Heresy on Mt. Athos -- conflict over the name of God among Russian monks and hierarchs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE................................................................................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 2

1. A BOOK AND ITS CRITICS.............................................................................................. 8

2. DEFENDER OF THE FAITH OR HERESIARCH.............................................................. 26

3. IMYASLAVTSY VICTORIOUS........................................................................................ 45

4. IMYASLAVTSY UNDER SIEGE....................................................................................... 60

5. THE RUSSIAN CHURCH'S DECISION........................................................................... 69

6. MANU MILITARI.............................................................................................................. 86

7. THE PEN SUPPLEMENTS THE SWORD........................................................................ 102

8. TRUCE............................................................................................................................... 119

9. NAME AS SACRAMENT................................................................................................. 130

EPILOGUE............................................................................................................................ 143

INTRODUCTION

The Historical Setting

On July 3, 1913 some four hundred monks of the Athonite monastery of St. Panteleimon fled to one of their dormitory buildings and set to work barricading the entrances with bed boards.Bayoneted rifles in hand, sailors of the Russian Imperial Navy surrounded the building while their officers exhorted the unarmed monks to give up peacefully.To no avail.Prepared for martyrdom but hoping in God's help, the monks sang, prayed, did prostrations, and took up icons and crosses to defend themselves.Finally the trumpet rang out with the command to "shoot," and the calm of the Holy Mountain was rent by the roar ... not of firearms, but of fire hoses.After an hour-long "cold shower" dampened the monks' spirits, the sailors rushed the building and began to drag recalcitrant devotees of the contemplative life out of the corridors.

These events took place on a narrow peninsula in northern Greece some forty miles long by five miles wide, named "Mt. Athos" after the 6,000 foot mountain towering over the end of it.Since the tenth century this stretch of land has been set aside for the exclusive use of Eastern Orthodox monks, a status instituted by the Byzantine Empire and maintained by the Turks after they conquered it in 1453.Though located in Greece it eventually became an international center for Orthodox monasticism, and the nineteenth century saw such a mass immigration of Russians that by the beginning of the twentieth the mountain was really more Russian than Greek.That situation was not to last long, and the events narrated above marked the beginning of the end.In 1913 the Russian government forcibly expelled more than eight hundred of its own citizens from Mt. Athos, and these were followed in succeeding months by as many as one thousand more who would have been expelled had they not left voluntarily.

Their crime:disagreeing with the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in a controversy about the phrase "The name of God is God himself".The Synod's show of force was intended to end the debate and extort at least tacit agreement from its opponent -- but it accomplished neither.Rather, it was but one of many turning points in a long theological dispute whose course was more often determined by politics and personal grudges than by theology.The history of this controversy is a fascinating one in its own right, but at the same time it provides insight into the inner workings of the Russian Orthodox Church.This practical value of that knowledge should not be underestimated -- the Russian church at that time was no different from the other Orthodox churches, and the Orthodox churches of today do not operate any differently. Today's Orthodox hierarchs don't have armies at their command, but they and their willing minions often use what power they do possess in the same way as their predecessors described in these pages.Besides that, this is an excellent illustration of how the Eastern Orthodox Church has always resolved -- or failed to resolve -- its theological issues.And last but not least, the debate reproduced herein can help clarify the Orthodox understanding of an issue fundamentally important for Christian theology.

The Theological Background

In the Old Testament the word we translate "name" is closely related to the one we translate "soul," and both mean something quite different from their common English usage.The ancient Hebrew "soul" is the essence of an animate being, not necessarily just of a human being; God is also a soul and even animals are souls.You can therefore even speak of "dead souls"."Soul" designates the totality of the person.And so does "name," as an eminent Hebrew scholar explains:"It is to be understood quite literally that the name is the soul ... the heritage consisting in the name is not an empty appellation, a sound, but the substance of a soul ... The name immediately calls forth the soul it designates; therefore there is such a deep significance in the very mention of a name." (Pederson 1:245, 254, 256)

When the name mentioned and the soul called forth is God's, one is assured of divine action."In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you." (Ex 20:24)"Whoever calls on the name of Yahweh shall be saved." (Jl 2:32)Therefore the divine name must be treated with great respect:"You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain." (Ex 20:7, Dt 5:11)Blasphemy against the name is an extremely serious offense punishable by stoning. (Lv 24:16)[1]Even forgetting the name is a terrible sin:woe unto those "who think to make my people forget my name ... even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal." (Jer 23:27; see also Ps 44:20)And even the very mention of the names of other Gods is to be avoided:"Make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let such be heard out of your mouth." (Ex 23:13; see also Jos 23:7, Hos 2:17)

The realism with which the name of God is conceived is often striking.The priests are to bless the people of Israel by "placing on them" God's name. (Nm 6:27)The name itself comes to execute judgment:"Behold, the name of Yahweh comes from afar, burning with his anger ..." (Is 30:27)It acts:"The name of the God of Jacob protect you!" (Ps 20:1)It is a place of refuge:"The name of Yahweh is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe." (Prv 18:10; see also Zep 3:12)It dwells in the tabernacle, later the temple, which is "the place which Yahweh will choose to make his name dwell there." (Dt 16:2; see also 12:11, 14:23, 16:6,11, 26:2, Is 18:7, Ps 74:7)The temple was in fact built specifically to be "a house for the name of Yahweh."(1 K 8:17; see also 3:2, 8:20, 27, 29)

Consequently, "to know the name of Yahweh" implies much more than knowledge of a particular combination of letters.Several Psalms suggest that only the righteous know God's name. (9:10, 91:14)And although Genesis 4:26 states that, "At that time men began to call upon the name of Yahweh," much later this very name is revealed to Moses as if it were not known before. (Ex 3:13-15; cf. 6:2-3)Still later Isaiah promises that Israel will come to know God's name in the future, implying that it was still not known, or not fully known. (52:6)

The same theme continues in the New Testament, where Jesus says, "I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me out of the world ... I have made known to them your name, and I will make it known ..." (Jn 17:6, 26)Here too, the implication is that the name is at once known and yet not known.Despite the entire Old Testament history, it is Jesus who reveals God's name.(See also Rv 19:12-13)

What is especially remarkable in the New Testament, though, is that all of the wonderful attributes formerly ascribed to the divine name "Yahweh" come to be attributed to the name "Jesus".Its mention is an absolutely reliable assurance of divine action:"Whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give you."(Jn 16:23; see also 14:13, 14; 16:24, 26)Not only does the believer find "life in his name" (Jn 20:31), but this life is not to be found anywhere else since "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)Jesus' name is placed on an even footing with the Holy Spirit as the effective agent in baptism:"you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:11)And as did the name of Yahweh, this name itself acts:"And his name, by faith in his name, has made this man strong ..." (Acts 3:16)To suffer for the faith is to suffer "for the name" (Acts 5:41, 9:16, 15:26, 21:13), just as faith itself is "in the name" of Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18, Acts 3:16, 1 Jn 3:23).The honor due to this name cannot be overestimated:"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow ..." (Phil 2:9-10)

Hence the name of Jesus has played a central role in Christian spirituality, particularly in prayer, from the beginning.And when monasticism arose in the fourth century with its devotion to literal fulfillment of all of the gospel's commandments, including those to "unceasing prayer" (1 Thes 5:17, Lk 18:1, Eph 6:18), that central role became even more prominent.

One way to make prayer "unceasing" was to persistently repeat a short formula, usually consisting of a simple cry for "help" or "mercy".Jesus' warning against "vain repetition" (Mt 6:7) was understood not to apply to repetition per se but rather to doing so "vainly".Indeed, he himself taught his disciples to repeat the "Our Father".But for many circumstances something simpler than the Lord's Prayer was needed, something easily recited even while one was occupied by other tasks, yet expressing what needed to be expressed.Initially the formulas chosen varied from the ultimate in simplicity such as "Lord help" or "Lord have mercy" to somewhat longer variants such as Ps 70:1:"Make haste, O God, to deliver me!"But gradually one formula gained ascendancy.It was apparently influenced by the short cries for help people make to Jesus in the Gospels, particularly that of a certain blind man who attains his healing precisely through persistence in repeating one phrase -- "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me."(Lk 18:38; see also Mk 10:47, Mt 20:31)Also of some influence was the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, wherein Jesus praises the publican who prayed simply, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner." (Lk 18:13)The formula that became the standard by the thirteenth or fourteenth century contained elements of both of these with a few changes making Christian doctrine more explicit:"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner" (sometimes without "a sinner").It came to be known as the Jesus prayer.[2]

That title itself identifies the most vital element, the sine qua non of the prayer.Yet the other names "Lord," "Christ," and "Son of God" were also of great importance in that they identified more precisely the "Jesus" addressed and at the same time made of the prayer a confession of faith.As for the nature of the prayer's request, the attitude of contrition it emphasized arose from and was especially appropriate to the monastic milieu -- but at the same time it could also be understood in a wider sense."Mercy" is sometimes taken to refer merely to the lessening of punishment due to an offender, but the Greek e½lee±in (to have mercy) can also mean simply "to be good to" or "to be gracious to," particularly in a Christian context because of the way it is used in the Greek Old Testament.Hence "have mercy" could be construed also as a request for "help" and "deliverance" -- and ultimately for all that is included in the petitions of the Lord's Prayer.

So the Jesus prayer was both simple and comprehensive.It was at once a confession of faith and a request for all that one could ask for.And thanks to its simplicity one could use it constantly even while engaged in manual labor as monks often are.The prayer eventually gained such general acceptance that it even found its way into the official rite of monastic tonsure, where it was and is commended to the new monk as a way of life.On the other hand, not only monastics could find this prayer useful, and with the publication in the eighteenth century of the Philokalia[3] and in the nineteenth of The Way of a Pilgrim,[4] the Jesus prayer was on its way to becoming a nearly universal standard in Eastern Orthodox spirituality for monastics and non-monastics alike.

Over the years many Orthodox Christian writers advocated this formula and explained its usefulness in a variety of ways.Some pointed out that since anyone can say it anywhere and anytime, it makes possible truly unceasing prayer.Others noted that its simplicity facilitates shutting all other thoughts out of the mind save one -- the thought of God.Some suggested that as a call for mercy it can help keep alive one's awareness of being a sinner in need of mercy and can thereby help to develop and maintain the publican's attitude which was so praised by the Lord.Many emphasized its saving significance as a confession of faith, recalling texts like St. Paul's "with the mouth is confessed unto salvation." (Rom 10:10)

And many stressed the vital importance of the divine name.The scriptural understanding of the power of Jesus' name was echoed in patristic writings throughout the history of the Christian Church, had directly influenced the very development of the Jesus prayer, and was explicitly referred to in numberless treatises written about that prayer.And yet one could always assert that some aspects of the divine name's significance could still be explored in more depth.Doing so might have to involve the use of phrases and expressions rarely seen before, but that would not necessarily imply the invention of a different belief or "dogma".One could reasonably argue that such new phrases and expressions simply clarify in a new way the same basic belief held by all Christians from the beginning.This was the stand taken by one monk named Ilarion around the beginning of the twentieth century when he offered some new explanations of his own.His critics saw something sinister in his "new phrases," however.They felt he was not merely explaining what had always been implicit but was rather introducing something new and therefore false.The result was a theological controversy that degenerated to accusations of heresy, excommunications, fist-fights, "blockades" of monasteries, and attacks by armed soldiers upon unarmed monks.All due to one or two simple, but to some people scandalous, phrases.

A BOOK AND ITS CRITICS

Na Gorakh Kavkaza by Schema-monk Ilarion

In 1947 an elderly monk sent this advice to his spiritual daughter:

When you read the book Na Gorakh Kavkaza (In the Mountains of the Caucasus), omit from the middle of page xi to the middle of page xvii, as well as the third and fourth chapters.In those places mistakes have crept in.The enemy influenced the author in order to undermine the readers' confidence.Read it with trust, it is a very useful book.I often have a glance at it, for one can see that it was written not with the mind but with feeling and with the taste of the spiritual fruits of the one thing needful. (Father John 24)

This book he so ambivalently recommended was first published in 1907 and was intended to popularize the Jesus prayer.But instead of inspiring piety it inspired controversy.From the beginning a debate about these "mistakes" arose, with one side considering them not to be mistakes at all while the other saw in them a heresy so vile the book was worthy only of burning.

The author was a septuagenarian monk of the great schema named Ilarion.He had received monastic tonsure on Mt. Athos at the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon and had stayed there for more than two decades before departing for the Caucasus.There he lived first in the monastery of St. Simon the Canaanite and later in the wilderness in order to lead a solitary life devoted to prayer.Two more decades after leaving Athos he decided to write a book, the purpose of which was "to express all the need, importance, and necessity of practicing the Jesus prayer in the matter of eternal salvation for every person." (X)

It was comprised of three parts, the first and longest consisting of a first-person fictional narrative in which the author presented himself as an anchorite traveling through remote areas of the Caucasus.In the story this hermit meets another even more ancient and venerable starets, and the latter deigns to share with the former some wisdom from his vast experience in the spiritual life.It is through the older and wiser man that Ilarion's own views are expressed.The second and third parts of the books are relatively unimportant, one being a summary of the Gospels and the other a compilation of personal letters written by the author over the years.

While providing many opportunities to praise the natural beauties of the Caucasus and its unique suitability for monks seeking the eremitic life, this setting serves primarily as a framework for extolling the virtues of the Jesus prayer.

Ilarion's Focus on the Divine Name

Ilarion adduced all the standard arguments in favor of the Jesus prayer but placed special emphasis on the importance of a mystical identity between the divine name and the divine person:

For the believer who loves the Lord and always prays to him, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is as it were (kak by) he himself, our divine Savior.And this great truth is really sensed best of all when one practices the Jesus prayer of mind and heart. (XVI) In the practice of the Jesus prayer of mind and heart, done in a repentant attitude of soul and in deep contrition, with your heart's feeling you really hear and perceive that Jesus Christ's name is he himself our divine Savior Jesus Christ, and it is impossible to separate the name from the person named.Rather, they merge into identity and interpenetrate one another and are one. (119)

Hence "in God's name God himself is present -- in his whole essence (vsem svoim su]estvom) and in all his infinite characteristics." (11)Just as in Jesus Christ "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9), so too "in his holy name abides that very fullness of divinity immutably." (118)Since it is "holy in itself" it imparts sanctity to us who pronounce it in prayer.Since it "contains in itself eternal life and heavenly blessedness" (263) it imparts those qualities to us.

Fr. Ilarion acknowledges that there are many divine names, all as fundamentally equal as are the persons of the Holy Trinity (XIV), but he emphasizes the name "Jesus Christ" because of the unique role of the Son of God as mankind's Savior and because among all his names, this one alone refers directly to that role:

The name "Jesus" means Savior, and he is so close to the human race, needed by it, and constitutes such exceptional necessity for it, that without him it is not even possible to think of our salvation. ...In all prayers rising from earth to heaven he is the Mediator, Intercessor, and Reconciler; only by him and through him do our prayers receive power and do we have access to the Heavenly Father and to the throne of grace. (VI)

Consequently our prayers should be directed first of all to him.And so "the name Jesus Christ constitutes the root and foundation, the center and internal power of the Gospel" (29), and on it depends "both our Christian faith and all of the church's worship and piety." (53)

Therefore the Jesus prayer, since it consists primarily of Jesus' name, can and should replace all other prayers in one's private prayer life."It, excepting only the Divine Liturgy, with which nothing can compare, abundantly replaces any other practice of prayer of ours.Or rather, truer to say, it rests at the root and serves as the foundation of all our prayer activity." (260)One who is far advanced in the practice of prayer may even drop the petition "have mercy on me, a sinner" and recite just the names "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God," or "Lord Jesus Christ," or "Jesus Christ," or even "Jesus" (though the final option is rarely mentioned and is not advocated).Of his own experience the author writes:

With time and from long practice this prayer began to contract and finally stopped on the three words "Lord Jesus Christ".It became impossible to pronounce more than this; all was superfluous and somehow wouldn't fit into the system of internal feeling.But what an inexpressible, purely heavenly, sweet feeling in the heart, unattainable by any of the people of this world!These three Divine words as it were (budto) became incarnate, became clothed in divinity; in them vitally, essentially, and actively was heard the presence of the Lord himself, Jesus Christ. (324) For the sake of this [prayer] I decisively left every other spiritual exercise, whatever it might have been: reading and standing and prostrations and psalm singing.It constitutes my service both day and night.In whatever situation I find myself -- walking, sitting, and lying -- I only diligently try to carry in my heart the sweetest name of the Savior; even often just two words:"Jesus Christ". (325)

Ilarion's Supporting Evidence

Fr. Ilarion is not able to cite direct scriptural evidence for his assertions, but indirect evidence abounds.Those passages in which the power of Jesus' name is not specifically linked to the individual believer's faith are deemed particularly noteworthy, especially Matthew 7:21:

If this name is not God then why does it possess omnipotent power which produces great and glorious works, even independently of the holiness of life of those who pronounce it?This, by the way, can be seen from the words of the Lord, "many will say to me in that day:'Did we not prophecy in your name and by your name cast out demons and by your name worked miracles?' And then I will tell them:'I never knew you; depart from me all workers of iniquity.'"In these words is found a new proof, having all power of indisputable persuasiveness, that in the name of Jesus Christ, God's omnipotent power is present and therefore this very name is God himself. (17)

Ilarion does concede that the name does not always give expected results, observing that in Acts 19 some unbelievers tried to use Jesus' name to cast out demons and got beat up for their efforts.Nevertheless one can be sure that the name itself does possess miracle-working power when "pronounced with faith". (19)

As for patristic writings, St. Gregory of Sinai had said "prayer is God working all in all," so if St. Gregory "was not afraid to call prayer God" (45), neither would Ilarion be.Other statements, less directly applicable, could be found in other fathers from as far back as John Chrysostom:"Unceasingly abide in the name of the Lord Jesus, so that the Lord will absorb the heart, and the heart the Lord; and the two will be one." (I)Most are similar to this, the vast majority coming from later sources such as Kallistos and Ignatius Ksanthopoulos, Theofan the Recluse, and Ignatius Bryanchaninov.

The only authority cited who expresses himself exactly as does Fr. Ilarion is Fr. John Sergiev of Kronstadt (1829-1908), a man who although not having the authority of an officially canonized saint was nevertheless widely revered as one:

Let the name of the Lord, of the Mother of God, of an angel, or of a saint be for you in place of the Lord himself, the Mother of God, the angel, or the saint; let the closeness of your word to your heart be a pledge and a testimony of the closeness to your heart of the Lord himself, the Mother of God, the angel, or the saint.The name of the Lord is the Lord himself ... the name of the Mother of God is the Mother of God, the name of an angel is the angel, the name of a saint is the saint.How can this be?You are called, for example, N.If someone calls you by this name, you acknowledge yourself entirely (vsego) in it and answer; that means that you agree that your name is you yourself with [your] soul and body. (15-166, quoting Moq "izn; 237-8)

Fr. John concludes that if this is true of earth-bound human beings, then it is so even more for God and his saints, whose ability to respond is not limited by a material body."And so," he concludes, "the name of the all-powerful God is God himself -- the Spirit everywhere present and undivided (preprostyj)."

In addition to quoting authorities, Ilarion offers his own explanations.He observes that all Orthodox Christians acknowledge God's presence everywhere yet do not say it is the same everywhere:the divine presence in a Church is not exactly as it is elsewhere; God's presence in the eucharistic elements is not exactly as it is in ordinary bread and wine; his presence in a believer is not exactly the same as it is in an unbeliever.How then could one argue against a special mode of divine presence in the divine name? (See XIII, 46, 113)

Besides that, one must not try to apply logic where logic is out of place.Statements like Jesus' "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (Jn 6:54) and "if a person is not born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Jn 3:3) are seen as similar in nature to Ilarion's own assertions:

Of course, this must be understood spiritually, by a heart enlightened, and not by that fleshly reason which ... objects, "How can this man give his flesh to eat?" Or again objects in its complete misunderstanding of the matter, "how can a person, being old, enter a second time into [his] mother's womb and be born?" ... spiritual subjects are understood spiritually, in the light of their illumination by grace. (11; see Jn 6:52 and 3:4)

Just as we do not fully understand the mystery of the eucharist and of baptism yet accept their reality, so we should approach the mystery of God's name.

As St. Paul writes, "The natural person cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolish to him and he cannot know them, for they are discerned spiritually." (1 Cor 2:14)This spiritual discernment is possible only for those who have directly and personally experienced communion with God:

Only such a person, due to the union of his heart with the Lord ... can without hesitation witness before the whole world that the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is He Himself, the Lord God; and that His name is not separable from His holy essence but is one with Him. He is convinced in this not by reasonings of the mind but by the feeling of his heart, which is imbued with the Lord's Spirit.Here one must apply the Apostle's words:"The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness within himself." (13; 1 Jn 5:10)

Ilarion uses words like "feeling" and "sense" (huvstvo ando]u]enie) to refer to a direct perception of spiritual reality comparable to the way our eyes see the light of the material world.So any attempt at explaining the fruits of prayer to one who has not personally tasted them is as doomed to failure as an attempt at explaining the sweetness of honey to one who has never tasted it or the variety of colors to one who is color-blind.

