September 3, 2012 (NS)
Dear Fathers,
Bless!
The topic of name-worshipping came up, of course, at the clergy meeting on Saturday, September 1, since Metropolitan Ephraim’s mishandling of that controversy is one of the reasons given by many of the parish clergy for his resignation.
In addition to my earlier remarks on the English translation of Patriarch Tikhon’s 1921 Nativity Epistle, I would like now to bring the following points to your attention.
I will discuss here the actual teaching itself. You can find much on it elsewhere. Perhaps you already have. I would urge you to read the 25-page study, written by our Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil, in refutation of the arguments of the modern adherents of name-worshipping. (To be sent out shortly.)
The excerpt from Patriarch Tikhon’s 1921 Nativity Epistle is just that — only one passage from a longer document. However, it was presented as though name-worshipping was the main topic of Patriarch Tikhon’s letter. It was not. Further, the Patriarch’s comments should not be taken as a dogmatic statement on which to base dogmatic decisions. It’s a “by the way” to his bishops.
Patriarch Tikhon is saying to his bishops, “If you have any living name-worshippers in your diocese, and they want to reunite themselves to the Church, let me remind you that this is the economia set up already by the Church for doing so, but the condemnations of name-worshipping and the Synodal decisions and resolutions still stand and are applicable.” That is a classic case of canonical economia.
As you all know, economia is applicable in a given place and time, and relates to individual people or cases. Economia is meant to facilitate the return of people to communion with the Church. Economia never becomes the teaching of the Church, nor can economia ever be cited as a precedent to be used to alter the Church’s dogmatic stance. It cannot be done so in the present case either.
I wrote my short explanation on the translation of the 1921 Nativity Epistle (q.v.) simply to demonstrate that Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory were basing there attempt at “compromise” on a faulty translation. My work can in no wise be used to imply that I myself favor any such compromise, because I am categorically against such a thing, as are the majority of the fathers here at Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
Please know how strongly we feel about this topic. Some of us fathers here at Holy Transfiguration Monastery have ceased to kiss Metropolitan Ephraim or Bishop Gregory’s hand or to take their blessing over this matter. A couple of hieromonks will not serve at all until this matter is resolved. A chanter will not chant at the services for the same reason. The majority of the fathers will not accept a “compromise” on this issue under any conditions. That was one of the points in the petition some of us submitted asking for Metropolitan Ephraim’s resignation.
And why should we compromise at all on this dogmatic issue? This strange teaching was unknown in our Church before Bishop Gregory joined us. It is he who has cultivated and pushed it. If earlier it was known at all by any of our people, it was known as a teaching condemned by the Church. So now, why do we have to “compromise” at all on this issue? To please Bishop Gregory (and Metropolitan Ephraim, who is too stubborn to admit a mistake and back down)?
This strange teaching has never been a part of our spiritual heritage. On the contrary, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky and Metropolitan Anastasy were actually present and themselves physically signed the documents condemning name-worshipping with their own hands. Saint Metropolitan Philaret was adamantly opposed to it too, as a disciple of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky. Are we now to deny our entire spiritual legacy to please our junior hierarch?
What sort of pride has seized these modern apologists of name-worshipping to make them think that they comprehend this controversy better than our three Metropolitans of blessed memory, the whole Russian Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Holy Mountain?! And why should we believe them, or listen to them? They cannot explain that to us.
Fr. Adrian, who knew Metropolitan Philaret well and many of our other older hierarchs in ROCOR, was horrified to learn that the topic of name-worshipping could even be raised among us — we, who consider ourselves to be the direct spiritual heirs of those ever-memorable hierarchs.
Abbot Archimandrite Ilian (Ivan Sorokin) of St. Panteleimon’s Monastery on Mount Athos, who tonsured our Fr. Panteleimon in the 1957, had been on the Holy Mountain since 1905. He was present during the 1913-14 turmoil, and he sided with the Russian Church and accepted the Synodal condemnation of name-worshipping.
Much is made of the interpretation of Patriarch Tikhon’s letter which supposedly states that it is up to a future council of the Russian Church to make the final decision concerning name-worshipping. Even if one accepts such an interpretation, one cannot violate present legal codes based on the hope that those laws will supposedly be abolished sometime in the future by a, as yet to be convened, legislature! So too here: until such time as the Russian Church revokes its previous decisions regarding the name-worshippers, they are still in force. Imagine the reaction of a policeman if someone attempted to tell him that he cannot arrest him for a crime, since the legislature may revoke that law ten years from now!
And if we should compromise now to “keep peace in the family”, what interpretation can Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory put on name-worshipping in the future? What other strange teachings can subsequently be introduced under the same banner of “compromise”?
Bishop Gregory feels a great need to rehabilitate, to vindicate, to exonerate those Athonite monks whom he feels have been unfairly treated. Those fathers and the Synodal hierarchs who opposed them have all gone to stand before the Judgment seat of Christ long ago. Our Lord can set all thing straight among them. In any case, the Orthodox world will never accept any “resolution” of this problem, or “compromise”, from our tiny, marginalized group, so what is the point of all this?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we or the parish clergy meet Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory’s call for “compromise” on this issue. If later asked by their parishioners or any of the laity: “What is this teaching called ‘name-worshipping’? And what sort of compromise have you agreed upon?” — how many of our clergy or of us monks could give an intelligent reply?
And no matter how many qualification we might try to attach to such a compromise, the rest of the Orthodox world will simply consider us to be bona fide, 100%, name-worshippers. And they will brand us as such. Don’t we have enough epithets attached to us already; do we need this added one?! And what can we reply to them: “Oh, you don’t understand: We are ‘name-worshipping Lite’. Or ‘tweaked name-worshipping’. Or ‘name-worshipping, with the following caveats’”??! They will simply laugh us to scorn.
And there is really no need to compromise anyway. If a modern-day adherent of name-worshipping wishes to join the True Orthodox Church, then all we have to do is apply the economia of the Russian Church which is already in place. There is no need to fabricate some false compromise in order to facilitate a persons return to the Church. But this presently proposed compromise has a much broader, and perilous purpose — to allow unrepentant name-worshippers to still consider themselves to be True Orthodox Christians.
And in this particular case, the enticing term “compromise” is extremely dangerous. By convincing us to accept the 1921 Nativity Epistle as a document on which we can all agree, Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory are seeking to reduce the objections to name-worshipping merely to those four points which they themselves have extracted from the text of Patriarch Tikhon’s letter. Thereafter, anyone suspected of name-worshipping by the rest of us can be asked by them: “Do you accept our compromise based on the 1921 Nativity Epistle and reject those four points?” If the person answers in the affirmative, which most people probably would, then it can be declared by Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory that such a person is not a name-worshipper, and hence, we can be in full communion with them, etc.! This opens the door into our Church to all sorts of people with whom most of us want nothing more to do with: Bishop Gregory Lourie, Bishop Job, and many others, who indisputably are unrepentant and militant name-worshippers.
Recently, Bishop Gregory Lourie and the now Bishop Job have claimed in postings on the Internet that HOCNA helped them to coordinate Bishop Job’s consecration to the episcopacy, that we approved of it, and that we are still in communion with each other. When some parish clergy sought a written statement from Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory declaring that such was not the case, they were stonewalled. Bishop Gregory said that a phone call would be enough.
Name-worshipping is a Pandora’s box which we must not open on any account.
We beg and implore you not to do so, and we tell you bluntly that most of the fathers here will never accept such a decision.
We have no further need to hear from Metropolitan Ephraim or Bishop Gregory on this matter. We made it abundantly clear at the HTM synaxis that we want to drop this topic totally. We accept the Russian Synodal decisions and condemnations of name-worshipping, and those of Constantinople and the Holy Mountain. And we want that stated publicly by our Synod. Period!
