Dialogue
– 1a
Dear Fr. Gregory,
You write:
“I am in complete agreement with your proposed
conditions for dialogue. The one thing I cannot promise is to reply too quickly.
The reason for this, apart from various matters, may prove to be my trip to
Suzdal, planned for the immediate future. I do have one request for you (on
which I am by no means able to insist). Inasmuch as you will be the one asking
questions (at least in the beginning), I would request that you provide your
version of a response with every question.”
Do not hurry, dear Father. I will not hurry, either.
And, of course, I do not claim to be the only one permitted to pose questions.
This, after all, is a dialogue, not an interrogation. And the goal of the dialogue
is not to try to catch each other on various errors, absurdities, and heresies,
but to try peacefully and dispassionately to determine the truth and, if possible,
to reach a common position.
Thus, let us now move to the first category of
topics: imiaslavie [name-praising]
and imiabozhie [name-worshipping].
My first question is: What is your attitude towards
the condemnation of imiaslavie, i.e.,
the teaching that the Name of God is God Himself, pronounced by the Holy Kinot
[Council] of the Holy Mountain, by Patriarch Germanos of Constantinople and
the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and by the Most Holy Synod
of the Russian Church?
I have in mind:
1.
The condemnation of imiaslavie pronounced by the Holy Kinot
of the Holy Mountain (February 2, 1913). The Holy Kinot subjected to suspension
the leaders of the imiaslavtsy, Hieroschemamonk
Antonii Bulatovich and Archimandrite David, “as ill-praisers,” and simultaneously
excommunicated the entire St. Andrew’s Skete.
2. The agreement of Patriarch Germanos V of Constantinople
and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the decision of
the Holy Kinot of Mount Athos (April 5, 1913). “If, even after this second ecclesiastical
reprimand, there will be found someone maintaining the ill-praising opinion
who of his own volition continues to uphold this unfounded teaching about the
name ‘Jesus’ as the Being of God Himself, such shall be subject to measures
defined by the ecclesiastic canons, as heretics and disturbers of ecclesiastical
confession.”
3. The subscription of the Russian Most Holy Synod
to the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. “For the sake of attaining the
greatest possible impartiality, the Most Holy Synod heard three reports compiled
independently from one another and, upon sufficient deliberation, unanimously
subscribed to the final conclusion of these reports; moreover these conclusions
correspond wholly to the decisions of the Greek theologians from the Island
of Halki, as well as to the decision of the Holy Ecumenical Patriarch and his
synod... The Name of God is only a name, and not God Himself and not His attribute;
it is the name of an object, and not the object itself, and therefore cannot
be either considered or called God, which would be senseless and blasphemous,
nor Divine, because it is also not God’s energy.”
4. Definition number 7644 of the Russian Holy
Synod (August 27, 1913), which conferred to the heretics the title of “imiabozhniki”; the monastic rank of all
imiabozhniki is not recognized until their
whole-hearted repentance.
5. The subscription of Patriarch Germanos to the
measures taken by the Higher Russian Ecclesiastical authority against the imiabozhniki (Epistle of December 11, 1913).
6. The Statement of the Russian Most Holy Synod
of March 10-24, 1914, number 4136, “regarding Hieroschemamonk Antonii (Bulatovich)
and Archimandrite David, to hold individual judgment.” It was permitted for
their followers to stay in the monastery, but “to avoid any possible misunderstandings,
to charge the Synodal office and Bishop Modest to bring the admonished monks
to the realization that the teachings of the imiabozhniki, ascribed to Antonii (Bulatovich)
and his followers, are condemned by the Most Holy Synod of the Russian Church
and that, by showing lenience to the weaknesses of the errant, the Holy Synod
does not amend its previous judgment about the error itself.”
7. Definition number 2620 of the Russian Most
Holy Synod from March 1916, confirming the fundamental rule that all imiabozhniki are excluded not only from
conducting Church sacraments, but also from participating in these until repentance.
8. The confirmation of the pre-revolutionary decisions
and depositions of the imiabozhniki
by His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon (October 21, 1918).
The reply of Hieromonk Gregory