Chronology: Document 4

STATEMENT OF THE HOLY SYNOD

of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America

Beloved Christians:

We recently welcomed Bishop Gregory Lourie as a visitor to our monastery in Boston. While here, he asked if he could receive Holy Communion, and after we consulted among ourselves, and upon asking the counsel of other of our clergy, we agreed to share the Holy Mysteries with him.

By doing this, we did not intend to get involved in theological debates that have raged in the Russian Church for some one hundred years now. Nor do we intend to take sides in them.

In hindsight, it would have been more prudent perhaps to wait until that time when this issue and other issues in the Russian and Greek Churches are addressed. At the same time, while we realize that many matters still divide them, we want to promote unity among all these groups. If we erred in our judgment, we ask forgiveness, since it was an honest mistake committed out of a desire to foster the oneness that must exist among all Orthodox Christians in the Holy Body and Blood of our Saviour.

It is true that, as they themselves admitted to us, our predecessors, St. Philaret of New York and Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, also made missteps in the confused times and conditions that the Church now finds itself. But their love of the Truth, their purity of intention and their confession of Orthodoxy was also evident and true.

We ask for your prayers that God may help us navigate in these turbulent waters that surround the Ark of the Church. We seek only your ― and our ― salvation, and we call upon the mercy of God to overlook our human failings.

May God protect and shelter all of us.

+Metropolitan Ephraim

+Metropolitan Makarios

+Bishop Demetrius

November 19/December 2, 2011

Martyr Barlaam of Antioch

Chronology: Document 3

November 30/17, 2011

Saint Gregory the Wonderworker

[for your information]

Response of Father Andrew Boroda to Father Michael Azkoul<>Friday, November 25, 2011

Dear Fr. Michael,

I know Bishop Gregory Lourie for number of years by correspondence and met him in person for the first time month ago in New York. I read some of his works, some of his sermons and found in them no heresy or anything in variance with teaching of the Apostolic Church. I cannot claim that I read all his writings and I may miss something even in what I have read. However, unsubstantiated accusations in heresy should be rejected outright. It is not right to accept bare words, but we need to see what kind of false teaching man proclaims so that we may analyze it or even ask author to speak for himself and explain it.

As about anyone's personal life, I cannot speak to that and it is out of my interest. I do not read any gossips on so-called internet news groups, sites, etc. I keep my attention away from those sources.

Father Michael, it is first time we exchange letters and I want use a chance to express gratitude for your lifelong work in the field of Church education. Often I give to read your articles and your book Delivered to the saints to new people coming to our Church. It was Deacon Photius, of blessed memory, who introduced your works to me.

Father, we live in desert-like world in which Christ the Savior the source of life is long forgotten. As Diogenes of old, we have to go abroad with a lamp searching for even single likeminded man. I rather be mistaken in trusting than be strict in mistrusting (remember how it was with St. Gregory the Theologian and Maximus the Cynic?). God is our judge.

Yours in Christ,

Fr Andrew Boroda

P.s. Metroplitan Ephraim forwarded to me a letter of Mr. Alajaji. He puts a title MD by his name. Doctor of Medicine is reputable profession. One should ask him if he ever makes final diagnosis without seeing a patient or reviewing his medical records or reading analyses of his tests? That would be my answer to his letter.

******************************************************************************

Response of Father Gregory [HTM] to a layman <> November 25, 2011

Dear in Christ  _____

Thank you for your kind words! Please pray for me, that I may serve at the Holy Table in purity and fear of God.

Concerning your question about Bishop Gregory.

There was a lot of misinformation and slanders about these worthy Athonite fathers. The Church of Constantinople was motivated solely by political reasons of expelling as much Slavs from the Holy Mountain as possible. Thus it used the accusation of "heresy" to demand from the Russian government the removal of supposed heretics from the Mountain.

As for the decision of the Russian synod - it rests on very shaky theological grounds and contains some very erroneous teachings. The fact is that this very same decision against them was reversed several times, so, which one of them are we supposed to believe? If the synodal decision was wrong, then it was wrong, there should be no shame in admitting it. Other conciliar decisions turned out to be mistaken in Church history. We know, for example that St. Tikhon the Confessor disregarded this synodal decision and personally liturgized with the leaders of the Imyaslavtsy in Moscow churches.

Bishop Gregory Lourie is not making an issue out of this question. He simply believes that that the Athonite fathers were right and that the hierarchs were wrong (how many times has such a thing happened in history?) and that one day the Church will (formally or informally) make a correct judgement about this matter.

I should like to recommend you to read this letter about the subject, written by Bishop Gregory to Vladimir Moss.

As for the ordination of Bishop Gregory. He was ordained by Bishops Sebastian and Ambrose of Valentine's Synod. When, then, Father Gregory was defrocked by Valentine in breach of all canonical procedures, these two bishops were so disgusted by the whole affair, that they withdrew from participating in the synod. Namely, these bishops were forced by Met. Valentine to sign an empty piece of paper where the uncanonical defrockment of Father Gregory was then written in.

On top of this, the so called "synod" of Met. Valentine is a self-appointed assembly of those bishops that happen to be at his residence at a given time, the existence of which has never been sanctioned by a Sobor, as specified by ROAC by-laws. In fact, there has not been a single Sobor in ROAC throughout the duration of its existence.

In accordance with 84 Canon of Council of Carthage, these two bishops instituted a local gathering of bishops within the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, which in absence, and until the restoration of, the conciliar order in that church, allows them to proceed with canonical existence without, at the same time, breaking into a schism. These are the bishops that ordained Bishop Gregory.

I will be happy to supply you with any other information about this matter.

Please pass my regards to Daniel, whom I met during his stay here at the monastery.