We are at the breaking point over this, and will not be provoked further.
Fr. Nicholas Holy Transfiguration Monastery September 3, 2012 (NS)
P. S. As an example of how insidious this teaching can be, take our own Fr. Panteleimon for a warning. We all know the great love and reverent awe he once had for Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, and which he inculcated in us all. Metropolitan Anthony was considered to be an unglorified saint. Then gradually, to the degree that Fr. Panteleimon began to imbibe the teachings of name-worshipping, his admiration for Metropolitan Anthony began to wane, and eventually it grew very cold. Fr. Panteleimon began to make derogatory remarks about Metropolitan Anthony: that he was a scholastic, an administrator, that he didn’t understand hesychasm, that he wasn’t a man of prayer, and so forth. I actually heard him say that those who oppose name-worshipping fall under the condemnations against Varlaam and Akindynos! Recently Fr. Panteleimon angrily told our Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil that, for having written the refutation of name-worshipping, they would not decompose when they die. Sad…
Showing posts with label Name-worshipping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Name-worshipping. Show all posts
Monday, October 21, 2013
Letter to Metropolitan Ephraim
Dear and most respected Metropolitan Ephraim,
Holy Master Bless!
I wished to share some thoughts with you confidentially. I know that you have carried the heavy cross of the episcopacy for almost 25 years. I do not wish to add to your burden by being anything but supportive and constantly asking the Holy Trinity to guide and enlighten you in these difficult times.
Nevertheless, in times past, when you have ordained or elevated laymen or clergy to higher positions, and then found yourself to have problems on your hands, you have wondered why the faithful and clergy did not come forward to inform you of their reservations.
I have known Fr. Gregory for many years now. I find him an agreeable person for the most part, though rather eccentric in some of his views. I remember being somewhat shocked when he told me that he thought Nazi Germany had been made to look much worse than it actually was and a lot of our perceptions were formed by negative propaganda. Also, from time to time over the years he told me that he was of the opinion that the Name Worshippers had been wrongly condemned and had been misunderstood. On the subject of the Name Worshippers I took his comments into account, but I had never read any first-hand material on the subject.
I have now read Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky's paper on this subject and also the 1913 decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch also confirmed this decision.
The story that has been told so often that Metropolitan Anthony never even read any of the positions of the Name Worshippers, but relied on second and third hand sources, is a lie that has been repeated so often that it has taken on a life of its own. It is very clear that some of the Name Worshippers were confused in their simplicity at best and were openly deceitful and duplicitous at worse, as Metropolitan Anthony's paper so eloquently and clearly demonstrates.
Regardless, it is edifying that both Saint Anatoly and Saint Barsanuphius of Optina read Schemamonk llarion's n the Mountains of the Caucasia with interest and found edifying things in it, but they also had some reservations and after the Holy Synod had condemned the book they neither defended it nor read it again.
It goes without saying what Metropolitan St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory Grabbe of Blessed Memory thought of this issue. I think one can safely assume St. John Maxomovitch was also of one mind with Metropolitan Anthony on this issue.
Who are we, and furthermore, who is a young Hieromonk Gregory to question these theological giants of recent times? And furthermore, to what point? Does anyone doubt that the Name of Jesus sanctifies and is to be held in uttermost reverence? Is anyone saying that the Jesus Prayer is not a channel of uncreated and divine grace? But as the Synodicon of Orthodoxy points out a distinction must be made between essence and energy. Even the Body of the Lord Jesus is not "God" according to the Synodicon let alone His Name. If we are to make a confusion of it we become Pantheists just as the Latins accused the Orthodox of because the Latins said God is simple and cannot be divided. But the Orthodox position is an unmingled union, an unconfused union, a distinction between essence and energy, and that the material world is sanctified but not deified by the uncreated energies.
The Name of God is not essence nor is it an operation of the essence. It is a name above all names. But to say that the name partakes of the essence or becomes an operation in and of itself is Platonic and not Christian.
Regardless, it is now a dead issue. What point is there is resurrecting it to the scandal of the faithful. If this issue is ever to be addressed again, it must be addressed by not only the Russian Church, but the Ecumenical Church. I hardly think that Bishop Gregory Lourie and those with him constitute the plentitude of the Church.
And we know that Bishop Gregory Lourie has other peculiar ideas as well. His sermon on the "conglomerate" St. Nicholas, his unilateral glorifications of Frs. Antony Bulatovitch and Seraphim Rose, his declarations of the theological incompetence of Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe, and his attitude towards The Dogma of Redemption and God knows what else should raise eyebrows to say the least.
Yes, Bishop Gregory is not an Ecumenist, nor does mince words on the sorry state of the "Official Churches" and likes our publications and opinions on many issues ... but does that excuse everything else? It is extremely disquieting and distressing to observe that our Fr. Gregory is enamored of the person and writings of Bishop Gregory Lourie. Fr. Gregory's mindset is, frankly, alarming to not a few of us who live with him day in and day out.
I do not know what the solution is, dear Vladyka. I know you are in a difficult position and that there is a need for more bishops and there are few candidates. I do not want to see us do something that will cause problems in the future. Fr. Gregory's consecration is premature at best. I wish my heart was not troubled on this issue, but it is and continues to be after much prayer and reading first hand sources. If things go awry in the future my last wish is to say to you, the Elder, and Fr. Isaac, "Well, we told you so!"
Vladyka, I have been here for 31 years. I came here from Jordanville because, though being of Russian ancestry, I wished to be in an English speaking monastic community that was established and had fairly good order. I have seen not only a disrespectful attitude of Fr. Gregory towards Metropolitan Anthony, but animus, and now, to my utter dismay I have seen Fr. Isaac, under Fr. Gregory's influence, prefer Thesis papers from St. Vladimir's Seminary, Fr. Georges Florovsky's scalding critiques of Metropolitan Anthony, and the arrogant and presumptuous writings and opinions of a rather young, eccentric, and acedemic Bishop Gregory Lourie over Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe. This is more than dismaying for me.
Again, who are we to be suddenly gainsaying our fathers to whom we owe everything? We are cutting off the branch we are sitting on. Do we have more discernment than these saints and bishops of blessed memory, or for that matter, the blessed Elders Anatoly and Barsanuphius of Optina, who after they had heard the decisions of both their local church and the consensus of the other Churches lay this issue of the controversial opinions of Schemamonk Ilarion, Fr. Antony Bulatovich and their disruptive disciples aside?
Usually I am not in agreement with our Fr. Basil because I find his opinions usually extreme and myopic, but in this regard I agree with what he wrote to Fr. Isaac a few months ago. He wrote:
Unfortunately, Vladyka, Fr. Gregory's views are not unknown. It has become controversial both within the community and without. Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil were told not to say anything in the talk after the Corporate Meeting this past year while the Elder tried to put his own spin on the Name Worshippers Controversy. The meeting ended with the brotherhood dissatisfied and perplexed. Our questions were not addressed nor was there a fair and open dialogue.
I have mentioned to Fr. Isaac that the only way to lay this to rest is to have a public debate between Fr. Gregory and Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil and any other clergyman who may care to be involved on this issue. Fr. Isaac said that the Elder cannot handle stuff like that. As a matter of fact, Fr. Isaac was floored and dismayed that members of the brotherhood even made a peep during the Corporate Meeting. The fathers were respectful and clear, but wanted clarification. It was not forthcoming. So the Elder cannot handle it, and what will the outcome be? The community and even the diocese will become fractured within because this issue is being swept under the carpet. Is it just going to be a "No ask no tell" policy? But it is too late for that.
