The following decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was translated from the Greek as published in “Church
Truth”, the official organ of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, June 15, 1913.
This
decision of the Russian Synod was published in “Church News”, May 18, 1913, and
was based upon three theological studies, by Archbishop Nikon, former
Archbishop of Volgda who himself traveled to Mt Athos, Bishop Anthony of
Volynia (who both were both members of the holy Synod) and by Professor S.
Troitsky, an editor of ‘Church News” :
By
the Grace of God, the most holy ruling Synod of all Russia, to the
all-honorable brethren who are struggling in the monastic polity, grace to you
and may peace from the Lord Jesus Christ be abounding.
The
recently-appeared teaching of the Schemamonk Hilarion about the most sweet name
of the Lord Jesus, which has agitated many of the Orthodox, both monks and
laymen, has become a subject of diligent examination in the most holy Synod.
For the sake of all possible objectivity, the most holy Synod heard three
investigations (attached herein), composed separately from one another; and
after sufficient deliberation, unanimously accepted the final conclusions of
these investigations, as much as these conclusions are entirely in agreement
with the judgments of the Greek theologians of the island of Halki and the
decision of the All-Holy ecumenical Patriach and his Synod. Without entering
here into a detailed exposition of this newly appeared teaching and all the
proofs of its unorthodoxy (they who desire it may read these details in the
attached reports), the most holy Synod considers it sufficient to note the
principle and most essential points, first of the teaching of Fr. Hilarion as
set forth in the book ‘On the Mountains
of the Caucasus’, and then the theories of his followers on Mt. Athos, as
these were expressed in the ‘Apology’
of Schema-Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich and in diverse appeals and pamphlets sent
from Mt. Athos (including those in the name of “The League of Archangel
Michael”).
As
concerns, first of all, the book ‘On the
Mountains of the Caucasus’, it had a wide circulation among the monastics
and was received favorably, and it is not at all remarkable, for this book has
as its subject the precious treasure of the ascetics “noetic asceticism”
[prayer of the heart]. It confirms the necessity of this practice which has
somewhat been neglected by the monks of our times; it gives a clear expression
to many things, which the ascetics feel inwardly in their experience, but in
the form of unclear presentiments and conjectures.
An
objective judgment of such a desirable book, and much more its condemnation,
when considering its shortcomings/failings was not easy, for everyone fittingly
feared that in condemning the failings of the book, he might cast a shadow of
disapproval upon the sacred truths for which this book was published in order
to establish them. In spite of this, however, from the first edition of this
book, many who were experienced in the spiritual life found it questionable.
The most holy Synod knows, for example, that in one of our most illustrious
monasteries in the north of the Empire, reading of ‘On the Mountains of the Caucasus’ was forbidden by the elders. What
constitutes the deception of Fr. Hilarion? It consists in this; that Fr.
Hilarion, not being satisfied with the description of the prayer of the heart,
of its spiritual fruits, its necessity for salvation, etc., bowed to the
temptation of giving his own somewhat philosophical elucidation of why the
prayer of Jesus is salvific; and forgetting the guidance of the holy Church, he
wandered lost in his own theories; he invented, as he himself says, a new
“dogma”, which was found nowhere else before, leading not to the magnifying of
the most sweet name “Jesus”, nor to a strengthening of the prayer of the heart
(which was, we think, the intention of Fr. Hilarion) but leading entirely to
the contrary.
Truly,
we must ask ourselves what is the Jesus prayer in the understanding of the holy
Orthodox Church? It is the invocation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the
blind man in Jericho
cried out calling upon “Jesus, thou son of David have mercy on me”; and he did
not cease from crying, paying no attention until the Lord hearkened unto his
prayers (“Lord, that I might have my sight”, etc Mark 10:46-52). So also, does
the ascetic of noetic prayer unceasingly call upon the Lord Jesus with
undoubting faith, with humility, and with continuous cleansing of the heart
that Jesus might come and grant him “to taste and see that the Lord is good”.
From the Holy Gospel we know that God does not abandon “His own elect which cry
day and night unto Him” (Luke 18:7), for He gives them His grace, for (with the
Father and the Spirit) “He cometh and maketh His abode among such” for Himself.
Where the grace of the Holy Spirit is, there also are the fruit of the Spirit.