I embrace you with brotherly love.

In Christ our Saviour,

Gregory, hieromonk.

Chronology: Document 2

February 6/19, 2012

Sunday of the Last Judgment

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

Holy Masters, bless!

In his second epistle, St. Peter wrote, "Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." (2 Peter 3:17) Dear Despotas, I am writing to you because I believe you have fallen into such an error. In your statement of November 19/December 2, 2011, you characterized imyaslavie (name-worshiping) as an open theological debate which has raged in the Russian Church for some one hundred years. This is false. Imyaslavie is a heresy condemned one hundred years ago by both the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Russia. And since then there has been no debate within the True Orthodox Church. Based on this false view, you have made and continue to make grave errors. The most serious of these is your insistence on consecrating Priestmonk Gregory (Babunashvili).

As you surely know, imyaslavie is the teaching that the name of God is God Himself. It arose in early twentieth century Russia through the teachings and writings of Schema-monk Ilarion and especially Hieromonk Fr. Anthony Bulatovich, and spread to the Russian monasteries on Mt. Athos. Imyaslavie was condemned as a heresy by:

+ Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople (September 1912)

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

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

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

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

Somehow, Despotas, you have been led to believe that serious debate took place in the Russian Orthodox Church after the Holy Synod's decision, and continues to take place today. This is untrue. You have also circulated a letter by Priestmonk Gregory, in which he echoes the argument that the history of imyaslavie was a dispute between hierarchs and monastic ascetics in which the hierarchs prevailed not by truth, but by political maneuvering and force. This characterization is also false. In truth:

All 200+ bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church accepted the decision of the Holy Synod. The elders of Optina Pustyn, Valaam Monastery and of all other monasteries throughout Russia also received the decision of the Holy Synod without question.


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


The seven members of the Holy Synod of Russia which condemned this heresy included Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky and Proto New Martyr Vladimir, at that time Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. You could hardly characterize them as bureaucratic hierarchs with "shaky theology" or little knowledge of the Je-sus Prayer. Attached, please find the 1913 report of Metr. Anthony on imyaslavie. It is patristic and sound.


The Holy Synod of Russia never repealed its decision.


Our venerable hierarchs and fathers in faith, Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy and St. Philaret of the free Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, never treated imyaslavie as an open question.


The only figures to defend the teaching of imyaslavie or to question its condemnation as a heresy were the original teachers and disciples of this heresy; followers of heretical philosopher Vladimir Soloviev such as Sergey Bulga-kov, Nikolay Berdyaev, Alexey Losev, and Pavel Florensky, who laid the foundation of the corrupt Paris theological school; "Bishop" Ilarion Alfeyev, a Moscow Patriarchate "theologian", whose background, education, and experience are all suspect; and Gregory Lourie, a self-described purveyor of punk Orthodoxy and self-proclaimed bishop.

You have admitted that you erred in allowing Lourie to be communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery in October of last year. An academic who philosophizes over details while failing to grasp fundamental truths, Lourie has published sermons on such topics as why St. Nicholas should be worthy of veneration when the few hard facts reveal him as an ordinary provincial bishop and when the miracles attributed to him seem mythological. Far from traditional Orthodoxy, to say the least.

Lourie was ordained to the priesthood in 1999 by the Synod of Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal to be pastor of the parish of St. Elizabeth the New Martyr in St. Petersburg, Russia. He was suspended by the same synod in July of 2005, and then defrocked in September of 2005, precisely for promoting imyaslavie. In the letter notifying him of his suspension, Metr. Valentin wrote:

Over the course of many years, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church has received several complaints from bish-ops, priests, monks, and lay persons, concerning intolerable and extremely scandalous remarks made by you, together with your spreading of the heresy of "name worshipping," and, despite the fact that you were warned several times to cease and desist from disseminating heresy via the internet, and you promised to abandon your waywardness and return to the true path, which leads to salvation, you continued, and even until now continue, to spread the heresy of "name worshipping," publishing the false teaching of hieromonk An-thony Bulatovich on the web page Portal-Credo.ru.

True to his nature, Lourie disputed the details of the procedure by which he was defrocked. He failed to accept the essence of the matter: because of his militant belief in imyaslavie, the synod considered him no longer worthy of the priesthood, and later even excommunicated him and his followers. Lourie continued to serve in rebellion. In November of 2008, he dared to accept consecration as bishop by two bishops suspended by Metr. Valentin, taking for himself the title last rightly held by the New Martyr Metr. Joseph, "Bishop of Petro grad and Gdov." Further, despite claims of persecution, Lourie's parish of St. Elizabeth the New Martyr is the only nonMoscow Patriarchate parish that has been allowed to function openly in St. Petersburg in a traditional church building open to the public. In Putin's Russia, this can only mean Lourie has powerful governmental protection. In other words, he is not only pseudo-Orthodox and even heretical in his beliefs, a pseudo-bishop in his canonicity, but he is also clearly perceived as useful in some way by the government.

Your failure to grasp both the heretical nature of imyaslavie and the utter unworthiness of Gregory Lourie are why Priestmonk Gregory is still a candidate for bishop. In his letter of November 25, 2011, Fr. Gregory openly supported both the heresy of imyaslavie and the canonicity of Lourie, whom he has also described as a renowned theologian. (!!!) God allowed him to reveal both his heretical beliefs and his poor judgment before his consecration. Yet all you have asked him to do is to promise to keep these opinions to himself. Despotas , how can you think this is satisfactory? Since when is it acceptable for a bishop to believe in heresy but keep it to himself? Since when is a man who believes in heresy a valid candidate for consecration? You continue to look to St. Metr. Philaret as an example; how can you imagine that Fr. Gregory would have been acceptable to him?

