Chronology: Document 7

The Relevant Portion of Fr. Nicholas’s Email

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

Evlogeite!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rest of email and its attachments omitted]

Chronology: Document 6

June 19/6, 2012
Righteous Hilarion the New

Dear ______ ,

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

As for the question of the name-worshipping teaching, our Holy Synod has resolved to drop this issue, simply because we do not have enough information about it. Or rather, the  information we were hearing was all contradictory. But the Holy Synod did not forbid anyone from trying to learn more about this matter. Indeed, such a prohibition would be inconceivable, and, in fact, I am still receiving and hearing much information from both those who support and oppose Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky’s side of the dispute.

What I will write to you now is what I have learned so far personally about this issue, and you may draw your own conclusions. I want to emphasize that I do not believe I know all the facts, but I am trying to learn (please remember that I do not speak or read Russian, and so I must depend on translations).

First of all, we know that the Ecumenical Patriarchate based its decision concerning the name-worshippers on an "Opinion" written by the professors of the theological school of Halki. Then, the Russian Synod, in turn, based its decision on Constantinople’s, and added some elements of its own.

A little while ago, I wrote an article about the theological school of Halki. In a slightly abbreviated version, I am sending you a translation of that article.

HALKI
by
Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston

The inspiration for this article came from an essay in Theodromia (Jan.- March, 2012), a Greek theological periodical. In this extensive essay, the author, Rev. Theodore Zisis, a priest of the new calendar Church of Greece, deplores the anti-patristic mind-set (i.e. the Latin Captivity) of the theological schools of Greece.

Theologically, one of the worst theological academies in the history of the Orthodox Church probably was the theological school of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the Island of Halki (in Turkish: Heybeli Ada) in the Bosporus. Fortunately, the Turks closed the school some years ago.

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

First of all, around the turn of the twentieth century, one of Halki’s "bright lights" was the Dean of the school, Metropolitan Germanos Strenopoulos of Seleucia, later of Thyateira, who was one of the authors of the infamous Encyclical of January, 1920, addressed "To the Churches of Christ Wheresover They Might Be," which is the Encyclical that became the big impetus for World Orthodoxy’s involvement in the Ecumenical Movement.

Then there was Deacon Basil Stephanides, another "luminary", who was a contemporary of the above-mentioned Metropolitan. He had studied and taught in Germany, where he probably should have continued to study and teach. Instead, he came to teach at Halki, and there, the young Orthodox students were taught by Professor Stephanides that St. Symeon the New Theologian was a mystic who used "erotic" language in his religious poetry, and that the Saint’s writings, like those of many other such "mystics" in the Orthodox Church, (such as St. Dionysius the Areopagite), were Monophysitic (a heresy condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council!), what with all that talk about the "deification" of man.

Then there was my own professor of Old Testament, D. Zaharopoulos, also a graduate of Halki, who taught a Protestant theory that miracles or prophecies are not true, and who scoffed at and ridiculed the Church Fathers.

Then there was my professor of Patrology, the priest G. Tsoumas, also a graduate of Halki, who taught us that the Hesychast Fathers (among whom was St. Gregory Palamas) were people who sat in their closets and stared at their navels (exactly the same slander that the heretics Barlaam and Acindynus uttered against those saintly fathers in the 14th century).

In other words, where the Saints saw and experienced God’s deifying and uncreated grace, these professors from Halki jeered and saw only heresy and pantheism.

Thank you, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther.

I almost forgot the plastic spoons. This same Patrology professor also believed and taught that the Church should use disposable (where?) plastic spoons when giving people Holy Communion, "because of the germs."

I’ll tell you also about Archbishop Iakovos of the new calendar Greek Archdiocese here in America (another graduate of Halki) who taught that we Christians should get rid of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

I could go on, but enough is enough.

In the middle of the 19th century, when the school of Halki first opened its doors, Cosmas Flamiatos, a popular and saintly lay preacher in the Peloponessus, prophesied that, "I foresee that out of this school [i.e., Halki] will proceed batches and batches [fournión, fournión] of bishops, like muffins out of a bakery, that will one day gather together in an assembly to dissolve Orthodox Christianity."

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

You should be aware that the first two professors mentioned in that article were co-authors (together with some two or three other professors, also educated in Germany) of the "Opinion" on the name-worshippers.