It is not enough for many of us that he holds this opinion privately in a Gnostic type of way. He should repudiate his views publicly and in writing until the Pan-Orthodox Decision on the issue of Name Worshippers is, if ever, revisited by the entire Church. Obviously the present times will not allow that, but until that time, to think that Bishop Gregory Lourie or HOCNA or even a few Synods of the True Orthodox Church of Russia represent the plentitude of the Church is ludicrous. Lord have mercy!
I never thought, after all we have been through that an internal crisis of conscience like this would come upon the monastery brethren and the diocese as a whole. I know the Holy Synod wrote that very good notice distancing yourself from Bishop Gregory Lourie's controversial views, but now we are about to consecrate a man who makes no secret of his full sympathies with these very same controversial views and their author.
Also, if the consecration goes through, I have heard that Fr. Gregory's title will be "Brookline." Please forgive me beloved Vladyka, but why "Brookline?" There are no parishes or a cathedral in Brookline, only the Monastery and Convent; why not "Roslindale" since we already have a precedent for that, or "Concord" or "Ipswich?" Not a few of us think that will make us look ridiculous.
It looks odd enough that 3 of the 4 bishops of HOCNA will be living in the monastery ... no doubt, too many will say, under the vigilant eye of Elder Panteleimon. In the past we have been so careful of things like this. Yes, I know that St. Katherine's Monastery has its own bishop, but that is because of its own unique isolation, especially in ancient times. When there was a bishop resident at Jordanville it was "Syracuse and Holy Trinity." Bishop Sergius was "Loch Lomond" but I assume that was because there was not another parish even remotely close to Kelseyville. But here we have many parishes and faithful nearby.
My beloved Archpastor, I have expressed most of these thoughts to Fr. Isaac, but not all. I have opened my heart in the secrecy of confession to you. I am one of your humble sheep whose heart is, to my grief, troubled at what should be a cause of rejoicing and expectation. Fr. Gregory is pleasant enough man, and I have nothing personal against him. I am just afraid that his eccentricities could cause great scandal in the future. I know that out of the clergy of the monastery 6 have great reservations. Many of the monks do too.
Please forgive me for troubling you,
Asking your holy prayers,
sinful Sergius, monk
Holy Master Bless!
I wished to share some thoughts with you confidentially. I know that you have carried the heavy cross of the episcopacy for almost 25 years. I do not wish to add to your burden by being anything but supportive and constantly asking the Holy Trinity to guide and enlighten you in these difficult times.
Nevertheless, in times past, when you have ordained or elevated laymen or clergy to higher positions, and then found yourself to have problems on your hands, you have wondered why the faithful and clergy did not come forward to inform you of their reservations.
I have known Fr. Gregory for many years now. I find him an agreeable person for the most part, though rather eccentric in some of his views. I remember being somewhat shocked when he told me that he thought Nazi Germany had been made to look much worse than it actually was and a lot of our perceptions were formed by negative propaganda. Also, from time to time over the years he told me that he was of the opinion that the Name Worshippers had been wrongly condemned and had been misunderstood. On the subject of the Name Worshippers I took his comments into account, but I had never read any first-hand material on the subject.
I have now read Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky's paper on this subject and also the 1913 decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch also confirmed this decision.
The story that has been told so often that Metropolitan Anthony never even read any of the positions of the Name Worshippers, but relied on second and third hand sources, is a lie that has been repeated so often that it has taken on a life of its own. It is very clear that some of the Name Worshippers were confused in their simplicity at best and were openly deceitful and duplicitous at worse, as Metropolitan Anthony's paper so eloquently and clearly demonstrates.
Regardless, it is edifying that both Saint Anatoly and Saint Barsanuphius of Optina read Schemamonk llarion's n the Mountains of the Caucasia with interest and found edifying things in it, but they also had some reservations and after the Holy Synod had condemned the book they neither defended it nor read it again.
It goes without saying what Metropolitan St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory Grabbe of Blessed Memory thought of this issue. I think one can safely assume St. John Maxomovitch was also of one mind with Metropolitan Anthony on this issue.
Who are we, and furthermore, who is a young Hieromonk Gregory to question these theological giants of recent times? And furthermore, to what point? Does anyone doubt that the Name of Jesus sanctifies and is to be held in uttermost reverence? Is anyone saying that the Jesus Prayer is not a channel of uncreated and divine grace? But as the Synodicon of Orthodoxy points out a distinction must be made between essence and energy. Even the Body of the Lord Jesus is not "God" according to the Synodicon let alone His Name. If we are to make a confusion of it we become Pantheists just as the Latins accused the Orthodox of because the Latins said God is simple and cannot be divided. But the Orthodox position is an unmingled union, an unconfused union, a distinction between essence and energy, and that the material world is sanctified but not deified by the uncreated energies.
The Name of God is not essence nor is it an operation of the essence. It is a name above all names. But to say that the name partakes of the essence or becomes an operation in and of itself is Platonic and not Christian.
Regardless, it is now a dead issue. What point is there is resurrecting it to the scandal of the faithful. If this issue is ever to be addressed again, it must be addressed by not only the Russian Church, but the Ecumenical Church. I hardly think that Bishop Gregory Lourie and those with him constitute the plentitude of the Church.
And we know that Bishop Gregory Lourie has other peculiar ideas as well. His sermon on the "conglomerate" St. Nicholas, his unilateral glorifications of Frs. Antony Bulatovitch and Seraphim Rose, his declarations of the theological incompetence of Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe, and his attitude towards The Dogma of Redemption and God knows what else should raise eyebrows to say the least.
Yes, Bishop Gregory is not an Ecumenist, nor does mince words on the sorry state of the "Official Churches" and likes our publications and opinions on many issues ... but does that excuse everything else? It is extremely disquieting and distressing to observe that our Fr. Gregory is enamored of the person and writings of Bishop Gregory Lourie. Fr. Gregory's mindset is, frankly, alarming to not a few of us who live with him day in and day out.
I do not know what the solution is, dear Vladyka. I know you are in a difficult position and that there is a need for more bishops and there are few candidates. I do not want to see us do something that will cause problems in the future. Fr. Gregory's consecration is premature at best. I wish my heart was not troubled on this issue, but it is and continues to be after much prayer and reading first hand sources. If things go awry in the future my last wish is to say to you, the Elder, and Fr. Isaac, "Well, we told you so!"
Vladyka, I have been here for 31 years. I came here from Jordanville because, though being of Russian ancestry, I wished to be in an English speaking monastic community that was established and had fairly good order. I have seen not only a disrespectful attitude of Fr. Gregory towards Metropolitan Anthony, but animus, and now, to my utter dismay I have seen Fr. Isaac, under Fr. Gregory's influence, prefer Thesis papers from St. Vladimir's Seminary, Fr. Georges Florovsky's scalding critiques of Metropolitan Anthony, and the arrogant and presumptuous writings and opinions of a rather young, eccentric, and acedemic Bishop Gregory Lourie over Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe. This is more than dismaying for me.
Again, who are we to be suddenly gainsaying our fathers to whom we owe everything? We are cutting off the branch we are sitting on. Do we have more discernment than these saints and bishops of blessed memory, or for that matter, the blessed Elders Anatoly and Barsanuphius of Optina, who after they had heard the decisions of both their local church and the consensus of the other Churches lay this issue of the controversial opinions of Schemamonk Ilarion, Fr. Antony Bulatovich and their disruptive disciples aside?
Usually I am not in agreement with our Fr. Basil because I find his opinions usually extreme and myopic, but in this regard I agree with what he wrote to Fr. Isaac a few months ago. He wrote:
Dear Fr Isaac,
Please, why we should bother entering ourselves in a new controversy? !Nameworshiping or Name-venerating or whatever is more fitting to call it is a dead issue. If 'name-worshipers' are orthodox,fine! they are members of the Church and glory be to God! Nevertheless, given that most people in the whole world consider today (rightly or wrong) that it is a heresy, why are we suppose to undertake the responsibility to give an account on behalf of them, (when even many official contemporaries at the beginning of 20th century where reluctant to do so), to prove they are orthodox. Don't we give in this way a serious cause, for the people that disagree, to be separated from us? and I mean, people that are still with us: those that remain with our bishops after the still fresh schism of last May.