The consecration of a bishop is an extremely serious matter for the whole Church. In a small synod like ours, the man who is chosen will influence decisions for years to come. Candidates should be men whose Orthodox faith and judgment are unimpeachable. With more than thirty monks at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, it is simply impossible that the best qualified candidate is this relatively unknown man who came to this country less than five years ago, was tonsured barely two years ago, and who now has revealed these serious errors in faith and in judgment. If you do not wish to "fall from your own steadfastness," you should not consecrate him. If you are truly seeking the best candidates and desire the unity of the Church, I respectfully urge you to tum to the whole Church to nominate new candidates. Let men be chosen who are supported not just by a majority of the Holy Synod, but by the laity, clergy and bishops. Let there be several candidates, and let the one to be consecrated be chosen from among them by lot. In this way, setting aside our own will in this matter, we would allow God's will be revealed.

In Christ,                                

Fr. Deacon Yakov Tseitlin

Chronology: Document 1

October 30/November 12, 2011

 SS. Cleopas and Artemas, the Apostles

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

Beloved Holy Masters:

I kiss your right hands and ask your blessings.

In both written and verbal communications with you over the years, I have said to you that, if a son really loves his father, then, when a son sees his father in error, the son—precisely because he loves his father—corrects him. So I communicate again now with you in this same spirit because I love our Savior and His Church and you, my fathers in the Faith.

 

Over the last week or so, it has been established that Bishop Gregory Lourje of one of the non-State Church Orthodox jurisdictions in Russia, with the consent of the three of you, received Holy Communion with His Eminence Ephraim during the Divine Liturgy at Holy Transfiguration Monastery sometime near the close of Bishop Gregory’s very recent visit there. I am astounded by how muddled and inconsistent this decision has rendered our ecclesiology and by the entire manner by which you came to this decision.

 

When I arrived at the Monastery for the Saturday Divine Liturgy approximately two weeks ago, it happened to be right at the time of Bishop Gregory’s departure. Fr. Panteleimon asked me to greet Bishop Gregory, whom I did not even know was in town (which, of course, does not matter) and briefly introduced me to the bishop. I asked Father if the bishop is one of ours, and he said yes. Shortly after greeting the bishop, I approached His Eminence Ephraim, who was seated in his usual spot in the office, and inquired about this bishop.

 

His Eminence took the time to provide me with a brief background, told me we were reaching out to this man in the spirit of trying to establish an ongoing relationship that might eventually lead to a Sister Churches type of intercommunion, said that we advised this bishop to attempt to join the Tikhon Synod, noted that there were conflicts between this man and that Synod, and remarked that he (His Eminence Ephraim) did not fully comprehend all of the issues, part of which centered on the "Name of Jesus" controversy in the Russian Church. His Eminence gave me the very distinct impression that we would cautiously proceed to evaluate Bishop Gregory and the situation in Russia, which seemed fine to me. And then, this past week, I learned about the bishop’s receiving the Mysteries, which would have had to happen before His Eminence and I had the aforementioned conversation.

How, I ask, is it proper to commune with a bishop whom we are still evaluating and the controversies around whom we do not understand? Such a weighty decision—bishops com-muning with one another—is made on the basis of an impromptu phone call while the jury is still out on Bishop Gregory’s trustworthiness? How do we jump so fast to communion with this man, whom we truly barely know, while exercising all due caution, for example, with a bishop from another jurisdiction who has been in direct communication with us for over a year and with whom you have met and held discussions in person on more than one occasion? You write, laudably, in your recent "A Historical Clarification" that it is our desire to be in communion with those who, in effect, have canonical and confessional integrity. Where have you estab-lished that this Bishop Gregory meets this criterion?

And here is one glaringly obvious way in which you have seriously confused our ecclesiology. If you can commune with a hierarch whose canonical and confessional integrity we have not thoroughly studied and the controversies around whom we do not adequately comprehend, then, by your own unanimous decision of a little over a year ago when you officially recognized the Kiousis/Kallinikos Synod as the legitimate True Orthodox Church of Greece and turned over your responsibility for Athens to that Synod, you must forthwith commune with each and every one of the hierarchs on that Synod, whose canonical and confessional integrity you have determined and publicly proclaimed.

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

As for Bishop Gregory, by your own standards, either you have to produce—for the whole Church to see—the evidence of your study of him and his situation and his canonical and confessional integrity or you publicly have to repeal communing him until an unhurried and thor-ough evaluation and a proper and correct decision can be made. After all, you have an entire Church to answer to. Sad to say (for us), but even the Kallinikos Synod, its shortcomings not-withstanding, took longer in its deliberations and response time before accepting into commun-ion our departed hierarchs, clergy, and parishes.

And this brings us—yet again—to the beyond lamentable manner in which we govern the affairs of our Church. You have objected to the description of our Synod as dysfunctional. Fine; I’m not wedded to that specific word. But please tell me what word you would use to describe a group of people who do not adhere to their own policies, who act impulsively (in contradiction to their oft-declared "cautiously"), and who, in the face of ongoing, self-inflicted damage to our Church, steadfastly make momentous decisions without full, well-rounded consultation and deliberation.

As for inconsistency with our Synod’s policies and impulsivity, so as not to belabor these points, the several paragraphs prior to the one before this constitute ample evidence. Surely, given all of our past communications, I do not have to repeat prior instances. If you simply had adhered to your own policies and to your purported caution, Bishop Gregory receiving Holy Communion would not now be an issue. And this brings us to the third point, advice and guidance, beyond whatever you may or may not be obtaining now.