Ilarion's definition of "Name"

Precisely what then is this "name of God" through which one can taste the fruits of prayer?Ilarion stresses that it is never limited to particular combinations of spoken or written letters:

Certainly one can also pray to the Son of God without the so-called Jesus prayer, even without words -- just by a striving of the mind and heart.But firstly this is an achievement of those advanced in the spiritual life, absolutely unattainable for the majority; and secondly even in such contemplative, refined, and immaterial prayer the name of Jesus Christ cannot be excluded.Otherwise to what would the prayer adhere and to what would it attach itself? (76)

Here the very thought of God is equated with his name, and in fact Ilarion explicitly and frequently acknowledges "the Jesus prayer," "the name of God," and "remembrance of God" to be synonymous.[5]Accordingly Ilarion also acknowledges a sense in which all prayer truly is the Jesus prayer, since as one of the Holy Trinity and through his unique role as Mediator and Intercessor, Jesus Christ "constitutes its [i.e., any prayer's] internal power, even if his most holy name is not audible." (125)

Ilarion's Warnings Against Possible Misunderstandings

Na Gorakh Kavkaza does not present an oversimplified view of how prayer works.The book is full of warnings not to expect too much too soon; one must be prepared for years of hard labor with little or no apparent success.Moreover, prayer may even be harmful if one does not attend to certain other matters, one of which is having faith in God.In a sense it is even impossible to conceive of prayer without faith; if one did not believe in God and trust that he listens to people, one would not attempt to speak to him.Consequently "faith enters into the understanding of prayer, as its essential part" (125) and is its "inner power and content". (74)Their relationship is mutually dependent:"Faith without prayer can have no movement forward, and prayer without faith has no effectiveness -- is dead." (303)

No less important is humility.The spiritual life of movement toward union with God cannot even begin without a movement toward self:

The movement toward self consists in a person's coming to know his fallen sinful condition and the corruption of all his powers; their complete incapability of good and constant tendency toward evil; and his extreme powerlessness in the matter of salvation.One must see all the inescapability and decisive need of God's help.This knowledge is higher and more valuable than any other knowledge because it opens to us the door to the reception of higher help.Without this knowledge the help will not come, and without that our salvation cannot take place. (193)

We must cooperate with that help by attempting to live according to the precepts of the gospel.But this requires first of all that we know them:

The whole goal of our life and of all its content consists in loving the Lord God.But how can this be, when we don't know his deeds, his teaching, the qualities of his character, or his perfections (of course, insofar as this is attainable for us).For our part there can be no reasonable, correct relationship to our Savior without knowing his divine person.Therefore it is necessary to diligently study the earthly life of the Savior ... in all detail and in all thoroughness; to delve into his divine teaching, to learn well his parables, and to contemplate his saving passion, death, and life-bearing resurrection.This is the only ground and living foundation where the saving tree can grow -- the Jesus prayer. (301)

Ilarion suggests that the Gospel books actually be memorized.But then as we learn God's commandments we must try to abide by them, avoiding sin and loving God and neighbor, or else our prayers will be to no avail.For instance:

If, due to our weakness and sinful habits or what's more by inattention and absent-mindedness, we offendone of our brothers, then it is absolutely necessary to use all possible means available to us to make peace with him and ask forgiveness ... this is the main thing in prayer.Without observing this you will have no success in prayer, even if you persist in it day and night for years. (50) If you retain bitterness against someone, then understand that your prayer is not acceptable before God but rather angers him. (196-7)

The author also warns that his advice about the Jesus prayer is not for just anyone but is specifically for members of the Holy Orthodox Church.Outside the church salvation is not to be found, and its rites are established by the Holy Spirit for our salvation and are not to be disdained.Indeed, it is that union with God given preeminently in the eucharist that prayer itself serves to establish and maintain.

It would seem that there are quite a few prerequisites to the practice of the Jesus prayer, but in fact they are not truly prerequisites at all:

Those guides speak falsely, who teach one to acquire various virtues first; to expel passions from oneself, to purify the heart, and then to begin the Jesus prayer.That's impossible.For by our own powers we definitely cannot do anything good, as holy scripture teaches us.Rather, specifically with the help of prayer, while practicing it, one must do all one's deeds.And this is appropriate to the true situation of our earthly life, that we in every matter ask for God's help. (264)

Even the ability to concentrate on the words of the prayer is not truly a prerequisite:

Usually they say:"Is absent-minded, inattentive prayer, full of all possible [extraneous] thoughts, really pleasing to God?!"But one must know that it is not possible to do any work well immediately.Everyone knows this by experience -- how much time, effort, and trouble it has cost each of us to learn the work he does in life.Just so, prayer, which is the highest science -- heavenly, divine, holy, uniting us with our Creator -- necessarily must pass through the initial stages of one's learning and getting accustomed to it, in a condition extremely weak, not corresponding to its great dignity.But this must not serve for us as a cause and pretense for leaving and despising it. (48)

The author laments that many, including some monks, are indeed neglecting the Jesus prayer, some of them even advising others against using it due to the danger of falling into prelest'.In the monastic milieu this is a technical term for a state of delusion, sometimes approaching insanity, wherein the monk mistakes truth for falsehood.While thinking himself to be serving God he is actually serving the devil; while thinking himself in the depths of humility he is actually in the heights of pride and vainglory.Monks in advanced stages of prelest' have been known to do things like jumping off of cliffs expecting God to save them.Ilarion agrees that practicing the Jesus prayer can lead to such a state but argues that this comes about only when no concomitant effort is made at maintaining an attitude of humility and living a sinless life, or when some method of practicing the prayer is made an end in itself rather than a means to the end of communion with God.

Publication and Initial Success of Na Gorakh Kavkaza

So to counter the trend away from the Jesus prayer Na Gorakh Kavkaza was written.And written well.Fr. John of Valaamo gave the book such a positive evaluation for good reason; it presents an authentic and accurate picture of Orthodox spirituality.As for what some would call "mistakes" and others "heresy," it is evident even in the text of the first edition that the author was well aware that some of his assertions were potentially controversial.He mentions that "for theological science almost everyone reproaches and condemns me" and that he learned of the inability of "fleshly reason" to accept talk of God's presence in his name only after asking many people what they thought of the idea and hearing the negative reactions.

Accordingly, before committing his opinions to print he took the precaution of writing to a large number of "authoritative and theologically educated" persons asking their comments.Most didn't bother responding, and those who did simply said they did not feel competent to answer his questions.Though satisfied then that his views were at least not obviously erroneous, he nevertheless expressed them guardedly.In Na Gorakh Kavkaza most occurrences of "the name of God is God himself" are qualified by "as it were" (kak by) or "for the believer" or a combination of the two.That such modifiers are found less frequently in sentences speaking of God's presence in his name may be a reflection of greater confidence in the defensibility of that assertion.

In any case the grand duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna (Tsar Nicholas' sister-in-law) saw no reason not to finance the publication of Ilarion's book through her convent of Sts. Martha and Mary; the ecclesiastical censor saw no reason not to approve it for publication; and a remarkably large number of the Russian public saw no reason not to buy it.Within three years its popularity even called forth a second edition -- no small feat for a book of such content published by what would today be called a "vanity press".By 1912 subsidies were no longer needed, and the Kiev Pecherskaya Lavra reportedly paid Ilarion a large sum for the right to issue the third edition that year.However, commercial success is never a sure indication of universal approval, and in this case criticism was immediate and exceedingly harsh.

Khrisanf's Critical Review

Shortly after the first copies of Na Gorakh Kavkaza arrived on Athos in 1907, the monk Khrisanf of the skete of St. Elijah wrote a scathing "Review"[6] of Ilarion's book, hectographed copies of it, mailed one of them to the author, and disseminated the rest throughout the Russian communities of the Holy Mountain.One of his two main criticisms was against Ilarion's identification of God's name with his person:

And so the author personalizes the nominal, immaterial "name Jesus" into the living and very highest Essence of God.Such a thought is pantheistic, i.e. merging the essence of God with something located outside his essence.Such thoughts as Fr. Ilarion has expressed are not found in any writings of the holy fathers, and this is some kind of new teaching, fantastic and filled with vagueness and full of obscurity.See to what extremes conceit leads! (4:75)

Being "holy by itself" (samo po sebe) the name does sanctify us, but to "divinize" it (obogotvorqt;) is a great error.Divine power comes directly from God himself, not from the name itself; we do glorify the latter and it is dear to us, but only because it serves as a means by which we can call upon God, only as a "mediating power" (posredstvu[]aq sila).The process is similar with human names:

[When] we think of some beloved person, then in our mind he himself is represented in his image and with his virtues, but not only in his name alone.His name only reminds us that it is specifically he and not someone else, and after all we love him not for his name but for his virtues or for a close relationship with him. (6:55)

Khrisanf adduces a series of patristic quotations saying that the goal of prayer is to establish in one's mind the thought or memory of God, and he warns against the grave dangers of "stopping only on his name alone".The true goal of all who pray is rather "pure prayer," a wordless -- and therefore nameless -- state of ecstasy consisting of direct communion with God himself.In that state "the name Jesus is without effect (prebyvaet bez dejstviq) ... and a person doesn't even call to mind (upominaet) this name." (6:59)

Therefore to concentrate on God's name as Ilarion advises is to forget about God himself.This is why the fathers:

... created many prayers, in which everything relates to the Lord Jesus himself, as to the living One who gives us blessings, but not to his name.And in church services [one hears] constantly pronounced magnification and glorification of the Lord himself and worship from us to him, but not to his name. (6:53)

Likewise, the martyrs suffered not for refusing "to deny the 'name Jesus'" but for refusing to deny the Christian faith.

Moreover, the logical consequences of Ilarion's views obviously do not come about:

If the inanimate names in the Jesus prayer were incarnated into the very Essence of divinity, then they always and everywhere would have living and effective power ... However these names only have power in the prayer of pious people. (5:57)

Nor does even Matthew 7:21 with its suggestion that impious people were able to work miracles in the Lord's name support Ilarion's view.Rather, according to St. John Chrysostom that passage serves mainly to show that even those with faith to work miracles will not enter the kingdom of heaven without living a good life.And other fathers explain that the miracle-workers spoken to are false prophets who only pretended to use the Lord's name but actually performed their miracles by the power of Satan.Khrisanf himself thinks they may be people who once acquired the gift of working miracles but later "quenched the spirit".He interprets the passage as applying directly to Ilarion, for whom the words "I never knew you" will mean "You knew my name but not me myself".In any case St. Chrysostom also explains that grace was given to unrighteous people to work miracles because God chose to do so in order to facilitate the spread of Christianity in its earliest days."But now let Fr. Ilarion point to anyone from the unworthy [people] who produces miracles." (5:59)Presumably he cannot, and that disproves his teaching.

The other main criticism is that Ilarion ascribes disproportionate significance to the name "Jesus," advocating its use alone in place of the whole Jesus prayer.But in fact, avers Khrisanf, the other names are even more important, particularly "Son of God," since it "designates the divine Hypostasis[7] of the Savior and belongs to him before the ages, [before] all that was created by God, whereas the name Jesus was given to the Son of God afterwards, at his incarnation on earth." (4:72)Besides not being eternal like the others, "Jesus" is not even a divine name but a human one:

And is it possible to merge this human name with divinity, when the very human nature taken up by the Son of God may not be merged with his divine nature and it only unites in his one person, while whoever merges them -- then this constitutes a terrible heresy according to the conclusion of the Ecumenical Council.So much more is it impermissible to merge the name Jesus, which applies to the human nature of the God-man, with his divine nature.To attribute that which is characteristic and proper only of the divine nature to that which does not have this nature -- this is beyond foolishness and impiety! (6:59)

Ilarion's position is therefore tantamount to saying that in the one person of the Son of God there are two Gods -- one his essence and the other his human name Jesus.

The scriptural evidence cited by Ilarion is attacked as having been misinterpreted.All those texts in which Jesus advises his followers to "ask the Father in my name" and where miracles are worked "in Jesus' name" refer not to the name per se but to the Son of God's role as Mediator and Intercessor.Even Phil 2:9 ("God gave him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow") provides no support for Ilarion's views:the name "above every name" is actually not the "human name Jesus" but rather the name "Son of God" which refers to the Lord's divine nature.The verse means simply "God gave to Jesus the name Son of God" and ascribes no special honor to the name "Jesus".

With regard to both of his main criticisms the reviewer radically misrepresents Ilarion's views by ascribing to "name" a narrowness of meaning foreign to Ilarion.As has been seen, the latter used "the name of God" to mean not only mere combinations of letters but also all that is meant by phrases like "thought of God" and "memory of God," a usage in accord with that of Christian scripture.Khrisanf might have argued against "divinizing" also this wider conception of God's name, but he did not; instead, he actually spoke of it as the true goal of prayer for which the name was only a means.

And Ilarion did not advocate paying special attention to the name "Jesus" by itself:in Na Gorakh Kavkaza that name occurs alone exceedingly rarely, and then usually in references to other sources that had used it that way.Ilarion spoke of his own practice of contracting the Jesus prayer to "Lord Jesus Christ" after many years (and infrequently to "Jesus Christ"), but not once did he mention using "Jesus" by itself, let alone advocate it.Rather, what is striking about his book is that "Jesus Christ" is used consistently as if it were one indivisible name.

Besides such misrepresentations the review is remarkable for its sharp tone.Khrisanf exclaims "How he reinterprets everything to suit himself!" and "This is something abnormal!"He calls Ilarion's views "idle-minded thought," "idle-minded innovation," "absurdity," and "extreme audacity".Ilarion errs because he "is guided only by his own opinion" and is in an "abnormal spiritual and mental condition," and he expresses himself "peculiarly and senselessly" and "thoughtlessly".

The review's tendentiousness suggests ulterior motives in its composition, and it turns out that evidence for such motives does exist.Apparently Ilarion maintained some ties with Mt. Athos after leaving, and among those to whom he sent the first copies of his new book asking for comments was one Agafodor, an elderly monk in a powerful position among the leadership of St. Panteleimon's monastery.It was this Agafodor who sent the book on to Khrisanf suggesting he write a review, and who collaborated with him on it.As for why Agafodor disliked the book's author, the contemporary historian Kosvintsev gives background information:

... several years before in Russia a "mother Natalya" had become famous for her clairvoyance.When this "seer" lived in Petrograd, poor and millionaires, simple bourgeois and dignitaries in gold-embroidered uniforms all went to see her for "grace".Natalya "prophesied" to all in the name of the Mother of God, whom she supposedly saw constantly before her eyes.And then, when Natalya came to Jerusalem, one of the highest Russian monks of St. Panteleimon's Athonite monastery came there and asked from the "seer" prayers that he be granted grace.When Natalya was returning to Jerusalem, the ship on which she was sailing stopped near Athos, and the aforementioned monk with many other monks appeared on the ship and prostrated themselves before Natalya.But soon she was exposed by one of the Russian monk-hermits as fallen into prelest'.And from that time her aura of clairvoyance left her. (142)

In one of the letters printed in the third section of Na Gorakh Kavkaza Ilarion responds to a request for an opinion about Natalya (written before she was "exposed") and reproaches his correspondent for dishonoring the Mother of God by believing she would act in such a way.A sample of his comments:

You, of course are guilty for having light-mindedly believed extreme absurdity, and by that you revealed not only the absence in you of spiritual reason but also that you are completely without the gift of discerning "spirits," i.e., the spirit of truth and the spirit of deception ... (311)

All of the names in this letter, even Natalya's, were replaced with "N." as was done in all of the personal letters printed in the book, but Agafodor undoubtedly found these words offensive -- for it was he who had not only traveled to Jerusalem to venerate Natalya but had also gone to prostrate himself before her when her ship stopped at his monastery.Hence he sought to return Ilarion's compliments.[8]

The Controversy Develops

Whatever the underlying causes for Khrisanf's review, it incited open quarreling about the significance of God's name, particularly the name "Jesus," among the monks of Mt. Athos. The strife was worst at the skete of New Thebaide, a dependency of St. Panteleimon's, where the monk Aleksey Kireyevsky actively propagated the views expressed in the review.A typical episode:

... he visited one ascetic, a doer of the Jesus prayer, on his names day.The hermit treated him hospitably with what he could, and then while conversing with the hermit Fr. Aleksey began to speak about the Jesus prayer [and] about the book of Fr. Ilarion, and daringly expressed the following opinion:"Well, what is the name of Jesus, that Fr. Ilarion ascribes such importance to it in the Jesus prayer? ... a simple human personal name, just like other human names."These words vexed the pious monk, upset him, and he asked Fr. Aleksey to leave him and go away from his cell. (Moq Bor;ba 653)

Reliable details on the course of these early verbal quarrels are not to be found, but a general outline can be reconstructed.Because of Fr. Aleksey's making light of the name "Jesus," some monks began to view him as (and probably to call him overtly) a blasphemer and a heretic.Consequently some refused to receive his priestly blessings or to serve Divine Liturgies along with him.When both parties complained to Abbot Misail of St. Panteleimon's he took no action against Fr. Aleksey but did take disciplinary measures against those who were refusing to have anything to do with him.Some he deprived of the sacraments for periods of from one to three years, others who were priests he prohibited from officiating at services for similar lengths of time, and others he reassigned to less desirable jobs.Some were apparently even obliged to leave the skete altogether or left as a result of the other disciplinary measures.Fr. Misail was not necessarily taking sides in the developing controversy at that point, however; his actions were probably intended just to promote peace and harmony among the brotherhood.Perhaps he chose the course of action he did because Fr. Aleksey's offenses were in word only while the others' were in deed -- but precisely because the peace-keeping measures did not include restraining Fr. Aleksey from speaking his views freely, peace and harmony were not forthcoming.

That the quarreling was so difficult to stop was due in part to factors other than theology and personal grudges.Aleksey was a son of wealthy land-owners (said to be a nephew of the famous Kireyevsky slavophiles) and had attended the Moscow Theological Academy.The monk Theofan, a hermit who actively advocated Khrisanf's views much like Aleksey did, was a graduate of the Kazan Theological Academy.Khrisanf had a university education.In general their side in the dispute was taken by monks with higher educations, often from wealthy and privileged families -- and consequently often holding positions of authority in the monastic communities -- while their opponents were simple peasant sorts.So to some degree long-standing tensions between the two groups merely took on a new form in this debate.Since the "intelligentsia" tended to look down on those they called "lapotniki" and "muzhiki" (derogatory terms for "peasants") and despised their opinions as worthless, real dialogue and understanding between the two groups was impossible.[9]

Economic factors may also have played a minor role.Since much of the income of Athonite monasteries came from donations of wealthy pilgrims, any improvement in the reputation of the Caucasus vis-a-vis Athos as a place where pilgrims could find holy startsy could cause the pocket-books of Athonite monasteries to suffer.And of course some residents of Athos might resent any relative lessening of the Holy Mountain's unique reputation just for the sake of Athonite glory, entirely aside from financial considerations.

Nevertheless, the importance of these peripheral factors should not be exaggerated; the dispute was basically a theological one.It continued for several years, remaining limited primarily to personal quarrels among the monks of New Thebaide.When the second edition of Na Gorakh Kavkaza appeared in 1910 Ilarion included a response to Khrisanf's review, but this apparently had little effect on the course of a controversy which seemed to be on its way toward dying a natural death.Then in 1912 something did affect the course of the controversy and gave it a new lease on life:Khrisanf's review was finally published.

That event came about because Aleksey and Theofan happened to be friends of the powerful Russian archbishop Antony Khrapovitsky (1864-1936).Abp. Antony was born to a well-to-do family and rose through ecclesiastical ranks of authority remarkably quickly:he graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy at age 21, was tonsured a monk at 22, became rector of the Moscow Academy at 27, of the Kazan Academy at 31, and was consecrated a bishop in 1900 at 37 years of age.By 1912 he was archbishop of Volynia and a member of the ruling Synod of the Russian Church.There he became so powerful that in 1912 subscriptions to the monastic journal Russkiy Inok (Russian Monk), which he had established less than three years before, were made obligatory for all Russian monasteries.

Aleksey had become close to Abp. Antony as a student at the Moscow Academy, Theofan at Kazan.The former wrote to him complaining about difficulties with his fellow monks at New Thebaide and sent along a copy of Khrisanf's review.Though Aleksey made no request that it be published in Russkiy Inok, Abp. Antony decided to do so -- and suddenly a controversy that until then had been the subject of private discussion and argument in relatively limited circles was spread to every Russian monk who could read or knew someone who could.Monks who were scandalized by Aleksey's verbal belittling of the name "Jesus" suddenly saw those blasphemous and heretical views propounded by a powerful archbishop.Those inclined to speak like Fr. Aleksey but who had not before seen Khrisanf's review suddenly had more ammunition with which to provoke the simple and pious.And Abbot Misail of St. Panteleimon's monastery was emboldened or even made to feel duty-bound to use stronger disciplinary measures against those who were ostracizing Aleksey -- which led only to their more widely propagating throughout the Holy Mountain tales of blasphemy, heresy, and repression at New Thebaide.

Khrisanf's review appeared in three consecutive February and March, 1912 issues of the bi-monthly journal.An introduction by the editor informed readers that:

Bishop Antony has affirmed that it is necessary to print in Russkiy Inok the review or commentary about the bookNa Gorakh Kavkaza, i.e., in other words the bishop recognizes the commentary of the Athonite about the book of Fr. Ilarion correct, and the book Na Gorakh Kavkaza incorrect and for monks useless. (4:70)

Shortly after its publication Fr. Ilarion sent a defense of his position to Abp. Antony, but the latter refused to print it for reasons he himself explained in a short "letter to the editor" printed in a May issue of his magazine:

The author's defense is not at all substantial:he writes about the usefulness of the Jesus prayer, but this doesn't touch upon his divinizing the name Jesus.He writes about the holiness of God's names, but this speaks against an exceptional power of the name Jesus ... The very name Jesus is not God, for J. Nave and Jesus the son of Sirach and High Priest Jesus the son of Josedek were also named Jesus.[10]Are they really also Gods?The author's communication that many who have read the criticism of his book have stopped using the Jesus prayer is either an invention (because people have always been using this prayer who have not shared the author's superstitions) or highly comforting -- if those have stopped using it who united with it absurd superstition and consequently were using the prayer while in prelest'. (10:62-3)

The "anger" of Ilarion and his followers as seen in their treatment of Aleksey is adduced as evidence that they themselves are in prelest'.