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

One of the key points the Russian Synod resolution rests on is the theology of St. Gregory Palamas. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Saint is quoted in the 1913 Epistle of the Russian Synod, by Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, and by Professor S. Troitsky, in order to refute the teaching of the name-worshippers.

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

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

Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God

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

Epistle of the Russian Synod, 1913

Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God

Every [divine] power or energy is God Himself.

Letter to John Gabra

Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God

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

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

Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky,

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

Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God

Since God Himself is the Grace, which we receive during the divine Baptism, and the Power in which, according to the Saviour’s promise, the divine Apostles were clothed, and, after them, all who lived according to the Gospel of grace, then how can you, Acyndinus, claim that it [grace] is created...?

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

Against Acyndinus, III, 8.

 

Teaching of the Russian Synod on the Grace of God

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

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

Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the Grace of God

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

Topics of Natural and Theological Science, 126.

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

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

 

 

Had someone given misinformation to the Russian Holy Synod about St. Gregory’s writings? Was this an honest mistake, a serious oversight, or a blatant falsehood on somebody’s part? I honestly don’t know. But it was a very serious error. In fact, the Synod’s statement was claiming that St. Gregory Palamas is saying one thing, when in fact he says just the opposite on the main point of the entire controversy.

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

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

I am including the text of the Encyclical of this holy hieromartyr of the Church because it represents, on the one hand, a reconciliation with the name-worshippers that took place (under certain stipulations), and, on the other, it points to a future final resolution regarding Father A. Bulatovich and the false teachings ascribed to him. Although the Encyclical mentions his false teachings, it does not tell us anything specific. Did Father Anthony Bulatovich actually believe and teach the false teachings that were ascribed to him, or was it a judgment based on another misunderstanding? [1] Presently, I don’t know. Meanwhile, here is St. Tikhon’s Encyclical:

Nativity Greeting of Patriarch Tikhon to the Diocesan Hierarchs

During these lofty days, when the Church celebrates the Nativity of the God-man, Who brought upon earth the peace and goodwill of our Heavenly Father, I deem it proper to remind you, in brief, concerning the Athonite name-glorifiers and to offer you some guidance on how to treat these monastics. From their case it can be seen that in its Resolution 3479, of April 22-25, 1914, the Holy Synod condescended to the spiritual mood and the disposition of mind of those Athonite monks who were not well versed in theology as expressed in books, nor very knowledgeable concerning formal proceedings, allowed the previously required signed repudiation by the name-worshippers of their false teaching to be replaced with a written testimony (by a sworn promise), while kissing the Holy Cross and the Gospel, of their Orthodox Faith, their exact following of the Orthodox Church, and of their obedience to the God-established hierarchy, believing according to the teaching of the Holy Church, adding nothing and subtracting nothing on their own, in particular as pertains to the veneration of the Name of God, not to believe that His Name is God’s essence, not to separate it [the Name] from God, or consider it another deity, and not to deify letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God, and such who believe in this manner and who manifest their submission to the ecclesiastical authorities, the Holy Synod decided to receive into the Church, while those of priestly rank it permitted to perform services. However, while manifesting its condescension, the Synod did not alter its previous judgment regarding the very error contained in the writings of An-thony Bulatovich and his followers, which it decided to refer to the consideration of the Holy Pan-Russian Local Council, from which depends the resolution of this case in its essence.

February 19, 1921

Protocol #3244

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

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

2. Separating God’s Name from God,

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

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

as the holy Patriarch’s Encyclical above says regarding the alleged heresies of the name-worshippers, then he is certainly guilty of heresy. If he does not actually advocate such teachings, then it only seems fair to say that he is not guilty of heresy.

Why is this "Encyclical of Reconciliation" and its four stipulations not mentioned by those who cite earlier resolutions, especially since it also requires a future final resolution about Father Anthony Bulatovich?

If the Encyclical’s four stipulations are met, that resolves the problem, does it not? And further, it seems to me, we must not forget the Russian Synod’s own mistakes when it misquoted St. Gregory Palamas.

But now, I trust you understand why our Holy Synod wished not to address this matter. We simply did not know enough about all this. Furthermore, in addition to our usual pastoral duties, it takes a great deal of time to find all these patristic texts, translate them and to check all those sources.

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

In Christ,

✠Ephraim, metropolitan

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

Dear Anastasia, On Your Letter from Fr. Mark

Dear Anastasia,

Since Fr. Mark’s letter to you has been used to defend the Holy Orthodox Church in North America against charges of heresy, I think it is fair to point out that he is mistaken.