“Wherever God is, here also is every good”, as a certain ascetic said, for the kingdom of God is there. Behold, this is what
constitutes the source and cause and the entire interpretation of those exalted
and sweet conditions which befit those higher degrees of noetic asceticism
[prayer of the heart] which do not only possess the soul, but which are also
manifested in the bodily life of man; they are the gift of the source of every
good in response to our beseeching: an entirely free gift, explainable only by
the goodness of Him who gives it; since he is free to give or not to give, to
both increase and decrease, and also to take away completely His gifts. But
this so natural and comforting explanation which so arouses in us love for the
good Lord appeared to Father Hilarian and his followers to be insufficient; and
they decided to replace it with their teaching, i.e., that the Jesus prayer
saves, because the name “Jesus” is salvatory, for in it, as in the other divine
names, God is inseparably present. But saying this, they do not suspect
apparently to what fearful conclusions such a teaching inevitably leads. For if
this doctrine is true, then it follows that the unconscious repetition of the
name of God is effective (so Father Bulatovich states in his Apology, page 89). “If you unconsciously
invoke the name of the Lord Jesus, you will still have Him in His name with all
His divine properties like a book with everything printed in it; and if you
invoke Him as man, you will still have in the name ‘Jesus’ all of God.” However
this contradicts the very words of the Lord, “Not everyone that saith unto Me,
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of Heaven(Matt 7:21
ff). If this new doctrine be true, then in this case, it would be possible for
someone to perform miracles with the name of Christ without believing in
Christ. However our Lord told the Apostles that they could not cast out the
demon “Because of their unbelief” (Matt. 17:20). If the interpretation of
Father Hilarion and his followers is accepted, some events cannot be understood
such, as that recorded in Acts 19:14 ff. More significantly, the acceptance (by
Father Bulatovich) that “in the very sounds and the letters of the name of God
the grace of God is present” (Apology,
pg 188) or, which is essentially the same, that God is inseparably present in
His name, which results finally in God being somehow subordinate or subject to
man; and moreover, that we can consider Him to be somehow at the disposal of
man. It is sufficient (even without faith or unconsciously) for a man to
pronounce the name of God, and God is somehow obligated through His grace to be
with this man and fulfill his desires.
But
this is now blasphemy! This is a magical superstition, which long before has
been condemned by the Holy Church. Certainly both
Fr. Hilarion and all those of like mind with him will turn their faces away
with horror from such blasphemy; but, however if they do not like this, they
are obligated to come to doubt concerning their “dogma” which necessarily
results in such a condition. Not less dangerous results are from this new
teaching for the ascetic life, for noetic asceticism [prayer of the heart]. If
the grace of God is present in those sounds and letters of the name of God, f
this name pronounced by us or the idea of it held in our spirit is God, then
the first place in noetic asceticism is now taken not by the invocation of the
Lord, not by the lifting up of our heart and our mind to Him (for why should I
invoke Him, whom I practically by force possess Him already in my heart or
spirit?) but rather the first place will be the repetition of the words of the
prayer and the mechanical turning of it in the mind and on the tongue.
An inexperienced
ascetic will entirely forget that this prayer is directed towards someone, he
will be satisfied only in the mechanical repetition and he will expect from
this dead repetition those fruits which only the true Jesus prayer gives. When
he does not receive these fruits, he will either lose heart or he will begin to
produce them artificially in himself and to accept this exultation wrought by
him as the action of grace. In other words, he will fall into deception.
Certainly, Fr Hilarion does not wish such to befall anyone.
The
followers of Fr. Hilarion who wrote the ‘Apology’
and the appeals from Mt.
Athos consider themselves
to be followers of St Gregory Palamas and their opponents to be Barlaamites.
This however, is an evident misunderstanding; the similarity between the
teaching of St. Gregory and this new teaching is only external and just in
appearance. St Gregory taught that we must attribute the term “divinity” not
only to the essence of “God” but also to the “energy” or to His energies, i.e.,
to the divine attributes: wisdom, goodness, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.,
through which God reveals Himself to them without, and in this manner the Saint
taught that we should use the term in a somewhat broader sense than usual. This
variable sense of the term constitutes the whole resemblance of St Gregory’s
teaching with this new teaching, but essentially there is a complete difference
between them.
First, the Hierarch in no place names the
energies “God” but teaches that we should name them “divinity” (not God, but
divinity). The difference between these two terms can be easily understood from
the following example. It is said, “Christ showed His divinity on Tabor”, but
no one, however, would say, “Christ showed His God on Tabor”; this would either
be mindless or blasphemy. The word “God” indicates the person or personality,
while the word “divinity” the attribute, the quality, the nature. In this way,
even if we acknowledge the name of God as an energy of His, in such a case we
could name it simply divinity, but not God, much less “God Himself” as do these
new teachers. Secondly, the Hierarch nowhere teaches that we should confuse the
energies of God with the results of these energies in the created world, which
is to confuse the energy with the fruits of the energy. For example, the
Apostles saw the glory of God on Tabor and heard the voice of God. We can say
about them that they saw and heard the divinity.
