Deposition of Fr Gregory (Lourie) of St Petersburg

[尼古拉前执事]

Hierarchical Synod Meets, Investigates Fr Gregory (Lourie)

(NFTU: Suzdal, 7/24/2005) The Hierarchical Synod of the ROAC met on July 20 after the third meeting of ROAC's theological commission changed course. Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, First-Hierarch of the ROAC, and catacomb Archbishop Anthony of Vyatkinsk and Yaransk were both present and the commission changed a number of requests, such as the inclusion of Fr Gregory (Lourie) for commission membership, according to the Russian Edition of Vertograd.

Both of the American priests slated for inclusion in the theological commission distanced themselves from the commission, citing both the commission membership and the lack of notification of their inclusion.

After the commission meeting, the Hierarchical Synod met and established a new fact-finding commission to investigate charges that Father Gregory (Lourie) is involved in heretical activities as well as a "suicide club" on the Internet. Heading the new fact-finding commission is Archbishop Anthony. They are given the difficult task of completing their investigation and presenting a report to the Synod by August 19.

The full text of the Ukaz is available below in English and in Russian.

Text of Ukaz No 61, 20 July 2005

No. 61
July 20, 2005

Ukaz

According to the decision of the Hierarchical Synod Protocol No. 51 dated July 20, 2005, it was decided to create a fact-finding commission concerning the matter of Fr Gregory (Lourie) and about his destructive activities over the Internet, in his Suicide Club, his dissemination of the heresy of Name-Worshipping and spreading of the teaching of Hieromonk Antony Bulatovich.

Included in the makeup of the commission: Archbishop Anthony (President), Archbishop Seraphim, Archimandrite Yakov (Antonov), Prot. Michael Ardov, Prot. Arcady Makovetsky, Prot. Nikolai Khristov, Prot. Valery Eltsov and Priest Alexey Lebedev.

A report informing the Synod of Bishops must be made within one month of the publication of this Ukaz.

Valentine
Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir

Указ № 61, 20 Июля 2005г.

Суздальское Епархиалное Управление
УПРАВЛЯЮЩИЙ ЕПАРХИЕЙ

№ 61
20 июля 2005г.

УКАЗ

Согласно постановлению Архиерейского Синода Российской Правоспавной Церкви за № 51 от 20 июля 2005г. назначат следственную Коммисию по делу о. Григориа (Лурье) о его пагубной деятелности в интернете, в клубе самоубийц, распространении ереси "Имябожников" и Муссирование лжечения ереси схииеромонах Антония Булатовича.

Создат и включить в состав Комиссии: Архиепископа Антониа (Председатель), Архиепископа Серафима, Архимандрита Иакова (Антонова), прот. о. Михаила Ардова, прот. о. Валериа Ельцова и иереи о. Алексея Лебедева.

О резултатах сообщить рапортом на имя Архиерейского Синода в течение месяца с подписаниа сего Указа.

Валентин
Митрополит Суздалский и Владимирский.

[尼古拉前执事]

(Suzdal - 09.08.2005) The decisions of the Hierarchical Synod of the
Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, which met on September 5, 2005, were
released in parts today to media and administration centers in
Russia and
North America, numbered Protocol #52, September 5, 2005. The decisions
include the deposition of Fr Gregory (Lourie) of St Petersburg and the
elevation of Bishop Hilarion of Smeli to the rank of Archbishop.

The majority of the text answers objections made by Fr Gregory and his
defenders in ten different letters sent within days of Fr Gregory's
official
notification of suspension two weeks ago. The argument is centered
around
whether Imyaslavie ("name-worshipping") was formally condemned as a
heresy
by the Russian Orthodox Church. After an analysis of the legality of a
condemnation of an individual publicly preaching such a position, the
document shifts to the question of Fr Gregory's activity over the
Internet
and work with suicidal adolescents. A large number of arguments
favoring the
deposition of Fr Gregory on the part of Bishops and priests of the
ROAC who
comprised the commission to study the question of deposing the
cleric then
follow.

The Synod decided to depose Fr Gregory from the priesthood, leaving
him a
simple monk. For her part in the events following the suspension,
Nun Martha
(Senina)-- a novice nun in St Petersburg who wrote a scathing letter
to the
Synod of Bishops in Fr Gregory's defense-- was banned from communion
for no
less than a year and ordered to remove her monastic garments during
a period
of examination. Hegumen Theophan (Areskin), who was involved earlier
in the
controversy but has since retreated from such a defense, was given a
stern
warning that future involvement in such controversies would lead to
deposition from the priesthood. Similar warnings were given to the
laypeople
involved.

