about Bishop Gregory Lourie. According to the record, as far back as 2001, Fr. Nicholas presented both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon with a nine-page report regarding Bishop Gregory Lourie and his involvement with the Name-worshipping heresy. (See Document 7 below.)

 August 26-31, 2012 — Clergy from beyond New England were voicing their concerns over HOCNA’s handling of both issues. Some clergy saw a direct spiritual connection between the two issues and voiced this view. Specifically, the decades-long cover-up morally compromised the hierarchs and the HTM administration, leading to the turbulent series of recent crises and controversies, one after the other, eventually weakening the defense of the Faith and culminating in the introduction of foreign, even synodically condemned, doctrine.

 September 1, 2012 — Eighteen clergy, Fr. Isaac, and the 3 local bishops, met at the HOMB offices to press for the resolution of both matters and to urge the hierarchy to speak out against libelous charges being hurled against the clergy. Fr. Isaac again acknowledged the longstanding cover-up of the numerous instances of the HTM scandal. Metropolitan Ephraim would not agree to accept without reservations the synodal decisions, as has all of Orthodoxy for 100 years, against Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan stated the synod would convene before the October Clergy Synaxis and produce a clearer statement regarding Name-worshipping and, further, the matter would be placed on the agenda of the Synaxis for discussion by all the clergy, and everyone should wait until then. Most of the clergy reiterated that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church and ought to retire. Metropolitan Ephraim was also told HOCNA was on the verge of losing every-thing that was built up over the last 40-50 years, and his legacy would be in shambles. Bishop Gregory praised the Metropolitan and said his would be "one of the greatest legacies" ever. The 18 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Dimitry Kukunov, Otari Deisadze, Christopher Catanzano, Vassily Mihailoff, Andrew Snogren, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, James Graves, Christos Con-stantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, Michael Marcinowski, Jacob Wojcik, Andrew Boroda, and David Ruffner.

 September 3, 2012 —In a quick and direct violation of his statement above that everyone should wait until the Clergy Synaxis, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. One of the papers was a resend of the Metropolitan’s June 2012 email to a man in Russia. (See the chronology entry above for June 19-26, 2012 and Document 6 below.) The other paper, titled "Excursus," was yet another presentation of arguments by Metropolitan Ephraim with the goal of undermining the validity of the synodal decisions against the Name-worshipping heresy. (See Document 8 below.)

 September 6, 2012 —In another violation of his statement above, Metropolitan Ephraim, with Bishop Gregory, held a meeting at the Kukunovs’ home with laity in which they discussed their views that the Russian synods against Name-worshipping were not valid synods and that, because of internal theological errors, the decisions are not acceptable as they stand. Scandalous accusations, known not to be true, were made by some of the laity against some of the clergy, but neither hierarch refuted the charges.

 September 10, 2012 — Metropolitan Makarios agreed to meet with the Boston Metropolis clergy, but cancelled the meeting. Frs. George Liadis, Demetrios Houlares, and Christos Constantinou met with Metropolitan Makarios, anyway, and impressed on him that, without an unconditional statement from HOCNA accepting the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, HOCNA would begin losing some clergy and parishes who were having strong doubts about the integrity of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. At the request of Metropolitan Makarios, the clergy faxed the text of a declaration that, if signed by the synod bishops, would preserve the Orthodoxy of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. (See Document 9 below.) Also, again in violation of his statement above for everyone to wait until the Clergy Synaxis for Name-worshipping to be discussed there, Metropolitan Ephraim sent out broadcast emails in which he once more pushed his position that the synods and the decisions against Name-worshipping are of questionable validity. (See, for one example, Document 10 below, in which the Metropolitan disparages the Russian synods from the time of Czar Peter to the twentieth century with the intent of thereby discrediting their decisions, aiming right for the decisions against Name-worshipping.)

