SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

DIscussion and News concerning Orthodox Churches in communion with those who have fallen into the heresies of Ecumenism, Renovationism, Sergianism, and Modernism, or those Traditional Orthodox Churches who are now involved with Name-Worshiping, or vagante jurisdictions. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Post Reply
d9popov
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri 9 June 2017 8:29 pm

SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

Post by d9popov »

SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

Everyone agrees that we should avoid the heresy of name-worshipping. I believe that as much as anyone. However, we need to follow the Holy Fathers who teach that we always need to precisely define heresies and precisely define orthodoxy. The Holy Fathers use the term “horos,” which means “definition,” to refer to a decree on what is orthodox and what is heresy. Following the Holy Fathers, we need to be precise, expecially on Orthodox doctrine and heretical doctrine. Saint Tikhon the Confessor, the Patriarch of Moscow, gave a definition of the heresy of name-worshipping. Everyone should be aware of this four-point definition of the heresy:

  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 the letters, sounds, and random or accidental thoughts about God are to be deified or used for magical purposes. (Saint Tikhon of Moscow, Рождественское посланіе [Nativity Epistle] (no. 3244; February 19, 1921), Russian in Evgeny Semenovich Polishchuk, ed., Имяславие: Антология [Name-Glorification: An Anthology] (Moscow: Факториал Пресс, 2002).

Point 4 is key: it is heretical to deify human letters, human sounds, and human thoughts. A human name for God (written, spoken, or thought) is not God, not deity, not uncreated, not God’s energy, not God, not God Himself. It is heretical to give divine-worship (latreia) to any created name for God. This definition of the heresy of name-worship is something that we can all agree on and refer back to when there is confusion.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

Post by Maria »

Per the Kallinikite monks and theologians who have recently left HOCNA, HOCNA has been teaching a new version of Name-Worshiping:

  1. That the Name of God is not His Essence, but it is God's Energies.

  2. That the Name of God is uncreated. Thus, those of Latin American or Hispanic heritage, who have taken the name Jesus, Jesse, or Jessica during Baptism would be in serious error because they been given an uncreated sacred name.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

Post by Maria »

d9popov wrote:

SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

Everyone agrees that we should avoid the heresy of name-worshipping. I believe that as much as anyone. However, we need to follow the Holy Fathers who teach that we always need to precisely define heresies and precisely define orthodoxy. The Holy Fathers use the term “horos,” which means “definition,” to refer to a decree on what is orthodox and what is heresy. Following the Holy Fathers, we need to be precise, expecially on Orthodox doctrine and heretical doctrine. Saint Tikhon the Confessor, the Patriarch of Moscow, gave a definition of the heresy of name-worshipping. Everyone should be aware of this four-point definition of the heresy:

  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 the letters, sounds, and random or accidental thoughts about God are to be deified or used for magical purposes. (Saint Tikhon of Moscow, Рождественское посланіе [Nativity Epistle] (no. 3244; February 19, 1921), Russian in Evgeny Semenovich Polishchuk, ed., Имяславие: Антология [Name-Glorification: An Anthology] (Moscow: Факториал Пресс, 2002).

Point 4 is key: it is heretical to deify human letters, human sounds, and human thoughts. A human name for God (written, spoken, or thought) is not God, not deity, not uncreated, not God’s energy, not God, not God Himself. It is heretical to give divine-worship (latreia) to any created name for God. This definition of the heresy of name-worship is something that we can all agree on and refer back to when there is confusion.

Dear d9popov,

Are you using the name Diakrisis Dogmaton at NFTU?

If so, please affirm that you wrote the post below at NFTU.

Diakrisis Dogmaton wrote:

Metropolitan Ephraim, June 6/19, 2012: “if anybody (including Father Anthony Bulatovich) is guilty of … Deifying letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God, … then he is certainly guilty of heresy.” HOCNA Synod of Bishops, August 29/September 11, 2012: “Our Holy Synod endorses and espouses the theological solution to the controversy surrounding the Name of God found in the following Encyclical of Saint Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow ‘… not to deify letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God.’ ” HOCNA Synod of Bishops, September 5/18, 2012: “We do not believe … That letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God are to be deified.” HOCNA Synod of Bishops, September 27/October 10, 2012: “Orthodox Christians believe: … That created letters, sounds, and random or accidental thoughts about God must not be deified.” Bishop Gregory of Brookline, October 7/20, 2012: “When this Name is articulated in human words, it, of course, is not the Energy of God, but rather, it has the same holiness as an icon, and we may say that God’s Energy is present in this created (sacred) word.” Excerpts from Serge Verhovskoy, distributed by Metropolitan Ephraim, November 28, 2012: “The identification of a Name of God, as a [created] word, with God Himself is a heresy which was condemned by the Russian Holy Synod in the twentieth century. But God Himself can dwell and act in it.” HOCNA Synod of Bishops, 2017: “because human language is created and temporal, being a part of this world, the created names of God (that is, the words and concepts we use to express His uncreated Name) are not His Energy and therefore must not be deified. Rather, the created names of God are verbal icons in which Divine Grace dwells, without however being God Himself. By venerating (but by no means rendering absolute worship to) these names, we reverence them because of the eternal Truth about God contained in them.”