To those that accuse us we can simply say that we are not the Name-worshipers they think; we are Orthodox and every one knows or can testify our orthodoxy. However, what actually our smart enemies want is to get us involved in an new, unending conflict that only harm will bring to the Church.
There are quite enough labels they stick on us up to the moment (anti-triadics, neoiconoclasts, 666, Macracists, .. .). They would be happy to add 'Name-worshipers' in the list (with our contribution!).
The Elder is going to give a talk, precisely on this subject (defending the 'Nameworshipers'!), this Sunday evening in the Metropolis house here in Toronto ... Good luck!
I kiss your hand, forgive me
Fr Basil
Unfortunately, Vladyka, Fr. Gregory's views are not unknown. It has become controversial both within the community and without. Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil were told not to say anything in the talk after the Corporate Meeting this past year while the Elder tried to put his own spin on the Name Worshippers Controversy. The meeting ended with the brotherhood dissatisfied and perplexed. Our questions were not addressed nor was there a fair and open dialogue.
I have mentioned to Fr. Isaac that the only way to lay this to rest is to have a public debate between Fr. Gregory and Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil and any other clergyman who may care to be involved on this issue. Fr. Isaac said that the Elder cannot handle stuff like that. As a matter of fact, Fr. Isaac was floored and dismayed that members of the brotherhood even made a peep during the Corporate Meeting. The fathers were respectful and clear, but wanted clarification. It was not forthcoming. So the Elder cannot handle it, and what will the outcome be? The community and even the diocese will become fractured within because this issue is being swept under the carpet. Is it just going to be a "No ask no tell" policy? But it is too late for that.
It is not enough for many of us that he holds this opinion privately in a Gnostic type of way. He should repudiate his views publicly and in writing until the Pan-Orthodox Decision on the issue of Name Worshippers is, if ever, revisited by the entire Church. Obviously the present times will not allow that, but until that time, to think that Bishop Gregory Lourie or HOCNA or even a few Synods of the True Orthodox Church of Russia represent the plentitude of the Church is ludicrous. Lord have mercy!
I never thought, after all we have been through that an internal crisis of conscience like this would come upon the monastery brethren and the diocese as a whole. I know the Holy Synod wrote that very good notice distancing yourself from Bishop Gregory Lourie's controversial views, but now we are about to consecrate a man who makes no secret of his full sympathies with these very same controversial views and their author.
Also, if the consecration goes through, I have heard that Fr. Gregory's title will be "Brookline." Please forgive me beloved Vladyka, but why "Brookline?" There are no parishes or a cathedral in Brookline, only the Monastery and Convent; why not "Roslindale" since we already have a precedent for that, or "Concord" or "Ipswich?" Not a few of us think that will make us look ridiculous.
It looks odd enough that 3 of the 4 bishops of HOCNA will be living in the monastery ... no doubt, too many will say, under the vigilant eye of Elder Panteleimon. In the past we have been so careful of things like this. Yes, I know that St. Katherine's Monastery has its own bishop, but that is because of its own unique isolation, especially in ancient times. When there was a bishop resident at Jordanville it was "Syracuse and Holy Trinity." Bishop Sergius was "Loch Lomond" but I assume that was because there was not another parish even remotely close to Kelseyville. But here we have many parishes and faithful nearby.
My beloved Archpastor, I have expressed most of these thoughts to Fr. Isaac, but not all. I have opened my heart in the secrecy of confession to you. I am one of your humble sheep whose heart is, to my grief, troubled at what should be a cause of rejoicing and expectation. Fr. Gregory is pleasant enough man, and I have nothing personal against him. I am just afraid that his eccentricities could cause great scandal in the future. I know that out of the clergy of the monastery 6 have great reservations. Many of the monks do too.
Please forgive me for troubling you,
Asking your holy prayers,
sinful Sergius, monk
From Fr. Nicholas to Bishop Gregory
August 16/29, 2012 Feast of the Icon of the Lord “Not Made By Hands”
To Bishop Gregory of Concord
Dear Despota, Bless!
Ever since the meeting between you, Metropolitan Ephraim, myself and Fr. Isaac a few weeks ago, I have been wanting to write to you about some of the things said then.
On a personal level I have always greatly valued our friendship, and I felt that we had a good rapport. Of late, however, some of your actions and statements have caused me bewilderment and sadness. It is those that I wish to speak about here.
At our meeting in the HTM library, and then later in your cell, you expressed your respect for Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, and you stated that no one could question it, since you had translated our synod’s resolution on The Dogma of Redemption into Georgian. We appreciated your labors at that time and expressed our gratitude to you then.
But let’s be honest, you translated the synodal resolution into Georgian not out of a deep and intrinsic respect for Metropolitan Anthony, but in order to keep peace in our Church, and to calm the Georgian flock, which had been stirred up against Metropolitan Anthony and his Dogma of Redemption by meddling busybodies, such as the then still layman, Basil Lourie. (See appended copy of his letter to the Georgian clergy.) Glory and honor to you for having helped to establish peace and understanding on that issue. But let’s not portray it now as something that it was not.
You may indeed have a general respect for Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky as a prominent ecclesiastical figure in the recent history of the Russian Orthodox Church, but you lack that deep reverence and love of him and his teachings which was inculcated in the rest of us by our ever-memorable hierarchs of the “old” ROCOR, and by Fr. Panteleimon himself (at least, in former times). It was, perhaps, a small thing, but it did not go unnoticed among the brethren that neither you nor Fr. Panteleimon bothered to remain to the end of Midnight Liturgy in order to perform the memorial service for Metropolitan Anthony on the recent anniversary of his repose.
As for your claim that you never made the disparaging remark about me that “he’s a product of ROCOR”, I had that information from the one who heard it directly from you. And I consider him to be a trustworthy and reputable source. But I myself — as one who often heedlessly blurts out whatever is on my mind, and then forgets about it — can quite well understand that you have no recollection of ever having made such a statement. And I did not take it to heart, anyway. Actually, I considered it a compliment of sorts.
But then, your ignorance of the “old days” is not entirely your fault, since you were all of three weeks old in February of 1979, when I entered the monastery as a grown man. So I know very well indeed what was the ethos at the monastery and within ROCOR at that time — I lived it. I remember quite well what we stood for, what we believed, what we taught others then, and what was our confession of faith. But, sadly, it’s been changing of late…
The memory of one incident involving you (when you were still just a novice), which took place in the Coach House breakfast room at HTM, has remained with all those who were present. We were discussing Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, and someone mentioned praying for him. I then interjected that one could almost pray to him. At that point you let out a shocked gasp and asked incredulously: “You could?!!” To be very frank with you, your shock over my comment in turn deeply shocked all of us. Fr. Sergius, Fr. Ignatius and I exchanged the same glance, full of surprise and dismay. We all thought to ourselves: “This does not bode well for the future!” Little did we imagine back then that things would reach the sad point where we are now.