That Ilarion did not defend a special "divinization" of the name "Jesus" in particular, much less as a combination of letters abstracted from all meaning, is not surprising -- for that position was entirely a creation of Khrisanf's review.But Archbishop Antony could not know this because he had not even read Na Gorakh Kavkaza.He had printed the review condemning that book in his journal; he had given the review his personal approval as being truthful and reliable; he had refused to print Ilarion's defense; and then he had printed this scathing reply in place of it -- all without even reading the book.Only in October of 1912 did he finally do so.[11]After nine months of frequent and virulent public condemnations that process will have been largely a formality; not only was the archbishop's mind already made up, but to change his position would have been extremely embarrassing.He didn't.

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH

OR HERESIARCH

Schema-Monk Antony (Bulatovich)

The simple peasant-monks, often illiterate and in any case not writers, were at a loss for how to respond to these new attacks.So when word got around that at St. Andrew's skete lived a "litseyist" (university graduate) sharing their views, they went to enlist his help.Help quickly turned into leadership, and in the years to come this litseyist virtually single-handedly carried on the theological defense of the divinity of God's name.

Alexander Ksaver'evich Bulatovich (accent on the "o") was born on September 26, 1870 to a wealthy family of nobility, the son of a major-general in the Russian army.When his father died just three years later the family moved to a large estate called Lutsykovka which his mother inherited and which was situated near Lebedin in the Khar'kov guberniya of the Ukraine.There he lived with his mother and two sisters until 1884 when they moved to Petersburg so he could begin preparatory work at the Alexandrovsky Litsey.That school was renowned as one of the most privileged educational institutions in Russia, with a liberal arts curriculum including law and foreign languages such as French, German, and English -- all oriented towards producing high-level government officials and diplomats.Alexander passed through each year with honors and graduated near the head of his class in 1891.

Instead of going into government service as was expected, he chose to enter His Majesty's Leib-gvardiya (Life-guard) regiment of Hussars -- one of the most aristocratic regiments in the Russian Army.Entry into it was made possible by family connections.Five years later he volunteered for a special Red-Cross detachment of Russian medical personnel going to render humanitarian aid to Ethiopian soldiers who were at war with Italy.Cornet Bulatovich rendered especially important services to the mission because he had used a few months of preparation time to learn the Ethiopian language and could use his expertise with horses to serve as a courier riding camels across long and dangerous stretches of desert.In his travels with Ethiopian Emperor Menelik's forces he was the first European to see many regions of Africa, and upon his return to Russia he wrote a book entitled Ot Entoto do Reki Baro (From Entoto to the River Baro) about his unique experiences.

After just six months at home in which to write that book and see it published by order of his regimental headquarters, he returned on another mission to Ethiopia, this one for the purpose of establishing diplomatic relations between that nation and Russia.His travels into more unexplored regions resulted in a second book, S Voyskami Menelika II (With the Armies of Menelik II), this time published on his own resources.To the present day both of these works have remained of such value in the study of Ethiopian history and society that the Soviet Academy of Sciences republished them in 1971 and has produced a number of other books about their author and his work in the years since.

For his humanitarian and scholarly work and for service to his country Bulatovich was personally thanked by Tsar Nicholas II, received the Medal of St. Anne third degree and of St. Stanislav second degree, and was promoted first to lieutenant and then to staff-captain (wtabs-rotmistr).After a third trip to Ethiopia, Bulatovich requested active duty in Manchuria, where Russia was at war with the Chinese Boxers.There he distinguished himself for his bravery -- and for his independence:apparently against orders he rescued a French Catholic Missionary whose life was being threatened by the Boxers.For that he received from the French Government the Legion of Honor award.From his own government he received two more medals and a promotion to captain (rotmistr).

At the end of 1902 Alexander Bulatovich's career took another sharp turn when on December 14 he accepted monastic tonsure.It is difficult to say what prompted this sudden move, seemingly out of character with the rest of his career, but his sister Mary Orbeliani later recounted that he had always been particularly pious, even from early childhood:

We all three shared the same room with our German nurse. ... Sasha's bed was behind a screen.The wall over his bed was covered with pictures of the holy scriptures, the holy virgin, [and] figures of saints.And in the evening when all others were in bed for sleep, and the candle of the nurse not more burning, we heard from behind the screen Sasha kneeling, and getting up and whispering prayers! (Letter of April 27, 1973)

In an interview she also recalled that there was a particular incident in Manchuria that seemed to weigh heavily on him after his return:

I heard that when he was in Manchuria he went with his saber and had a fight with a Manchurian soldier.Then he killed him.And this soldier fell upon him, and all his blood covered his face.Then this made such an impression on him that I heard that several days he could not ... eat meat ... everything tasted [to] him [of] blood.Then he considered that he is ... [an] assassin, that he kills.This feeling came to him from it.He was at the war, he killed many people, but he had not this f[eeling]; but here he had the feeling that he commits a terrible human crime.By killing.I heard so.Because his friend, whom I know, and whom I met in Poltava during the revolution, he told me that he asked him, "Now, how many people has this saber ... how many heads have you cut?"And he was so depressed.He turned around and he cried.I never saw him crying; but this [man] said that he cried. (Tape 4)

Whatever the immediate reasons for it, Alexander Bulatovich's decision to become the monk Antony was one to which he remained faithful for the rest of his life.

The Petersburg monastery he entered, Nikiforovskoye Podvor'ye, had been established by Fr. John of Kronstadt, and Fr. John was to play a decisive role in personally guiding the new monk through the first years of his monastic life.It was he who advised Fr. Antony to go on the journey which ended with the latter's settling on Mt. Athos.During one of his trips to Ethiopia, Alexander had rescued a very small Ethiopian boy who had been mutilated by an enemy tribe and left for dead.After treating and taking care of him there and naming him Vaska, Alexander brought him home to Russia, baptized him into the Orthodox faith, taught him Russian, and saw to his upbringing and education.But other Russians, particularly the school-children young Vaska eventually had to associate with daily, were not so open-minded about Ethiopians or about those who had been mutilated as this one had, and in time they made his life an unhappy one.On Fr. John's advice Fr. Antony resolved to return him to his homeland, which he did in 1907.Returning from his mission he stopped at Mt. Athos -- and stayed.He settled in the skete of St. Andrew, where within three years he was granted the great schema and ordained first to the diaconate and then to the priesthood.

For the first four years of the growing controversy on Athos he took no part in it and hardly even knew of its existence, being so engrossed in the monastic life of prayer that he knew little of anything that was going on around him:

... I led a life highly secluded, silent, solitary; I was completely occupied by my asceticism (podvig) [and] never went outside the wall of the monastery.Not only did I not know either the persons or the affairs of other monasteries, I didn't even know many of the monks in my own monastery by name, holding myself completely apart from all affairs.Nor did I know what was happening anywhere in the world, for I read absolutely no journals or newspapers. (Moq Bor;ba 656)

His sister recalled:

He told me after, that he wanted to kill[12] his flesh and slept in winter on a stone floor which gave him terrible arthritic pains.He told that he and others spent the nights in prayer in the Andreyevsky Sobor [church] where they were bitten by bugs. (Letter dated June 14, 1973)

Though this sort of thing kept him out of monastic quarrels, he had become acquainted with Na Gorakh Kavkaza already.One of the persons to whom Agafodor sent a copy of that "harmful book written in the spirit of Farrar" was Abbot Jerome of St. Andrew's.According to Fr. Antony, Fr. Jerome turned the book over to him asking for a written opinion.He obediently proceeded to read it.Years later he recounted the decision-making process, which he says occurred sometime around spring of 1909:

... I decided at first to write a letter to Fr. Ilarion, in which I protested against this expression "the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord Jesus Christ himself" -- since for my mind, also somewhat poisoned by rationalism and lacking in fear and respect for the word and name of God, it seemed scandalous that in some way the name pronounced by my lips, thought by my mind, could be God himself."Isn't such an assertion by Fr. Ilarion divinization of creation?" I thought to myself. ... But when I wrote this letter, then a certain special heaviness of heart fell upon me, and a certain endless emptiness, coldness, and darkness possessed my heart. ... I suffered, but didn't understand the reason for this suffering, and didn't suspect that it was due to my denying the divinity of the name of the Lord.Apparently I too was about to irreversibly renounce (otstupit; ot) the name of the Lord as had Khrisanf, Aleksey, Theofan, and the other intelligentsia and half-intelligentsia on Athos from Russia, if the prayers of my unforgotten spiritual father John of Kronstadt hadn't saved me. (Moq Bor;ba 658-9)

At one of his last meetings with Fr. John, the latter had personally handed him a copy of his book Mysli Khristianina (Thoughts of a Christian) "for guidance".Now as Antony needed guidance he happened to see the book, and opening it:

... I saw before my eyes the following words:"When you say to yourself in your heart or pronounce the name of God, of the Lord, of the Holy Trinity, of the Lord of Sabaoth, or of the Lord Jesus Christ, then in this name you have the whole essence of the Lord: in it is his endless goodness, infinite wisdom, unapproachable light [etc.] ... That is why God's commandment so sternly forbids taking God's name in vain, i.e. because his name is he himself -- one God in three persons, a simple essence, represented in one word and at the same time not contained, i.e. not limited, by it or by anything that exists.The great names:Holy Trinity; or Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Word; and Holy Spirit; invoked with living, heartfelt faith and reverence, or imagined in the soul, are God himself and bring into our soul God himself in three persons." (p. 46)I was amazed, crossed myself, and, thanking God for granting understanding, immediately tore up my letter to Fr. Ilarion and burned it.And right away that inconsolable heaviness of heart that had burdened me after writing the letter went away, and I returned to my former spiritual condition. (659-60)

He returned the book to his abbot with nothing but high praise, and afterwards had little more to do either with it or the controversy that arose around it until the spring of 1912, after returning from a trip to Ethiopia to visit and bring the sacraments to Vaska.

When the articles in Russkiy Inok appeared and were brought to Fr. Antony's attention by some of the New Thebaide monks, he decided a rebuttal was in order and began by writing two short articles.One was copied locally and disseminated throughout Athos just as Khrisanf's review had been at first.The other was published, with Abbot Jerome's blessing, in the April issue of the skete's own journal.In addition, on behalf of the New Thebaide monks Fr. Antony composed an "Open Letter to Archbishop Antony" dated May 7, 1912 and sent it to him with a request that he print it in his journal to set the record straight.

Opening with the customary respectful titles with which one addresses an archbishop, the letter proceeded to ask that he admit to having erred:

Falling at your feet, we ask with humility that you hear out our explanation of the error into which the editors (redakciq) of Russkiy Inok have fallen, having believed untrue information ... Only God is infallible, and we, knowing the humility of Russian hierarchs, to whom the self-important infallibility of Catholic popes is foreign, dare to hope that you too, your holiness, will grant a place in Russkiy Inok to these our lines in which we defend ourselves against the slander raised against us [which has been] placed in Russkiy Inok and thereby proclaimed to tens of thousands of its readers. (Moq Bor;ba 663-6)

The letter quotes Fr. John of Kronstadt at length, adding that it is in the very sense meant by him that Ilarion and those who agree with him understand the expressions in question:

But neither Fr. John of Kronstadt nor any of us ... raises the name of God, i.e. letters and sounds, by essence to the level of divinity separately from God, and we do not venerate the name Jesus separately from God, as Aleksey Kireyevsky and the monk Khrisanf reproach us for doing.Let us ask Fr. Aleksey Kireyevsky:has he ever heard that any of the hermits pray, "Name Jesus have mercy on me"?

Though the letter's tone was generally not polemical, its conclusion could have been phrased more diplomatically:"First take the log (disbelief and blasphemy) from your eye, and then you will see to remove the twig (imaginary name-worship) from the eye of your brother (Mt 7:5).[Signed] Monks of Athos."

The archbishop was infuriated.Instead of publishing the letter he published one of his own in response:

On Athos the quarrels are continuing concerning the book of the fallen-into-prelest' schema-monk Ilarion, Na Gorakh Kavkaza -- highly related to khlystism, which like a fire has now engulfed all of Russia.The essence of this khlystic prelest' consists in their calling some or other cunning and sensual peasant an incarnated Christ and some or other filthy old woman the Mother of God and worshiping them in place of God, after which they betray themselves to carnal (sval;nomu) sin.This is the delusion into which Fr. Ilarion is directing his foolish followers, himself not realizing it, we hope.

Ilarion's views would help them because they need only name someone "Jesus" and the person would be a God.Abp. Antony's strident tone is striking; not only is Ilarion simply labeled "fallen into prelest'" but his teaching is called a "khlystic heresy about divine worship of names, i.e. sounds" and St. Paul's anathema against all who "preach another gospel" is applied to it.

Similarly virulent is an article by the monk Denasy of St. Panteleimon's monastery which directly follows the archbishop's letter.Denasy presents what is supposed to be a letter written by Ilarion himself in 1908 in which the latter admits that he himself created a new "dogma".An excerpt of that letter, reproduced here complete with Denasy's parenthetical remarks, reveals the tone of the whole article:

The formulation (polo'enie) of the dogma made by us is important, unusual, extraordinary (what pomposity!), and in the way in which we have formulated it (like the Roman Popes, so inclined to think up and formulate new dogmas) is not found anywhere (thanks for the admission!) except only in John of Kronstadt ...

Other articles appeared in subsequent issues of Russkiy Inok, including a refutation by Khrisanf of Antony's April refutation of his review.There he argues that in passages where Jesus speaks of faith or prayer "in my name" he not only means simply "through me" or "through my help" -- and so ascribes no special value to the name per se -- but also he is referring to his divine name "Son of God," not the human name "Jesus".

No. 19 of that magazine printed an unsigned letter "from the Caucasus" accusing Fr. Ilarion of leading a dissolute life.Whether that was more than unfounded slander is impossible to say, but at least in one respect the author expressed what was probably a common feeling, i.e., that Ilarion's turns of phrase had not been heard before and for that reason alone are to be avoided:

... some hermits here also say that if Fr. Ilarion had been of a good life, and even then only after [his] death, if his relics were glorified by miracles and included in the host of the saints, only then would it be possible to believe him, since his teaching is new. ... People lived without Fr. Ilarion's book and were being saved, but now it's as if one can't get by without it; it's just the enemy making trouble and that's all. (58)

The attacks in Russkiy Inok only worsened the quarreling, and in time two distinct camps came into being, each developing names for the other.Those siding with Khrisanf called their opponents "iisusane" (Jesusites), "iisusiki" (Jesusniks), or "imenopoklonniki" (name-worshipers), besides the derogatory terms for "peasant" already mentioned.The latter in turn called themselves "confessors of the name" and "imyaslavtsy" (name-glorifiers), while they called their opponents "imyabortsy" (name-fighters).

A Theological Response to Khrisanf's Review

Fr. Antony Bulatovich soon decided to attempt a more substantial, systematic attempt at a literary defense not of Ilarion's book but rather of the very phrase "the name of God is God himself."The resulting 190 page book contained much material found for him by scores of other monks who, though relatively uneducated, were nevertheless very well read in scripture and church fathers.Initially only 75 hectographed copies of Apologiya very vo Imya Bozhiye i vo Imya Iisus (An Apology of Faith in the Name of God and in the Name Jesus) were distributed around Athos, but the book later was published in Russia and became widely known as the foundational theological work in behalf of the imyaslavtsy.

Fr. Antony observes that although the phrase in question is not to be found in scriptural, patristic, or liturgical texts, neither is anything which would contradict it.Moreover, nowhere can one find attacks like those of the imyabortsy against the honor and divine dignity of God's name; quite the contrary, all these sources unanimously and constantly speak in the most exalted terms of God's name.Khrisanf says church services praise God himself and not his name, but in fact the texts frequently speak of glorifying his name, pleasing his name, praising his name, worshiping his name, blessing his name, serving his name, and the like. (See 157-72)And so not only do they explicitly contradict Khrisanf, they are also completely incompatible with his understanding of "name" which would limit it to a mere symbol of sound.

And scripture agrees with the liturgical texts.The Psalms, for example, are full of statements absolutely irreconcilable with Khrisanf's narrow view of "name," such as:"... how majestic is your name in all the earth" (8:1); "May the name of the God of Jacob exalt you" (20:1); "O magnify Yahweh with me and let us exalt his name together" (34:3); [The Lord says] "I will exalt him because he has known my name" (91:14); "Save me O God by your name and vindicate me by your power" (54:1); "I will give thanks to your name, Yahweh, for it is good" (54:6); "Our help is in the name of Yahweh" (124:8); and "God is known in Judah; his name is great in Israel" (76:1).Similar expressions, where "name" is impossible to interpret as nothing more than a mere combination of letters, abound throughout the Old Testament.In Ezekiel we find one of many explanations that God acts "for his name's sake":

Therefore say to the house of Israel, "Thus says the Lord Yahweh, 'It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name ... Then the nations will know that I am Yahweh,' declares the Lord Yahweh, 'when I prove myself holy among you in their sight.'" (36:22-3)

What all this shows is that "God's name" actually has a wide range of meanings.It is often used to mean the glory of God in the sense of his reputation among men, as in the text of Ezekiel quoted above.In that respect it ultimately means all that we know or can know about God.And since this begins with the entirety of the created world as a revelation of the Creator, all of creation proclaims -- and praises -- God's name:

Praise Yahweh from the earth,

Sea monsters and all deeps;

Fire and hail, snow and clouds;

Stormy wind, fulfilling his word;

Mountains and all hills;

Fruit trees and all cedars;

Beasts and all cattle;

Creeping things and winged fowl;

Kings of the earth and all peoples;

Princes and all judges of the earth;

Both young men and maidens;

Old men and children.

Let them praise the name of Yahweh

For his name alone is exalted;

His glory is above earth and heaven. (Ps 148:7-13)

And insofar as God has also revealed himself through his prophets in the Old Testament scriptures, they in their entirety in a sense constitute one very long name of God.One significant passage confirming the validity of this wider understanding of what is meant by "God's name" is in Exodus where the Lord fulfills a promise to proclaim to Moses his name -- and does so not by uttering a single word but by making a long descriptive statement:

[The Lord said,] "Yahweh, Yahweh, God compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in faithfulness and truth; who keeps faithfulness to thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet he will by no means acquit [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of fathers on sons and on sons' sons unto the third and fourth generations." (34:6-7)

The whole of the Old Testament is thus dedicated to revealing God's name -- i.e., who he is and what he is like -- and so all of its content is his name, or in other words all is included in his name.

Given this wider understanding of name, the New Testament corollary is obvious.As we read in Hebrews, "God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers by the prophets in many measures and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in a Son, ... who is the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his nature ..." (1:1-3)Elsewhere Jesus is called the "image of the unseen God" (Col 1:15; see also 2 Cor 4:4 and Jn 14:8-9)Therefore insofar as he is the perfect revelation of God, he is the perfect name of God.More precisely, he himself is the only true revelation of God, the only true name of God:"All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son desires to reveal [him]." (Mt 11:27)

It is precisely this interpretation equating "the name of God" with Jesus Christ that makes sense of many passages of both Old and New Testaments.Is 30:27, for example ("Behold, the name of the Lord comes from afar"), is thus a prophecy of the coming of Christ.In Jn 12:28 Jesus' prayer "Father, glorify your name" to which the Father answered "I have both glorified it and I will glorify it again" is a similar case:

... the Father as it were says thus: "I have already glorified my Son, who is my name, by a multitude of miracles which revealed his divinity and glorified my name among men, but I also will again reveal the divinity of Jesus by raising him from the dead, and having glorified my Son, will glorify my name." (29)

This interpretation is confirmed when Jesus just before the crucifixion says:"Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you ..." (Jn 17:1)

Also directly parallel to statements like the Father's response in Jn 12:28 are several made by the Son, like the one in 17:26:"I have made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in them."As Fr. Antony notes, here the very requirement for God's love, for Christ himself, to "be in" the believer is knowledge of God's name -- which is ultimately knowledge of Christ himself.

After Apologiya Very was written Fr. Antony also found patristic evidence affirming that "God's name" means Jesus Christ himself.St. Maximus the Confessor ascribes trinitarian significance to the Lord's Prayer:"For the name of the God and Father essentially subsisting is the only-begotten Son; and the kingdom of the God and Father essentially subsisting is the Holy Spirit."(Patrologia Graeca 90:884)Hence "hallowed be thy name" means "may we glorify the Son through our lives and deeds" and "thy kingdom come" means "may thy Holy Spirit come to us."

So the meaning of "God's name" is not limited to a mere symbol of sound but rather includes both that symbol and the fullness of knowledge about God which the symbol designates -- and so "God's name" must ultimately be equated with Jesus Christ.Accordingly, patristic statements the imyabortsy quote to denigrate the importance of God's name actually exalt it, such as St. Basil the Great's"The thought of God established in us by means of the memory is the installation (vselenie) in us of God himself." (54)This in fact does speak of God's name, for in its widest sense, God's name is our thought of, our understanding of, our knowledge of God; it is all that we know and can know about him.