Our Synod appears to make decisions as if our hierarchs are in a vacuum, as if there is no rest of the Church which has a say in the Church’s governance and to whom our hierarchs must give account. The three citations immediately below, I hope, will help illustrate what I mean:

In a paper you distributed at this year’s Clergy Synaxis, Fr. Haralampos noted how even the Holy Apostles gathered in council with all of the people present, including laymen, and everyone expressed his view. (Father even remarked on the "Mediterranean" character of the proceedings.)

When we were searching for an Orthodox hierarch in 1987, follow-ing ROCOR’s departure from the Confession of Faith of St. Philaret, the whole church was involved—yes, even laymen. Further, we took several months to make our decision, and, when Archbishop Auxentios came increasingly into view, we actually met with him more than once, asked him anything and everything we wanted, answered any and all of his questions, and then decided the matter together, as the whole Body of Christ.

On and off over the last six years or so, the clergy have urged that you seek full counsel before deciding issues with serious ramifications. One suggestion has been the establishment of a standing board of advisors composed of parish clergy and perhaps laity. Another suggestion has been the convening, from time to time, of a Church-wide council. In both cases, their function would be to study carefully and to give you direction on how to handle serious pastoral and administrative issues and controversial matters of con-sequence. Both approaches have been applied in the Church throughout the centuries.

These three examples stand in sharp contrast to the way our Holy Synod, especially these last several years, determines how to handle situations with significant repercussions or arrives at decisions with far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, our history gives the impression either we are not aware of either of these potential outcomes or we just do not care. Indeed, I posit that because, to date, you have effectively ignored the suggestions above regarding advisors and councils, some of your more significant decisions and courses of action have increased the tension, turmoil, and division in our Church. Our Synod’s handling of weighty matters and decisions appears to be less thoughtful and open and conciliar within the context of an entire Church and more, I’m sorry to say, impetuous and private and personal, with the too-frequent aura of backroom deals. I know we are capable of conducting the business of the Church much better than that.

You have seen as recently as the end of this September in a meeting with clergy with His Eminence Ephraim and, again, at the last Synaxis that a number of clergy share this concern. In fact, some said they were relieved to learn that other clergy have the same understanding of our conduct and the same concerns addressed in this letter and in previous communications with you and that these concerns have been raised with you, but they are thus far disappointed in our Synod’s overall response. They said they would receive, on occasion, material from our hierarchs showing support for how our Synod was handling a controversial matter, but the same clergy never were made aware by our hierarchs that there were serious opposing views to how our Synod was handling things. I, too, was reassured to learn that others of my brother clergy are of a similar mind.

Are you not tempting God by willfully (after all, you are not in ignorance here) continuing to preside over this self-inflicted destruction? And if you are, for how long will our Lord forbear? You know He allowed His people to be defeated in war in order to teach them to have faith in Him and to be obedient to His will. Clergy, laity, and parishes have departed, a sizable number of our remaining clergy and laity are in dismay and are having temptations, and all of our mon-asteries (what’s left of them) are, at best, on shaky ground and/or divided. (This includes Holy Transfiguration; just pay honest attention to what is going on around you.) And all of this is re-lated to our Synod’s conduct. Are we to lose, perhaps irretrievably, everything built up by di-vine grace and our decades-long labor before we mend our ways?

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

Father Christos Constantinou

P.S. Some of those same clergy asked that they be "kept in the loop" concerning matters such as these. Thus, whereas in the past I have not sent my communications with you broadly to others, I am sending this letter and similar others in the future to those who asked to be kept up on such things.

Analysis of the Statement of the HOCNA Hierarchs

Updated 9/20/12: information added to note 1.  The statement released by the remaining three hierarchs of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America appears below in regular text, followed by analysis of the statement.  The notes in blue italics in the text of the statement have been added to correlate each point with the analysis below.

Statement of the Holy Synod

5/18 September, 2012

Holy Prophet Zacharias

To quote St. Maximus the Confessor "Even if the whole universe were to hold communion with these Churches, I will not hold communion with them." Under no circumstances will we, the undersigned hierarchs, endorse or accept a "Synod" (which was not a Synod at all [1] ) (See note 1) that espouses teachings condemned and anathematized three times by the Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351. (See note 2)

Furthermore, we will not have any relations with hierarchs or church affiliations that consciously and deliberately accept the false teachings of the same Russian Synod of 1913, which teachings are under the anathemas of the aforesaid Council of Constantinople of 1351. (See note 3)

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

We do not believe that:

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

We espouse and embrace the February, 1921 Encyclical of the Holy Confessor Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, as a resolution of the so-called name-worshipping controversy. (See note 7) This is our Confession of the Holy Orthodox Christian faith, so help us God.

+ Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston

+ Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto

+ Gregory, Auxiliary Bishop of Concord

Protocol # 2917



1 In fact, the Russian Synod of 1913 was not a Synod or a Council at all in the true sense, but more like a department of religious affairs of the Russian govemment. (See note 1)

_______________________________________________________________________

Analysis

 

Note 1.   The HOCNA hierarchs allege that the Russian Synod of 1913, which condemned name-worshipping, was not a valid synod, and that it was a branch of the civil government rather than a true governing body of the Church.

 

True or false?  Or simply misleading?

 

First, the heresy of name-worshipping was condemned not only by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, but also by two successive patriarchs of Constantinople and by the Sacred Community of Mt. Athos.  So even if critics were able to discard the decision of the Russian Synod of 1913, the condemnation of name-worshipping as a heresy by the Orthodox Church would still remain in force.