And how is one to explain the source or cause of the awful disparaging remarks which Fr. Panteleimon now makes to people concerning Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky? Remarks for which we would have been given a severe dressing down and an epitimia by him in days gone by! Who could have imagined back then that the time would come when the junior members of the brotherhood would find themselves in the position of having to defend the memory of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky to their hierarchs and superiors, especially to Fr. Panteleimon, of all people?! It boggles the mind. And one can’t help but recall those grave words of St. Paul: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you…”
It has grieved me greatly over the years to watch as Fr. Panteleimon’s previously reverent feelings toward Metropolitan Anthony gradually changed 180° (despite occasional public protestations to the contrary by you and him). The same can be said of Fr. Panteleimon’s perspective on name-worshipping. Incrementally, it was being chipped away, and I felt helpless to halt or resist the process. I had neither the time nor the energy to concentrate on combatting it. And once Fr. Panteleimon has something in his mind, no amount of negative “proof” will dissuade him. However, I did mention my concerns to Fr. Isaac from time to time, and I told him that we would have trouble from it down the line. But I have to hand it to you, for you did an excellent job of cultivating Fr. Panteleimon over the years and winning him to your side.
But, as the ever-memorable Fr. Michael Pomazansky once said to someone who, in his presence, accused Vladyka Anthony of heresy: “We will not allow our Abba to be insulted!”
******************************************
I have heard you say on several occasions that the fact of Bishop Gregory Lourie taking Communion at HTM — and the furor which followed it, especially in Toronto — is what caused name-worshipping to become an issue within HOCNA. True, that may have been the spark that started the public conflagration, but who was it that privately had been heaping up firewood and kindling for so many years? How many times had you — while still just a novice — been warned by me, by Bishop Demetrius and by others to leave that topic alone — that nothing good would come of it? But, alas, you wouldn’t listen…
Nor do I accept your assertion that it was merely an intellectual pursuit, or scholarly research, or a desire to better understand a controversial issue in church history. This has always been a passionate cause for you, a crusade to rehabilitate, to vindicate, to exonerate those whom you feel have been unfairly treated. A praiseworthy undertaking perhaps, but what has it led to? Did the contemporary Traditionalist Orthodox Churches not have enough current controversies and problems, without having to dig up a supposedly unresolved one from one hundred years ago?! And let’s be honest, before you joined us, name-worshipping was not an issue with any of us. And it was Bishop Gregory Lourie who resurrected the controversy in Russia.
And tell me, will the Russian Church, or any of the other Local Orthodox Churches, or even our fellow Old-calendarists accept whatever new “resolution” of the problem our little, marginalized group might propose? Of course not! Can you imagine the reaction if some Russian Orthodox Christian appeared in Greece to announce that he, at last, could now resolve all the divisions within the Old-calendarist jurisdictions there?! Contrary to what Metropolitan Ephraim wrote, fulfilling his four stipulations (supposedly found in Patriarch Tikhon’s 1921 Nativity Epistle) will not “resolve the problem”!
But even more alarming was a conversation of yours which I overheard last spring. I was working at the computer in the third-floor shipping department at HTM, and you were speaking quite loudly in Russian on the public telephone located there. (Thus, it was not a case of anyone eavesdropping.) You were talking to Fr. Job and Fr. Martinian (who, at that time, were still with us) and discussing with them the name-worshipping controversy, especially the negative reaction to it here among us. You told the fathers that there was no point forcing (your choice of words) the question here, since it was not really an issue for us, and, besides, people here don’t comprehend it. However, you agreed wholeheartedly with the fathers that there (in Ukraine and Russia) name-worshipping absolutely was a question of confession of faith. You then went on to assure the fathers not to worry, because the important people here do understand and sympathize with name-worshipping. And you yourself mentioned them by name: Metropolitan Ephraim, Fr. Panteleimon, Fr. Isaac, etc. Does this mean that our Church now has some ‘inner circle’ of enlightened individuals who have been initiated into a ‘higher teaching’ which is not understood by the masses? Well, we all know what that smacks of, don’t we?! Might I suggest that you reread the works of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons…
Simply on a pastoral level your intellectual excursion into the dogmatic minefield of name-worshipping has been a disaster for us all. Has anyone’s faith been strengthened by all this; has anyone been edified? Has anyone been added to the Church because of it? On the contrary, just the opposite has taken place. So what has been the point of it all? You may be enamored of this teaching, but we are not. Forgive me, but I don’t think that you fully realize how many of the clergy, monastics and faithful resent having our Church and monastery practically commandeered and used as some sort of juggernaut to achieve ends which are not our own. Your cause to defend name-worshipping at all costs is not our cause. On bended knees I beg you to please stop disturbing the Church over an issue that most of us do not support.
****************************************
And I am very dismayed to hear from others that it is now being reported that I supposedly have come around and have now accepted your and Metropolitan Ephraim’s interpretation of Patriarch Tikhon’s 1921 Nativity Epistle. For the record, I am still not at all convinced that you and Metropolitan Ephraim understand that letter correctly. And, as we determined during our meeting, neither you, nor I, have access to all the documents pertaining to that period. So, for the present, I stand by my interpretation of the epistle. (See appended copy.) And as I mentioned there, only after I had arrived at my own understanding of the letter, did I find that the Moscow Patriarchate’s Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) had interpreted it in exactly the same way. Actually, it was that discovery that encouraged me to send my interpretation to Metropolitan Ephraim. And, unlike you and I, Metropolitan Hilarion — who himself is sympathetic to the name-worshippers, and hostile to Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky — did have all the archival documents put at his disposal so that he could write his two-volume study of that controversy.
In the course of our discussion on the text of the Nativity Epistle of 1921, you seemed exasperated at my repeated observations concerning the translation errors contained in the English text cited by you and Metropolitan Ephraim. I found that odd coming from someone who knows more languages than I do, and who, one would expect, should understand well the need for precision in translating important texts, especially ones on which ecclesiastical decisions are to be based. A couple of times you conceded that there may be some errors, but then, English is not your native language, as it is for me, etc. Those comments puzzled both Fr. Isaac and me, since originally, when we had all assumed that you had indeed been the translator, we were told several times that no, Fr. Andrew Boroda had translated the epistle. So who, in fact, was the translator, and why the obfuscation?
Further, you later told me that, having read my literal English translation of the epistle, you now understood the Russian better. [?!!] Yet, for all that, you and Metropolitan Ephraim still insist on your interpretation of the epistle, based on what you have admitted is a flawed translation of a text which you did not fully understand. You contend that the text must say what you want it to say. Forgive me, but the translation of texts cannot be conducted in such a cavalier manner.
*****************************************
But, for the sake of argument, let us concede that your interpretation of the epistle is correct. Nonetheless, that still would not solve the dilemma for you. Anyone who considers that that epistle can form the basis for a satisfactory compromise on this issue is simply not thinking logically. The epistle does not give succor to name-worshippers, rather, it reiterates their condemnation. Nor can one arbitrarily extract “four stipulations” from the letter and blithely ignore the rest of the text, as Metropolitan Ephraim and you have done.
(Besides, why should we even feel compelled to seek some sort of “compromise” with you and the few adherents of name-worshipping among us? Forgive me, Despota, but you joined us; we didn’t join you. Why should we agree to accept a teaching foreign to us, simply to satisfy you and Metropolitan Ephraim? It’s as if someone had seized a man’s house, and while squatting in the man’s living room, he offers to open negotiations with the owner concerning how much of the house he is willing to give back to him. Such a “compromise” would be a surrender or capitulation. We have no desire for such a compromise on this issue. Instead, why can’t you and Metropolitan Ephraim just drop it all together? If for no other reason, then for pastoral ones.)
No one denies that the Local Russian Church has the right, if she so desires, to return to the issue of name-worshipping at some later date and to reconsider the controversy and her decisions concerning it. But, until such time as she does so (and it is doubtful that she will), her present resolutions, decisions, and condemnations remain in effect and are canonically binding. As you yourselves translated the epistle: “…But, while showing its indulgence, the Synod did not change its previous opinion regarding the error itself, which is found in the writings of Anthony Bulatovich and his followers…” One cannot violate present legal codes based on the hope that those laws will supposedly be abolished sometime in the future by a, as yet to be convened, legislature! So too here: until such time as the Russian Church revokes its previous decisions regarding the name-worshippers, they are still in force.