Descending from the mountain,
the Apostles remembered that which had taken place and then narrate it to
others, communicated to them all the words heard by them. Can it be possible to
say that they communicated to others the divinity? That their narration was an
energy of God? Certainly not. It was simply the fruit of the divine energy, the
fruit of its activity in the created world. However, there new teachers
manifestly confuse the energy of God with its fruits, when they name as
divinity as God Himself, the names of God, and every divine word, and indeed
even the church prayers, i.e., not only the word spoken by God, but all our
words about God, “The words, by which we name God” as is written in the
objection to the Confession of Faith of the Monastery of St Panteleimon (in a
parenthesis to the words of St Symeon the new Theologian). But this is already
a deification of the creature, pantheism, which considers that all that exists
is God. Wherefore, the danger is
clearly justified, that was pointed out in the theological verdict from the
theologians of Halki theological School. In this confusion of the creature and
the divinity one discerns not a resemblance with the teaching of St Gregory Palamas,
but rather an exact resemblance to the teaching of Barlaam and his followers,
whom the holy Father refuted, for among other things, also accepting somehow
two kinds of divinity, created and uncreated (Porphyrius, History of Mt Athos, Vol 3, page 748). In order to support its
conjectures, the Apology and other
writings of like mind with it did not bring forward quotations from Holy Writ
and the writings of the Holy Fathers. For Fr Hilarian did not confess in vain to
his spiritual father [Kyrikos] that the teaching of this new dogma “is found
nowhere.”
The
passages presented do not prove the ideas of the followers of this doctrine, as
is proved in detail here in the attached statements. The phrases “thy name”,
“The name of the Lord” and the like in the language of sacred literature (and
together with these, in the Fathers of the Church and in the Church’s hymns and
prayers) are simply descriptive expressions, like “the glory of the Lord”, “the
eyes, ears, hands of the Lord”, or referring to a man, “my soul”. It would be
extremely erroneous to understand literally and to attribute eyes and ears to
the Lord or the soul as separated from a man. Likewise, not in the least is
there any foundation to perceive in the former expressions traces of some
teaching concerning the name of God; i.e., the deification of he name of God;
the phrases simply mean “Thou” or “the Lord”. A great many passages of Holy
Writ, aside from the foregoing, are arbitrarily misinterpreted by the followers
of this new doctrine, so that justly we can bring to mind the anathema
published against them who attempt “to misinterpret and change that which is
spoken by the grace of the Holy Spirit” (Greek Triodion pg. 149) which anathema is referred to in the Appeal of the League of Archangel
Michael (section 6).
In the appended expositions, examples of
such misinterpretations are presented; here one of them of all will suffice.
One of the objections in the Confession
of the Panteleimonites refers to the words of Symeon the New Theologian, “The
words of men are changeable and empty, but the word of God is living and
active”. But where herein either refers to the creative word of God (e.g. “Let
the be light, and there was light” and the like) or it refers to the begetting
before all eternity of the Son of God, the Word of God. The editor of the
objection himself simply interpolated after “the word of God” (that is, the
words with which we name God) and he achieved that which he desired, forgetting
that the words proceeding from the mouth of men, even if they are spoken
concerning God, are not possible to be equal with the words from the mouth of
God.
With
special insistence, the followers of the new teaching refer to the late Fr.
John of Kronstadt, in order to prove their doctrine. Wonderful to say, the
writings of this blessed man are widely available. One might say that all have
read them. Why then up till now, no one has observed in them such a teaching
expect Fr. Hilarion and his followers? This and only this now cause one to
doubt the accuracy of the reference to Father John. Carefully reading the works
of Fr. John everyone can be convinced that Fr John is speaking only concerning
the particular phenomenon in our consciousness when praying, with the pronouncement
of the name of God in our heart, and especially in the Jesus prayer, we do not
separate Him in our consciousness from the pronounced name, and that the Name
and God Himself coincide. Fr John counsels that we not separate them, not to
attempt in prayer to think of God as separated from the name and outside it;
this advice is entirely necessary and reasonable for the man who is praying. If
we, so to speak say, enclose God in His name, when in it is pronounced in the
heart, we are protected from the danger of attributing to God, when we address
Him, a material form, which all the law givers for spiritual warfare dissuade
us from doing.