Such an understanding of "name" then permits drawing parallels between the current controversy and the fourteenth century one about knowledge of God.At that time St. Gregory Palamas defended against Barlaam the Calabrian the proposition that knowledge of God consists of direct experience of God which is given to Christians both now and in the life to come.This experience of communion with God, or "deification," is nevertheless not absolute since the fundamental distinction between Creator and created remains.So God is at once truly knowable and yet unknowable, accessible and yet inaccessible.St. Gregory explained this duality by distinguishing God's "essence" from his "energies" (or "grace," "actions," "works," "deeds," "characteristics," etc.).Only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God by essence; all creatures are called into being by his energies, maintained in existence by his energies, and share in his life through his energies.It is thus through the "energies" that the Christian knows the unknowable God and is "deified"; i.e., "becomes God" by grace, though not by essence.

The church councils which affirmed the Palamite teachings proclaimed that the light seen by the apostles at the Lord's Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor (Mt 17:1 ff) was one manifestation of this divine energy, so Fr. Antony suggests that "just as the divine visible light is an action of divine light and is God himself, so too the mental light of truth is a verbal action of God and is God himself." (5)In this way God's name as knowledge of him is equated with his energies which are he himself insofar as they are inseparable from his essence.It is on this basis that Fr. Antony dares to call his opponents heretics, for he claims that they agree with Barlaam in denying both the divinity of God's energies and the unity of those energies with God's essence.

Fr. Antony takes care to stress that he does not claim the name is "adequate" to God; God is in no way limited by what we know or can know of him.There always remains something beyond our knowledge, something yet unknown.Nor does he identify the name with God's essence, which is another way of saying the same thing.Nor does he divinize creation, for:

We do not divinize the conventional sounds and letters with which the divine truth and idea about God is expressed, for these letters and sounds are not the divine action of Divinity but an action of the human body; nevertheless we believe that even to these sounds and letters is attached (prisu]a) the grace of God for the sake of the divine name pronounced with them. (188)

It is rather the truth itself which is the content of God's name and is expressed by the "conventional sounds and letters" of that name which is God himself.

And that divinely revealed truth is indeed inseparably connected to the letters which designate it, for to understand them when hearing or reading them, and to pronounce them as a confession of faith or in prayer is never a strictly human action but is made possible only through a reciprocal action of the Holy Spirit.According to Lk 24:45, it was Christ himself who "opened the apostles' minds to understand the scriptures."And 1 Cor 12:3 clearly asserts that divine help is necessary even for a simple confession of faith:"No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit."[13] (see also 1 Jn 4:2)Likewise, the same passage speaks of a variety of "gifts of the Spirit" such as words of wisdom, words of knowledge, prophecy, etc., and summarizes all with the words "One and the same Spirit works all these things ..."So these outwardly human actions are also divine actions and in that sense God himself.

This is precisely how St. Gregory of Sinai's assertion that "Prayer is God working all in all" is to be understood.Since even the imyabortsy don't dare say he was mistaken:

We can't resist exclaiming on this account in the Lord's words "You blind men, which is greater -- the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?" (Mt 23:19)Is it not God's name in prayer that sanctifies the whole prayer?! If each word in prayer is recognized as having divine power as a verbal action of divinity, then much more God himself is the name of God and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in prayer!Is it possible to suppose that the request in the Jesus Prayer "have mercy on me" could be God, but the name "Lord Jesus Christ Son of God" is not God? (54-5)

And the words of prayer are indeed inseparable from prayer itself, as John of Kronstadt affirms:

When praying it is necessary so to believe in the power of the words of prayer, that you do not separate the very words from the very deed expressed by them:it is necessary to believe that behind the word, as a shadow behind a body, follows also the deed, just as with the Lord word and deed are inseparable. (Qtd. in Apologiya Very 55)

This is what the Lord meant when he advised absolute confidence in the power of prayer, as in Mk 11:24: "... everything which you pray and ask for, believe that you have received it and it will be unto you."And so Fr. John explains that God himself is indeed present in every single word of prayer:

God is a Spirit, a simple Essence, but how does a Spirit manifest itself? -- in thought, word, and deed.Therefore God, as a simple Essence, does not consist of a series or a multitude of thoughts, or of a multitude of deeds or works, but rather he is wholly (On ves;) in one simple thought -- God-Trinity, or in one simple word -- Trinity, or in three persons united into one.But he himself is also in all that exists; he penetrates all [and] fills all with himself.For instance, you read a prayer, and he is wholly in each word, as a holy fire penetrating each word.Each person can experience this if one prays sincerely [and] fervently, with faith and love.But especially he is wholly in the names which belong to him:Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [etc.] ... (Qtd. in Apologiya Very 81)

In any case, God's name in prayer is not a mere means for calling upon him; it is not, as Khrisanf says, a "mediating power" (posredstvu[]aq sila).No scriptural or patristic evidence for this assertion exists, and it is objectionable insofar as it suggests that the power of the name is not an active power, is secondary, or is not divine.The "mediating power" is in fact the individual's faith rather than God's name.Evidence for the divine name as the active power is found in Acts 3:16 ("His Name has strengthened this man ...") and Matthew 18:20 ("For where two or three have gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.").Here Fr. Antony emphasizes that the Lord does not say "I will come" or "I will be there," but "there I am" -- expressing an immediacy strongly suggestive of his presence in the name itself.Support for Fr. Antony's view of the relationship between God's name and the individual's faith also comes from St. John Chrysostom, who writes that when people have not been healed by the invocation of the divine name, "this occurred due to their lack of faith, and not because of the powerlessness of the pronounced name; in just the same way many touched Jesus and pressed against him and received no benefit, but the woman with the flow of blood, having touched not [his] body but the edge of his clothing" was healed. (60)

Therefore it is through the power of the name that the sacraments are performed.If they were made effective by the faith of the priest, then a faithless or absent-minded priest would be disastrous for his flock.And ascribing their effectiveness to the faith of individual believers constitutes Lutheran receptionism.Neither is true.God acts in the sacraments for the sake of his name.Invocation of the name is thus at the heart of every sacrament, and its use in prayer is similarly reliable:"We acknowledge the efficacy of every invocation of the name of God, either for salvation or for condemnation, for we believe that the name of God is God himself." (15)

Icons and crosses too are sanctified by the name imprinted on them, or rather their sanctification consists in their being forms of God's name:

Are not the very lines of the face of the Lord on the icon a graphic depiction of the names of the characteristics of humility and mercifulness of Jesus? ... Is not also the sign of the cross a depiction of the name of the crucified Jesus, and is not its power borrowed from the name of Jesus? (170)

As for that very name Jesus, one of Khrisanf's worst mistakes was to ascribe it to the Lord's human nature only.It was the iconoclasts who argued that one could not make a true icon of Jesus because it would portray only his human nature.But that view was rejected by the Church when it decided that the image depicts the person in his entirety.Since in Christ the two natures are inseparable, an image of Christ truly is an image not only of a human being but of God himself.Clearly, the same is true of the name Jesus, which therefore includes within itself all other names of the Son of God as well.Khrisanf's view thus essentially splits the Lord into two persons and is or leads to the heresy of nestorianism.[14]

The imyabortsy even go so far as to say that "Jesus" is not only not the name "above all names" but is actually the "least of all names," though the latter expression they have not ventured to put in print.They interpret all of the Lord's commandments to "ask" and "have faith" "in my name" as referring to "Son of God" rather than "Jesus," yet the Lord himself when he appeared to Paul -- even after his earthly life -- told him simply "I am Jesus." (Acts 9:5)As for their claim that the name "Jesus" is least important because it is the "youngest" of the Lord's names, in fact it is not relatively new but is as eternal as God's plan of salvation, which idea it expresses.In any case, all God's names are essentially equal in their divine dignity and power, all, as it were, rays of the one sun.

Yet for Christians "Jesus" is indeed somehow special insofar as it is the personal name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is our Savior.It is that meaning and the Lord's fulfillment of that role that gives us particular confidence to pray to God:

The name above all names is "Jesus" also because by the very sense expressed by it -- Savior who has come to save sinners -- it gives to sinners greater boldness in prayer to him above his other names.Actually -- is it possible for a sinner to boldly dare to call God "Father" when he knows himself by his sins to be a child of the devil and a son of evil and of malice and a vessel of uncleanness!?Is it possible with a clean conscience to call God the Lord for one who knows himself to be enslaved to money, pride, and passions!?But look -- even the most inveterate sinner can boldly and clean-heartedly call the Lord "Jesus," with hope and intrepid expectation of being forgiven and granted mercy, because the Lord so deigned to be named and to justify his name "Jesus -- Savior of sinners" on the cross. (115-6)

In later works, Fr. Antony also points out that St. Peter was specifically comparing the name "Jesus" to the Old Testament names of God when he proclaimed to the Jewish high priests that "... there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Nor is the Son of God's name Jesus to be considered equal to that of humans who have borne the same name, as Abp. Antony claims.For there is only one true Jesus; those in the Old Testament were foreshadowings of he who was to come.Joshua (whose name in Hebrew is identical to that of Jesus) himself was an antitype of Jesus Christ insofar as God prophesied through Moses that an "angel," "in whom is my name," would lead the Israelites into the promised land (Ex 23:20-1) -- and it was Joshua himself who led them there.In any case only Jesus Christ can perfectly justify that name's meaning "Savior".And besides, the topic of discussion is after all not a mere combination of letters considered abstractly apart from all meaning but rather "Jesus" specifically as the personal name of the Son of God.And where in any Christian literature written anytime anywhere can be found attacks upon the dignity and importance of that name?

The end result of all these attacks on Jesus' name will be that monks will grow lax in their practice of the Jesus prayer.Some have even openly suggested that one need not think of Jesus' name in prayer, that the divine name in prayer is like the address on the envelope of a letter, while the prayer itself is like the letter itself, wherein the name need not even be mentioned.This is a teaching that will surely lead to prelest', as Fr. Antony explains:

Every conversation of one person with another depends on a certain guiding thought which induces me to turn to that person and which compels me to say to him one thing and not another.It is not difficult to prove that this very guiding thought is a kind of name of the other person and is also a consciousness of certain of one's own personal qualities, i.e. a kind of name of oneself.Thus, for example, a person realizes he is sick and goes to a doctor; consequently, in order to turn to the doctor, what must the person at first think in his mind but two names:his own name -- "sick" and the name of the other -- "doctor".So the person comes to the doctor and believes in the name "doctor," that he is in actual fact a doctor, and accordingly carries on a conversation with the doctor about his sickness, holding in his mind the whole time the two designations:I am "sick," and this man is "doctor." (48-9)

Here it becomes clear that by insisting on the name's importance in prayer Fr. Antony is insisting on the importance of remembering the personal identity both of him to whom the prayer is addressed and of oneself.In prayer the necessary "guiding thought" is that prayer consists of interaction between a sinful human person and the personal God who is ready, willing, and able to help:

In order to turn to God, the one who prays necessarily must imagine in his mind some designation of the characteristics of God, i.e. some name of God, as for instance:either "Good One" or "Awesome One" or "Great One" or "our Savior" or "our Creator" or "Sweetest Jesus" or "He who commanded to us to ask for everything from him and to believe in the fulfillment of the request" or "He who forbade under fear of eternal punishment that sin which I did."These are all designations or names of God held in the mind of the one praying, according to which he guides the words of prayer.Just so it is necessary for the person to hold in his consciousness also a certain designation of his own or a name, as for instance, that I am powerless, unhappy, or sinful, or that I have been blessed by God, or that I am a son of God by grace, or that I am dust and ashes. (50)

If one ceases to think of God as a real person (or rather one God in three persons) or forgets who he is, one is no longer speaking to the true God but a figment of one's imagination.Thinking to do without the name in prayer the imyabortsy are thus either truly in prelest' trying to imagine an unimaginable "essence" or do not understand what God's name truly is:

Is it even possible to think anything about God that would not at the same time be a depiction of his name?Are not all the nameable characteristics of God his name?Is not the remembrance of all the deeds of God contemplation of his characteristics?Are not contemplated in all the words of God his wisdom, goodness, and truth?No matter where you direct your eye -- to scripture, to miracles, to his words or to his deeds -- everywhere you will inevitably contemplate his name, and in the whole gospel and in the whole history of our redemption by God the Word you will read the name "Jesus" -- "God the Redeemer". (54)

All of these arguments are authentic expressions of Orthodox Christianity, but the first-time reader of Apologiya Very will be struck by the polemical tone, the relatively poor organization, and the sometimes strained interpretations to make quotations seem more favorable to Fr. Antony's thesis than they might in reality be.It is not difficult to see that one inclined to Khrisanf's view of God's name as merely a means for calling upon him in prayer would not be convinced by a multitude of references to miracles or healings worked "in the name" or "by the name".

In addition, Fr. Antony could have been a bit more judicious in his choice of examples to support his position.Some seem bound rather to put off rather than to convince, such as one used to support the assertion that God's name (as opposed to the individual's faith) is the effective force in the sacraments:

We recall a description in the Prologue for January 8 of how certain children thought of serving a Liturgy for a joke, and, having placed on a rock the bread of offering and the wine, and having read all the prescribed prayers ... they read also the words of changing -- and fire fell from heaven and consumed both the sacrifice and the rock, and they fell down senseless. (15)

Nevertheless, considering that Apologiya Very is the work of one who did not have a formal theological education and that it was completed in just a few months, it is truly a remarkable achievement.It is true that on a first casual reading by an unprejudiced person it may not leave a particularly good impression.And one can see how those already opposed to its point of view would find it easy to focus on the mistakes and defects.But fortunately for Fr. Antony's point of view the majority of the Russian monks of Athos were not among the latter.To the contrary, the subsequent course of events on Mt. Athos indicates that those previously uncommitted found his book very convincing indeed.

Retaliation Against the Author of Apologiya Very

It was not convincing enough for his abbot, though.Antony's first articles had been written and published with Abbot Jerome's blessing, and Apologiya Very had been begun that way, but before its completion Jerome radically changed his stand.That apparently occurred as follows.During June and July Fr. Aleksey Kireyevsky made several trips to St. Andrew's in an unsuccessful attempt at convincing Jerome to put a stop to Fr. Antony's "propaganda."Then on July 19 he brought a letter from Abp. Antony in which the latter expressed great anger not only at Fr. Antony Bulatovich but also at Jerome himself for printing Fr. Antony's works in the skete's journal.Others then warned the abbot that the powerful archbishop would probably one day be metropolitan or even patriarch and would in retaliation expropriate St. Andrew's dependencies in St. Petersburg and Odessa.It seems likely that such arguments along with the archbishop's own words did have an influence upon Jerome; in any case, soon thereafter he prohibited Fr. Antony from continuing to write and from associating with the monks from New Thebaide.Fr. Antony refused to obey and so on July 26, 1912 was obliged to leave St. Andrew's.He was taken in by the nearby kelliya of the Annunciation located less than a mile from St. Andrew's, from which he continued his work unhindered.

Fr. Jerome began active opposition to the imyaslavtsy.He called in for personal discussions those he suspected of sharing Fr. Ilarion's and Fr. Antony's views and even confiscated copies of Na Gorakh Kavkaza and burned them.It is about one of those discussions that the most famous single anecdote of the whole controversy is told:he is said to have emphasized his point in an argument by writing the name "Jesus" on a piece of paper, throwing it on the ground, and stomping on it, saying "There's your God!"Jerome himself later denied having done that, but his opponents claimed to have eyewitnesses.For his part, Fr. Antony was not inclined to mince words and entitled one pamphlet written around that time "The New Demon-talk of the Imyabortsy" (Novoe besoslovie imqborcev).That work Fr. Jerome eventually countered with an "open letter" disavowing any agreement with the teachings set forth in it and in all Fr. Antony's other writings. (Text in Kliment 759-60)But he did not specify what those teachings were, and such a short disavowal relying on pastoral authority and completely devoid of theological proofs finally proved no match for Fr. Antony's "propaganda" devoid of the former and full of the latter.

IMYASLAVTSY VICTORIOUS

The Ecumenical Patriarch Enters the Fray

During the summer of 1912 the leadership of the Rossikon (another name for St. Panteleimon's monastery) also took a firm stand against the imyaslavtsy.On August 20 Abbot Misail, among whose closest advisors was Agafodor, thought to bring the quarreling to an end by having the entire brotherhood sign one "confession of faith" that would presumably settle the matter once and for all.After beginning with the standard Nicene creed this document added:

When we pronounce his all-holy and divine name, i.e. Jesus Christ, we represent to ourselves the invisible presence of himself, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity, neither separating his name, nor confusing.In which [i.e. in the name of Jesus] we must be saved, but we must honor him [i.e. only Jesus himself] and worship the Lord God himself. (Qtd. in Komnenos 365-6)

This was obviously created by a person who shared Khrisanf's point of view; the statement that "we must be saved in the name" (from Acts 4:12) was a sop to the imyaslavtsy, while the main thrust was the implication that the name is not to be honored or worshiped.

This confession was presented to each monk of the monastery to sign individually in the presence of the council of twelve elders with the abbot.Under such conditions most dared not do otherwise, but a certain Fr. Dositheus insisted on being given a copy of it to take and examine at his leisure, which request was reluctantly granted.He then carried it off to Fr. Antony Bulatovich at the kelliya of the Annunciation, where his suspicions of its unacceptability were confirmed.

Perhaps because of this latest impasse both sides in the dispute finally decided to appeal to the ecclesiastical authority common to them all -- the patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul).Fr. Antony sent to Patr. Joachim III a letter. (See Komnenos 363-4)Misail sent the monk Kirik, apparently an activist on the side of Aleksey and Agafodor, along with a copy of Na Gorakh Kavkaza.Since he knew no Russian, the patriarch's ability to investigate the issues was limited, and since he could naturally be expected to pay more attention to the personal arguments of the representative of a great monastery than to one short letter of a simple and unknown monk, his response was predictable.

In a letter dated September 2, 1912 (See OI IHSOYANOI) and addressed to Abbot Misail and all Athonite monks "Russian by race," the patriarch warned all those who had invented a "false theory" about "the divinity of the name 'Jesus'" to cease from their "ignorant theologizing" and "soul-destroying error" and instead to attend to the salvation of their own souls.The solution to whatever misunderstandings they have is to be found in the traditional teaching of the Church, "beyond or besides which no one has the right to innovate and say something new."Since the cause of the "scandal" is the book of Ilarion, which contains many "expressions about the name 'Jesus'" which are "false, leading to error and heresy," its reading is forbidden to all who live on the Holy Mountain.More severe measures are promised to follow in the case of persistence and disobedience on the part of those disseminating the "ignorant and blasphemous teaching".

Misail arranged to have the letter translated into Russian, read publicly at a special meeting of the brotherhood of the Rossikon, copied, and disseminated throughout Russian Athos.The Russian translation, while usually faithful to the Greek, contained one noteworthy misrepresentation which betrayed the attitude of its translators.Where the patriarch had warned that no one is permitted to "innovate and say something new" (nevteriqzein kai kainofoneéin), the Russian text read "innovate and use new expressions" (novwestvovat; i novye vyra'eniq upotreblqt;).The difference between these phrases is substantial.One can use the same old expressions to say something essentially new -- as when monophysites used St. Cyril's "one nature in Christ" to deny Jesus Christ's humanity.And one can use new expressions to say something that had always been implicit -- as when the term "Trinity" or the phrase "two natures in Christ" came into use.This mistranslation simplified matters for those siding with Khrisanf, for they could easily show that Ilarion's "expression" was new, whereas to prove that it meant something essentially new and therefore foreign to the faith was another matter.

Although the Patriarch's letter was presented as a condemnation of the imyaslavtsy, it did not serve that purpose well.To begin with, it was extremely vague and ambiguous.While condemning certain "expressions," Joachim never said which ones they were, nor did he in any way specify the content of the "false theory".Fr. Antony could and did interpret them as referring rather to such expressions as Khrisanf's "mediating power" or to his attributing the name "Jesus" only to the Lord's human nature.This is hardly what the patriarch intended, but then by leaving the issues unspecified he had left his letter open to such interpretations.Probably he had hoped mainly to foster peace among the Russian monks of Athos without having to invest the time and effort necessary for a detailed investigation of complicated theological issues.Not having performed that investigation, he was careful to avoid saying anything that could later turn out to be wrong.Hence the ambiguous wording.Hence also his failure to resolve the problem and secure the hoped-for peace.The genuine theological issues that were the true cause of the unrest remained unaddressed, and a mere order to "stop talking about it" would not make them go away.

Moreover, although it was heralded as an official dogmatic decree in which the very authority of the Church itself had spoken, Fr. Antony could convincingly argue that in truth it was more like a private letter:it didn't have the signature of the patriarch and the bishops in his synod; it didn't have the patriarch's official seal; it didn't have the headings and initial greetings customary for such official decrees; and it had been addressed directly to Misail instead of to the Iera Koinotes ("Sacred Community"; also called the Protat), the central governing assembly of the Holy Mountain.

Trouble Brews at St. Andrew's Skete

A relative calm followed the reception of this letter, but it appears to have been due as much to Fr. Aleksey's departure for Jerusalem as to the letter itself (a visiting Russian hierarch, vicar-bishop of Moscow Trifon, reportedly advised Fr. Misail to send him away for that purpose).The calm did not last.On December 2 more than one hundred monks in a "council" held at New Thebaide unanimously proclaimed their belief that God's name truly is God himself, and they condemned Khrisanf's review as heretical and blasphemous.That decision was reached peacefully, but in another month the imyaslavtsy won a similar victory at St. Andrew's in a complex series of events involving fist-fights and excommunications.