Has HOCNA changed its teachings on Name-Worshiping?
Look again at the phrase above, which is bolded in blue.

Since HOCNA continues to use phrases such as "His uncreated Name,"
it is apparent that HOCNA still preaches a form of Name-Worshiping.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri 9 June 2017 8:29 pm

Re: SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

Post by d9popov »

HOCNA HAS ALWAYS CONDEMNED CREATED-NAME-DEIFICATION

HOCNA has not changed its teaching on the veneration of God’s name or on the condemned heresy of created-name-deification or the condemned heresy of created-name-adoration. From the first statement (June 2012) to the most recent statement (November 2017), HOCNA has been consistent in condemning the heresy of name-worship. On June 6/19, 2012, Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston, published this statement: “if anybody (including Father Anthony Bulatovich) is guilty of … Deifying letters, sounds and random/accidental thoughts about God, … then he is certainly guilty of heresy. If he does not actually advocate such teachings [the four errors listed by Saint Tikhon], then it only seems fair to say that he is not guilty of heresy.” Please note that claiming that a created name consisting of letters and sounds is an uncreated energy of God would be a form of deifying letters and sounds, because all Orthodox accept Saint Gregory Palamas’s teaching that “every power or energy [of God] is God Himself.” To say a created name is “not God” is the same as saying a created name is “not God’s energy,” because God’s energies are God. Therefore, logically, Metropolitan Ephraim is clearly rejecting the heretical notion that a created name can be an uncreated energy. On November 7/20, 2017, Metropolitan Gregory of Boston, made the following statement in a public interview for an international audience: “Not only letters and sounds, but also human ideas and thoughts, that is, everything which created words consist of, are not God. To deify them is to fall into pantheism. We have always condemned this false teaching and will continue to condemn it, both in writing and verbally. This is what ‘Name-worshiping’ is. Of course this is a heresy, and we have never had anything to do with this teaching.… As regards the historical Athonite controversy concerning the Name of God, we as the local Church in North America (and not at all the local Russian Church), have no intention of meddling in this or resolving it, adhering in this to the position of the Most Holy Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow,..., which at this time canonically represents the last word expressed by the Russian Church on this question, until its careful and unbiased future examination by a legitimate Council. All our current theological views proceed from theses set forth in this document [by Saint Tikhon in 1921].…. The prerogative of finally resolving the ‘Athonite affair,’ in our opinion, belongs to a future legitimate Council of the Russian Church, the successor of the All-Russian Council of 1917–18, which was to have taken up this matter, but was not able to because of the civil war and troubles which began in Russia. But to confess and adhere to the teaching of the Holy Fathers on this or on any other theological question—that is not only our business, but simply our duty! I will personally add, that if anyone intentionally or even due to ignorance and lack of education, during the events of the beginning of the last century on Athos, fell into the error of ‘Name-worshiping,’ that is, pantheism, then of course we condemn this.”

Concerning the phrase “uncreated name”: it was not originated by HOCNA, but is a paraphrase of Saint Clement of Rome’s words “archegonos tes pases ktiseos onoma” (literally, "origin-of-all-creation name" or “author-of-all-creation name”). In context, which I cannot discuss now, Saint Clement of Rome was referring to something completely different from human names for God. Let me just say now that Saint Clement of Rome was taught by the apostles and is a great Church Father and there is a correct, contextual interpretation of his words that is Orthodox. He was not a heretic. Surely, when HOCNA (1) clearly, precisely, and repeatedly condemns the heresy of created-name-adoration, and (2) quotes and defends saints like Saint Clement of Rome — HOCNA cannot be fairly condemned for heresy. Rather, HOCNA has condemned the heresy in question numerous times. Moreover, when condemning the heresy of name-worship, HOCNA has used the exact words of the Fathers, from Saint Clement of Rome (AD 96) to Saint Tikhon of Moscow (1921). It is not heretical to quote the Fathers. To repeat: In all its numerous statements on the name-of-God controversy, HOCNA has rejected as heresy the idea that a created name can be a divine energy, uncreated, deity, God, or God Himself. HOCNA has also always also rejected the condemned heresy that would permit divine-worship given to created names. In fact, HOCNA has been at the forefront of condemning these heresies with numerous statements quoting the exact words of the Fathers, consistently over the past five years.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

The new Name-Worshipers now known as Name-Glorifiers

Post by Maria »

Dear d9popov,

I am quoting from a prior post of mine to show that HOCNA and you are deliberately using theological language to confuse laity who have not studied theology. Note that I have studied theology at the university level and I know the diabolical trick you are using.

HOCNA, ever since breaking away in schism from ROCOR in 1985 to avoid an ecclesiastical sexual misconduct trial of the defrocked Elder Panteleimon, has been boldly proclaiming and teaching two heresies: that of Name-Worshiping (which they now refer to as Name-Glorifying), and that of Awake Sleeper.