Fr. Mark answered you sincerely, but his answer has a flaw which he himself does not recognize. All of his evidence and reasoning is an echo of what his bishops have said publicly. Clearly, he trusts his bishops and believes that they must have the correct answer. This is where he is mistaken. He received disinformation from his bishops, and he is naively passing that disinformation along to you.

The three bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America wrote in their recent statement, “Divergent Teachings” that Orthodox Christians believe “God’s Name is not His Essence, but rather is the revealed truth about Himself, that is, His Uncreated Energy, His Uncreated Grace, His Providence, His Glory.”

In fact, this is not what Orthodox Christians believe. Remember, as Orthodox Christians we believe what the Church has taught always and everywhere.  Common sense alone should tell you that if this were a universally held belief about the Name of God, articulated by St. Gregory Palamas, it would not have languished misunderstood and forgotten until the early 1900s, when a couple of renegade Russian monks rediscovered it and brought it to the attention of the Orthodox Christian world through insurrections in the Russian monasteries on Mt. Athos.  Right?  Now let's look at the disinformation.

Fr. Mark writes:

In my first letter to you, I hoped to illustrate that there is an abundance of passages from the Scriptures and the Fathers that talk about the glory and power of the Name of God. It is interesting to me that so many ignore this and, instead, zero-in on the decisions of a local "synod" in Russia. Why? Why do they ignore the Holy Scriptures which speak of God's Name? Why do they ignore the many instances in the Liturgy and services of the Church which encourage us to glorify God's Name? Why is the Russian "synod" of 1913 so important?

Part of the problem in debunking the name-worshipping doctrine is that its promoters do not clearly define what they mean by the “Name of God” and do not take into account that the Holy Scriptures use this phrase differently.

Very often in the Psalms, for instance, “the Name of God” refers to God Himself, and not to any particular name for Him. By analogy, think of a chase scene in a western movie, when the sheriff shouts, “Stop in the name of the law!” Who would imagine that the sheriff is referring to a particular name, or even to the word “law?” No, his words actually mean, “Stop because the law (in the person of me) orders you to do so.” Likewise, when we read, “Praise the name of the Lord, for exalted is the name of Him alone,” isn’t it clear that it is actually not a name that is praised, but the Lord Himself?

Orthodox Christians believe that God’s name is holy, because He Who is named by the name is supremely holy. According to St Basil the Great, “The name of God is said to be holy, not because it contains in it any special virtue, but because in whatsoever way we contemplate God, we see Him pure and Holy.” (On Psalm 32) Icons of our Saviour are also considered to be holy, not because the wood and paint are intrinsically holy, but because He Who is depicted is holy. As Fr. Barsanuphius has pointed out, the Name of God is an icon in a word.

Orthodox Christians do not believe that God’s name is God Himself, either in His Essence or in His Energies. Name-worshippers do.  The reason the decisions of the Russian Synod of 1913 are so important, along with the decisions of the Sacred Community of Mt. Athos, and of Patriarchs Joachim and Germanus of Constantinople, is because they were the official statements of the Orthodox Church condemning the heresy of name-worshipping.

 Fr. Mark writes further:

St Anthony Khrapovitsky said of these Russian "synods" in 1912: Our Church [in Russia] is governed by a layman, or, to say it officially, by a collegial institution never seen by the Church of Christ before... The [Russian] Church is deprived of its lawful head and is given over for enslavement to lay officials, which hide behind an assembly of six or seven hierarchs who are changed every half a year, and two presbyters. Who is not aware that such an institution is uncanonical? That it was not approved at its very inception by two Patriarchs; and even if it had been approved by all four, this would only show the unlawful deed of the Patriarchs and not the canonicity of [Russian] synodal rule, because no Patriarch can establish and authorize an institution which is unknown to Holy Orthodoxy and which was invented only to bring weakness and decay..."

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

Metropolitan Anthony, of blessed memory (he has not been glorified as a saint), rightly complained that Tsar Peter “the Great” was wrong to replace the patriarchal system of church governance with a synodal one, in which the synod was appointed and supervised by government officials. However, while this quote is intended to suggest that Metropolitan Anthony did not support the work of the Russian synod, the opposite is true. Metropolitan Anthony not only accepted the work of the synod, but participated in the synod for five years.  He was an active member at the time he wrote the above-quoted article and when he participated in the condemnation of the name-worshipping heresy. Like all the saints, tsars, bishops, monastics, clergy and laity of the Russian Church for the 200 years the synodal system was in force, Metropolitan Anthony abided by its decisions and considered them binding on the Church in Russia.