 

Second, it is true that Tsar Peter I, known as "the Great," did away with the position of the patriarch of Moscow and replaced it with a Holy Synod.  A government official with the title "Ober Procurator" was appointed to oversee the work of the synod.  This arrangement did not allow the emperor or civil government to have any say in questions of faith.  It received approval from other Orthodox patriarchs.  The chief result of this change was to ensure that there would be no patriarch to oppose the tsar. (Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, third edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 257)

 

In 1913, the synod of bishops had seven members.  They were metropolitans, archbishops and bishops, not government employees.  The head of the synod was the metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Vladimir, who had a long and distinguished career as a bishop and who was to become the first hieromartyr of the communist yoke.  The chief opponent of name-worshipping on the synod was Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky of blessed memory, a theologian and distinguished bishop who went on to become the first of the first hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad and spiritual father of saints, including St. John Maximovich and St. Justin Popovich.  Ironically, after the HOCNA clergy departed from the Russian Church Abroad, they venerated Metropolitan Anthony as their spiritual forefather and a yet-to-be-glorified saint.

Further, while the HOCNA hierarchs do not recognize this synod as valid, the members of the Russian Orthodox Church in their day did.  The decision of 1913 was accepted by all the bishops of the Church (the vast majority of whom went on to become confessors and martyrs under the communist yoke) and by all the monasteries, including Optina Pustyn and its elders.

 

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

True or false?

First, let's decode the allegation.  The Holy Council of Constantinople of 1351 was the last in a series of councils that met to decide whether the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas on hesychasm were Orthodox or heretical.  At this council, St. Gregory Palamas was vindicated, and his opponents, Barlaam and Acindynos, were condemned.  So the HOCNA hierarchs are accusing the Russian Synod of 1913 of falling into the heresy of the Barlaamites, and unwittingly opposing the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas.

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

The natural energy of God’s essence does not differ from God’s essence and is not separate from it. They are not two separate things for God’s natural energy is simple as is His essence. St Gregory Palamas repeated this Patristic truth against the Barlaamites, when he declared, that it was a God-befitting distinction, which in no way violated the divine simplicity. God is not diminished, but he is everywhere present in all his essence, wherever his energy is differentiated and measured out according to His will; He is present in His grace in the measure he determines for every creature. The Nameworshippers call those who do not believe in their new teaching, Barlaamites. However, it is their “dogma” that resembles the Barlaam heresy; for they, like Barlaam, declare that the grace of God is created, since they declare a created name is God Himself.

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

Recently, a heresy called “name-worshipping” has reared its head. This heresy is so called because its adherents believe that the name of God is God Himself; that is, that His name is a divine energy and hence uncreated. This ridiculous idea was condemned by the Synod of Constantinople in 1913 and again by the Russian Synod the same year. These Synods declared heretical the idea that the name of God is an energy of God or God Himself. This is the central point of the heresy, from which all of their other deviant beliefs follow. The Russian Synod, however, added a few comments of its own on the subject of the divine energies and the divinity, which used a slightly different terminology than the manner of expression used by St. Gregory Palamas (the expositor par excellence on the subject of the divine energies.) The Synod’s terminology was not so much heretical as not as clear and precise as St. Gregory’s exposition; and this was evidently the result of the Russian bishops’ lack of familiarity with the polemical writings of the saint, which had mostly not been translated into Russian at the time. The modern name-worshippers have seized upon this imprecision of terminology and have made it their banner; or rather, their smokescreen, declaring that they cannot accept the Russian council because it opposes the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas. In so doing, they have missed the main point, which is that even if the Russian Synod expressed itself poorly, name-worshipping is still a heresy. The Russian condemnation of name-worshipping is still valid in and of itself, even if the terminology it used in its further explanation of the subject is questionable. Moreover, the heresy was also condemned by the Synod of Constantinople, which used no dubious terminology. Yet the name-worshippers also refuse to recognize this council. Hence, it is clear that their motivation in attacking the language of the Russian Synod is not pious concern over expression, but rather because they simply do not accept the Orthodox teaching on the name of God.
 

Note 3.  The HOCNA hierarchs write, "we will not have any relations with hierarchs or church affiliations that consciously and deliberately accept the false teachings of the same Russian Synod of 1913...."

Decoded: They will not have any relations with the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.  This is the Church whose hierarchs have spoken out against the name-worshipping heresy, and to which former HOCNA bishops, clergy and laity continue to flee.  Not only did the entire Metropolis of Portland and the West and the vast majority of the Metropolis of Toronto seek refuge in the GOC in 2011, but now Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle, along with clergy and laity from the Metropolis of Boston, are appealing to be received by the Holy Synod of the GOC at its meeting in Greece this week.

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

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

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

But they did not.

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

Name-worshippers do not believe this either, according to Tatiana Senina, a prominent defender of name-worshipping and disciple of "Bishop" Gregory Lourie.  In defining what name-glorifiers (as name-worshippers prefer to be called) believe, she is quoted as saying:

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

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

Note 6.  The HOCNA hierarchs write that they do not believe "[t]he letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God are to be deified, or used for magical purposes...."

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

Indeed, if we were considering a teaching that equated created letters or sounds with God, which it would be enough for anyone to write or pronounce in order to achieve the desired miracle, then such a teaching could be called ‘name-worshipping’ and compared with magic and shamanism....

Note 7.   The HOCNA hierarchs write, "We espouse and embrace the February, 1921 Encyclical of the Holy Confessor Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, as a resolution of the so-called name-worshipping controversy."

 

Unfortunately, as has been shown elsewhere on this site, the HOCNA hierarchs pick and choose from Patriarch Tikhon's words to make it seem he is sympathetic to name-worshipping, when he is not:

But what did Patriarch Tikhon really say? In addition to these four particular points (repeated by the HOCNA hierarchs in their statement above), he wrote that the synod was extending economia to the repentant name-worshipping monks, condescending to their spiritual mood and disposition. But even in this economia, they were required to testify to:

their exact following of the Orthodox Church, and of their obedience to the God-established hierarchy, believing according to the teaching of the Holy Church, adding nothing and subtracting nothing on their own...