 September 11, 2012 — Because of the intransigence of the HOCNA synod regarding the Name-worshipping heresy, Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle resigned from the synod and withdrew from HOCNA for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council. (See Document 11 below for Bishop Demetrius’s statement and Document 12 below for Canon 15.) A petition bearing the signatures of over 40 lay men and women and urging the HOCNA synod to issue a declaration as described above and to retire Met-ropolitan Ephraim was faxed to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices for consideration at that day’s synod meeting. The HOCNA synod did, in fact, meet but did not issue a statement as described above. Instead, the bishops addressed five clergy, "categorically demand[ing]" that they state their views concerning purported internal theological errors in the 1913 decision of the Russian Synod. The bishops’ action was consistent with their oft-repeated stance, adopted from the Name-worshippers, to deflect attention from what has been the sole issue all along, that the decisions, themselves, condemning the heresy of Name-worshipping are valid and universally accepted by the Orthodox Church.

 September 15, 2012 — Although the bishops, at the September 11 synod meeting, had agreed among themselves to cease from circulating Name-worshipping material, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two additional documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. The one file was titled "The Name of God in the Psalms," about the contents of which there is no contention anyway. The other file, "The Orthodox Veneration of the Name of God" (17 pages in length), however, plainly promoted the Metropolitan’s view in the opening "Prelude." (See Document 13 below.)

 September 16, 2012 — At the St. Mark parish meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim’s position was accurately represented by non-parishioners Thomas Deretich and Michael Vagianos. A number of parishioners stated they felt they were lied to by Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory because the two bishops did not adhere to their synod’s decision and their promise to the laity not to pursue the Name-worshipping issue. When there was a consideration to ask the Metropolitan to come to the meeting, Michael Vagianos stated clearly that the Metropolitan was willing to come, but his position on the Name-worshipping issue would be the same as circulated in his recent statements: he would not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without qualifying reservations and conditions. The clergy reiterated the Orthodox position on the matter: the Orthodox Church Universal has upheld the decisions against Name-worshipping and its adherents without reservations; any purported internal theological errors do not negate the validity of the decisions.

 September 18, 2012 — A statement was issued by the HOCNA synod declaring that those bishops would never agree to accept, without reservations, the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping and will not associate with any hierarchy or church that does. (See Document 14 below.)

 September 22, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim called for a meeting at St. Anna’s parish with the Metropolitan and Bishop Gregory. Present were Fr. Dimitry Kukunov and laity from St. Anna and St. Mark. The meeting was presided over by Judge Leonid Ponomarchuk of Seattle, WA, and only clergy who were commemorating Metropolitan Ephraim were permitted to attend. In this meeting, libelous charges against some clergy were again brought up and, though known not to be true, were not refuted by the hierarchs. It was here in this meeting where Metropolitan Ephraim stated that it was only one or two weeks before this meeting that he was made aware of the clergy’s concern regarding the Name-worshipping heresy. Despite frequent attempts by laity for the Metropolitan to clarify this remark, given all the history presented above, Metropolitan Ephraim did not modify this statement.

he foregoing chronological record is irrefutable evidence that the Name-worshipping heresy was openly introduced into HOCNA approximately one year ago, and its supporters openly have been pushing it on the Church since then. Early in the twentieth century, three synods condemned Name-worshipping as a heresy, and the entirety of the Orthodox Church has accepted these decisions without reservations for the last 100 years. The Church has spoken concerning that teaching and its adherents. Orthodox Christians are faithful to the decisions of councils the Church has accepted. Therefore, faithful Orthodox Christians cannot sit idly when their hierarchs, or anyone else for that matter, teaches or allows to be introduced into the Church doctrines already determined to be heretical.

It is out of this faithfulness to the Church’s doctrines, then, that clergy and laity, over the past year protested this incursion of the Name-worshipping heresy into the HOCNA synod. The clergy were accused by some of violating the canons when the clergy met without their bishop. However, the relevant canons address insurrections against a bishop, conspiracies and plots to undermine the bishop, the setting up of an administration within an administration, the issuance of decisions without episcopal authority, etc. Under no circumstances are brothers in Christ forbidden to gather together to discuss issues important to the Church family and to come up with proposals to solve problems. That is one of the things concerned members of a family do. And what greater problem is there than a violation of Church doctrine?