In November of 1912 Abbot Jerome left St. Andrew's to attend to affairs at the skete's dependency "Nuzla" in Macedonia, apparently convinced that he had adequately dealt with those inclined toward Ilarion's views.In fact, he had succeeded rather in stirring up active opposition to himself as well as to his theological position, and his opponents used his unusually long absence of seven weeks to their advantage.A few took the lead in this work, talking to uncommitted monks, passing around copies of Fr. Antony's writings, and even arranging to have scriptural and patristic texts glorifying the name of God be read at meal times.[15]They spread around copies of Jerome's open letter to Fr. Antony, arguing that since he had personally approved the publication of Fr. Antony's first article but in the letter denies any agreement with the views presented in all his writings, one can only conclude that it is he who has changed his views.Formerly Orthodox, he is no longer so.During December the squabbling degenerated to the degree that someone wrote and passed around a note warning that "During dinner they will bang on the plates, and directly after this all those on Jerome's side will begin to be beat up."However, both sides claimed the other wrote the note, and at the sparsely attended dinner that day no beatings occurred.

At any rate, by the time Jerome returned on January 8 the tide had turned against him, and he found a large number of monks unwilling even to approach him for the customary blessing.Jerome called the three monks he determined to be ringleaders in marshalling sentiment against him to an assembly of the twelve epitropoi (the governing body charged with aiding an abbot in his administration of a skete or monastery).The intention was to take disciplinary measures, but when he called upon the members of the council to condemn and expel the "rebels" from the skete, the latter exclaimed that they did not recognize the council's authority because its most senior member was not present.That was the ancient Archimandrite David, a man highly honored among the brotherhood for his status as one of the skete's founders (he had contributed millions of rubles to building it up) and for his long forty-five year presence there.Whether his not being invited had been because his sympathies for the imyaslavtsy were known or because, as a partisan of Jerome later claimed, he was not actually an epitropos at the time is difficult to determine now.The former seems likely, for Jerome acceded to their demand and summoned Fr. David.

This time when Jerome again read the charges against the three, a young monk who was present neither as one of the judges nor as one of those being tried (presumably his job was to serve coffee or take notes) suddenly spoke up, excitedly accusing Jerome himself of blasphemy and heresy.After that,

... a heavy silence reigned for several minutes.Finally, having recovered from the interruption, Fr. Jerome sensed that it had become necessary not to condemn [others] but to defend himself and said in a quiet voice to Fr. David, "I hear that you call me a heretic."

"I not only call [you that], but here at the council I affirm that you are a heretic, a blasphemer of the name of God," replied David.An altercation began, which ended with Fr. David leaving the conference hall and exclaiming, "Flee, brothers; our abbot is a heretic.[16]Before the whole council he repudiated Jesus." (Moq Bor;ba 134-5)

This striking remark was directed to the large crowd of monks that had gathered outside the hall waiting to see the outcome, and coming as it did from such an authoritative figure it made quite an impression.Actually Jerome had taken pains to deny having made just such a repudiation, responding directly to claims that he had changed his originally Orthodox opinions:

[He] answered to this that in that letter [to Fr. Antony] he had written that he does not acknowledge the teaching of Bulatovich -- but not that he repudiates the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom he believes and confesses that he --our Lord Jesus Christ -- is the true God [and] that his name is holy, awesome, [and] worthy of worship (dostopoklonqemo).But although he has such a reverent attitude toward it -- toward the name of God -- he does not divinize it.

"But I confess that the name Jesus is God himself with [his] essence and with all his characteristics," said Fr. David.

"And when the name 'Jesus son of Nave or son of Sirach' occurs in divine scripture, then what do you think?" asked Abbot Jerome.

"Of course, then it isn't God."

"Then why are you arguing?" (Kliment 764)

In part what was at work here was the unwillingness of either side to try to understand the other.The imyaslavtsy could reasonably argue that a denial of the divinity of the Lord's name implied or would inevitably lead to a denial of his own divinity, but those doing so did not consciously make that connection.So a statement like Fr. David's was something of an oversimplification and misrepresentation even if, as Fr. Antony suggests, all were aware of the particulars of the controversy and would have understood that in saying "he repudiated Jesus" David meant "he repudiated Jesus' name".

The next morning, in order to defend his own reputation Jerome called a meeting of the senior monks of the skete, about sixty in all.He explained that the accusations against him were groundless slander; affirmed that he had never changed his beliefs; read the creed to prove his Orthodoxy; and even repeated his expressions of respect for God's name.But a certain Fr. Sergius loudly accused him of having "repudiated Jesus" on the previous day.Then during the ensuing altercation a large crowd of uninvited junior monks began to enter through the unlocked doors, and as they filled the hall the meeting quickly turned into a series of vehement accusations of heresy and blasphemy directed against Jerome.Finally the senior epitropos asked the brotherhood, "Well, what do you want?" and received the reply "We want a change of abbot."Jerome reportedly then remarked "Well, do with me as you will," and left the hall.

Ethnic Rivalries on Mt. Athos

Since the skete's charter stipulated that if the brotherhood became dissatisfied with their abbot they could remove him and elect another by a simple majority vote, many felt the first stage had already been achieved.So the leaders of the party of imyaslavtsy felt empowered to immediately call back Fr. Antony Bulatovich, who upon leaving back in July of 1912 had given a written promise not to return except at the request of abbot and brotherhood.He came immediately and assumed the lead in all of the following events.The next day, January 10, a meeting of the whole brotherhood was called to confirm its deposition of Fr. Jerome.Unanimous assent to this was confirmed by acclamation (it seems that those on Jerome's side simply did not attend), and two tables were presented with petitions to which those present were invited to affix their signatures.One read:

I the undersigned believe and confess that the name of God and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is holy by itself (samo po sebe), is inseparable from God, and is God himself, as is confessed by many holy fathers.Blasphemers and despisers of the Lord's name I reject as heretics, and therefore I request the removal of the abbot Jerome. (Moq Bor;ba 141)

The other read:

We the undersigned, having lost love and trust for our abbot, Archimandrite Jerome, request his removal.

According to Fr. Antony two different forms were used due to distrust of the Greeks.

The cause for that distrust may be found in the political history of Mt. Athos.Although always under the direct spiritual authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Holy Mountain had long been governed locally by a body of representatives quartered in the town of Karyes.The method of choosing these representatives varied until the seventeenth century when the present system was instituted, according to which each of twenty "ruling monasteries" sends one representative to that council (called the Iera Koinotes).Every other monastic institution on the Mountain, from tiny hermitages to large communities of hundreds of monks, then came under the direct authority of one of these twenty monasteries.The "twenty" became so entrenched in their positions that other monasteries established later could even not even be called by that name but rather had to be called "sketes" in recognition of their subordinate relationship to whatever ruling monastery they happened to be under.As might be expected, over time some "monasteries" declined almost to extinction while some "sketes" grew larger than most of the "monasteries" -- yet the decrepit monastery always maintained full political power over the bustling skete due to the antiquated political system.

Being located in Greece, Athos has long been inhabited primarily by Greeks, but as it eventually became a monastic center for all of the Orthodox world, other ethnic groups established their own monasteries there -- Bulgarians, Rumanians, Georgians, and Serbians, as well as Russians.The latter were among the last to come to Athos in significant numbers so at first had no political power on the peninsula.But soon they outnumbered the Greeks at one of the twenty ruling monasteries, installed a Russian abbot, and turned it into an officially and exclusively Russian monastery.That was the Rossikon, and it grew to be the largest on Athos, with a population at its peak of around 1,700 monks.The Russians continued to immigrate, and they built two other large monasteries which, being new, had to be placed under the direct authority of (Greek) ruling monasteries and so had to be called "sketes".These were the sketes of St. Elijah and St. Andrew.Each was comprised of several hundred monks, a number greater than that of many of the ruling monasteries.During the nineteenth century Russians continued to fill many other smaller monastic settlements and hermitages, their numbers eventually exceeding even that of the Greeks.Yet with all these changes they still had only a one twentieth say in governing the affairs of the peninsula.And so the Russians resented the Greeks for maintaining political power and using it to their advantage though being numerically in the minority.

The Greeks in turn resented the Russians.They felt like a small nation about to be swallowed up by a gigantic imperialist power and resented the fact that many of their financial resources, largely in the form of wealthy pilgrims who would leave donations behind them, were being diverted from their own monasteries to those of the Russians.That was an unavoidable eventuality since the wealthiest Orthodox country was Russia, and most of the wealthy pilgrims were Russian.

Then suddenly in November of 1912 Athos was freed by Greece from the political control of the Ottoman Empire, an event both sides saw to be fraught with both danger and opportunity.The Turks had at least been neutral in Russo-Greek squabbles, but the Russians feared that such would not be the case if the Greek state took political control of Athos.Hence the Russian government proposed to the Greek government a plan for giving control of Athos to an international protectorate under a consortium of six Orthodox countries, naturally with Russia at its head.The Russian monks of Athos supported the plan wholeheartedly and made no secret of their intention to use it as an opportunity to remedy inequities in the Holy Mountain's system of local government.Ideally they hoped to institute a direct-election system whereby each monk would have one vote, but they at least hoped to raise their two large sketes of St. Elijah and St. Andrew to the status of ruling monasteries.

Initially the Greek government was inclined to go along with the Russian plan, but upon encountering vociferous opposition to the idea from the Greek monasteries of Athos, it decided to leave the decision up to the conference of Great Powers being held in London.To that conference the Greek monasteries sent delegations lobbying against the international protectorate and in favor of making Athos part of the Greek state.The Russian monastery sent its own delegation arguing in favor of the international protectorate and against making Athos part of the Greek state.And so Russo-Greek tensions on Athos were at an all-time high during the very period of this theological controversy.

St. Andrew's was subordinated to the Greek monastery Vatopedi, so any action as important as replacing the abbot required its official approval.And so the imyaslavtsy were concerned that if the Greeks became aware that behind the events at St. Andrew's was a theological controversy, they would use it against the Russians in any way they could.Besides that, it was felt that the Greeks' low level of spiritual life disqualified them from acting as judges in a theological controversy anyway.And since for the removal of an abbot the skete's charter required only the brotherhood's dissatisfaction with him, the second petition citing "loss of love and trust" was all that had to be explained to Vatopedi. The first explaining the theological reasons was to be sent later to the Russian Holy Synod for confirmation of its validity.

Both petitions were signed by 302 monks, with only 70 refusing.An impressive margin, but perhaps due in part to a degree of coercion since each monk had to approach the table in the presence of the entire brotherhood and publicly sign or not sign.Given the obviously strong feelings of a vocal majority (or even minority) it would take a strong-willed person not to do so, and one may imagine that there could have been some among the 302 who simply found signing the easiest route to take.Had a secret ballot been used as was stipulated in the charter, the results might have been more favorable for Jerome.

A similar process was used for choosing the new abbot.Fr. Antony says he at first suggested nominating candidates and choosing among them by secret ballot, but then:

The elders and the whole brotherhood in one voice objected, "What other candidates are there, we all ask for Fr. David.""Whoever wants Fr. David -- move over to the right; whoever doesn't want him, move to the left" exclaimed Fr. Sergius, and all three hundred persons turned up on the right side. (Moq Bor;ba 141)

The process of getting confirmation for these proceedings from Vatopedi turned out not to be so simple.

Immediately after the meeting on the morning of the ninth at which the brotherhood had expressed its desire to remove him, Jerome had dispatched to Vatopedi a complaint charging his opponents with rebellion and heresy.Vatopedi then sent four representatives to investigate, who arrived that evening while the meeting to choose Jerome's successor was going on.They began their investigation by talking to Jerome and his partisans.In those conversations, as later in writing, Jerome resorted to a misrepresentation of his opponents' position similar in nature to the way some of them had misrepresented his own.He claimed that David "stubbornly affirms that the very name of the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity is God himself by essence ...". (See Moq Bor;ba 145-6)This clearly implied a position confusing the name as letters and sounds with the essence of God, something none of the imyaslavtsy ever advocated.In any case, whether they were convinced by this or by his appeals to the condemnations of Na Gorakh Kavkaza made by Abp. Antony and Patr. Joachim, Vatopedi's representatives were inclined to side with Jerome.

The imyaslavtsy were unpleasantly surprised to learn of the Greeks' presence when the latter asked to interview the leaders of the former.They consented to speak with them, but to questions about theological issues they merely responded that they had become dissatisfied with Jerome, that that was all the skete's charter required, and that that was all Vatopedi needed to know.Moreover, the skete's charter had been designed to minimize Greek interference in Russian affairs and specified that representatives from Vatopedi could come only in response to an official request signed by the abbot and four epitropoi -- so they were there illegally.Recognizing the truth of that, the Greeks started treating the "rebels" more respectfully, gave up trying to discuss theology with them, and merely specified some changes in format for the petitions concerning Fr. David's election.The new petitions were duly signed on the eleventh at a meeting observed by the monks from Vatopedi and to the procedures of which they expressed no objections.But their sympathies were with Jerome, and when they left later that day they carried with them a written complaint from him signed by seventy monks of St. Andrew's.

The delegation of four from St. Andrew's, headed by Fr. Antony himself, which was then sent to Vatopedi to seek confirmation of David as abbot was aware neither of those sentiments nor of that complaint.Some difficulties were expected since Jerome's refusal to give up the key to the skete's vault had made it impossible to validate their petitions with its official seal, but the response they actually met with was completely unexpected.

All seemed to go well at first.They were received with honor by Vatopedi's governing council of twelve and were told that all was in order despite some dissatisfaction with the absence of the skete's seal on the petitions and the fact that the election had not been by secret ballot.Then they were given a sealed envelope which they were told contained all that had been said at the meeting and included a promise to send representatives to ceremonially install David as abbot in the near future.They had not been shown the letter itself, though, and were advised not to open the envelope until they got back to St. Andrew's.

Fr. Antony suspected foul play in such a request, so decided to open it anyway -- and found his suspicions justified.In the letter Vatopedi objected strongly to the election's having been conducted "not by the rules and customs of the skete" but "in such a way that is used nowhere in the world, for this way is considered by all to be coercive". (Kliment 771)It advised the brotherhood to consider Jerome as orthodox and warned that Fr. Antony and all those accepting the "new faith" taught by Na Gorakh Kavkaza would be condemned, excommunicated, and expelled from the Holy Mountain.On the other hand, while suggesting that the brotherhood "drive from the skete this heresy of Ieromonakh Antony Bulatovich,"[17] it did not identify David as a heretic.And in advising them to go ahead and choose a new abbot in the correct manner by secret ballot it at least tacitly affirmed the legality of Jerome's deposition.

A Melee at St. Andrew's Skete

The representatives from St. Andrew's complained to the Vatopedi authorities, but the latter were only angry that their directions had not been followed.They stood firm in their decision.So a disappointed party of four set out for home on January 12, recognizing that despite a partially favorable decision they had been placed in an impossible predicament.Although they had been granted the right to choose a new abbot, whomever they chose could never be confirmed.Jerome would need only accuse the new abbot and his supporters of believing the heresy taught by Na Gorakh Kavkaza and they would be back to square one.While discussing this hopeless situation on the way back, the group was met by a messenger with news that Jerome's partisans were going from cell to cell talking to relatively uncommitted monks, and he was gaining more supporters hourly.[18]Fr. Antony recounts his thoughts at that moment:

An agonizing question -- "What to do?" -- oppressed the soul.If the party of Jerome gained the upper hand, imyaborchestvo would triumph completely over the whole Holy mountain too.The most zealous confessors of the orthodox confession of faith in the divine dignity of the name of the Lord would be driven away, the more faint-hearted would be oppressed and forced into a repudiation ... But where to seek a defense?Where to seek a just judge? (Moq Bor;ba 150)

Fr. Antony prayed for guidance and asked his companions for advice.Fr. Sergius' suggestion that they simply drive out Jerome was rejected at first, but then as they reached the skete and heard more about Jerome's increasing strength, he thought again:

It was necessary to act.The brotherhood had entrusted themselves to me and expected a decision from me.It was impossible to delay, for with each second of delay the situation could only get worse and more complicated and bring the sides to the point where each would arm itself with what it could, and the matter would go as far as the shedding of blood.In this moment as I thought, a deacon suggested, "Well, what then, Father, purge?""Vox populi -- vox Dei." I thought to myself, and decisively answered, "Yes, yes, purge." (151)

With that he and about thirty or forty of his most zealous followers rushed to the abbot's cell.Jerome was ready for him.When Vatopedi had given Fr. Antony the aforementioned letter, they had also sent one of their own couriers on ahead to St. Andrew's to give Jerome a copy.The courier had found imyaslavtsy guarding the gate[19] and was not allowed access, but some of Jerome's partisan's had yelled to him from a balcony to ask what he had come for.Upon learning who they were he had read aloud to them the contents of the letter.And so Fr. Antony and his followers found Fr. Jerome in his meeting hall sitting behind his desk and surrounded by a crowd of his own followers confident of their own position in the dispute.

Upon entering, Fr. Antony turned to an icon of the Theotokos, crossed himself and prayed a short prayer, then turned to Fr. Jerome and asked if he would voluntarily acknowledge his deposition and leave the abbot's cell.Jerome responded that he, Antony, himself did not belong in and had no part in St. Andrew's skete, having voluntarily left it back in July.To Jerome's "you left ... you're not ours ..." the imyaslavtsy cried out "Ours!Ours!Fr. Antony is ours!"Fr. Antony repeated his question.Jerome asked, "Where is the paper?Show me the paper."This, of course, Fr. Antony was not inclined to do.He asked a third time if Jerome would voluntarily give up his office.The answer was negative.

Fr. Antony turned once more for a brief prayer toward an icon of the Mother of God, then after a period of silence crossed himself andsaid "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ... URA!"and leaped towards the abbot's desk.Two of Jerome's men, Gabriel and Jacob by name, immediately seized him and began to choke him, and at that some from Fr. Antony's side responded by attacking those two.An eyewitness reports:

They gave Gabriel a whack and he in a rage let go of Fr. Antony.Then Fr. Athanasius threw himself on Jacob and, grabbing him by the beard, dragged him away from Fr. Antony, and the latter remained unhurt.At this point the brothers were filled with excessive anger and rushed "To URA!"There was a great fight from both sides.At first with fists, and then they started dragging each other by the hair. (Kosvintsev 151)

Fr. Antony once again with a cry of "URA!" rushed at the abbot's desk.Again he was attacked and again his attackers were dragged out of the room.He recounts that this was repeated several times:

... two of the stronger imyaslavtsy applied the following method:they ran to throw themselves upon one of the Jeromeites standing against me and grabbed him either by the sleeve or by the hair.After dragging him out into the corridor and handing him on to others, they would run back to drag out another . (Moq Bor;ba 153)

What happened to those dragged out is described by the same eyewitness quoted before:

They began to drag out of this heap [of fighting monks] one person at a time into the corridor, where the brotherhood stood in two lines, receiving the booty and passing it (Jeromeites) on:one by the hair another by the side and with a command, another they would beat for something to teach him a lesson.In this way they brought them to the stairs and then they let them down the stairs variously as each pleased:some went head first and some went feet first, counting the steps with the back of their head.They led them to the church square, then ceremoniously took them by the hand and led them out the gate. (Kosvintsev 151)

Many of the "Jeromeites" were beat as well as expelled, in recompense not only for their blasphemy against God's name but also for other grievances against them, as the monks expressed physically a variety of pent-up frustrations with their leadership.[20]Meanwhile Jerome himself, seeing the ranks of his supporters getting thin and recognizing the hopelessness of his position, finally consented to leave voluntarily.He was not treated roughly.Though offered a cell of his own within the skete he chose to leave, joining fifteen others who had been forcibly expelled and two others who were leaving voluntarily as he was.Fr. Antony saw him off:

When he had gone out of the gates, Fr. Jerome turned, crossed himself, and then, prostrating himself to the ground toward me, said, "Forgive."Together with him stood Fr. Clement, who did the same and said, "Forgive."I too did to them a prostration to the ground and asked forgiveness, and they left for Karyes. (Moq Bor;ba 154)

The first eighteen were followed in the course of the following months by about thirty more who left or were expelled.All were taken in by other Slavic monastic communities around Athos.

St. Andrew's and St. Panteleimon's in the Hands of the Imyaslavtsy

On the fourteenth a new meeting of the whole brotherhood was called to fulfill Vatopedi's request for an election by secret ballot, but once again Fr. David was chosen by acclamation.That evening two representatives set out for Vatopedi with 307 signatures amassed in David's favor.This time they were given a letter stating that although Vatopedi remained dissatisfied with the open balloting, it nevertheless recognized the election's canonicity and promised to send representatives on the nineteenth to officially install Fr. David.

Meanwhile a similar chain of events was taking place at the Rossikon and culminated in a general meeting of the brotherhood on January 23.At that meeting, called and controlled by the imyaslavtsy who were led by a certain Fr. Ireney, the entire brotherhood of the monastery signed a confession of faith nearly identical to the one signed at St. Andrew's.Even Abbot Misail signed, presumably not wanting to share the fate of Jerome.At the same meeting the imyaslavtsy pronounced disciplinary measures against eight of their most active opponents, consisting in expulsion from the monastery for terms from one year to permanent.Kosvintsev describes the reactions to this turn of events:

The monastery celebrated this day like Holy Pascha.The brotherhood greeted one another with kisses and exclamations of "Christ is Risen!"They cried from joy.The whole day the bell never stopped its festive ringing.This day was justly called "the triumph of orthodoxy." (471)

The rejoicing was to be short-lived.Although the imyaslavtsy had gained commanding majorities among the simple Russian monks, the higher ecclesiastical and civil authorities -- both Russian and Greek -- were against them.Counter-measures had begun even before the celebration at St. Panteleimon's on January 23.