Further, Patriarch Tikhon wrote that while it was manifesting condescension to the repentant monks (extending economia to them in helping them return to Orthodoxy), the Holy Synod did not change its judgment on the heresy of name-worshipping itself. The Holy Synod condemned name-worshipping as a heresy in 1913. That judgment was never modified or overturned by the Holy Pan-Russian Local Council. It stands to this day.

Conclusions:  The statement of the HOCNA hierarchs seems to try to stake out a middle ground, in which they can deny to be name-worshippers without actually condemning name-worshipping as a heresy.  On the one hand, they would like to appease the clergy and laity who are fleeing from under their omophorion.  On the other, they would like to retain the privilege to profess certain name-worshipping beliefs, and to excuse their friendships with "Bishop" Gregory Lurie of St. Petersburg, Russia, and the newly-consecrated "Bishop" Job of Rivne, Ukraine.

 

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

Indeed, the entire Church has condemned the Name-worshippers, either by words of agreement, or by acquiescing to the formal decrees of the condemnation by the Patriarchates.   When the Church condemns something, it is binding.

Name-Worshippers in Their Own Words Vs. The Holy Fathers

WHAT A NAME-GLORIFIER IS

A study by Nicholas Snogren

 “Even if bishops are driven from their Churches, be not dismayed. If traitors have arisen from among the very clergy themselves, let not this undermine your confidence in God. We are saved not by names, but by mind and purpose, and genuine love toward our Creator.”

St. Basil the Great: Letter CCLVII, To the monks harassed by the Arians

 "If, then, one who speaks of the Son does not by that word refer to a creature, he is on our side and not on the enemy's; but if any one applies the name of Son to the creation, he is to be ranked among idolaters.” 

St. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, S:8

Because of the confusion over the subject of God’s name, and the disinformation being spread about it (that Name-glorifiers don’t really believe the Name of God is God), it seemed prudent to supply the Faithful with an exact definition.

This article contains definitions of the Name-glorifiers from articles written by a prominent Name-glorifier, Tatiana Senina; as well as quotes from Anthony Bulatovich himself. Bulatovich was the principle Name-glorifier ‘theologian’. These definitions are then contrasted to direct quotes from the Holy Fathers of the Church.

PART I. WHAT THE NAME-GLORIFIERS SAY THEY BELIEVE.

To begin, here are quotes taken from Tatiana Senina’s article on Name-glorifiying. All quotes are from her and the author of their doctrine, Anthony Bulatovich, and can be found here (accessed September 11 new-style, 2012)

“The formula ‘The Name of God is God Himself’ may indeed seem strange to one unfamiliar with patristic doctrine or with the practice of noetic prayer. In my opinion, this formula evoked and continues to evoke misunderstanding because people are accustomed to understand as ‘names’ only conventional signs and symbols that could of course not be identified with the object named.”

 Tatiana Senina: Name-Glorifying or Name-Worshipping?

The essential definition of a Name-glorifier is the belief that the Name of God is God. Let’s see how she breaks down the statement for those of us who are “unfamiliar with patristic doctrine or noetic prayer.” She continues:

“…We are obligated to explain how the Holy Fathers understood the Names of God and what they taught about prayer, and then compare their teaching with the teaching of the name-glorifiers and then decide whether the former is a heresy… Indeed, if we were considering a teaching that equated created letters or sounds with God, which it would be enough for anyone to write or pronounce in order to achieve the desired miracle, then such a teaching could be called ‘name-worshipping’ and compared with magic and shamanism...”  

Ibid.

At a cursory glance there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with this second quote. She affirms that the created letters and sounds of the name of God cannot work miracles when pronounced by just anyone (think about a Hispanic whose name is Jesus). However, she does not say that the created letters and sounds which specifically refer to God aren’t God.

Continuing with Senina’s definition:

“He (Bulatovich) founded his teaching on the Divinity of the Names of God above all on the basis that the Divine Name is, according to the Holy Fathers; His energy or operation, and that God’s energy is God Himself. This is the point around which the polemics essentially turned.”

Ibid.

So, a Name-glorifier is someone who thinks that the name of God is His energy, which energy is God Himself. If A is B and B is C, A is C. Why does Senina only say that God’s name is his Energy? To get around the fact that the Russian Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople decreed that to say God’s name is His ‘essence’ is a heresy.*  The Church Fathers understood that there is no division in God.

“No difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead”

St. Gregory of Nyssa: Letter to Ablabius, On Not Three Gods

“There is not one subsistent Person, but a similar substance in both Persons. There is not one name of God applied to dissimilar natures, but a wholly similar essence belonging to one name and nature.”  

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: Sirmium by the Easterns to oppose Photinus. 64.

“The heretics when beset by authoritative passages in Scripture are wont only to grant that the Son is like the Father in might while they deprive Him of similarity of nature. This is foolish and impious, for they do not understand that similar might can only be the result of a similar nature.”  

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: On the Councils, or, The Faith of the Easterns 19.

 “If any one grant the Son only a likeness of activity, but rob Him of the likeness of essence which is the corner-stone of our faith, in spite of the fact that the Son Himself reveals His essential likeness with the Father in the words, ‘For as the Father hath life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself (John v. 26)… such a man robs himself of the knowledge of eternal life… let him be anathema.”  

 St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: On the Councils, or, The Faith of the Easterns. VI.

If you say God’s name is His energy, then (according the the Holy Fathers), you have to say it’s His nature, or essence, or substance, as well! People may gainsay the 1913 Anathema against the Name-worshipers all they want- they’re already condemned!