Thus we see that Patriarch Tikhon, his synod, and the hierarchs that went before him, declared that the writings and teachings of Fr. Anthony Bulatovich and his followers do contain grave errors which have been synodically condemned, and which are to be considered still under that condemnation. However, in e-mail messages to us, you, Bishop Gregory, have declared “…there are no strange or erroneous teachings in Fr. Bulatovich's books.” So, I ask you, whom should we believe; whom should we heed? You, or Patriarch Tikhon and his hierarchs?
And please don’t attempt to use purported post-revolutionary concelebrations to refute the statements made above. Why should we be compelled to accept such concelebrations as proof that the Church supposedly relented and retracted its demands? Perhaps the opposite is true, and the name-worshippers repented? (Why cannot their apologists even entertain such a thought?) Perhaps after the name-worshippers demonstrated a certain degree of humility and obedience, the Church showed them condescension, as in the days of Saint Cyprian of Carthage? As long as the persecutions were in abeyance, Saint Cyprian demanded that the lapsed fulfill the strict epitimia which had been laid upon them. But when the persecutions were renewed, he urged that ‘weapons’ be put into the hands of those willing to struggle in the front ranks for Christ, and so he ordered that the lapsed be accepted back into the Church and allowed to receive Holy Communion. Perhaps something similar took place within the Russian Church after the Revolution and the Bolsheviks persecutions. As I said before, we may never know…
Despota, you sometimes make sweeping statements or categorical declarations, and then later seem surprised or offended when people draw the obvious, logical conclusions. For example, you have told many of us that the councils and synods which condemned the name-worshippers were “heretical” (your choice of words). Well, heretical councils, which make heretical pronouncements, are convoked and attended by… heretics! And those who promulgate, disseminate, and support the teachings of such heretical councils are themselves considered by the Church likewise to be heretics.
So, the inescapable conclusion is that (according to you) Proto-New-Hieromartyr Vladimir of Kiev (head of the Holy Synod during the name-worshipping controversy), New Confessor Metropolitan Agathangel of Yaroslavl, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, Metropolitan Anastasy Gribanovsky (who, as a vicar bishop of Moscow, also signed the proceedings against the name-worshippers), and all the members of the Holy Synod, the hierarchs in communion with them, and all those who supported the synodal condemnation, including Holy Patriarch Tikhon — are heretics too. (God forbid!)
And remember what Saint John Chrysostom has taught us: Even the blood of martyrdom does not wash away the sin of schism and heresy!
*********************************************
You and Metropolitan Ephraim also chose to ignore another very important point in the epistle: “…promising to follow exactly the Orthodox Church and to be obedient to the God-established Hierarchy.” The “God-established hierarchy” mentioned there was not some abstract, faultless, future hierarchy of the name-worshippers’ own choosing, but the flesh-and-blood members of the Holy Synod and the local hierarchs appointed by them. (Certainly that is how Patriarch Tikhon and his synod understood the phrase.) And that is precisely what Fr. Anthony Bulatovich and his followers categorically refused to do. Thus, they themselves negated the conditions of the epistle under which they could have been received back into the Church. Moreover, they publicly declared their “secession from any spiritual communion with the ecclesiastical authorities”.
When I pointed that fact out to you during our discussion, you excitedly exclaimed two or three times: “Yes, but what sort of hierarchs were they?! They were blasphemers of the Holy Spirit!” (Again, your choice of words.) I was shocked and dismayed to hear you utter such a thing.
So let me ask you concerning those same venerable hierarchs of the Russian Church whom I listed above:
— Did they ever comprehend or acknowledge themselves to be ‘blasphemers of the Holy Spirit’? (No.)
— Did they ever “repent” of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? (No.)
— Do you recall what awful words our Saviour said of those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit?...
And, according to the teaching of the Church, what are the Mysteries performed by heretics and blasphemers?!
So where does that leave us, the direct spiritual heirs of those same hierarchs, from whom proceed the grace of all our Mysteries and ordinations — including your very own?
You profess to have a devotion for Metropolitan Philaret, the New Confessor. Well, I can tell you very well what he would have to say to you concerning Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky and name-worshipping!
Despota, you may consider it unkind of me, or even unfair, to put you on the spot now, but here too, as with the name-worshipping controversy, it is you yourself who have forced the issue. The faithful will “connect the dots”, even if you do not wish to do so yourself. And since, as the Church rightly teaches, the faith of the bishop is the faith of the flock, then the faithful have every right and duty to inquire into the faith of their hierarch.
So, to make very certain that I have not misunderstood you, I am compelled to ask you point blank:
Do you consider yourself to be a bishop and the spiritual heir of the above-mentioned hierarchs of blessed memory, or not?
More importantly, are those hierarchs heretics and blasphemers, or not?
That last question, Despota, requires — nay, demands — a simple answer: “Yes” or “No”. Please do not equivocate or qualify your reply.
If “Yes”, they are heretics and blasphemers in your eyes, then I thank you for your frankness, but I obviously cannot have anything more to do with you as a bishop.
If “No”, you do not consider them to be heretics and blasphemers, then I will rejoice greatly to hear you state it unambiguously and unreservedly. However, to fully convince the faithful, you will obviously need to publicly retract your previous statements in which you have indeed declared them to be heretics and blasphemers, or, at least, you have left that definite impression. Please find the strength and humility to do so.
If not, then I have to be honest and tell you that I (and many others) will find it very difficult to continue to recognize you as the direct spiritual heir of those blessed hierarchs (which you are, willy-nilly, at least by ordination), or to treat you as one of our bishops, lest by doing so we be found to have betrayed our spiritual forefathers. May it never be!
Forgive me. May the Lord forgive, guide and save us all. Amen!
O Kyrios! Fr. Nicholas Holy Transfiguration Monastery
P.S. If I did not care deeply for you and your salvation, and for our Church, I would never have labored to compose the above letter. I am your genuine well-wisher. FN
To Bishop Gregory of Concord
Dear Despota, Bless!
Ever since the meeting between you, Metropolitan Ephraim, myself and Fr. Isaac a few weeks ago, I have been wanting to write to you about some of the things said then.
On a personal level I have always greatly valued our friendship, and I felt that we had a good rapport. Of late, however, some of your actions and statements have caused me bewilderment and sadness. It is those that I wish to speak about here.
At our meeting in the HTM library, and then later in your cell, you expressed your respect for Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, and you stated that no one could question it, since you had translated our synod’s resolution on The Dogma of Redemption into Georgian. We appreciated your labors at that time and expressed our gratitude to you then.
But let’s be honest, you translated the synodal resolution into Georgian not out of a deep and intrinsic respect for Metropolitan Anthony, but in order to keep peace in our Church, and to calm the Georgian flock, which had been stirred up against Metropolitan Anthony and his Dogma of Redemption by meddling busybodies, such as the then still layman, Basil Lourie. (See appended copy of his letter to the Georgian clergy.) Glory and honor to you for having helped to establish peace and understanding on that issue. But let’s not portray it now as something that it was not.
You may indeed have a general respect for Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky as a prominent ecclesiastical figure in the recent history of the Russian Orthodox Church, but you lack that deep reverence and love of him and his teachings which was inculcated in the rest of us by our ever-memorable hierarchs of the “old” ROCOR, and by Fr. Panteleimon himself (at least, in former times). It was, perhaps, a small thing, but it did not go unnoticed among the brethren that neither you nor Fr. Panteleimon bothered to remain to the end of Midnight Liturgy in order to perform the memorial service for Metropolitan Anthony on the recent anniversary of his repose.