IMYASLAVTSY UNDER SIEGE

Retaliation Against St. Andrew's

Immediately on the twelfth Jerome mailed to the Russian embassy in Constantinople a written report of the "rebellion".A copy of it he sent to the embassy in Thessalonica along with one of his most zealous supporters, the monk Clement, who returned ten days later with Vice-consul Shcherbina.The latter, having heard and believed only one side of the story, went to St. Andrew's not to investigate but to demand that the brotherhood take back Jerome as abbot as well as all of the expelled monks.They adamantly refused.They would concede to giving Jerome a kind of severance pay of five thousand rubles, would give one hundred rubles to each of the others, and would consider accepting back some of them in a year's time if they would repent -- but there could be no question of accepting Jerome back as abbot.

Threatened "punishments" were then carried out.The Russian foreign ministry instituted a "blockade" of St. Andrew's intended to force it to capitulate, a move generally attributed to the decision and authority of Russian Ambassador to Constantinople Girs and effected locally through Shcherbina.All mail going to or coming from St. Andrew's was cut off.Money being sent to the skete, even to individual members of it, was redirected to Jerome instead.The Greek port authorities were ordered not to allow St. Andrew's provisions already received and in storage to be delivered to the skete or even to be given to any of its members who would come to pick them up.When two monks were later sent to Constantinople to purchase food for St. Andrew's, they were arrested and their twenty thousand rubles confiscated.At first the consequences for the skete were not great, but in the ensuing months its food and financial resources began to run out, and it found itself in a serious predicament.It was not until May, more than three months later, that Fr. Antony's intervention with the Russian Ministry of External Affairs in St. Petersburg resulted in Girs' orders being countermanded.

As has been seen, Jerome's complaints had also been received sympathetically by Vatopedi.Its representatives who had arrived at St. Andrew's on the ninth had pretended to accept as in good order the deposition and replacement of Jerome but actually were on his side, arguing in his behalf after returning and bringing back with them his written complaint.Not only that, but while still at St. Andrew's they had sent a letter to the Protat (the council at Karyes) informing it that "those around the heresiarch Ieroskhimonakh Antony forced the fathers of the skete to swear to a new dogma concerning the divinity of Jesus ..." (Papoulidis, OI RVSOI 79)The Vatopedi authorities' double-dealing on the twelfth has already been recounted, and they acted similarly on the fourteenth.On the same day when they gave the representatives from St. Andrew's a letter promising to come in a few days to install David as abbot, they sent another to the Protat, in which they listed the names of twenty-six "rebel monks" and requested that police be sent to arrest them and send them off to Thessalonica for judgment.When on the eighteenth an embassy from St. Andrew's was sent to Vatopedi to conduct its officials back to their skete for the installation of Fr. David, they were informed that due to a request from the Russian embassy in Thessalonica Vatopedi would delay it for several days.The officials never came and David's election as abbot was never officially approved.

Having received these letters from Vatopedi as well as letters and personal pleas from Jerome after the events of the twelfth, the Iera Koinotes itself joined the fray.It had sent police to St. Andrew's immediately on the day of the expulsions, but by the time they arrived the fighting was over, the gate was locked, and they were not admitted to the skete.In the succeeding days a four-member delegation composed of monks from four different monasteries was sent there twice to investigate but each time was locked out.A permanent police guard was set on the besieged skete.Meanwhile the Protat was still hearing from Jerome, from Vatopedi, and from other expelled monks charges of heresy against Fr. David, Fr. Antony and their followers.It sent a letter to St. Andrew's asking that the skete's monks come to Karyes for an investigation into these charges (since the Protat's investigators had not been permitted to enter the skete).It received in response a letter from St. Andrew's requesting that the I.K. identify the accuser and the charges in writing, to which the skete would in turn respond in writing.

To that the Protat finally responded with an official letter on January 29 excommunicating the entire brotherhood of St. Andrew's.The letter did not specify the doctrinal reasons for the decision but mentioned only that it was "a religious quarrel concerning the second person of the Holy Trinity"; that the confession signed on the tenth and sent to the Russian Holy Synod was evidence of their unorthodoxy (kakodoxia); that Jerome seemed quite orthodox to them though called a heretic by the rebels; and that the rebels were guilty of upsetting the order and calm of the Holy Mountain.Therefore from then until an ecclesiastical court could be established to investigate the matter, it proclaimed Fr. David, Fr. Antony, and the entire brotherhood of St. Andrew's to be unorthodox.And in order to prevent the evil's spread it warned that henceforth anyone having any contact with them would also be considered unorthodox.The announcement was to be proclaimed by posting it on the skete's main gate.

St. Andrew's replied with a letter explaining that the issue was not "a doctrine about the second person of the Holy Trinity" but the dishonoring of God's name; the skete had not received the I.K.'s representatives for fear Jerome would come and cause trouble; and it would be glad to send its representatives to Karyes if it were first given a written safe-conduct (this out of fear that Antony and David would be arrested).In conclusion it affirmed that it did indeed desire reconciliation with the I.K.But the latter was not in a conciliatory mood; it not only refused the request for a written safe-conduct, but also added that no reconciliation would be possible until the brotherhood of St. Andrew's would repudiate its unorthodoxy in writing.Predictably, no rapprochement was ever effected between the imyaslavtsy of St. Andrew's and the Iera Koinotes.

Jerome and the I.K. were in contact with Constantinople as well, where a new patriarch, Germanos V, had replaced Joachim III.In an official letter to the I.K. dated February 15, the patriarch blamed Fr. David and Fr. Antony for the proceedings at St. Andrew's, called them to Constantinople for a church court, and declared that only the former leadership of the skete was the lawful one.Fr. Antony had already left to defend his cause in Russia and so never complied.When Fr. David finally did go to Constantinople after a couple months' delay, the old, uneducated, and relatively weak-willed monk bowed to patriarchal pressure to abjure his error and promised not to promote it any more or to act as abbot.The latter promise he kept, but a month or so after returning he went back on the former.

The I.K. also carried on a correspondence with St. Panteleimon's, similar in content to the communications with St. Andrew's.There could be no charges of "rebellion" against the latter since Misail was still abbot, but some of the eight expelled monks brought news to Karyes of heresy and anarchy at the Rossikon.And Misail himself sent a letter on the third of February stating that he had been forced to sign the January 23 confession of faith and asking for police measures against a number of monks whom he named.His own authority was so limited that he had not even been able to place the monastery's seal on his letter.Police were sent, but finding peace and all apparently in order they took no action.The I.K. was eventually able to secure an agreement from St. Panteleimon's to receive back the exiled monks, but Misail's hold on power remained tenuous at best.

Archbishop Antony Gets Involved Again

Meanwhile Abp. Antony had been informed of the events on Athos, and the opponents of the imyaslavtsy were encouraged by a series of personal letters sent by him that attained wide distribution and were later published.In a letter dated February 11 and addressed to one of those exiled from St. Panteleimon's named Fr. Denasy, he lamented "the strengthening of heresy, more precisely gangs of lunatics (wajki sumaswedwix) led by an ambitious hussar". (Kosvintsev 478)Promising that a trustworthy person from the Ministry of External affairs would be sent, he added "but here the matter is not for trust but rather to bring along three companies of soldiers and lock up the scoundrels (zakovat; naxalov)" and concluded:

Of course the Bulatovichites will all be expelled and deprived of monastic rank; their victory is for two weeks.But it is sad that as a consequence of the khlystic rebellion there might occur an attempt of the Greeks to expel from Athos all Russians, which will not be so difficult under the Greek government.

This fear that the Greeks would use the dispute as an excuse to expel all Russians from Athos was to be repeatedly expressed by others too, but there is no evidence that the Greeks of Athos ever contemplated such a thought.No doubt they would have rejoiced at a decrease in Russian numbers and influence, and some might have seen it as golden opportunity to aid that decrease, but that they either could or would use such an excuse to expel all Russians is inconceivable.

The talk of settling the matter by force was no idle threat, however.There are reports that Girs soon after the events of January 12 had unsuccessfully requested the patriarch's permission to send soldiers to Athos.Apparently permission was indeed granted later, for on April 1 the I.K. received word that the Russian embassy planned to send a high official with soldiers in the company of a patriarchal exarch in order to get rid of the troublemakers.But this time Karyes proved the impediment, asking that the expedition be delayed while it tried to settle the matter itself.The patriarch's change of heart may have come about in part due to pressure from the Russian Holy Synod; in a letter to Jerome dated March 7 Abp. Antony assured him that the Holy Synod was not only asking Patr. Germanos to confirm his predecessor's decision in this matter, but also that he would permit it to "send to Athos a Russian archbishop for admonition of those troubled by the stupid heresy". (Pakhomy 63)

The Ecumenical Patriarch Takes a Stand

Before giving that permission, however, Germanos had decided a more detailed investigation was in order.This he entrusted to a committee of seven professors of the patriarchal theological school in Khalke, and their answer, in the form of an official report signed by all of them, was forthcoming on March 30, 1913.[21]The report states that the committee, while lacking time to go through all the materials sent to it[22] because of their great volume and their being in Russian only, "thinks that it understood the spirit" of them, if not all the details.Speaking specifically of Na Gorakh Kavkaza, that spirit is mysticism, "which, as is known, emerges from a vital religious feeling and manifests living faith and love" but which all too often strays from the church's dogmas and teachings because "in the investigation and understanding of religious truths it follows the dictates of the heart and of direct feeling rather than the mind".

As for their brief exposition of what the imyaslavtsy actually believe, it is somewhat simplistic but not entirely inaccurate.It recognizes that they are not concerned solely with the name "Jesus," much less that name abstracted from his person, and that they do not speak merely of "letters and syllables".The central issue it sees to be the claims that God's names as divine revelation are energies of God and are therefore God himself:

It is superfluous to note that such a conclusion [i.e. that God's name is God himself] agrees with the idea they formulated concerning the divine names as energies of God, but this very opinion, that the names themselves are energies of God, is newly-appeared and new-sounding, and their argument that every word of God as an energy of his is not only a giver of life and spirit but is itself spirit and itself life and thus itself God -- this argument applied generally leads to conclusions (i.e. "the name of Jesus is God ... every divine word in the Gospel is God himself"[23]) which, in spite of all their denials, smell of pantheism.

These are the most condemnatory words offered by the Khalke professors, and they are reminiscent of Patr. Joachim's letter in their lack of decisiveness."New" and "smelling of pantheism" are far from "heretical" or even "false."

What's more, the report observes that the blame for the quarreling lies in part on the opposing party because it:

... proceeded to such an interpretation of the scriptural phrase "in which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), as if they too believed that one is saved in the name of Jesus, as a name, but that one must not venerate (proskynein) the name but only Jesus himself.Thus they gave cause for opposing argument.

In conclusion it merely expresses hope that those who have chosen "the tranquil and quiet life" will stop debating and arguing and attend to sanctifying themselves in the traditional worship of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Strangely, when five days later Patr. Germanos sent his decision on the matter to Karyes in the form of an official decree, all ambivalence had been abandoned.The "newly-appeared and vain-sounding[24] teaching" is condemned outright as "impious and soul-corrupting" and as constituting "blasphemous unorthodoxy (kakodoxia) and heresy".Germanos instructs the I.K. to "require on behalf of us and of the Church that all abjure completely the blasphemous error and refrain henceforth with prayer from various and foreign teachings."As for those who might refuse:

... concerning such [people]:being heretics and rebels against church discipline, the measures determined by the holy canons will be taken, and in no way will it be acceptable that such [people] remain and through their plague corrupt your pious place ... (See OI IESOYANOI)

One can only conjecture at why the patriarch would so definitively condemn the imyaslavtsy just five days after receiving an ambivalent and ambiguous response from Khalke even containing a reproach for the opposing side.Some have suggested that anti-Russian sentiment was involved, and it may well be that an opportunity to lessen the Russian population of Athos seemed attractive -- but to take advantage of that opportunity the patriarch almost certainly was encouraged by Russians themselves.As has been seen, there is evidence that at Abp. Antony's prompting the Russian Holy Synod had already asked Germanos to confirm Joachim's decision.And it is known how firmly the Russian embassy in Constantinople was in favor of Jerome's side in the dispute.So it is not difficult to imagine that pressure from both sources was brought to bear on the patriarch -- perhaps economic, perhaps political, perhaps both.

In any case, the epistle itself indicates that doctrinal considerations served as an excuse for the condemnation and were not the cause for it.There are but two short statements that specify the substance of the heretical teaching:

[The teaching is] about the name "Jesus," as being Jesus himself and God and inseparable and, so to speak, hypostatically identified (syntaytizomenoy) with him ... [it is] about the name "Jesus" as being Jesus himself and God, essentially contained (emperiexomenoy) in his name.

The Khalke report had plainly recognized that the dispute, while primarily concerned with the name of Jesus, was really about all of God's names, but the patriarch spoke as if only "the name 'Jesus'" was at issue.And placing the name in quotes as he did suggested an emphasis on the very letters and sounds which the Khalke commission recognized was definitely not at issue.Nor did Khalke make any intimation that the imyaslavtsy were equating God's name with his essence, yet the phrase "essentially contained" blithely accuses them of idiocy.Such misrepresentations may have come from Abp. Antony, from official communications of the Russian Holy Synod inspired by him,[25] from Jerome, from other Russian opponents of the imyaslavtsy, or even from Greek Athonites -- but his choosing to use the testimony of any of those over his own best theologians can only be explained by referring to ulterior motives.

Be that as it may, this was the official dogmatic decree long desired by Jerome, Misail, and their partisans.Unlike Joachim's letter, this one was unambiguous and met all the formal requirements for such a decree, so there could be no arguing that it was merely a private peace-making letter.And the I.K. did not take it that way.At a meeting on April 29 it declared that anyone who continued to believe the heresy would have to be expelled from the Holy Mountain.But first it had to see to the task of promulgating the patriarch's decree.In the case of the besieged fortress St. Andrew's this was no mean task -- so the Protat sent a copy to Vatopedi and told them to do it.

To St. Panteleimon's a delegation of two was sent.They arrived on May 2 and arranged to read the epistle publicly in both Greek and Russian at a meeting of the whole brotherhood on the next day.They described the result in their report to the I.K.:

... during the reading calm and full silence predominated, then the monk Ireney of the heresiarchs took the stand and sought to debate about the opinion of his followers.But the Iera Koinotes [i.e. the delegates themselves] informed him that since there existed an ecclesiastical decision all debate was superfluous and urged them to study it, and the next day to declare if they would conform to it or not. (Papoulidis, OI RVSOI 104)

To them it looked like the monks were going to sign the form provided, but then the "heresiarchs" advised them not to do so, arguing that the epistle was a fake and that those at the patriarchate and at the I.K. were heretics.Other reports say that they added the numeral values of the letters in "Xalkh" together, didn't get what they wanted, so changed it to "Xalkei" (a misspelling that would sound the same) and found that it totalled 666, the mark of the antichrist.The delegates expressed dismay also that:

To top it all they took down the venerable patriarchal epistle which was framed and printed in gold letters and prepared for public reading in the front yard of the monastery -- and destroyed it. (Papoulidis, OI RVSOI 105)

Although the I.K. delegates said that a "sufficient number" (i¶kanoi) eventually did sign the forms affirming that they "received" the patriarchal letter and "agreed in every way with its spirit" (Papoulidis, OI RVSOI 107), that "sufficient number" must actually have been quite small. Or perhaps many signed merely to avoid trouble with the Karyes authorities.In any case, when another task force came in June to try to convince the imyaslavtsy to recant it was estimated that even then they constituted three fourths of the monastery's population.

The I.K. delegates called police to remove the ringleaders, but upon arrival the police found calm and peace and said that they could not do anything without orders from Thessalonica.So a permanent post of two of them was established to maintain the peace and a request for the necessary orders sent.Such orders never arrived, however, for the Russian church and government were taking steps of their own which would soon make Greek police superfluous.

THE RUSSIAN CHURCH'S DECISION

Debate in the Russian Press

In Russia itself, whatever squabbles over the name of God which arose apparently resolved themselves peacefully and so did not make it into the newspapers.But the spectacle of Russian monks engaging in fistfights and tearing each other's hair out -- this was newsworthy.Early reports in the secular press presented woefully inaccurate accounts of both events and issues.In March some said "Andrey" Bulatovich had "organized a rebellion" not only at St. Andrew's but at St. Elijah's and St. Panteleimon's as well, expelling Abbot Misail from the latter in the process.As late as April the St. Petersburg newspaper Rech' carried a report that the new "heresy" counted nine persons in the Holy Trinity and that Ilarion had been Bulatovich's orderly (den]ik) in Ethiopia.

A few publications closely tied to church circles followed the lead of Russkiy Inok.The one coming closest to Abp. Antony's vehement style was the newspaper Kolokol (The Bell), published by an official of the Holy Synod named Vasily Mikhailovich Skvortsov (1859-1932).Skvortsov was known as the organizer of the "Internal Mission" of the Russian Orthodox Church and was often appointed by the Holy Synod to deal with sectarians, schismatics, and heretics.Seeing a new heresy in the imyaslavtsy, he had begun a series of attacks against them in Kolokol already in 1912.The virulence of these attacks is exemplified by a review of Fr. Antony's Apologiya Very printed in 1913.Referring to the statement that even "unconscious pronunciation" of God's names is effective, the review states that:

In the foolish Apology of Bulatovich ... God doesn't have power over us but we, insignificant, sinful people, have power over him.We need only pronounce his name, even without faith, without reverence, "unconsciously," carelessly -- and we will have him with all his characteristics ... What a terrible blasphemous teaching, lowering the omnipotent Master of heaven and earth to the level of an obedient tool of man ... This is magic, transferred wholly from the dark realm of the divinely renounced sciences of wizardry into the dogmatics supposedly of the orthodox faith ... (Qtd. in Sbornik Dokumentov 47)

The book's "masked goal" is to promote "antinomianism, i.e. that there is no necessity for a moral life":

"All is sanctified by God's name" [they say], i.e. do any abominations you careto, any shameful acts you want to, but if during it you repeat the name of God all this "is sanctified"!!

Another Kolokol article proclaimed that:

The provenance of the new heresy, taking in view the seemingly edifying nature of the book Na Gorakh Kavkaza and hence its popularity -- exposes the extremely cunning work of Satan, who has prepared in a completely hidden and sweet form murderous poison. (Qtd. in COV 1913 19:9)

Other papers even resorted to slander and character assassination, carrying spurious reports that among other misdeeds Fr. Antony had married and abandoned an Ethiopian on one of his trips. (See Pakhomy 111)

Fr. Antony, who had left Athos in February in order to defend his cause in Russia, had his work cut out for him.He began by writing letters to newspapers.Some, like Kolokol, would not print them, but others were sympathetic.Moskovskiya Vedomosti (Moscow News) on March 9 printed one of his letters on the front page and accompanied it with a long, basically sympathetic introductory article remarking that, "of course," a final decision could only take place at a church council.In a reflection of the widespread concern about the political consequences of the controversy, the paper also warned against rashly accusing Russian monks on Athos of heresy especially because that would give the Greeks the right to kick them all out, and then the Holy Mountain would be lost to Russia for good.Less than a month later the same paper devoted a large article to the story of Fr. Antony's life -- to show that he "is not at all like the picture drawn of him by his enemies, who are no less embittered in the spiritual field than on the battle fields." (Apr 5:2)

Others rendered even more substantial support.M. A. Novoselov of the Moscow "Religious-Philosophical Society" offered to take on the task of publishing Apologiya at his own expense, and it appeared in March.A foreword expressed strong views about the importance of the doctrinal issues at stake:

Like the wave of an earthquake, through the whole Universal Church, from South to North, from East to West, spread indignation when some thoughtless and corrupted-by-rationalism monks dared to attack that nerve of the Church upon which converge all other nerves, that dogma, the denial of which constitutes the denial of all dogmas, that holy thing (svqtynq) that lies at the foundation of all holy things. (VII)

This was signed simply "From the Editor" (Ot redakcii), and only years later was it established as belonging to the pen of Fr. Pavel Florensky (1882-ca.1946), a well-known theologian of the Russian Church. (See Andronik 288)

Fr. Florensky also asserts that Apologiya is but the first of many works which will be required before the church can finally decide the important issues raised.Meanwhile the controversy is itself something to be thankful for insofar as it proves that the church is not dead as many are saying -- people do care about the faith after all, enough to get excited about theological issues.As for Abp. Antony, "one can peacefully ignore" his condemnations since even the Kiev Pecherskaya Lavra saw in Na Gorakh Kavkaza nothing unfit to print towards the end of 1912 after months of his attacks.