Fr. Mark continues,

The decisions of the 1913 synod condemning Name-worship was reversed several times in the ensuing years. The synod itself back-peddled its own decision soon after by only requiring the "heretics" to venerate the Cross and Holy Gospel rather than renounce their "error."

This is factually incorrect.

It is useful here to note that the recent revival of name-worshipping began with Gregory Lourie, who was at the time a priest in the synod of the late Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal.  The controversy over name-worshipping in HOCNA was touched off after Lourie was communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery last fall, and then-Hieromonk Gregory vigorously defended both Lourie and name-worshipping.  The arguments put forth by the HOCNA bishops now are arguments which Lourie used to defend name-worshipping to the bishops of the Suzdal synod.  (They did not buy his arguments and defrocked him. He later was consecrated a bishop by other renegades.)

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

On October 5/18, 2002 Hieromonk Gregory (Lourié) supposedly expressed “repentance” for his name-worshipping views before the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church. In fact, however, Lourié’s “repentance” read more like a self-justification than a statement of repentance. He expressed “regret”, not about his belief in the Bulatovich’s heresy, but only about the fact that his public statements on the subject had “become a reason for discord within our Church” – in other words, that he had been indiscreet in his public proclamation of the heresy. There was no mention of Bulatovich, no condemnation of any specific heresy, and no admittance that he had ever confessed any heresy at any time. Instead he actually denied that he confessed heresy: “I hold to the teaching of the Holy Fathers and confess no heresy about the names of God, which would have been condemned by previous Fathers and Councils”. He could say this with sincerity (and cunning) because he considers that the teaching of Bulatovich is “the teaching of the Holy Fathers” and is in fact not a heresy. Moreover, no large Council has yet condemned Bulatovich’s teaching, only several Synodal decisions of both the Russian and the Greek Churches. So in saying that no Council has condemned the teaching, he is not lying according to the letter of the law. But there is a direct lie in is his assertion that no previous Fathers ever condemned that teaching. For several Fathers did, including Patriarch Tikhon, Hieromartyr Vladimir of Kiev, Hieromartyr Agathangel of Yaroslavl, Hieromartyr Basil of Priluki, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, etc. And he lies again when he says: “I also hold to the resolutions of the All-Russian Local Council of 1917-1918, which were confirmed by two resolutions of the Synod of our Church, in accordance with which the decision on the essence of the question of name-worshipping belongs exclusively within the competence of a Local Council of the Church of Russia”. For there were in fact no resolutions of the 1917-18 Council on name-worshipping, as Lourié (who has gone on record as calling the 1917-18 Council “a tragic-comic story, which exerted a minimal, or negative rather than positive, influence on the following life of the Church…”!) well knows.

A few weeks later, ... Fr. Gregory wrote a further “report”, dated November 11, 2002, in which he states that he “submits to Church authority and rejects the errors listed by the holy patriarch Tikhon” in a Nativity Epistle written on February 19, 1921.

...Let us examine what the patriarch supposedly said in this previously completely unknown Nativity epistle: “In these high days, when the Church is celebrating the Nativity of the God-Man, Who brought the peace and goodwill of God the Father to earth, I consider it appropriate to remind you in brief of the Athonite imyaslavtsi (name-glorifiers) and give you certain instructions on how to treat these monks. It can be seen, that the Holy Synod in its definition of April 22-25 1914, number 3479, was indulgent to the spiritual mood and to the way of thinking of the Athonite monks, who have a poor knowledge of theology as expounded in books and of the forms of paper work, and allowed them, instead of the previously required signing by the imyabozhniki (name-worshippers) of a denial of their false teaching, to substitute for this a written testimony (a promise on oath) of their Orthodox faith, with the kissing of the Holy Cross and the Gospel. They promised exactly to follow the Orthodox Church and obey the God-established hierarchy, believing exactly as the Holy Church teaches, neither adding anything from themselves, nor taking anything away. In particular in regard to the glorification of the name of God, they promised not to consider His name the essence of God, nor to separate it from God, not to venerate it as a separate Deity, nor to worship the letters and sounds and occasional thoughts about God. The Holy Synod decided to admit into Church those who believed in this way and declared their willingness to obey the Church authorities, and to allow their priests to serve. But, in rendering its indulgence, the Holy Synod did not change its former opinion of the very error contained in the writings of Anthony Bulatovich and his followers, whom the Synod decided to pass over for the consideration of the All-Russian Holy Council, upon which depends the resolution of the whole issue in essence”.