The
name of God at the time of prayer should in some fashion be fused or identified
with God so as to be inseparable. Not unjustly did Fr. Hilarion in the beginning
said that the name of God for the man praying is not ”God” but “like God”. But
this is so only in prayer and in our heart and it depends only upon the limits
of our consciousness and our created nature. However, never is it concluded
from the foregoing, that outside of our consciousness the name of God is
identical with God, that it is divinity. Wherefore, Fr John, if he like many
other church writers, refers to the special and miraculous power of the name of
God, he also clearly gives us to understand that this power does consist of the
name itself as such, but in the invocation of the Lord, who or whose grace is
acting. For
example, we read in his My Life in Christ,
(book 4, pg 30, 2nd edition, revised by the author, Petrograd, 1893) “the almighty and creative spirit of our
Lord Jesus Christ is everywhere and He can everywhere name the non existent as
existing (Matt. 18:20) ‘And lo, I am with you alway…’ But so that the heart of
little faith might not think that the Cross or the name of Christ accomplish these things in and of
themselves, and that the same Cross and the name of Christ, do not produce
miracles when I do not look with the eyes of the heart or of the faith in
Christ the Lord and I do not believe with all my heart in everything which he
did for our salvation.” These words in no way agree with the new dogma of Fr.
Hilarion and Fr Anthony Bulatovich that supposedly “the name has almighty power
to work miracles as a consequence of the presence in it of the divinity”
(fourth point of the Appeal of the
League of the Archangel Michael.). On the contrary, that which Fr. Chrysantus
and the others spoke and wrote against such a teaching is validated, i.e., the
name of God works miracles under the condition of faith. In other words, when a
man pronounces the name, he awaits the miracle not from speaking the words, but
he calls upon the Lord, whom the name indicates, and the Lord according to the
faith of this man performs the miracle. The Lord also designates this
absolutely necessary condition for a miracle, “If ye have faith and doubt not,
ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall
say unto this mountain be thou removed and cast into the sea; it shall be done,
and all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive
(Matt 21:21-22). “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say
unto this mountain, remove ye hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and
nothing shall be impossible to you [(Matt 17:20) et. al.]. So does the Apostle
Peter explains the healing of the lame man in Acts 3:6 “And His name through
faith in His name both made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea the
faith which is by him hath given him this prefect soundness in the presence of
you all” (Acts 3:16). The falseness of this new dogma is finally verified by
the conclusions, which are derived from it by its followers, especially Fr.
Bulatovich in his Apology. According
to him, the icons and the sign of the cross and divine mysteries of the church
have effect only because upon them or during the course of performance, the
name of God is portrayed or pronounced.
One
cannot read without extreme astonishment the 12th chapter of the Apology (pg. 172-186) where Fr. Bulatovich,
gives a new elucidation of the Divine Liturgy according to his new doctrine. Up
to now, the Holy church taught us that bread and wine become the body and blood
of the Lord because God by the prayers and the faith (certainly not that of the
priest or of one of the congregation, but) of the Church of Christ “sends down
His Holy Spirit and makes the bread the body and the wine the blood of His
Christ”. Fr Bulatovich in his Apology
writes that the mystery is accomplished “precisely by the pronounced name of
God” i.e., supposedly, because simply the words “Holy Spirit”, “name of the
Holy Spirit” and the sign of the cross was made with the fingers in a position
which expressed the name (pg 183-184). But since before this the names of God
are pronounced over the gifts indeed more than once, Fr Bulatovich in his
sophistry maintains that in the proskomide, from the moment of the piercing of
the lamb “the lamb and the wine in the chalice are all-holy, sanctified be the
confession of the name of Jesus; it is Jesus according to grace, but not yet
according to essence” (pg. 174). If such be the case, why did the Orthodox
Church once condemn the so-called bread worshippers, who preformed prostrations
before the Holy Gifts before their change? Finally, if the performance of the
mysteries is restricted only to the pronouncement of certain names and the
performance of certain names and the performance of certain actions, in that
case these words could be pronounced and these actions preformed not only by a
priest, but also by a layman and indeed even by a non-Christian. Is Fr.
