Thomas Deretich and Name-Worshipping

[Bruder Klaus]

Imiaslavie is a complex topic and if HOCNA teaches a heretical version of it, is difficult to say. You come out and call them heretics. That's quite an accusation and I would be careful with throwing that out easily.

If I go too far then I must apologise, but as far as everything I know I cannot accept them unless they condemn it. The fathers rejected not only those who themselves taught heresy, but also those who tolerate it.

He's not throwing it out easily. It was condemned by the Russian Synod in 1913, in ROAC again in 2005, and GOC-K spoke out against it in 2014. My Synod condemned it as well a couple of years later. Imyaslavie comes back at this point because of HTM/Luriyite fan fiction of it being part of True Orthodoxy and it's a disgusting lie.

Having known people who had their lives threatened for standing up to it, I would be very careful if I were you trying to promote that as Orthodoxy on this forum.

I take your word for it as far as details go, Father, as I did not check that. I merely go by the fact that I see some HTM people promoting it although I heard that Rdr. Sava said at least some of them do not believe it, which I presume makes it not officially accepted doctrine.

To me it is good enough to see how the Holy Fathers reacted to those who rejected iconoclasm but nevertheless communed with iconoclasts. I forget the saint's name now--this seems to be a theme--but one of them communed with bishops who pronounced anathema with their lips only before him, and afterwards repented of his sin, having known who they were under.

It doesn't matter if something called imiaslavie was condemned. If you don't define it, you cannot claim that HOCNA holds to it.

[Bruder Klaus]

Again, I know that there is something called imiaslavie that was condemned. Nowhere was HOCNA condemned 100 years ago (it didn't exist) and again, give me the receipts that they hold to what was condemned. I'm open to be convinced. But it seems like everyone is just repeating what someone else said. Most people don't even know what was condemned nor what HOCNA holds doctrinally.

[eish]

Nowhere was HOCNA condemned 100 years ago (it didn't exist) and again, give me the receipts that they hold to what was condemned.

I think we're talking past each other here. All they need to do is accept the synodal decisions. If they say that what they hold is not what was condemned, then they can surely do so.

However what they do is not that. What they do is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy. They claim what they hold was not what was condemned, but claim also that the condemnation is unjust toward them.

I need not understand the full implications of the condemned heresy. The details are difficult for my unenlightened mind. What I can easily see is how they respond to the synodal decision, which is that they do not argue in faithful obedience to the Church. I can see that from the very article quoted in the video.

Again, if what is being held is not what was condemned, then they can accept the decision. The article argues against the decision. So we are here.

I'm aware that the Divine Names mean different things in patristic writing such as St. Dionysius. And again, if that is what they mean, then they can accept the decision. If the Name-Worshippers were being misunderstood a century ago, as Thomas insists, they could have spared themselves an awful lot of trouble by just accepting the synodal decision.

[Suaidan]

But it seems like everyone is just repeating what someone else said.

That's how tradition works sometimes-- we repeat what we were taught.

Most people don't even know what was condemned nor what HOCNA holds doctrinally.

That's because they purposely speak in an unclear fashion. But when you break it down, they reject the 1913 decision.

[Suaidan]

I'm aware that the Divine Names mean different things in patristic writing such as St. Dionysius. And again, if that is what they mean, then they can accept the decision. If the Name-Worshippers were being misunderstood a century ago, as Thomas insists, they could have spared themselves an awful lot of trouble by just accepting the synodal decision.

Most importantly, that was what the 1914 decision was for, as many repented of their error and accepted the 1913 decision. The fact that people want to resurrect this heresy and pretend they're defending St Gregory (as though the Russian Church were attacking him, which they were not) is risible.

Most of the leaders of the Imyaslavie movement know what they're doing-- establishing a heretical cult.

[Bruder Klaus]

But it seems like everyone is just repeating what someone else said.

That's how tradition works sometimes-- we repeat what we were taught.

Most people don't even know what was condemned nor what HOCNA holds doctrinally.

That's because they purposely speak in an unclear fashion. But when you break it down, they reject the 1913 decision.

Yes, that is a serious problem. I agree.

[Barbara]

Bruder Klaus, tell us what that painting of the battle scene is [if you haven't already] ?