As for your claim that you never made the disparaging remark about me that “he’s a product of ROCOR”, I had that information from the one who heard it directly from you. And I consider him to be a trustworthy and reputable source. But I myself — as one who often heedlessly blurts out whatever is on my mind, and then forgets about it — can quite well understand that you have no recollection of ever having made such a statement. And I did not take it to heart, anyway. Actually, I considered it a compliment of sorts.
But then, your ignorance of the “old days” is not entirely your fault, since you were all of three weeks old in February of 1979, when I entered the monastery as a grown man. So I know very well indeed what was the ethos at the monastery and within ROCOR at that time — I lived it. I remember quite well what we stood for, what we believed, what we taught others then, and what was our confession of faith. But, sadly, it’s been changing of late…
The memory of one incident involving you (when you were still just a novice), which took place in the Coach House breakfast room at HTM, has remained with all those who were present. We were discussing Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, and someone mentioned praying for him. I then interjected that one could almost pray to him. At that point you let out a shocked gasp and asked incredulously: “You could?!!” To be very frank with you, your shock over my comment in turn deeply shocked all of us. Fr. Sergius, Fr. Ignatius and I exchanged the same glance, full of surprise and dismay. We all thought to ourselves: “This does not bode well for the future!” Little did we imagine back then that things would reach the sad point where we are now.
And how is one to explain the source or cause of the awful disparaging remarks which Fr. Panteleimon now makes to people concerning Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky? Remarks for which we would have been given a severe dressing down and an epitimia by him in days gone by! Who could have imagined back then that the time would come when the junior members of the brotherhood would find themselves in the position of having to defend the memory of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky to their hierarchs and superiors, especially to Fr. Panteleimon, of all people?! It boggles the mind. And one can’t help but recall those grave words of St. Paul: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you…”
It has grieved me greatly over the years to watch as Fr. Panteleimon’s previously reverent feelings toward Metropolitan Anthony gradually changed 180° (despite occasional public protestations to the contrary by you and him). The same can be said of Fr. Panteleimon’s perspective on name-worshipping. Incrementally, it was being chipped away, and I felt helpless to halt or resist the process. I had neither the time nor the energy to concentrate on combatting it. And once Fr. Panteleimon has something in his mind, no amount of negative “proof” will dissuade him. However, I did mention my concerns to Fr. Isaac from time to time, and I told him that we would have trouble from it down the line. But I have to hand it to you, for you did an excellent job of cultivating Fr. Panteleimon over the years and winning him to your side.
But, as the ever-memorable Fr. Michael Pomazansky once said to someone who, in his presence, accused Vladyka Anthony of heresy: “We will not allow our Abba to be insulted!”
******************************************
I have heard you say on several occasions that the fact of Bishop Gregory Lourie taking Communion at HTM — and the furor which followed it, especially in Toronto — is what caused name-worshipping to become an issue within HOCNA. True, that may have been the spark that started the public conflagration, but who was it that privately had been heaping up firewood and kindling for so many years? How many times had you — while still just a novice — been warned by me, by Bishop Demetrius and by others to leave that topic alone — that nothing good would come of it? But, alas, you wouldn’t listen…
Nor do I accept your assertion that it was merely an intellectual pursuit, or scholarly research, or a desire to better understand a controversial issue in church history. This has always been a passionate cause for you, a crusade to rehabilitate, to vindicate, to exonerate those whom you feel have been unfairly treated. A praiseworthy undertaking perhaps, but what has it led to? Did the contemporary Traditionalist Orthodox Churches not have enough current controversies and problems, without having to dig up a supposedly unresolved one from one hundred years ago?! And let’s be honest, before you joined us, name-worshipping was not an issue with any of us. And it was Bishop Gregory Lourie who resurrected the controversy in Russia.
And tell me, will the Russian Church, or any of the other Local Orthodox Churches, or even our fellow Old-calendarists accept whatever new “resolution” of the problem our little, marginalized group might propose? Of course not! Can you imagine the reaction if some Russian Orthodox Christian appeared in Greece to announce that he, at last, could now resolve all the divisions within the Old-calendarist jurisdictions there?! Contrary to what Metropolitan Ephraim wrote, fulfilling his four stipulations (supposedly found in Patriarch Tikhon’s 1921 Nativity Epistle) will not “resolve the problem”!
But even more alarming was a conversation of yours which I overheard last spring. I was working at the computer in the third-floor shipping department at HTM, and you were speaking quite loudly in Russian on the public telephone located there. (Thus, it was not a case of anyone eavesdropping.) You were talking to Fr. Job and Fr. Martinian (who, at that time, were still with us) and discussing with them the name-worshipping controversy, especially the negative reaction to it here among us. You told the fathers that there was no point forcing (your choice of words) the question here, since it was not really an issue for us, and, besides, people here don’t comprehend it. However, you agreed wholeheartedly with the fathers that there (in Ukraine and Russia) name-worshipping absolutely was a question of confession of faith. You then went on to assure the fathers not to worry, because the important people here do understand and sympathize with name-worshipping. And you yourself mentioned them by name: Metropolitan Ephraim, Fr. Panteleimon, Fr. Isaac, etc. Does this mean that our Church now has some ‘inner circle’ of enlightened individuals who have been initiated into a ‘higher teaching’ which is not understood by the masses? Well, we all know what that smacks of, don’t we?! Might I suggest that you reread the works of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons…
Simply on a pastoral level your intellectual excursion into the dogmatic minefield of name-worshipping has been a disaster for us all. Has anyone’s faith been strengthened by all this; has anyone been edified? Has anyone been added to the Church because of it? On the contrary, just the opposite has taken place. So what has been the point of it all? You may be enamored of this teaching, but we are not. Forgive me, but I don’t think that you fully realize how many of the clergy, monastics and faithful resent having our Church and monastery practically commandeered and used as some sort of juggernaut to achieve ends which are not our own. Your cause to defend name-worshipping at all costs is not our cause. On bended knees I beg you to please stop disturbing the Church over an issue that most of us do not support.
****************************************
And I am very dismayed to hear from others that it is now being reported that I supposedly have come around and have now accepted your and Metropolitan Ephraim’s interpretation of Patriarch Tikhon’s 1921 Nativity Epistle. For the record, I am still not at all convinced that you and Metropolitan Ephraim understand that letter correctly. And, as we determined during our meeting, neither you, nor I, have access to all the documents pertaining to that period. So, for the present, I stand by my interpretation of the epistle. (See appended copy.) And as I mentioned there, only after I had arrived at my own understanding of the letter, did I find that the Moscow Patriarchate’s Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) had interpreted it in exactly the same way. Actually, it was that discovery that encouraged me to send my interpretation to Metropolitan Ephraim. And, unlike you and I, Metropolitan Hilarion — who himself is sympathetic to the name-worshippers, and hostile to Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky — did have all the archival documents put at his disposal so that he could write his two-volume study of that controversy.
In the course of our discussion on the text of the Nativity Epistle of 1921, you seemed exasperated at my repeated observations concerning the translation errors contained in the English text cited by you and Metropolitan Ephraim. I found that odd coming from someone who knows more languages than I do, and who, one would expect, should understand well the need for precision in translating important texts, especially ones on which ecclesiastical decisions are to be based. A couple of times you conceded that there may be some errors, but then, English is not your native language, as it is for me, etc. Those comments puzzled both Fr. Isaac and me, since originally, when we had all assumed that you had indeed been the translator, we were told several times that no, Fr. Andrew Boroda had translated the epistle. So who, in fact, was the translator, and why the obfuscation?
Further, you later told me that, having read my literal English translation of the epistle, you now understood the Russian better. [?!!] Yet, for all that, you and Metropolitan Ephraim still insist on your interpretation of the epistle, based on what you have admitted is a flawed translation of a text which you did not fully understand. You contend that the text must say what you want it to say. Forgive me, but the translation of texts cannot be conducted in such a cavalier manner.