Florensky quoted in its entirety a three-page letter written by "one of the most honored and accomplished theologians of our homeland" in response to the request of an also unnamed bishop for an opinion about Apologiya.The letter's authorship became known several years later:it was by Mitrofan Dimitriyevich Muretov (d. 1917), a professor of the Moscow Theological Academy.He echoed Florensky's positive evaluation of Apologiya and belief in the debate's fundamental importance:

[The book] breathes with the spirit of true monasticism, ancient, ascetic.The matter is, of course, not as simple as the reviewer of Ilarion's book sees it.In its roots the question about the Jesus prayer and the name of the Savior extends to a primordial and not yet decided -- more accurately -- unfinished struggle of opposites:of idealism, or, what is the same thing, mysticism, on the one side -- and nominalism, which is rationalism and materialism, on the other. ... True Christianity and the Church always stood on the ground of idealism in deciding all the questions of the faith's teachings and of life that have arisen.On the other hand, pseudo- and anti-christianity and heterodoxy always held to nominalism and rationalism. (XI) Idealism and realism lie at the base of the teaching about the unity of essence and the trinity of person of Divinity, about the divine-humanity of the Savior, about the sacraments, especially the eucharist, about veneration of icons, etc.And I am personally on this side.The reviewer for Russkiy Inok and the apologist for Fr. Ilarion are not saying one and the same thing but rather completely the opposite. (XII)

Those who belittle Jesus' name are guilty of a great sin:

... those who mock the name Jesus, whether in their soul or by their lips or on notes, etc. -- all the same -- they know after all just what the name expresses and to whom it relates; consequently they necessarily mock also the Savior himself.Yes, and they cannot not know [this], and no sophisms can cleanse this mocking -- only repentance.For this reason blasphemy against the Spirit is not forgiven, and for every, even idle, word a person will give account.And no one, speaking in the Holy Spirit, says:Jesus is anathema (in general Jesus, without any designations -- for from the moment that Logos sarx egeneto,[26] there is only one true Jesus -- the Savior, the God-man), and no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. [1 Cor 12:3]They mocked the defenders of the name Jesus and of the Jesus prayer, of course, by thoughtlessness, or to put it more truthfully, by a lack of true Christian feeling, which can always show to true Christians the true path among all temptations and misunderstandings.This is what we also see among the simple monks. (XIII-XIV)

Others sharing such views were also reluctant to publicly reveal their names.In the St. Petersburg paper Novoye Vremya (New Time) on April 11 and May 10 appeared two articles signed by one "S. Ivol'gin" who wrote authoritatively about the Athonite disputes but whose name had never been heard before and never showed up afterwards -- "apparently a pseudonym for a well-known person." (Filosofov 300)Ivol'gin expresses hopes that the Holy Synod will not move too quickly in rendering a decision.Much debate is required first, and people should at least read Na Gorakh Kavkaza and Apologiya Very before making up their minds.If Abp. Antony would bother to read the former even he would see that he had been deceived.(A real optimist, this Ivol'gin.)The journal Tserkovnost' has shown what comes of hasty condemnations -- it printed some "heretical statements" of Bulatovich that later turned out to have come from St. Tikhon of Zadonsk.As for Skvortsov, his position is understandable because "a missionary needs heresies like a reporter needs events."Ivol'gin provides a long list of those who would have to be excommunicated if the imyaslavtsy are declared heretics, including even famous bishops and professors of theological academies, and warns that "It will be possible to speak not of a sect but of a schism":

An unheard of event in Russia -- the excommunication of bishops for heresy, but it would have to take place.One must hope in the foresight of the Synod, that it will not want to create a conflagration.Everything is revealed and is formulated by degrees. There was a time when the book of Khomyakov was considered heretical and had to be printed beyond [Russia's] borders.But now the orthodox teaching about the Church is based on it.The same thing is happening with the teaching about the divinity of the name of God.When the noise dies down its truth will become indisputable.

The Holy Synod does need to render a decision soon, and Ivol'gin hopes it will merely tell the monks to stop fighting and then label their doctrine a "theologoumenon" (a theological opinion).He laments, however, that Abp. Antony has been taking an active part in advising the Synod.Observing that the archbishop's sharp words "only sew enmity," he adds:

As for the desire that to Athos would be brought "three companies of soldiers" to "lock up the scoundrels" -- this would serve as the beginning of destruction for the Russian monasteries on Athos.

Abp. Antony responded with a letter to Novoye Vremya, reproduced here in full:

In today's issue of Novoe Vremya words are ascribed to me which I did not speak and did not write, i.e. (budto), that it is necessary to put in irons the followers of Bulatovich.The articles of this author represent a series of inaccuracies.Especially interesting is the fact that the author does not say a word about what constitutes the main position or thesis of the teaching of Bulatovich. (May 12:7)

As he claimed, the archbishop had indeed not written "put in irons the followers of Bulatovich" (zakovat; v kandaly posledovatelej Bulatoviha), but that wasn't even how Ivol'gin had quoted him.Ivol'gin's quote was slightly different -- "lock up the scoundrels" (zakovat; naxalov) -- and that was quite accurate, as were all his other quotations from Abp. Antony.

The charge that Ivol'gin had skirted the theological issues themselves was true, however.So Fr. Antony Bulatovich, always eager to please his ecclesiastical superiors, was quick to provide Novoye Vremya those particulars.He sent it a copy of his Open Letter to Abp. Antony of May 7, 1912 and included some pertinent comments with it:

Abp. Antony refused to print this letter in his journal, and, in spite of the fact that we completely clearly disproved the "divinization" by us of the name itself (letters and sounds) "Jesus," nevertheless Abp. Antony has continued to accuse us of this until the latest time. ... Yes, the patriarch condemned us with an official decree, but he condemned us of something of which we are completely innocent, for we don't think to say that the letters and sounds of the name Jesus are "essentially" joined to divinity. ... We are amazed at the lightness with which people condemn us, and at the reluctance with which the judges attend to investigation of the matter. ... still no one has asked, specifically what do you understand and specifically what are you saying!

Despite all this activity in the secular press, the religious journals curiously remained largely silent.Just one relatively detailed examination of the doctrinal issues was published, written by a relatively unknown priest named Kh. Grigorovich.It appeared in Missionerskoye Obozreniye (Missionary Observer) and offered arguments against the imyaslavtsy, as could be expected from a sister publication of Kolokol also belonging to Mr. Skvortsov.It raised no issues not addressed by other more important sources before or after but did distinguish itself by being one of extremely few to avoid a polemical tone.

The Russian Holy Synod Enters the Fray

The next major entry into the debate was to be that of the Holy Synod itself, where Abp. Antony Khrapovitsky's influence bode ill for the imyaslavtsy.Ober-prokuror Vladimir K. Sabler happened to be quite close to Abp. Antony, and this closeness was reflected in the Synod's method of reaching a decision.Purportedly to attain the "greatest possible impartiality," three persons were chosen to present independently prepared reports on the subject.One highly qualified person was available for the task, and the papers later reported that he had in fact been considered -- but was rejected.That person was Bishop Theofan Bystrov of Poltava (1873-1940), who was not only widely known as the "only Russian ascetic-bishop" but also had written his doctoral dissertation on the name of God in the Old Testament.However there were also rumors that he agreed with the imyaslavtsy[27] and it seems that this disqualified him.Instead the first reporter chosen was that paragon of impartiality, Abp. Antony himself.Second was Abp. Nikon Rozhdestvensky (1851-1918), a man who did not even have a higher theological education.[28]His conclusions too were predictable; he was one of Sabler's partisans on the Synod, as was Abp. Antony, and shared the conservative political views of both of them.Besides that, he had already written letters and had published at least one article against the imyaslavtsy.The third choice was a lay theologian named Sergey Troitsky (1878-1973), a seminary professor's son who had graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1901 and had served as a professor there ever since.Whether or not he had previously been involved in this controversy is unknown.

The reports were presented, a decision was reached, and Abp. Sergius of Finland was entrusted with the task of combining the reports into one official epistle addressed to all Russian monks.That was then approved at a special meeting on May 16, 1913 and was published in the May 18 issue of the Synod's journal Tserkovnyya Vedomosti (Church News).[29]

Abp. Sergius' text identifies Na Gorakh Kavkaza as having caused the troubles by introducing a new teaching about the name "Jesus" but stresses that the Synod does believe the Jesus prayer to be of fundamental importance in monastic life.It sees the author's goal of promoting its practice to be basically laudable.But Ilarion erred when he went beyond describing prayer and its benefits to offer his own "philosophical explanation" of how and why prayer works as it does.Specifically, his error is in seeing the name itself as saving, whereas the truth of the matter is that the essence of prayer is calling upon the Lord.It is the personal God who listens and answers as he wills; prayer is not automatically effective.The Jesus prayer is based on the principle of the blind man on the way to Jericho (Lk 18:38 and parallels), who kept on crying out to the Lord until he finally got his attention.

If the view of the imyaslavtsy were correct, the consequences for spiritual life would be unthinkable:"A person need only pronounce God's name (even without faith, even unconsciously), and God is, as it were, obligated to be with this person by his grace and to do what is characteristic of him.But this is already blasphemy!" (279)Worse, it is "magic" and "superstition."Even miracles could then be worked completely without faith.And monks would be encouraged to engage in simple mechanical repetition of prayers for the mere sake of repetition, forgetting that there is a person to whom they are speaking.

The epistle refutes contentions that the imyaslavtsy were followers of St. Gregory Palamas by referring to two main points where it claims they differ:1) St. Gregory never used "God" (ueow) to refer to both God's energies and his essence; only "divinity" (ueothw) can be used in the wider sense.2) St. Gregory did not confuse an action or energy of God with its result (or its "fruit").Only words spoken by God are his actions; not those with which we speak about him.The apostles did hear and see divinity on Tabor, but one does not say that in repeating what they heard to others they were communicating divinity to them.This is where the imyaslavtsy are guilty of divinizing creation -- of pantheism.

The Synod's epistle goes on to dismiss all the quotes from scripture where the name of God seems to be equated with God himself as merely examples of a peculiarity of scriptural language.In such cases "the name of God" is simply a "descriptive phrase" as are others like "the ears of the Lord" or the "eyes of the Lord."Just as we do not take the latter literally, so we should not the former.

Though John of Kronstadt does use the disputed phrases, the very fact that no one objected to his language before is evidence that he didn't mean the same thing by it as do Ilarion and Bulatovich.What he was speaking of was subjective, not objective reality -- he spoke of what is so only "for us" and "in our consciousness."In order to form no false image of God, while praying we concentrate on the words of the prayer, particularly on God's name; and when God truly makes himself present he does become identified with his name -- but this is true only for the one who is praying and during the time of prayer.In any case, Fr. John's words about the power of the name referred not to the name per se but to its use in calling upon the Lord.He clearly says that the name will perform no miracles without faith.

As for the effectiveness of sacraments and icons and crosses, this is by no means due to the pronounced or inscribed name of God, nor due to the faith of individuals, but due to the faith of the Church.If the imyaslavtsy's arguments were true, then anyone at all could perform the sacraments -- and the church's hierarchy would become superfluous.

In conclusion the name is indeed holy and worthy of worship (dostopoklonqemo) because it designates God and was revealed by him, but it is not God himself nor is it even divinity because it is not the divine "energy" but its result.When pronounced with faith it does work miracles, but not of itself, not mechanically or automatically.

Therefore:1) heads of monasteries are to hold special services (moleben's) to pray for the repentance of those who have fallen into error; 2) those who disagree must obey the church and not bother other people; 3) all must forgive one another and stop fighting; 4) Na Gorakh Kavkaza, Apologiya Very, and all other works written in defense of their doctrines are to be removed from the monasteries and reading them is forbidden; and 5) any who remain stubborn in their beliefs face a church court and possible deprivation of priesthood and/or monastic rank.Now that both the patriarch of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of Russia have spoken, Ilarion and Antony in particular have no more excuse for holding to their mistaken beliefs and should admit their error and submit to the voice of the Church.

Archbishop Antony Khrapovitsky's Report

The three reports from which the official epistle was compiled were all printed together in the same issue of Tserkovnyya Vedomosti.Each had its own particular emphases.Abp. Antony's report was devoted mainly to attacking Fr. Antony Bulatovich.He described his approach to the task of preparing it in a letter to Jerome dated May 14:

Oppressed by a multitude of people and papers, I deliberately secluded myself for four days at the St. Sergius Hermitage near Petersburg in order to compile a refutation of the stupid and ignorant book of Bulatovich, who himself doesn't believe a word of what he cluttered there.This is just such a blackguard (merzavec) as Iliodor, who openly repudiated Christ, and I already knew him in 1907 as such. (Pakhomy 64)[30]

Actually, the report is devoted not so much to refutation as to questioning of motives.Ilarion is said to have dreamed up his new teaching because of vainglory:

He fell into the so-called "prelest' of startsy."Each has his own temptation:for the young it is lust, for the old it is avarice, for bishops it is pride and vainglory, and for startsy -- to think up new rules to immortalize their memory in the monastery. ... However, those who, like the starets Ilarion, think up new dogmas to immortalize their memory, sin far more. (872)

In suggesting that the Jesus prayer could replace all others, Ilarion created a temptation for lazy monks and a temptation to laziness for others:

That's why so many were carried away by the teaching of Ilarion:some by blind zeal and stubbornness, others by laziness, sweetly foretasting that they would soon pass on to that level of perfection where they would not have to stand through church services or read any prayers at all, but just "carry in their heart the name of Jesus." (871)

The lazy were joined by the downright evil:

All that was in our monasticism of disobedience, stubbornness, vainglory, and avarice was taken by this foolish dogma, and without a second thought rejoiced in the opportunity to reject authority and slander the higher powers, to grab the position of leadership, and to pilfer from the monastery bank. (872)

Nevertheless, at least Ilarion may have been sincere; that can hardly be said of Ieroskhimonakh Antony.Proof that the latter does not even believe what he himself is saying is to be found in his accusations that those who disagree with him are heretics who deny that Jesus Christ is God, who deny the importance of the Jesus prayer and all prayer in general, and who have no true spiritual experience:

To this we answer that we do confess the divinity of Jesus Christ, and we do highly esteem the Jesus prayer; and we do not pride ourselves in learning but we do place it lower than spiritual experience.However in the book of Skhimonakh Ilarion we don't see any spiritual experience but rather self-deceptive dreaming.Still less spiritual experience do we find in the book of Bulatovich; there we see only logomachy, i.e. scholasticism, without hard logic andwithout knowledge of the Bible. (871)

Regardless of what one may thank about Bulatovich's logic, he at least never stooped to anything remotely approaching the kind of mud-slinging that pervades Abp. Antony Khrapovitsky's writings.Here the slanderous accusations flying so free and easy actually constitute the main theme of the archbishop's report, which abounds in phrases like "absurd heresy," "fallen into prelest'," "ravings of lunatics" (bred sumaswedwix), "absurdity," "stupidity," "mindless conclusions," and the like.And if he didn't always use the term "heresy," Novoye Vremya reported the reason why:

Abp. Antony of Volynia goes even farther and says that to call this false teaching a heresy is to give it greater honor, since it is simply khlystic idiotic ravings. (May 17:5)

The archbishop even specifies Fr. Antony's insidious ulterior motives:

Himself not believing what he is writing, but only wanting to have for himself a means for rebellion in the Athonite monasteries ... this imitator of the new false teaching much more skillfully disseminates it than its originator, for he far exceeds him in cunning and in ability to deceive and intimidate simple-minded Russian monks. (873) Alas, it is necessary to accept the thought that specifically these fights and expulsions [at St. Andrew's] constituted the goal of Fr. Bulatovich in the compiling of his hypocritical (fal;wivoj) book, full of obvious perversions of the sacred words and deliberately false interpretations of them. (876)

The report does, however, occasionally depart from ad hominem rhetoric to attempt a refutation of arguments made in Apologiya, and one must at least give the archbishop credit for having read the book first this time.He says Fr. Antony's position is based on two main fallacies, of which the first is a false understanding of "name."A name is only a word consisting simply of letters and sounds; its "essence" is not even its meaning but "the movement of air and its striking against our eardrum."Fr. Antony's claim that "the name of God" means something other than letters and sounds is totally unacceptable:

And does he even want to say something or simply to obfuscate, to darken the thought of [his] trusting disciple, so that he, having read these lines, would say, "Well, thank God, here they're divinizing neither letters nor sounds, but something different, which I can't understand."Yes -- and no one can understand, we will add, because it is impossible to understand nonsense. (878)

Bulatovich's other fundamental error is in not differentiating God's energy or action from what it produces:

And such absurdity Fr. Bulatovich asserts without any shame; he says that every word spoken on Tabor is God:does that mean both the word "listen" and the word "him" are God?... the Lord ... denounced the contemporary Jews, saying to them:"serpent, viper's brood."Does that mean that a serpent is God and a viper is God?According to Bulatovich this is definitely so; doubly so, since God created the serpent and the hedgehog and the rabbit they are actions of divinity -- are all these wild animals consequently also God? (877)

As for Bulatovich's quotations from scripture and fathers, he consistently perverts their meaning, mainly through a literal understanding of expressions meant metaphorically.This kind of word usage is found throughout the Old Testament and consequently in liturgical and patristic texts as well, including St. Gregory of Sinai's "prayer is God working all in all":

This is a poetical expression, which replaces other predicates with the word "is":is caused, is sustained, attains, etc.A similar turn of phrase is constantly found in Church poetry:"Jesus most wonderful, amazement of Angels, Jesus most glorious, strengthening of kings, chastity of virgins."From this can we say that the chastity of the righteous is not a quality of soul, undergirded by grace, but rather God himself? (881)

As for the suggestion that the name of God is ultimately the Son of God, the archbishop (blissfully ignorant of the text of St. Maximus) proclaims that, "of course, nowhere is such stupidity said" (875).

Archbishop Nikon Rozhdestvensky's Report

Abp. Nikon's report placed less emphasis on character assassination and more on reason and logic.A "name" is nothing more than "a conventional sign necessary for our mind, clothed by us in sounds, ... in letters (written), or only represented abstractly, subjectively thought -- but in reality (real;no) not existing outside of our mind (an idea)." (854)Nikon stresses that any word, and a name in particular, has no real existence.So this fact in itself proves illogical the contention that "God's name is God himself," for an unreal name cannot be the very real personal God; an abstract idea cannot be a concrete person.Nor can God or his grace even be present in something that doesn't even exist.Fr. Antony's main error is precisely here -- in speaking of the name as something that has real existence.

Since the imyaslavtsy can't prove their position true logically, they resort to mysticism (a bad thing roughly equivalent to magic in the eyes of the archbishop) and myriads of quotations from various authorities.But the only "authority" who really seems to support their position is John of Kronstadt, who didn't mean what they mean, was not a theologian, and was not attempting to write an accurate exposition of theology in the works they quote.It is of great significance to Nikon that for all their effort the imyaslavtsy were not able to find other quotes from church fathers plainly supporting their position.If this "dogma" were really so important, wouldn't one find irrefutable evidence for it everywhere? He also emphasizes that the name does nothing except through faith and God's good will, then observes that many other holy objects work miracles in the same way -- icons, the Lord's garments in the Gospel, relics of saints, etc.Yet we never say that an icon "is God himself" -- and an icon is a real object, whereas a name doesn't even really exist.Even in the case of the Church's greatest sacrament -- we say the bread and the wine are truly the body and blood of the Lord, but we go no further; we do not say that they "are God himself."

Professor Sergey Troitsky's Report

The last report, Prof. Troitsky's, was obviously the result of much greater investigation and research than the others and even included a historical introduction.Considering the first edition of Na Gorakh Kavkaza apart from later developments, Troitsky sees nothing wrong with it other than "certain unfortunate and inexact expressions."Ilarion's error came in the move from simple description of spiritual experience to propounding metaphysical theories, and this was actually caused by Khrisanf's review:

In this way a practical question about how one should pray becomes with the reviewer a theoretical question about the relationship of God's name to [his] essence.The author followed the reviewer's example. (887)

And controversy grew because of Abp. Antony's journal:

When Khrisanf's review, at first, apparently, known only to Fr. Ilarion, appeared in Russkiy Inok, the arguments about the name "Jesus" passed over from a small circle into the midst of all the Russian monks of Athos, [and] a new phase in the history of the controversy began. (888)

Among the defenders of Ilarion one can now differentiate two main groups:simple uneducated monks who have simply divinized particular combinations of letters and sounds, and educated ones who have developed more sophisticated philosophical and theological theories.The magical and mechanistic views of the former are so obviously contrary to Christian teaching as to need no refutation, but something similar in a "somewhat softened form" can be found even among the latter, whose main spokesman is Fr. Antony.This view can thus be considered common to all of them.To show this, Troitsky first concedes that Bulatovich specifically denies ascribing divinity to mere letters and sounds, and then after quoting that section of Apologiya adds:

... in addition the author announces, "nevertheless, we believe that even to these sounds and letters is attached the grace of God for the sake of the divine name pronounced with them ... Even if you unconsciously invoke the name of the Lord Jesus," he writes, "then you will still have him in his name."And so [Troitsky concludes,] the grace, the power of God is attached to the very sounds and letters of the divine names, irrespective of the thought united with them, and that means one need only pronounce these sounds, pronounce the names of God, and the grace or power united with them will operate by itself, ex opere operato. (891)

The fallacy in Troitsky's interpretation is that to whatever degree one can speak of an "unconscious action," to the same degree one can also speak of unconscious thought.As Fr. Antony says in this very passage, grace is present in the letters and sounds precisely because of the divine name expressed by them, precisely because of their meaning, not "irrespective" of it.As for charges that this view constitutes a belief in magic or in effectiveness ex opere operato, Fr. Antony's understanding of God's presence in his name can be compared to the physical presence of one's human friend, who may choose sometimes to answer the way expected, other times to say nothing at all, and yet other times to say something quite unexpected -- yet the person is nevertheless truly present whatever he chooses to do.