The Synod then commended the work of Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhimi,
Bishop
Hilarion of Smeli and T.G. Beltchev, a pious laywoman from
Switzerland, for
their dilligence in restoring the Uspensky Temple as well as the
Tsar-Constantine Cathedral.

After this, the Synod lamented the lack of support for the Suzdal
Diocesan
Administration on the part of the parishes, with Archbishop Theodore of
Otradnoe and Borisovsk noting that he had to ask addressees for postage
money to send out mailings.

The next item on the agenda was a request by Bishop Irinarch to
choose the
occasion of Bishop Hilarion of Smeli's 80th birthday to raise him to the
rank of Archbishop. This was accepted by the Synod with the typical
three-fold proclamation of worthiness. Afterward a request on the
part of a
parish in Bulgaria for 15000Euro for building their parish house was
examined, and the Synod expressed regret that it could not procure
the funds
needed. A request by Bp Ambrose to be retired without fault was
investigated
by the Synod and it was determined to be examined at the next session.

An official English translation of the protocol is forthcoming. NFTU

--
Posted by J.S. to Notes From the Underground at 9/08/2005 05:09:00 PM

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I had heard from someone in our local parish that the original "name-worshipping" was more a polical condemnation than anything else - that the original "name-worshippers" were not really "name-worshippers" at all.

Therefore, it was thought that maybe Gregory Lourie was not actually defending "name-worshipping", but was defending the idea that the whole matter was political.

Anybody have any thoughts on that?

[Nathaniel Kapner]

Dear Orthodoxy or Death,

The origination of the 'name-worhipping' heresy is outlined at length in Priest Polsky's famous "New Martyrs of Russia." It is in section 2 of this book. It was indeed a religious (not at all political) heresy that began in the latter 18th century by a monastic and was soon condemned by a Synodal Council. More specifics later.

With respect to Lourie, no, he never once promulgated this heresy as a 'political' issue. (I was in ROAC/Valentine for 2 years and followed the controversy)

Your brother for Christ's Holy Orthodox Church,

Sbn Nathaniel Kapner

[Nathaniel Kapner]

Dear Orthodoxy or Death,

I have Polsky's "New Martyrs" in front of me on page 259:

"The heresy began in 1913 on Athos. A schema monk Hilarion from the Caucasas published a book that "God Himself is contained in the NAME Jesus." The athos monks were divided.

The book was given to the Patriarch Of Constple who condemned it and expelled all from the church who taught it.

It was then given to the Russian Synod and they condemned it."
See book for the rest.

If you have further inquiries, I would suggest that you contact Vladimir Moss the renown Orthodox historian and scholar for all of the details of the heresy and Louries particular teachings and modern day revival of the early 20 th century heresy.

Your brother, ready to die for Holy Orthodoxy,

Sbn Nathaniel Kapner

[famulus]

is the problem with God's Name. God's energies, like the Tavor Light

[Suaidan]

I had heard from someone in our local parish that the original "name-worshipping" was more a polical condemnation than anything else - that the original "name-worshippers" were not really "name-worshippers" at all.

Therefore, it was thought that maybe Gregory Lourie was not actually defending "name-worshipping", but was defending the idea that the whole matter was political.

Anybody have any thoughts on that?

Monk Gregory was defending anything that caused chaos in Russian Orthodox society, starting with the ecclesiological (name-worshipping) and ending with the social (blessing of suicides, disparaging marriage and leaving people to lead lives of sin as single people, et cetera). I don't know how much he can actually claim to be a heretic (I am under the impression that he is not particularly attached to any of these ideas he presents) so much as it seems he just wants to manipulate these items as a way of gaining and then isolating followers from the rest of the Orthodox (much in the same way Fr Panteleimon used True Orthodoxy to isolate his followers from the rest of ROCOR).

I believe he is --to put it REALLY NICELY-- deeply disturbed, and causes similar effects in his followers and those who fight him long term. He uses whatever secular means at his disposal to gain "ecclesiastical" goals. Yesterday, due to the fact that it seems he, through connections, has total earthly control of our situation here in Russia, and that our life is about to become much worse, I completely despaired.

Yet now, I wait. God has to improve this situation somehow-- our efforts can only go so far, and they have not gone far at all.