Now the teaching of Bulatovich can be summarized in two propositions: that the names of God are energies of God, and that the name of Jesus is Jesus Himself. Neither of these teachings is in the list of errors listed by the patriarch. “To consider His name the essence of God” was not one of Bulatovich’s teachings (although it may have been that of some of his more ignorant followers). For, as St. Gregory Palamas teaches, the essence of God is not to be identified with the energies of God. “To venerate it as a separate Deity” is, again, not one of Bulatovich’s teachings. “To worship the letters and sounds” is, again, not one of Bulatovich’s teachings. “To worship… occasional thoughts about God” is one of Bulatovich’s teachings, and the only one, therefore, which Lourie may be said to have renounced (although it is doubtful, judging from his dialogue with Vladimir Moss on the subject, that he would accept such a phrase as representing Bulatovich’s real view). In any case, the most important point is that the two propositions that summarise Bulatovich’s main views are not in this list, nor can they be reinterpreted to come within this list.

So why was the patriarch’s characterization of Bulatovich’s errors inaccurate? In order to answer this question, we need to investigate a little further. Let us begin by posing the question: In what other document of the time can we find this same list?

The answer is: in the judgement issued by the Moscow Diocesan Court with regard to the name-worshippers on May 8, 1914: “… The Synodal Office has found that in the confessions of faith in God and in the Name of God coming from the named monks, in the words, ‘I repeat that in naming the Name of God and the Name of Jesus as God and God Himself, I reject both the veneration of the Name of God as His Essence, and the veneration of the Name of God separately from God Himself as some kind of special Divinity, as well as any deification of the very letters and sounds and any chance thoughts about God’ – there is contained information allowing us to conclude that in them there is no basis for leaving the Orthodox Church for the sake of the teaching on the Names of God.’ (decree № 1443)”. The coincidence of wording is striking. It is obvious that the list of errors referred to by the patriarch in the document quoted by Lourié is in fact the list drawn up, not by the Holy Synod in its Resolution № 3479 of April 22-25, 1914, which does not contain a list of errors[130], but by the Moscow Diocesan Court on May 8, 1914.

However, it is essential to realise that the decision of the Moscow Diocesan Court of May 8, 1914 was overturned by the Holy Synod in its decree № 4136 of May 10-24, 1914, which set aside decree № 1443 of the Moscow Synodal Office, and confirmed the sentences against the name-worshippers. This confirmation of the sentences against the name-worshippers was again confirmed by decree № 2670 of March 10, 1916. And yet again by Patriarch Tikhon and his Synod on October 8/21, 1918. And yet again by the Nativity Epistle of 1921.

Lourié tries to get round this by claiming that there was yet another decree of the Holy Synod that was supposedly passed in 1921, just before the patriarch’s Nativity epistle, and which supposedly formed the basis for the patriarch’s Nativity epistle. “Unfortunately,” Lourié writes, “the true text of the decree of 1921 on removing all the bans from those name-worshippers who remained alive has not reached us”. Unfortunate indeed! And devastatingly destructive for his whole case. For since this mysterious decree “has not reached us”, I think we are fully entitled to conclude that it does not exist. After all, if it did exist, why should the patriarch not refer to it?

So you see, Anastasia, that the Russian Synod was in fact consistent in its treatment of the name-worshippers: it issued decrees against them in 1913, 1914 and 1916.  I hope you also see that Lourie and his disciples among the HOCNA bishops use the four points from Patriarch Tikhon's Nativity epistle and the decision of the Moscow Synodal Office as red herrings to make it seem as though the Russian Church authorities sympathized with the name-worshippers and opposed the synod.

Regarding the Russian Synod, Fr. Mark concludes:

So, we come, now, to what I wrote to you in my last email. By the definition of the 1913 "synod", a Name-worshiper is someone who deifies the letters and sounds of God's name; believes that God's Name is His Essence; and that the name is a separate deity. The Athonite monks did not believe this. These heretical ideas were attributed to them by the synod of 1913. When investigations were actually done and the monks allowed to speak for themselves, they were found to the fully Orthodox. A final decision of the subject of Name-worship was expected at a pan-Russian synod which never occurred due to the revolution. 