Next Troitsky turns his attention specifically to those who have dreamed up "sophisticated philosophical theories."To counter their claims to be followers of St. Gregory Palamas he offers the same two arguments made by Nikon and Antony, beginning with the claim that "God" can only mean God's "essence."While acknowledging that the Palamites themselves did use "God" in the wider sense, he argues that they did so rarely and for special reasons no longer valid:

... in Apologiya it is made clear that in the present case the word "God" is used not in the particular narrow sense of God's essence, but rather in the same wide sense used by the Palamites, in the sense of opposition to all that is created, and in that understanding of opposition, as the Palamites correctly taught, is included not only God's essence but also his energy.But if the Palamites had good reason to use the word "God" not in the usual narrow sense but in the wide sense to expose the heresy of Barlaam, who taught about the createdness of the manifestation of God's energy -- the light of Tabor -- yet the imyaslavtsy have no right to this.For now no one holds that God's name, as a part of revelation, is a created thing, and consequently they are introducing confusion, giving cause to think that they are identifying God's action with his essence. (893)

The better word for the wider meaning is "divinity," and that is the word used by the councils that affirmed the Palamite teaching.Granted, this is really just an issue of semantics; but then such issues are also important:

In this way the imyaslavtsy, at least by their terminology, completely stand on the side not of the Palamites, but of the Barlaamites.But it is impossible to consider this heretical terminology a matter of little importance, for the Church worked out the form of its dogmas with long effort, and the formulations established by it have obligatory significance for all who wish to remain in it, and they serve as a guarantee of unity of thought among church society. (895)

Troitsky's reasoning here -- as throughout his report -- is both confused and fallacious.It is true that causing dissension by using language easily misunderstood is certainly to be avoided if possible, is undoubtedly sinful if deliberate, and presumably would be subject to disciplinary action if continued in defiance of church authorities.However, this was certainly not the case with the imyaslavtsy, who were clearly not motivated by a desire to cause trouble (Abp. Antony notwithstanding).They did defy the instructions of Patr. Germanos, but the latter condemned not their terminology but the content of what he thought they believed, and they were contending that he had misunderstood and/or misrepresented their position.

Moreover, saying that the imyaslavtsy stood on the side of Barlaam "by their terminology" is a rather extreme sophism.Troitsky argued that this was so because Barlaam only acknowledged a distinction between "God" and "creation" while St. Gregory added the third category of "divine energies."But this is a gross misrepresentation of what the latter meant to say; his terminology of "essence" and "energies" could have been applied in a similar way to human beings, to animals, even to stones.We know a person by the things he has done, by the things he has said, by what he looks like, by what he habitually does, etc.; yet no matter how well we know the person there remains something beyond our knowledge -- the very essence of the person, which is ultimately unknowable and indescribable.Yet in spite of that "limitation" we nevertheless do truly know the person himself through a variety of forms of contact.To equate the person only with that "essence" which always remains beyond our knowledge is to deny that we can know the person at all.The same can be said of our relationship with God.Were Troitsky's position correct the whole of Christian literature would have to be rewritten.One could never know God himself nor describe him in any way.One could not say God is love, for that is one of his characteristics, not his essence.One could not say God is merciful, for that is one of his characteristics, not his essence.One could not say that God heals the sick, for that is the work of his energies.One could not say that God will raise the dead to eternal life, for that is the work of his energies.One could not even say that God as the "unknowable essence" is known or reveals itself in these ways through the energies -- for Fr. Antony's equivalent statement that "the energies name the unnameable essence" Troitsky rejects as an "impossible contradiction."So it is Troitsky's terminology (shared by all three of the Synod's "reporters") that for Christianity is nonsense.What he did with "essence" and "energy" in God was the same as what Nestorius did with "two natures" in Christ, i.e. instead of distinguishing that which is united, he separated them -- even while emphasizing their inseparability.If there can be such a thing as "heretical terminology," this is it.

Troitsky does concede that "name" is sometimes used by scripture in a way that can be equated with the technical term "energy," a concession neither of the other reports make:

The name of God, understood in the sense of God's revelation and at the same time from its objective side, i.e. in the sense of the revealing (otkryvanie) of truths to man, is the eternal, inseparable-from-God energy of God, received by people only insofar as their createdness, limitedness, and moral dignity allows.To the word "name" used in this sense is applied the appellation divinity (ueothw), but not God, insofar as "God is the act-or" (dejstvu[]ij), and not the action, and insofar as "God is above divinity." (906-7)

Beyond word usage, Troitsky sees the error of the imyaslavtsy to be in confusing the objective with the subjective.He believes that when they say "the name of God is God," they mean by "name" the human act of pronouncing it rather than the objective side of divine revelation.And speaking of the name as "the very idea of God" or the thought of God is no better, for that too is a human action, not a divine one.He accuses them of claiming that the human understanding of God can be "adequate" to him, though it is impossible that the finite can fully comprehend the infinite.This is a misrepresentation; no imyaslavets ever called God's name God himself in the sense of absolute identification, and Fr. Antony in Apologiya specifically and repeatedly denied that the divine name is "adequate" or all-inclusive.

Invocation of the name in prayer is yet another issue.Here Troitsky acknowledges a reciprocal action of both God and man:

But if prayer is always not only the action of God's grace, but also of our spirit, then to call prayer God means to call God even the action of a created, limited spirit, while the Church doesn't call God even God's action, but calls it only divine. (897)

St. Gregory of Sinai's phrase is therefore explained not by ascribing it to poetic language as does Abp. Antony, but by saying that St. Gregory was speaking only of the "objective side" of prayer.

In conclusion Troitsky points to a variety of sometimes contradictory positions in various writings of the imyaslavtsy and suggests that they themselves have yet to fully define what they believe.But in general one can summarize that they are wrong both in terminology (including energies in "God himself") and in content (confusing the objective side of divine revelation with the subjective).[31]Troitsky's analysis of confusion on the side of the imyaslavtsy is a fair one; having been pushed into a defensive position by Khrisanf's review, many monks a good deal less capable than Fr. Antony Bulatovich had also taken pen in hand.And under that pressure some of them probably did use imprecise phraseology that could be misinterpreted.But a careful, unbiased attempt to understand their main points could have avoided such misinterpretations.Unfortunately, not one of the Synod's reporters seems to have been motivated by a desire to understand so much as by a desire to find bases for condemnation.Some reasons why Abp. Antony took this approach have already been presented.Not enough information about the other two is available today to make a similar analysis of their motives.One may nevertheless reasonably suppose that for Troitsky the power and influence of the archbishop from Volynia was not without effect, and that for Nikon personal friendship with a fellow member of the Synod and/or political camaraderie played a role.

Many greeted the Synod's decision as the final word that would terminate the conflict once and for all.That was to prove a vain hope, and it was with the foresight of a Neville Chamberlain that one Novoye Vremya reporter entitled his May 16 article about it "An End to the Matter of Bulatovich" (Final dela Bulatoviha).

MANU MILITARI

ArchBishop Nikon's Trip to Mt. Athos

Even before formally reaching its decision the Holy Synod had requested and received permission from Patr. Germanos to send Abp. Nikon on a mission to Athos.Troitsky was to accompany him, and their official goal was "to act upon the Russian monks ... in the sense of peace-making and subjecting them to church authority regarding the question of God's name." (Tserkovnyy Vestnik 1913 21:641)Detailed information about the course of the mission is available in the official reports of these two, but the reliability of that information is open to question.Both reports were compiled afterward in the midst of a great public outcry against the expedition's outcome, so a concern for self-justification will have made it desirable for the reporters to present the imyaslavtsy in as bad a light as possible.

Nikon left St. Petersburg on May 23.After stopping in Kiev to pick up Vice-Consul Shcherbina he proceeded to Odessa.There he was joined by Troitsky and began his work by making speeches in churches at local dependencies of Athonite monasteries which were "infected by the heresy."Of these first attempts at persuasion he writes:

It is noteworthy that all of the speeches of the monks in defense of the false teaching and later on Athos had one and the same character:[all consisted of] fervent declarations that for the name of God they were ready to lay down their soul, suffer, and die (as if we were some kind of torture-masters).When we would tell them that no one was requiring this of them but that things were just being explained to them; that we too all piously honor the name of God; [that] we acknowledge that it is worthy of praise and is glorious; but that it itself is nevertheless not God himself -- then they would begin to get wildly excited and to cry out one and the same phrase "God himself!God himself!" (1504)

As had others before him, Nikon found himself accused of denying the divinity of Jesus Christ himself:

For my part, no matter how many times I would repeat that I believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is the true God; that the discussion is not about his person but only about words, about his names; that the Lord himself is one thing and his name another -- nothing helped.They would already be accusing me that I don't call Jesus Christ God, that I am a heretic. (1504)

The next stop was Constantinople, where he held a brief consultation with the patriarch and picked up two more key personnel:General Consul Shebunin and Secretary of the Embassy Serafimov.

Arriving at the Rossikon on June 4 aboard the naval gunboat Donets, Abp. Nikon found a cold reception:

Below, on the dock and near the gates, were gathered about 150 to 200 orthodox[32] monks with their abbot, Archimandrite Misail, at the head.The others either stood at a distance, not wanting to receive a blessing from me, or did not come down from the terraces [and] were simply spectators of this meeting, which, I must admit, seemed to me far from "ceremonious." (1507)

What he does not speak of here is his own coldness -- imyaslavtsy later recalled that he himself refused to give his blessing to those of them who requested it.While not mentioning that behavior in his report, he does recount asking during his discussion with the patriarch whether or not he should give his blessing to those of the heretics who would ask for it out of a sense of propriety and being told "No."

After a short service in the monastery's main church he began his first speech, though relatively few came to hear it.The emphasis was not on explaining or on dialogue but on the importance of obedience and the consequences of disobedience:

Not entering into the details of this question, for the time was already late, I asked the listeners to direct special attention to the fact that this question had already been examined thoroughly and in detail by church authority, [and] that it is not the business of monk-simpletons to delve into dogmatic investigations, which are anyway beyond the powers of their minds unprepared by science.Moreover the holy fathers forbid this to monks.And what is most important -- to remember the command of the Savior about obedience to the Church and to the divinely established pastors in order not to be subjected to judgment for disobedience and even excommunication from it. (1508)

Nikon spent the night on the Donets, and the next day saw the beginning of several weeks of efforts at convincing the intransigent monks of their error.

Nikon and Troitsky held private discussions with the leaders of the "heretics"; they passed out brochures and pamphlets; they read the Synod's epistle publicly in church and followed it with more speeches; Troitsky stationed himself in the library inviting any and all to come and debate with him; and both traveled to New Thebaide and other nearby communities for more discussions.Nikon says he planned also to go to St. Andrew's, but they would only receive him without soldiers, and he did not want to do that because travel was dangerous.Bands of robbers were roaming the Holy Mountain due to Greece's troubles with Bulgaria -- one monk even arrived at St. Panteleimon's with a gunshot wound to the hand.So instead of going himself, Nikon directed Troitsky to visit St. Andrew's and the more distant kellii.

Their efforts met with much opposition.Nikon describes one fruitless speech in the church of the Pokrov:

After lunch they rang the bell and the church filled up with monks.After putting on the mantia I went out to the ambo.A tight ring of "imyaslavtsy" surrounded me, but the consul had taken the precaution of placing sailors in front of me.There were rumors that the "imyaslavtsy" were threatening, "Let Nikon fall into their hands and then he'll know what it means to revile the name of God." ... I appealed to common sense, noting that their teacher Bulatovich considers all of the word of God to be God, but after all, there are many human words there, for example the words of the fool "There is no God" ... and about God's creatures, like the worm:What?!Is all this God?The names of God, as words, only designate God, refer to him, but by themselves still are not God:the name "Jesus" is not God, the name "Christ" is not God.At these words, on command of Ireney were heard cries of "Heretic!He teaches that Christ isn't God!" ... they kept on interrupting me with noises and shouts but I finished my reading and explanations anyway. ... [Then Ireney] proudly announced that none of my exhortations would have any success, and the noise of those who agreed with him confirmed his words.They shouted at me "Heretic!Crocodile from the sea!Seven-headed snake!Wolf in sheep's clothing!" (1510-11)

As for the one thousand copies of his report to the synod which he had brought with him to pass out, "they tore it in pieces and threw it to the wind."

Some sense of the difficulty of the task undertaken by Nikon and Troitsky, even with monks who were willing to listen, can be gained from the following story:

Ieromonakh Flavy, an elder (duxovnik) from the hermitage of Thebaide, came to me five times, now repenting, now denying the orthodox teaching.Finally, I asked Sergey Viktorovich Troitsky to take care of him separately, and he spoke with him for about two hours.But even after this conversation, during which the whole false teaching was thoroughly picked apart, Flavy would only deny the false teaching after, having made several prostrations, he decided to draw lots:To believe, or not to believe the Synod?And by the mercy of God, twice they came up "Believe."Then he came to me and with obvious agitation of soul said, "Now I believe as the Synod has ordered." (1515)

Others were firmer in their convictions and were inclined to defend them vigorously.Nikon reports that some dug up and spread around a text of St. John Chrysostom which they felt to be applicable to heretic-archbishops:

If you hear someone reviling God on the square or in the crossroads, go up and say something.And if necessary, hit him; don't back off, hit him in the face or box him on the ears, sanctify your hand with the blow ... (1513)

There was a "rebellion" within three days of the expedition's arrival, apparently due to Consul Shebunin's threat to imprison Ireney on the Donets.The latter fled to a monastery church, an alarm bell was rung, and masses of his followers converged upon the church in his support, making it impossible to carry out the threat.The consul requested reinforcements.They arrived on the thirteenth, and when he ordered the 123 soldiers ashore to take up posts around the monastery there was another moment of tension as the monks gathered at the gate to obstruct their entrance.The soldiers were let through peacefully only after they explained that they were there just to guard the monastery in view of rumors that there were plans to burn it or rob its bank.

On the twenty-ninth the consul decided to verify everyone's passports.This move was said to be inspired by a rumor according to which someone had threatened that "since in this world he had already sent two policemen to the other world, it wouldn't cost him anything to send an abbot there as well." (1515)In the process each monk was asked how he believed, and of about 1,700 in all, a little over 700 proclaimed their nonacceptance of the "heresy"; still a minority, but an increase over the ratio of one fourth estimated at Nikon's arrival.

Nikon's Final Solution

The following day the archbishop proclaimed a three-day fast scheduled for the second, third, and fourth of July, during which petitions for the "uprooting of error" were to be added to litanies in the church services.This was actually not another means for admonition but rather a means for keeping as many monks in the monastery as possible.July 5 is the feast day of the Great Lavra, the senior monastery on Athos, and since the celebration draws masses of monks from all over the Holy Mountain, many had already begun leaving St. Panteleimon's.But Nikon's company had already decided to deport the intransigents, had requested a ship suitable for the task, was expecting its arrival any day, and did not want any imyaslavtsy to miss deportation simply because they were temporarily away.

When the Kherson arrived on the second day of the fast, Consul Shebunin did not even wait for its completion.(Or rather Nikon later blamed Shebunin for what followed; it is, however, difficult to believe that the latter acted without the archbishop's knowledge or consent or even direct orders.)Shebunin informed the imyaslavtsy that all who would not sign the required papers expressing acceptance of the Synod's epistle would have to go to the ship.They were not told what was in store for them.They asked for a promise that they would be given a share in the monastery's wealth proportionate to their numbers, but received instead an offer of twenty-five rubles to monks who had lived in the monastery for ten years, fifty rubles for twenty years, and one hundred for thirty.They asked to be given their own monastery in Russia.Shebunin refused.The result was the scene recounted at the beginning of the Introduction.

Much about that scene sounds almost comical, but in fact the official reports do not reflect the true level of violence with which the soldiers, armed with bayonets and joined even by some of the monastery's other monks, attacked the soaked imyaslavtsy.Nikon reported about twenty-five "'injured', i.e., scratched," but it is hardly possible to imagine a bayonet making only a "scratch."The monks themselves later claimed that forty had to be treated in the monastery hospital, four of whom died later from their wounds and were quietly buried that night. (See Niviere 350)After the attack the imyaslavtsy were brought to the boat immediately, and the next day their things -- or rather the less desirable portions of them -- were brought to them from their cells.But then it was found that some were needed for vital jobs in the monastery -- and so they were then forcibly removed from their comrades on the ship and brought back to shore.

On the sixth, soldiers were dispatched to St. Andrew's.There the monks chose to avoid a repeat of the St. Panteleimon's affair and agreed to go peacefully, having been given the opportunity to take their things with them.After their departure Jerome staged a triumphant return on July 8.

The Deportation

According to the official figures released by the Russian Church, 621 monks were deported aboard the Kherson and a week later 212 more aboard the Chikhachov.Of the first figure 436 were from St. Panteleimon's and 185 from St. Andrew's; the 212 on the second ship were more monks from the Rossikon who chose to leave voluntarily rather than signing papers repudiating their beliefs.Vechevoy (49) and Bulatovich (Moq Bor;ba 158, 64) estimate that in the ensuing months as many as one thousand more Russian monks unwilling to sign left Athos on their own.This supposition is indirectly corroborated by the modern historian Smolitsch, who reports that Russian monks on Athos totaled 3,496 in 1910 but only 1,914 in 1914. (305)Subtracting the 833 deportees, that leaves 849 unaccounted for.

While impressive in themselves, these numbers actually belie the true strength of opposition to the Synod's position among the Athonite monks, for many of those who signed did so only to avoid trouble.If 1,000 monks of St. Panteleimon's declared themselves "confessors of the name" on June 29, and only 643 were deported a few days later, that leaves about 350 who rather abruptly decided to sign the necessary papers.After holding firm through a month of constant exhortation to recant, these monks are not likely to have actually changed their beliefs in a matter of days.Fr. Parfeny, in whose kelliya of the Annunciation Fr. Antony Bulatovich had lived after leaving St. Andrew's, and who had published locally many of his works, probably typifies their attitude.Nikon recounts:

... he sent to me his representative (namestnik) to sign for all the brethren [of his kelliya] the repudiation of the heresy. ... I told the representative that he could sign for himself but for the others -- no:let them sign themselves.He signed and took with him a sheet to present to the starets and the others. ... About a week went by.On the sixth of July, already after the removal of the heretics from the monastery, the same representative came to me and gave [me] three letters from Parfeny at once.The starets wrote that just as he has learned to believe from the cradle, so he will believe, and repeated nearly the whole symbol of the faith [i.e., the creed] and asked me to leave him to die in peace -- but not a word about the synodal epistle, not about the decrees of the patriarchs, not about faith in the name of God.Then I wrote to him decisively and briefly:why is he being deceitful, why does he in not a single letter answer the question:how does he believe about the names of God; and [why does he] not sign the repudiation?I asked that as the starets of a kelliya where more than 50 brothers live, he answer me, whether yes or no.If yes, then good, but if no, then I will report this to the Holy Synod and the patriarch and -- right away tomorrow -- to the Koinotes ... In the evening on that very day the old man sent me the formula of repudiation with signatures -- his and the elder brethren.

It is not difficult to imagine just what depth of conviction those signatures and many others like them expressed.

And the monks' fears concerning the consequences for not signing were not groundless; the lot of those who were expelled was a hard one.On the Kherson they found themselves treated as criminals:they were kept locked up and under guard, allowed to walk on deck only infrequently and in small groups, and fed prison rations of shchi (cabbage soup) in the morning and kasha (cooked grain) in the evening.When the ship arrived in Odessa on July 13, police cordoned off the dock to keep the public away, then boarded the ship to interrogate the monks.The latter were presented with forms to sign stating that they had left their monastery voluntarily (!!), retained no claims on it, and were voluntarily removing their monastic clothing.A complaint they made later notes also that these forms were presented as being nothing more than verification of identity -- and since many of the monks were illiterate they could not tell otherwise.Before being taken ashore their things (books, icons, clothing, money -- everything) were taken from them by customs agents.Then they were variously led or driven to jail, the police station, or St. Andrew's dependency in Odessa.

To the latter only eight were sent, whose monastic rank the Holy Synod recognized; the rest were treated as if they had never been tonsured.For justification of its treatment of them the Synod referred to an 1836 decision according to which all monks coming to Russia but tonsured outside of it were required to go through a three-year trial period before their monastic rank would be recognized.The regulation was certainly not intended as a simple way to defrock monks without having to bother with a church court -- but that is precisely how it was used.After jail stays varying from two to fifty days their monastic clothing was forcibly removed; they were given "identical 4.5 ruble costumes" of lay clothing; their hair was cut;[33] and they were sent "home" as private citizens, presumably to whatever part of the country where it was determined that they had relatives.Reportedly forty who were suspected of being criminals or whose identity could not be confirmed were kept in jail indefinitely.The monks were not given back either their possessions taken by customs or their money, though the police promised to send the latter on to them later.Many never saw it again or only got part of it back.

The shock and hardship endured in all this by the monks may seem obvious but must be incomprehensible for anyone not familiar with monastic life.Many had lived as monks for twenty or thirty years or more, during which time their whole life revolved around church services often totaling eight hours or more each day.The suffering for those who suddenly had that focus of their life removed from them and a return to it forbidden is hardly imaginable for a modern American except perhaps to compare it to the death of a spouse.

Besides that, many would have had no work responsibilities in the monastery; aside from worship services they would have attended only to their private rule of prayer, which could occupy many additional hours every day.Others might have had some relatively short and simple daily work assignment (such as sweeping floors, setting and clearing tables, etc.), usually involving few hours and little if any pressure for production and efficiency.Such people would have no salable skills "in the world" and if they did would not be desirable laborers.After years of "work" done primarily as a necessary break from the far more important mental work of prayer, they would have neither ability nor inclination to suddenly become productive hirelings working hard, long hours every day.To set such people loose to fend for themselves in a capitalistic society lacking a developed social welfare system was cruel almost beyond belief.Small wonder that a few later regretted choosing not to sign the repudiation,[34] as did one who wrote to friends on Athos that "when the police officers took off of me my monastic clothing and put on me a jacket and a cap, I cried bitterly." (Pakhomy 208)

Nor was the lot of those few whose monasticism was recognized an easy one.More than a month after his arrival in Odessa Archimandrite David wrote to a newspaper complaining of the "strict regime" he had to undergo at St. Andrew's dependency there.