Bulatovich really ready to accept that even by such a server the mystery would
be accomplished? Why then do we have a lawful hierarchy? It is true that in the
synaxaria and other such books there are found narratives of mysteries
accomplished without a lawful celebrant when the appointed words of the prayers
were pronounced (indeed, sometimes as a joke or childish sport). But all these
narratives bear record that God at times “became manifest to them that asked
not after Him” (Esaias 65:1), as e.g., the Apostle Paul or at times, that the
church’s mysteries must not be a subject of mockery or childish games, for God
can punish such. In any case, such narratives do not overturn the God-given
ecclesiastical order. Thus from an erroneous principle, Fr Bulatovich
necessarily reaches erroneous conclusions, which on their part prove the
falseness of the principle.
On
the foundation of all the foregoing, the most Holy Synod unanimously is in
agreement with the decision of the all-Holy Patriarch and the sacred Synod of
the Great Church of Constantinople, which condemned the new teaching as
“blasphemous and heretical”; and after this, the synod also beseeches everyone
who has been led astray by this new teaching, to abandon this erroneous
sophistry and humbly obey the voice of the Mother Church which alone upon the
earth is “the pillar and ground of the truth” and outside her there is no
salvation. She, the Bride of Christ, knows more than all how to love and honor
her heavenly bridegroom. She, more than all, knows, embraces the most sweet
name of Jesus and other names of God; but she never permits, however, this
honor to extend beyond what is proper, she does permit our purblind human
conjectures and our limited human perception to become superior to the truth
revealed to the Church by Christ, as if we would correct it.
The
Orthodox theology concerning the divine names is as follows:
1. The name of God is holy, worshipful, and desirable,
because it is useful to us as a verbal designation for that most desired
and most Holy Being, God, the source of every good. This name is of God,
because it was revealed to us by God, it speaks to us of God, it refers
our spirit towards God, etc. In prayer (especially the Jesus prayer) the
name of God, and God Himself are inseparably in our consciousness, and it
is if they coincide, and indeed, they cannot and ought not be separated,
opposing one to the other; but this only in prayer and only by our heart.
Examined theologically and in reality, the name of God is only a name. It
is not God Himself nor an attribute (characteristic) of His. The name of
an object is not the object itself. Therefore, it is impossible for it to
be considered or named either God (this would be mindless and blasphemous)
or divinity, for it also is not an energy of God.
2. The name of God uttered in prayer with faith is able
to perform miracles, but not by itself in itself, nor as a consequence of
some divine power which, in a matter of speaking, is enclosed in it or
attached to it, which would then work mechanically, but rather thus: the
Lord seeing our faith, in the power of His un-lying promise, He sends His
grace, and through it He performs the miracle.
3. Each of the Holy Mysteries are accomplished neither
by the faith of him who performs them nor by the faith of him who
receives, but neither by the invoking or depiction of the name of God, but
by the prayer and faith of the Holy Church, on whose behalf it is
preformed and with the power granted he by the Lord’s promise. Such is the
Orthodox faith, the patristic and Apostolic Faith.
Now
the most Holy Synod invites the superiors and elders of all the venerable
monasteries in Russia: after the reading of this epistle, with all the brethren
present, to hold the service of supplication, that is appointed for Orthodoxy
Sunday, for the return of all who have gone astray. Afterwards, if there are in
the brotherhood some of contrary mind, they must express their submission to
the voice of the Church and promise that from now on they will withdraw from
self-willed arbitrary theories and they shall not offend anyone by them. All
are obliged to forgive one another from their heart, if anyone in the
excitement of the discussion said or did something offensive to the other, and
they should live in peace, working out their salvation. The book, On the Mountain of the Caucuses, as
containing grounds leading to erroneous theories and the Apology of Fr Bulatovich and the books and pamphlets written to
establish this concocted new teaching, must be proclaimed as condemned by the
Church and must be removed from circulation among the brotherhood of the
monasteries and their reading to be forbidden. If after this there should still
exist stubborn followers of this condemned teaching, immediately they are to be
suspended from priestly service, as many as among them have the priest’s
office, all who remain obstinate, after counseling, should be referred to the
appointed Church court, which in the case of their further persistence and
un-repentance, will deprive them of their priestly and monastic rank, so that
the evil sheep not infect the flock. The most Holy Synod fervently summons to
obedience, Fr Hilarion the Schemamonk, and Anthony the Schemahieromonk and the
other foremost defenders of the new doctrine. For if they until now believe
that they were defending a truth of the Church and that the words of the
Apostle could apply to them concerning “shall hide a multitude of sins” (James
5:20), now when the highest authority of the church both Constantinople and
Russia have passed judgment, further persistence in their own opinion is
finally a battle opposing the truth and draws, upon them the threatening word
of the Lord, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better
that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the
depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6). But may this lot never befall them, nor any one
else, but may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God the Father
and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all men. Amen.