This paragraph is full of errors and misconceptions.  First, the Russian Synod was not of 1913, its investigation and condemnation of name-worshipping were issued that year.  The Athonite monks were not found to be fully Orthodox.  Anthony Bulatovich, the chief proponent of name-worshipping, died a violent death outside the Church.  The pan-Russian council did occur, but did not take up the issue of name-worshipping.

The definition that Fr. Mark attributes to the Russian synod is in fact taken from the one the HOCNA bishops use to define a name-worshipper, including deifying letters and sounds, identifying God's Name with His Essence, or considering God's Name to be a separate deity.  These were beliefs which the Moscow Synodal office found the name-worshippers did not hold and which Patriarch Tikhon listed as points for them to specifically renounce in returning to communion with the Orthodox Church.  But they never constituted a definition of name-worshipping for anyone until the HOCNA hierarchs determined to use them in that way.  In essence, in their statement "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA bishops have redefined name-worshipping to make it seem as though they have condemned it, when in fact they have also redefined Orthodox belief to include tenets of name-worshipping. It's propaganda, pure and simple.

Fr. Mark then writes,

So, we can all condemn Name worshipers, because they do not exist (as I said, there may be someone, somewhere, but who knows?). St Philaret can condemn them as have our holy Hierarchs.

By the definition of the HOCNA hierarchs, indeed there may be no name-worshippers in the world.  But by the traditional definition -- one who believes the name of God is God Himself -- the HOCNA bishops have made clear, in stating that the Name of God is an Energy of God and therefore God Himself, that they are name-worshippers.  They are joined in their heretical beliefs by Lourie and his followers, and by "Bishop" Job, our former priest in the Ukraine who was consecrated a bishop by Lourie last summer, and his followers.

The HOCNA bishops wrote in "Divergent Teachings:"

All should understand that, by these pronouncements, we hierarchs are not Nameworshippers as defined in this statement, and that we believe, confess and espouse the Orthodox Christian belief, also defined in this statement.

Again, remembering that Orthodoxy is what the Church has taught always and everywhere, the fact that the HOCNA bishops needed to write their own definition of Orthodox belief should make you deeply suspicious.  The fact that their definition of Orthodoxy includes the traditional definition of name-worshipping should be conclusive proof that they have fallen into error, and sadly have drawn Fr. Mark into error as well.

Fr. Mark concludes,

Anastasia, the Name of God is a holy mystery. We cannot understand it. It is a Divine Energy which is a revelation of God (Like Grace). To say that the God's Energies are not divine is to fall under the anathemas of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy and it runs contrary to Holy Tradition.

This is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church, it is the teaching of the name-worshipping heretics of the early twentieth century and of their modern followers, Lourie and the HOCNA bishops.

Hear St. Gregory of Nyssa: ...[N]ames were invented to denote the Supreme Being, not for His sake, but for our own.” (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book)  And again, “We, following the suggestions of Scriptures, have learned that the nature [of God] is un-nameable and unspeakable, and we say that every term, either invented by the custom of men, or handed down to us by the Scriptures, is indeed explanatory of our conceptions of the Divine Nature, but does not include the significance of that Nature itself.” (To Ablabius)

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

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

The Holy Fathers of the Church have spoken, and their teaching is not the teaching of the HOCNA bishops.  God's Name is not His Energy.

As a tree can be known by its fruit, so too can the heresy be detected by its effect.  In the early twentieth century, the name-worshippers brought violence to Mt. Athos.  Now, a century later, the revival of name-worshipping has brought devastation to HOCNA.  Our former spiritual community has been divided.  Holy Transfiguration Monastery has been divided.  Parishes are being torn apart.  As clergy and laity who recognize this heresy depart, the circle of HOCNA has grown even smaller and tighter.  In embracing their own definition of Orthodoxy and rejecting all those who accept the decrees on name-worshipping, the HOCNA bishops also have more surely than ever isolated themselves from other old calendar true Orthodox Christians. 

Anastasia, our beloved HOCNA has ceased to be a true Orthodox Church and has devolved into a heretical sect.  May our Lord enlighten and save you and Fr. Mark.

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