Which Holy Fathers does Bulatovich quote to support his ideas? Senina tells us:

“According to the quotations in his writings, Antony Bulatovich did not have at his disposal the majority of sources that were used by Gregory Palamas, nor the works of Palamas himself…not once did Antony quote Palamas in his writings.’…if, while writing his treatises, Gregory Palamas referred to the dogmatic works of the fathers, Antony Bulatovich in his works focused on the scriptures and on the liturgical texts.”   

Tatiana Senina: The Status of Divine Revelation in Hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich

The great Saint of our Church, Gregory Palamas, in his humility, founded his writings on the explanations of the Church Fathers. Bulatovich, a Russian author, admits that he based his work on the Scriptures, without even having the Church Fathers available! Personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is Protestantism. The Orthodox rely strictly on what the Fathers of the Church, who were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and taught by the Apostles themselves, have handed down to us.

Name-glorifiers have a habit of trying to hide the actual meaning of their belief by fancy language which makes them sound innocent at first.

“…These sounds and letters [of the Name] are different in every language, and they will not carry over into eternity, and are not united in any way with the Lord Jesus Christ, because when we, speaking about the Name, have in mind created human words with which we express ideas about God and about Christ…”

Before we finish that sentence, take note of the meaning so far. Sounds and letters will not carry over into eternity. They are not united in any way with the Lord Jesus Christ. When we speak about the Name, we have, in mind, created words, with which we express our perceptions and conceptions of God. Now let’s see the rest of the sentence:

“When we, speaking about the Name, have in mind created human words with which we express ideas about God and about Christ, then it is appropriate to speak of the presence of God in His Name…”

Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich), Moia bor’ba s imiabortsami na Sviatoi Gore [My Battle with the Onomatoclasts on the Holy Mountain], p. 117.

The second half of the sentence says the exact opposite of the first! The sounds and letters of the name are in no way united with Jesus Christ, but it is appropriate to speak about His presence in them when we have them in mind. They are un-united, but He is in them.

Name-glorifiers have this trick of saying that the letters and sounds which make up a written or spoken name are not related to the mental image of a name. The Fathers often refer to our mental images or ideas as ‘conceptions’, which are a capability of our ‘reasoning’:

 ‘The reasoning part of the soul is divided into conception and articulation. Conception is an activity of the soul originating in the reason without resulting in utterance… And it is this faculty chiefly which constitutes us all reasoning beings… But articulation by voice or in the different dialects requires energy: that is to say, the word is articulated by the tongue and mouth, and this is why it is named articulation. It is, indeed, the messenger of thought, and it is because of it that we are called speaking beings.”

St. Hilary of Poitiers: De Trinitate. Book II, Chapter XXI.—Concerning Conception and Articulation.

When Bulatovich speaks of the Name of God “in mind”, he is referring to our conception. According to the Apostolic teaching of the Church, here defined by St Hilary, conception is reasoning without utterance and articulation is the utterance of that same reasoning. Therefore, if we were to articulate our conception of this “Name”, we’d be articulating God! That is, according to Name-glorifiers.

In the beginning of this article, we pointed out a subtlety in Senina’s apology for the “Nameglorifiers”, namely, that words and letters which equate with God do not work miracles on their own. She does not say that the words and letters which make up THE name of God are not God, since that’s what they really believe. Rather, she mixes her language to lure people into a false sense of trust, so that they swallow poison mixed with honey.

Here is the rest of the previous quote from Bulatovich:

“But when we have in mind the Name itself, that is Truth itself, that is God Himself, as the Lord said of Himself: ‘I am… the Truth’ (Jn 14:6).”  

Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich), Moia bor’ba s imiabortsami na Sviatoi Gore [My Battle with the Onomatoclasts on the Holy Mountain], p. 117.

“The main thesis of the adherents of Onomatodoxy [Name-glorifying] is that every energy of God is God and is called God, and therefore the words of God recorded in the Holy Scripture, are also not the dead words of God but the living words. Hence the names of God are also the Spirit and Life in their innermost mystery, and they possess divine dignity and can be rightly called God Himself, as the Energy of the Divinity, inseparable from the substance of God.”

Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich): Idem, Moya mysl’ vo Khriste:

O Deyatel’nosti (Energii) Bozhestva (My Thought in Christ:

On Activity (Energy) of the Godhead) (Petrograd: Ispovednik, 1914), p. 5

The definition of a Name-glorifier then is that the Name of God is God, whether spoken, or written on a chalkboard. God is His name. God is a creature.

Let’s see what Bulatovich would have realized if he had actually founded his ideas on the teaching of the Holy Fathers.

PART II. WHAT THE HOLY FATHERS SAY ABOUT THE NAME OF GOD.

Senina assures us that the theology on the uncreated thought of the Name of God is from the Holy Fathers, and admits that if it were not, it would be a heresy. So, what do the Fathers say? All quotes (except St. Isaac) are taken from the Early Church Fathers series, second edition, (accessed on 9/10/12, new style). St. Isaac’s quotes are taken from the Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s publication of his Ascetical Homilies.

 “Because the Deity is goodness itself, true mercy and an abyss of loving bounty - or, rather, He is that which embraces and contains this abyss, since He transcends every name that is named and everything we can conceive - we can receive mercy only by union with Him.”  

St. Gregory Palamas: On Prayer and Purity of Heart no. 1

“For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness.”  

St. Clement: First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter LXI.--Christian baptism.