Further obscuring the situation, in 1985, HOCNA accused the ROCOR of ecumenism, but that was a paltry excuse to break away in schism from ROCOR because (1) in 1983, the ROCOR Synod had officially condemned ecumenism; and (2) only a few of the ROCOR hierarchs were notoriously ecumenists, especially the notorious Anthony of Geneva.

Maria wrote:
Andrei C. wrote:

There is too much philosophy when people talk about imyaslavie. This question is actual only in order to find out if the russian synodal decision of 1913 did condemn a heresy or did it condemn Orthodoxy. In any other context this discussion is useless, if not harmfull.

So, we are in a situation in which one calls different teaching with the same name. After studying the documents of 1908-1917 period, we can say there are 3 teaching regarding this subject:

  1. Imyabozhie (Name-worshipping) - which says that name of God is God Himself, or that the Grace of God is inherent even to its letters [этим звукам и буквам присуща благодать Божия - see "The apology of the belief in the name of God and in the name Jesus", by Anthony Bulatovich, one of the condemned monks], or that the name of God is a divine revelation, divine energy and a deity [see The address of the confessors of the name of God to the court of the Holy Council]. The council of 1913 condemned this teaching [see here]. The Name-worshippers actually call themselves imyaslavtsy, ie Name-glorifiers, that's where the confusion comes from.
  2. Imyaslavie (Name-glorifying) - is the teaching which says that we glorify the name of God. It can be found in the Psalms and even in the morning and evening prayers.
  3. Imyaborchestvo (Name-fighting) - is a extreme movement against the Imyabozhie, which says that the name of God is nothing different than any other name. I haven't seen nowadays anybody to share this teaching, that's why this term really seems to be oboslete.

Let us try to analyze documents which have been in the core of the dispute, in order to make a correct conclusion.

Please be careful, as I know there are problems with translations. However, my answer below is not meant as a detailed theological discussion.

  1. Imyabozhie (Name-worshipping) is a term wrongfully used by the imyaslavie to confuse the issue. Whether this heresy is called Name-worshiping or Name-glorifying, it is the same. We can neither say that the Name of God is God in His Essence nor God in His Divine Energies. The Holy name of Jesus is not God, nor God in His Divine Energies. This name of Jesus is not divine otherwise those with the name of Jesse or Jesus (in Hispanic countries) would be dead as that would be considered blasphemous. We do not worship the name of God, but we worship and adore Christ our God and Savior. When we read that "at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow," we are to bow down and worship Jesus Christ as His name represents God, but His very name is not God, nor does saying this name possess magical powers. However, if we invoke the name of Jesus in our prayers, then we are addressing God (not His name).

If we were truly concerned about the name of God, then we would not even spell out the name of God as do the Judaizers or Messianic Jews who write or type G-d, or L-rd, or use another name for Christ.

  1. The imyaslavie or Name-Glorifying teach that the Name of God is His Divine Energy and they misappropriate the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Tikhon to validate their own errors.

  2. Imyaborchestvo (Name-fighting) is a term used to confuse the issue and wrongfully claims that those who are teaching the truth are fighting God.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: SAINT TIKHON’S DEFINITION OF THE HERESY OF NAME-WORSHIP

Post by Maria »

Dear d9popov, Diakrisis Dogmaton, and Thomas S. Deretich,

I have been carefully following your posts at NFTU, at Paradosis, on HOCNA's websites, and here at E Cafe.

Holy Orthodoxy is conciliar. St. Clement of Rome did not comprise an Ecumenical Council, nor did St. Gregory of Palamas, and the other Church Fathers. While the individual writings of the Holy Church Fathers are extremely important, they are not a matter of faith, nor do they hold the same weight as the teachings (canons) of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, which Orthodox Christians are to hold as infallible.

Within Holy Orthodoxy, theologians are those who humble themselves before God and who pray constantly to God. Their knowledge comes from God, not from reading and citing proof texts as do the Protestants and Roman Catholics scholars. As I read your writings and those of Met. Ephraim and Met. Gregory, I notice more and more proof texts from our saints being used to support your thesis of Name-Glorification. Why do we need new teachings when we have all that is necessary for our salvation? What new doctrines do we need when Christ has given us the unchanging faith? Even if an angel of the Lord were to come to us and present us with new teachings, we are told to shun him. The devil does appear as an angel of light to deceive even the elect, but we must resist him firm in the Faith.

Why are men such as the schismatics Thomas S. Deretich, Met. Ephraim, and Met. Gregory of HOCNA, and Met. Kirykos of the Matthewites so obsessed with new teachings? This is not of God because these new ungodly teachings will only lead to deeper schisms and dissensions.

Know that I am praying for you.

In Christ,
Maria

Administrator

p.s. New ungodly teachings can destroy the souls of men. This is why schisms are serious sins.
cf. https://www.slideshare.net/SpyridonVoyk ... s-stavros1

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Post Reply