*****************************************
But, for the sake of argument, let us concede that your interpretation of the epistle is correct. Nonetheless, that still would not solve the dilemma for you. Anyone who considers that that epistle can form the basis for a satisfactory compromise on this issue is simply not thinking logically. The epistle does not give succor to name-worshippers, rather, it reiterates their condemnation. Nor can one arbitrarily extract “four stipulations” from the letter and blithely ignore the rest of the text, as Metropolitan Ephraim and you have done.
(Besides, why should we even feel compelled to seek some sort of “compromise” with you and the few adherents of name-worshipping among us? Forgive me, Despota, but you joined us; we didn’t join you. Why should we agree to accept a teaching foreign to us, simply to satisfy you and Metropolitan Ephraim? It’s as if someone had seized a man’s house, and while squatting in the man’s living room, he offers to open negotiations with the owner concerning how much of the house he is willing to give back to him. Such a “compromise” would be a surrender or capitulation. We have no desire for such a compromise on this issue. Instead, why can’t you and Metropolitan Ephraim just drop it all together? If for no other reason, then for pastoral ones.)
No one denies that the Local Russian Church has the right, if she so desires, to return to the issue of name-worshipping at some later date and to reconsider the controversy and her decisions concerning it. But, until such time as she does so (and it is doubtful that she will), her present resolutions, decisions, and condemnations remain in effect and are canonically binding. As you yourselves translated the epistle: “…But, while showing its indulgence, the Synod did not change its previous opinion regarding the error itself, which is found in the writings of Anthony Bulatovich and his followers…” One cannot violate present legal codes based on the hope that those laws will supposedly be abolished sometime in the future by a, as yet to be convened, legislature! So too here: until such time as the Russian Church revokes its previous decisions regarding the name-worshippers, they are still in force.
Thus we see that Patriarch Tikhon, his synod, and the hierarchs that went before him, declared that the writings and teachings of Fr. Anthony Bulatovich and his followers do contain grave errors which have been synodically condemned, and which are to be considered still under that condemnation. However, in e-mail messages to us, you, Bishop Gregory, have declared “…there are no strange or erroneous teachings in Fr. Bulatovich's books.” So, I ask you, whom should we believe; whom should we heed? You, or Patriarch Tikhon and his hierarchs?
And please don’t attempt to use purported post-revolutionary concelebrations to refute the statements made above. Why should we be compelled to accept such concelebrations as proof that the Church supposedly relented and retracted its demands? Perhaps the opposite is true, and the name-worshippers repented? (Why cannot their apologists even entertain such a thought?) Perhaps after the name-worshippers demonstrated a certain degree of humility and obedience, the Church showed them condescension, as in the days of Saint Cyprian of Carthage? As long as the persecutions were in abeyance, Saint Cyprian demanded that the lapsed fulfill the strict epitimia which had been laid upon them. But when the persecutions were renewed, he urged that ‘weapons’ be put into the hands of those willing to struggle in the front ranks for Christ, and so he ordered that the lapsed be accepted back into the Church and allowed to receive Holy Communion. Perhaps something similar took place within the Russian Church after the Revolution and the Bolsheviks persecutions. As I said before, we may never know…
Despota, you sometimes make sweeping statements or categorical declarations, and then later seem surprised or offended when people draw the obvious, logical conclusions. For example, you have told many of us that the councils and synods which condemned the name-worshippers were “heretical” (your choice of words). Well, heretical councils, which make heretical pronouncements, are convoked and attended by… heretics! And those who promulgate, disseminate, and support the teachings of such heretical councils are themselves considered by the Church likewise to be heretics.
So, the inescapable conclusion is that (according to you) Proto-New-Hieromartyr Vladimir of Kiev (head of the Holy Synod during the name-worshipping controversy), New Confessor Metropolitan Agathangel of Yaroslavl, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, Metropolitan Anastasy Gribanovsky (who, as a vicar bishop of Moscow, also signed the proceedings against the name-worshippers), and all the members of the Holy Synod, the hierarchs in communion with them, and all those who supported the synodal condemnation, including Holy Patriarch Tikhon — are heretics too. (God forbid!)
And remember what Saint John Chrysostom has taught us: Even the blood of martyrdom does not wash away the sin of schism and heresy!
*********************************************
You and Metropolitan Ephraim also chose to ignore another very important point in the epistle: “…promising to follow exactly the Orthodox Church and to be obedient to the God-established Hierarchy.” The “God-established hierarchy” mentioned there was not some abstract, faultless, future hierarchy of the name-worshippers’ own choosing, but the flesh-and-blood members of the Holy Synod and the local hierarchs appointed by them. (Certainly that is how Patriarch Tikhon and his synod understood the phrase.) And that is precisely what Fr. Anthony Bulatovich and his followers categorically refused to do. Thus, they themselves negated the conditions of the epistle under which they could have been received back into the Church. Moreover, they publicly declared their “secession from any spiritual communion with the ecclesiastical authorities”.
When I pointed that fact out to you during our discussion, you excitedly exclaimed two or three times: “Yes, but what sort of hierarchs were they?! They were blasphemers of the Holy Spirit!” (Again, your choice of words.) I was shocked and dismayed to hear you utter such a thing.
So let me ask you concerning those same venerable hierarchs of the Russian Church whom I listed above:
— Did they ever comprehend or acknowledge themselves to be ‘blasphemers of the Holy Spirit’? (No.)
— Did they ever “repent” of blaspheming the Holy Spirit? (No.)
— Do you recall what awful words our Saviour said of those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit?...
And, according to the teaching of the Church, what are the Mysteries performed by heretics and blasphemers?!
So where does that leave us, the direct spiritual heirs of those same hierarchs, from whom proceed the grace of all our Mysteries and ordinations — including your very own?
You profess to have a devotion for Metropolitan Philaret, the New Confessor. Well, I can tell you very well what he would have to say to you concerning Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky and name-worshipping!
Despota, you may consider it unkind of me, or even unfair, to put you on the spot now, but here too, as with the name-worshipping controversy, it is you yourself who have forced the issue. The faithful will “connect the dots”, even if you do not wish to do so yourself. And since, as the Church rightly teaches, the faith of the bishop is the faith of the flock, then the faithful have every right and duty to inquire into the faith of their hierarch.
So, to make very certain that I have not misunderstood you, I am compelled to ask you point blank:
Do you consider yourself to be a bishop and the spiritual heir of the above-mentioned hierarchs of blessed memory, or not?
More importantly, are those hierarchs heretics and blasphemers, or not?
That last question, Despota, requires — nay, demands — a simple answer: “Yes” or “No”. Please do not equivocate or qualify your reply.
If “Yes”, they are heretics and blasphemers in your eyes, then I thank you for your frankness, but I obviously cannot have anything more to do with you as a bishop.
If “No”, you do not consider them to be heretics and blasphemers, then I will rejoice greatly to hear you state it unambiguously and unreservedly. However, to fully convince the faithful, you will obviously need to publicly retract your previous statements in which you have indeed declared them to be heretics and blasphemers, or, at least, you have left that definite impression. Please find the strength and humility to do so.
If not, then I have to be honest and tell you that I (and many others) will find it very difficult to continue to recognize you as the direct spiritual heir of those blessed hierarchs (which you are, willy-nilly, at least by ordination), or to treat you as one of our bishops, lest by doing so we be found to have betrayed our spiritual forefathers. May it never be!
Forgive me. May the Lord forgive, guide and save us all. Amen!
O Kyrios! Fr. Nicholas Holy Transfiguration Monastery
P.S. If I did not care deeply for you and your salvation, and for our Church, I would never have labored to compose the above letter. I am your genuine well-wisher. FN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)