 "There exists no name which embraces the whole nature of God, and is sufficient to declare it; more names than one, and these of very various kinds, each in accordance with its own proper connotation, give a collective idea which may be dim indeed and poor when compared with the whole, but is enough for us." - 

St. Basil the Great: Prolegomena, Dogmatic Works; i, Against Eunomius

"Things are not made for names, but names for things. Eunomius unhappily was led by distinction of name into distinction of being."

“The last word of Nicene orthodoxy has to be uttered; and it is, that God is really incomprehensible, and that here we can never know His name.”  

Preface to St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Select Writings and Letters,  trans. William Moore, M.A.

 “For God cannot be called by any proper name, for names are given to mark out and distinguish their subject-matters, because these are many and diverse; but neither did any one exist before God who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself, seeing that He is one and unique, as He Himself also by His own prophets testifies, when He says, "I am the first and I am hereafter and beside me there is no other God." (Isa. xliv. 6.)”  

St. Justin the Philosopher: Hortatory Address to the Greeks: Chapter XXI.--The namelessness of God.

“The One above conception is inconceivable to all conceptions; and the Good above word is unutterable by word… and Word unutterable, speechlessness, and inconception, and namelessness -- being after the manner of no existing being, and Cause of being to all, but Itself not being…”  

St. Dionysius the Areopagite: On the Divine Names, caput I, section I.

 “. . the most proper of all the names given to God is ‘He that Is’…”  

St. John of Damascus: An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith; Chapter IX.—Concerning what is affirmed about God.

“From many similar instances in Holy Scripture it may be proved that the name of God has no pre-eminence over other words which are applied to the divine…”  

St. Basil the Great: Letter to Eustatius the physician, section 5.

 “…but thou, beloved, when thou hast heard of ‘The Word,’ do not endure those who say, that He is a work; nor those even who think, that He is simply a word. For many are the words of God which angels execute, but of those words none is God; they all are prophecies or commands…”  

St. John Chrysostom: Homily IV, John i. 1.-“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.”

 “Let us not then confound the creation with the Creator, lest we too hear it said of us, that ‘they served the creature rather than the Creator’ ( Rom. i. 25 ) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”  

Ibid.

“The good Cause of all is… without utterance; as having neither utterance nor conception, because It is superessentially exalted above all, and manifested without veil and in truth, to those alone who… leave behind all divine lights and sounds, and heavenly words, and enter into the gloom, where really is, as the Oracles say, He Who is beyond all.”  

St. Dionysius the Areopagite: Mystic Theology, Caput I, section III.

“Every name of God is due to a conception.”  

St. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, S:8

 “If any man says that the Son of God is the internal or uttered Word of God: let him be anathema.”  

St. Hilary of Poitiers: Treatise De Synodis: The Creed according to the Council of the East. VIII.

How does the consensus of the Fathers sound compared to Name-glorifiers?

Who is to be trusted more, a few 20th century Russian monks, or the consensus of the Fathers of our Church who were taught by the Apostles themselves and enlightened by the All-Holy Spirit?

 “When… all reflections and thoughts cease within you… you have been worthy of the operation of grace.”  

St. Isaac the Syrian- Appendix B, 4:59

“When the intellect wishes mystically to go before the One, it must refrain from all thoughts…”  

Ibid. 4:63

“It [God] is neither soul, nor mind… or reason, or conception; neither is expressed, nor conceived; neither has power, nor is power, nor light… nor truth… neither Deity, nor Goodness; nor is It Spirit according to our understanding… neither is there expression of It, nor name, nor knowledge; neither is It darkness, nor light; nor error, nor truth; neither is there any definition at all of It, nor any abstraction.”    

St. Dionysius. Mystic Theology, CAPUT V.

That the pre-eminent Cause of every object of intelligible perception

is none of the objects of intelligible perception.

“God is not matter----soul, mind, spirit, any being, nor even being itself, but above and beyond all these.” - 

Preface to ‘Mystic Theology'

“They left the head and worship the hat.”  

Elder Kallinikos the Hesychast

So we see what the consensus of the Fathers is concerning the name of God. To say the Name of God is God clearly goes against the teaching of the Church. The quote at the beginning of this article was against the Arians, who tried to say that Jesus Christ was only a man. How much worse to worship a WORD as God!

 “When Paul is investigating the special methods of the work of redemption he seems to grow dizzy before the mysterious maze which he is contemplating, and utters the well-known words, ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!’ These things are beyond the reach even of those who have attained the measure of Paul’s knowledge. What then is the conceit of those who announce that they know the essence of God!… All who have even a limited loyalty to truth ought to dismiss all corporeal similitudes. They must be very careful not to sully their conceptions of God by material notions. They must follow the theologies delivered to us by the Holy Ghost. They must shun questions which are little better than conundrums, and admit of a dangerous double meaning… before the incarnation He neither had the name above every name nor was owned by all to be Lord… ‘And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.’ (Matt. Xxviii. 18) We must understand this of the incarnation, and not of the Godhead.  

St. Basil the Great: Prolegomena, Dogmatic Works; i, Against Eunomius

Notes:

*  His energy is His action, or operation, in the world, and His nature, or essence, is what He is. According to the Fathers, it is impossible for us to know his essence- our minds and language cannot contain it.

Statement of Bishop Demetrius

September 3/16, 2012
Hieromartyr Anthimus

Beloved Faithful:

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

Efforts in the past year to quell this invasion of false doctrine have failed. Worse, despite pleas from clergy and laity, the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America will not formally issue an unequivocal pronouncement accepting all the decisions condemning the heresy of Name-worshipping and excommunicating those who adhere to it. Since my responsibility is to protect and defend the purity of our Confession of Faith, I can no longer remain a hierarch on the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America.

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

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

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

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

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

In the love of our Lord Jesus Christ,

+ Bishop Demetrius