Some have said the latest Protocol #2917 (Document 14 below) is "what we’ve been waiting for" because the bishops say they are not Name-worshippers. However, this document is none other than an official, synodal restatement of all that Metropolitan Ephraim and those with him have been writing and saying for a while now. The only really "new" thing is they make it very clear—in writing—they just will not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, as has all of Orthodoxy so peacefully for 100 years, without qualifications. This has been the fundamental issue all along, and it is this that puts them in opposition to Orthodoxy and St. Tikhon, who, himself, made it clear, in the very Nativity encyclical they cite, that the decisions stand unchanged at least until the Russian church ever cares to re-examine the matter, which that Church has not done. Effectively, HOCNA’s position is it and Bishop Gregory Lourie’s group are the only Orthodox synods in the world since all other Orthodox Churches accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without reservations.

Had HOCNA never gotten involved in what was up until then a non-issue, this would not be of concern now. Once HOCNA unnecessarily thrust itself into this matter, having realized the turmoil it created, it could have honored its own resolutions and been silent, leaving the matter alone since, as HOCNA correctly said, this was the affair of the Russian Church. Instead, the hierarchy kept hammering away with the same arguments of the Name-worshippers, casting doubts in the minds of the faithful about the validity of the Russian synods and the syn-odal decrees, the purpose of which doubts is to invalidate the decisions against Name-worshipping.

Unfortunately, relying on St. Tikhon’s Nativity Encyclical as a means to bring peace is nothing other than a compromise, a vain attempt to bring together two irreconcilable teachings, Orthodoxy and Name-worshipping, because of the history how that document is understood by the Orthodox and manipulated by the Name-worshipping advocates. To illustrate this point, it is as if, in the midst of the Arian heresy, the synod of bishops said we fully support and uphold everything that the Holy Gospels and Prophecies say concerning Jesus Christ. That is a perfectly sound Orthodox position, which, nonetheless, the Arians would also accept and put their names to, only to manipulate the Sacred Scriptures to suit their doctrine. This is exactly what is happening with St. Tikhon’s encyclical. He said, without qualifiers, the decisions stand. Why do not the HOCNA hierarchs say the same?

ADDENDUM
As of September 27, 2012, the following faithful have separated themselves from HOCNA, for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council, and have been received into the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius of Boston: Demetrius, former Bishop of Carlisle, now Bishop of Boston; Fr. Nicodemos Gayle and St. Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church in Glen Allen, VA; Frs. Michael Marcinowski and Jacob Wojcik and St. Philaret Mission Orthodox Chapel in Chicopee, MA; Fr. George Liadis and Ascension of our Saviour Orthodox Mission in Carver, MA; Frs. Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, and Demetrios Houlares and St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral in Boston, MA; Fr. Vassily Mihailoff and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco Orthodox Mission in Kennebunk, ME; Fr. George Kochergin and family; and Fr. Yakov Tseitlin and family. (See Document 15 for the HOCNA synod’s official and publicly proclaimed recognition of the Orthodoxy and Canonicity of the GOC and Document 16 for the St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral clergy and parish withdrawal from HOCNA and appeal to the GOC.)

Update as of 11/19/12: Since this document was published, Frs. Andrew Snogren and Alexander Buterbaugh and the Dormition of the Theotokos Church in Concord, NH; Fr. Michael Azkoul and St. Katherine of Sinai Mission Church in St. Louis, MO;  Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Albany, GA; Fr. John Knox, Fr. Michael Knox, Fr. James Graves and St. John the Confessor Church in Ipswich, MA; Fr. Christopher Catanzano and family; and Fr. Christos Patitsas have also been received under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius. 

LIST OF SOME ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CHRONOLOGY ABOVE

HOCNA = Holy Orthodox Church in North America, presided over by Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston

HOMB = Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston, a diocese of HOCNA under Metropolitan Ephraim

HTM = Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA

HNC = Holy Nativity Convent in Brookline, MA

GOC - Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, presided over by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens
 

See supporting Documents on the following pages.

This Chronology is the product of the collaboration of several members of:

St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral

Boston, MA

 

 

Document 1

Document 2

 

Document 3

 

Document 4

 

Document 5

 

Document 6

 

Document 7

 

Document 8

 

Document 9

 

Document 10

 

Document 11

 

Document 12

 

Document 13

 

Document 14

 

Document 15

 

Document 16

 

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.